(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all mistakes found.)

Transliteration of Greek words: All phonetical except: w = omega; h serves
three puposes: 1. = Eta; 2. = rough breathing, when appearing intially
before a vowel; 3. = in the aspirated letters theta = th, phi = ph, chi =
ch. Accents are given immediately after their corresponding vowels: acute =
' , grave = `, circumflex = ^. The character ' doubles as an apostrophe,
when necessary.

TERTULLIAN.

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION, BOOKS IV-V.

BOOK IV.(1)

WHICH TERTULLIAN PURSUES HIS ARGUMENT. JESUS IS THE CHRIST OF THE CREATOR.
HE DERIVES HIS PROOFS FROM ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL; THAT BEING THE ONLY
HISTORICAL PORTION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT PARTIALLY ACCEPTED BY MARCION. THIS
BOOK MAY ALSO BE REGARDED AS A COMMENTARY ON ST. LUKE.    IT GIVES
REMARKABLE PROOF OF TERTULLIAN'S GRASP OF SCRIPTURE, AND PROVES THAT "THE
OLD TESTAMENT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE NEW." IT ALSO ABOUNDS IN STRIKING
EXPOSITIONS OF SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES, EMBRACING PROFOUND VIEWS OF REVELATION,
IN CONNECTION WITH THE NATURE OF MAN.

CHAP. I.--EXAMINATION OF THE ANTITHESES OF MARCION, BRINGING THEM TO THE
TEST OF MARCION'S OWN GOSPEL. CERTAIN TRUE ANTITHESES IN THE DISPENSATIONS
OF THE  OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS.THESE VARIATIONS QUITE COMPATIBLE WITH
ONE AND THE SAME GOD, WHO ORDERED THEM.

   EVERY opinion and the whole scheme(2) of the impious and sacrilegious
Marcion we now bring to the test(3) of that very Gospel which, by his
process of interpolation, he has made his own. To encourage a belief of
this Gospel he has actually(4) devised for it a sort of dower,(5) in a work
composed of contrary statements set in opposition, thence entitled
Antitheses, and compiled with a view to such a severance of the law from
the gospel as should divide the Deity into two, nay, diverse, gods--one for
each Instrument, or Testament(6) as it is more usual to call it; that by
such means he might also patronize(7) belief in "the Gospel according to
the Antitheses." These, however, I would have attacked in special combat,
hand to hand; that is to say, I would have encountered singly the several
devices Of the Pontic heretic, if it were not much more convenient to
refute them in and with that very gospel to which they contribute their
support. Although it is so easy to meet them at once with a peremptory
demurrer,(8) yet, in order that I may both make them admissible in
argument, and account them valid expressions of opinion, and even contend
that they make for our side, that so there may be all the redder shame for
the blindness of their author, we have now drawn out some antitheses of our
own in opposition to Marcion.  And indeed(9) I do allow that one order did
run its course in the old dispensation under the Creator,(10) and that
another is on its way in the new under Christ. I do not deny that there is
a difference in the language of their documents, in their precepts of
virtue, and in their teachings of the law; but yet all this diversity is
consistent with one and the same God, even Him by whom it was arranged and
also foretold. Long ago(1) did Isaiah declare that "out of Sion should go
forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem"(2)--some  other
law, that is, and another word. In short, says he, "He shall judge among
the nations, and shall rebuke many people;"(3) meaning not those of the
Jewish people only, but of the nations which are judged by the new law of
the gospel and the new word of the apostles, and are amongst themselves
rebuked of their old error as soon as they have believed. And as the result
of this, "they beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears(which
are a kind of hunting instruments) into pruning-hooks;"(4) that is to say,
minds, which once were fierce and cruel, are changed by them into good
dispositions productive of good fruit. And again: "Hearken unto me, hearken
unto me, my people, and ye kings, give ear unto me; for a law shall proceed
from me,and my judgment for a light to the nations;"(5) wherefore He had
determined and decreed that the nations also were to be enlightened by the
law and the word of the gospel. This will be that law which (according to
David also) is unblameable, because "perfect, converting the soul"(6) from
idols unto God. This likewise will be the word concerning which the same
Isaiah says, "For the Lord will make a decisive word in the land."(7)
Because the New Testament is compendiously short,(8) and freed from the
minute and perplexing(9) burdens of the law. But why enlarge, when the
Creator by the same prophet foretells the renovation more manifestly and
clearly than the light itself? "Remember not the former things, neither
consider the things of old" (the old things have passed away, and new
things are arising). "Behold, I will do new things, which shall now spring
forth."(10) So by Jeremiah: "Break up for yourselves new pastures,(11) and
sow not among thorns, and circumcise yourselves in the foreskin of your
heart."(12) And in another passage: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,
that I will make a new covenant with the house of Jacob, and with the house
of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in
the day when I arrested their dispensation, in order to bring them out of
the land of Egypt."(13) He thus shows that the ancient covenant is
temporary only, when He indicates its change; also when He promises that it
shall be followed by an eternal one. For by Isaiah He says: "Hear me, and
ye shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you," adding
"the sure mercies of David,"(14) in order that He might show that that
covenant was to run its course in Christ. That He was of the family of
David, according to the genealogy of Mary,(15) He declared in a figurative
way even by the rod which was to proceed out of the stem of Jesse.(16)
Forasmuch then as he said, that from the Creator there would come other
laws, and other words, and new dispensations of covenants, indicating also
that the very sacrifices were to receive higher offices, and that amongst
all nations, by Malachi when he says: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the
Lord, neither will I accept your sacrifices at your hands. For from the
rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be
great among the Gentiles; and in every place a sacrifice is offered unto my
name, even a pure offering"(17)--meaning simple prayer from a pure
conscience,--it is of necessity that every change which comes as the result
of innovation, introduces a diversity in those things of which the change
is made, from which diversity arises also a contrariety. For as there is
nothing, after it has undergone a change, which does not become different,
so there is nothing different which is not contrary.(18) Of that very
thing, therefore, there will be predicated a contrariety in consequence of
its diversity, to which there accrued a change of condition after an
innovation. He who brought about the change, the same instituted the
diversity also; He who foretold the innovation, the same announced
beforehand the  contrariety likewise. Why, in your interpretation, do you
impute a difference in the state of things to a difference of powers? Why
do you wrest to the Creator's prejudice those examples from which you draw
your antitheses, when you may recognise them all in His sensations and
affections? "I will wound," He says, "and I will heal;" "I will kill," He
says again, "and I will make alive"(19)--even the same "who createth evil
and maketh peace;"(1) from which you are used even to censure Him with the
imputation of fickleness and inconstancy, as if He forbade what He
commanded, and commanded what He forbade. Why, then, have you not reckoned
up the Antitheses also which occur in the natural works of the Creator, who
is for ever contrary to Himself? You have not been able, unless I am
misinformed, to recognise the fact,(2) that the world, at all events,(3)
even amongst your people of Pontus, is made up of a diversity of elements
which are hostile to one another.(4) It was therefore your bounden duty
first to have determined that the god of the light was one being, and the
god of darkness was another, in such wise that you might have been able to
have distinctly asserted one of them to be the god of the law and the other
the god of the gospel. It is, however, the settled conviction already(5) of
my mind from manifest proofs, that, as His works and plans(6) exist in the
way of Antitheses, so also by the same rule exist the mysteries of His
religion.(7)

CHAP. II.--ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL, SELECTED BY MARCION AS HIS AUTHORITY, AND
MUTILATED BY HIM.  THE OTHER GOSPELS EQUALLY AUTHORITATIVE. MARCION'S TERMS
OF DISCUSSION, HOWEVER, ACCEPTED, AND GRAPPLED WITH ON THE FOOTING OF ST.
LUKE'S GOSPEL ALONE.

   You have now our answer to the Antitheses compendiously indicated by
us.(8) I pass on to give a proof of the Gospel(9)--not, to be sure, of
Jewry, but of Pontus--having become meanwhile(10) adulterated; and this
shall indicate(11) the order by which we proceed. We lay it down as our
first position, that the evangelical Testament(12) has apostles for its
authors,(13) to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of
publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic(14) men
also,(15) they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after
apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion
of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it(16) the authority
of the masters, which means that of Christ,(17) for it was that which made
the apostles their masters. Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew
first instil(18) faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark
renew it afterwards.(19) These all start with the same principles of the
faith,(20) so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His
Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil(21) the law
and the prophets. Never mind(22) if there does occur some variation in the
order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the
essential matter(23) of the faith, in which there is disagreement with
Marcion. Marcion, on the other hand, you must know,(24) ascribes no author
to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that
from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert(25) the very body. And
here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be
recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency,
which gives no promise of credibility from the fulness of its title and the
just profession of its author. But we prefer to join issue(26) on every
point; nor shall we leave unnoticed(27) what may fairly be understood to be
on our side.(28) Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have
singled out Luke(29) for his mutilating process.(30) Luke, however, was not
an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so
inferior to a master--at least as far subsequent to(31) him as the apostle
whom he followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul(32)) was subsequent to the
others; so that, had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St.
Paul himself, the single authority of the document,(33) destitute of all
support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our
faith. There would be still wanted that Gospel which St. Paul found in
existence, to which he yielded his belief, and with which he so earnestly
wished his own to agree, that he actually on that account went up to
Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles, "lest he should run, or had
been running in vain;"(1) in other words, that the faith which he had
learned, and the gospel which he was preaching, might be in accordance with
theirs. Then, at last, having conferred with the (primitive) authors, and
having agreed with them touching the rule of faith, they joined their hands
in fellowship, and divided their labours thenceforth in the office of
preaching the gospel, so that they were to go to the Jews, and St. Paul to
the Jews and the Gentiles. Inasmuch, therefore, as the enlightener of St.
Luke himself desired the authority of his predecessors for both his own
faith and preaching, how much more may not I require for Luke's Gospel that
which was necessary for the Gospel of his master.(2)

CHAP. III.(3)--MARCION INSINUATED THE UNTRUSTWORTHINESS OF CERTAIN APOSTLES
WHOM ST. PAUL REBUKED. THE REBUKE SHOWS THAT IT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS
DEROGATING FROM THEIR AUTHORITY. THE APOSTOLIC GOSPELS PERFECTLY AUTHENTIC.

   In the scheme of Marcion, on the contrary,(4) the mystery(5) of the
Christian religion begins from the discipleship of Luke. Since, however, it
was on its course previous to that point, it must have had(6) its own
authentic  materials,(7) by means of which it found its own way down to St.
Luke; and by the assistance of the testimony which it bore, Luke himself
becomes admissible. Well, but(8) Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to
the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles(9)) for "not walking
uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,"(10) as well as accuses
certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very
hard to destroy the character(11) of those Gospels which are published as
genuine(12) and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure
for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them. But then, even
if he censures Peter and John and James, who were thought to be pillars, it
is for a manifest reason. They seemed to be changing their company(13) from
respect of persons. And yet as Paul himself "became all things to all
men,"(14) that he might gain all, it was possible that Peter also might
have betaken himself to the same plan of practising somewhat different from
what he taught. And, in like manner, if false apostles also crept in, their
character too showed itself in their insisting upon circumcision and the
Jewish ceremonies. So that it was not on account of their preaching, but of
their conversation, that they were marked by St. Paul, who would with equal
impartiality have marked them with censure, if they had erred at all with
respect to God the Creator or His Christ. Each several case will therefore
have to be distinguished. When Marcion complains that apostles are
suspected (for their prevarication and dissimulation) of having even
depraved the gospel, he thereby accuses Christ, by accusing those whom
Christ chose. If, then, the apostles, who are censured simply for
inconsistency of walk, composed the Gospel in a pure form,(15) but false
apostles interpolated their true record; and if our own copies have been
made from these,(16) where will that genuine text(17) of the apostle's
writings be found which has not suffered adulteration? Which was it that
enlightened Paul, and through him Luke? It is either completely blotted
out, as if by some deluge--being obliterated by the inundation of
falsifiers--in which case even Marcion does not possess the true Gospel; or
else, is that very edition which Marcion alone possesses the true one, that
is, of the apostles? How, then, does that agree with ours, which is said
not to be (the work) of apostles, but of Luke? Or else, again, if that
which Marcion uses is not to be attributed to Luke simply because it does
agree with ours (which, of course,(18) is, also adulterated in its title),
then it is the work of apostles. Our Gospel, therefore, which is in
agreement with it, is equally the work of apostles, but also adulterated in
its title. (19)

CHAP. IV.--EACH SIDE CLAIMS TO POSSESS THE TRUE GOSPEL. ANTIQUITY THE
CRITERION OF TRUTH IN SUCH A MATTER. MARCION'S PRETENSIONS AS AN AMENDER OF
THE GOSPEL.

   We must follow, then, the clue(20) of our discussion, meeting every
effort of our opponents with reciprocal vigor. I say that my Gospel is the
true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is
adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us,
except it be that principle(1) of time, which rules that the authority lies
with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an
elemental truth,(2) that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which
shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin.(3) For, inasmuch
as error(4) is falsification of truth, it must needs be that truth
therefore precede error. A thing must exist prior to its suffering any
casualty;(5) and an object(6) must precede all rivalry to itself. Else how
absurd it would be, that, when we have proved our position to be the older
one, and Marcion's the later, ours should yet appear to be the false one,
before it had even received from truth its objective existence;(7) and
Marcion's should also be supposed to have experienced rivalry at our hands,
even before its publication; and, in fine, that that should be thought to
be the truer position which is the later one--a century(8) later than the
publication of all the many and great facts and records of the Christian
religion, which certainly could not have been published without, that is to
say, before, the truth of the gospel. With regard, then, to the pending(9)
question, of Luke's Gospel (so far as its being the common property(10) of
ourselves and Marcion enables it to be decisive of the truth,(11)) that
portion of it which we alone receive(12) is so much older than Marcion,
that Marcion, himself once believed it, when in the first warmth of faith
he contributed money to the Catholic church, which along with himself was
afterwards rejected,(13) when he fell away from our truth into his own
heresy. What if the Marcionites have denied that he held the primitive
faith amongst ourselves, in the face even of his own letter? What, if they
do not acknowledge the letter? They, at any rate, receive his Antitheses;
and more than that, they make ostentatious use(14) of them. Proof out of
these is enough for me. For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is
current amongst us(15) (we shall see whether it be also current with
Marcion), is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was
interpolated by the defenders of Judaism, for the purpose of such a
conglomeration with it of the law and the prophets as should enable them
out of it to fashion their Christ, surely he could not have so argued about
it, unless he had found it (in such a form). No one censures things before
they exist,(16) when he knows not whether they will come to pass.
Emendation never precedes the fault. To be sure,(17) an amender of that
Gospel, which had been all topsy-turvy(18) from the days of Tiberius to
those of Antoninus, first presented himself in Marcion alone--so long
looked for by Christ, who was all along regretting that he had been in so
great a hurry to send out his apostles without the support of Marcion! But
for all that,(19) heresy, which is for ever mending the Gospels, and
corrupting them in the act, is an affair of man's audacity, not of God's
authority; and if Marcion be even a disciple, he is yet not "above his
master;"(20) if Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, "Whether it be I
or they, so we preach;"(21) if Marcion be a prophet, even "the spirits of
the prophets will be subject to the prophets,"(22) for they are not the
authors of confusion, but of peace; or if Marcion be actually an angel, he
must rather be designated "as anathema than as a preacher of the
gospel,"(23) because it is a strange gospel which he has preached. So that,
whilst he amends, he only confirms both positions: both that our Gospel is
the prior one, for he amends that which he has previously fallen in with;
and that that is the later one, which, by putting it together out of the
emendations of ours, he has made his own Gospel, and a novel one too.

CHAP. V.--BY THE RULE OF ANTIQUITY, THE CATHOLIC GOSPELS ARE FOUND TO BE
TRUE, INCLUDING THE REAL ST. LUKE'S. MARCION'S ONLY A MUTILATED EDITION.
THE HERETIC'S WEAKNESS AND INCONSISTENCY IN IGNORING THE OTHER GOSPELS.(24)

   On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if
that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the
beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be
quite as evident, that that comes down from the aposties, which has been
kept as a sacred deposit(1) in the churches of the apostles. Let us see
what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the
Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the
Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans
give, so very near(2) (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul
conjointly(3) bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. We
have also St. John's foster churches.(4) For although Marcion rejects his
Apocalypse, the orders of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their
origin, will yet rest on John as their author. In the same manner is
recognised the excellent source(6) of the other churches. I say, therefore,
that in them (and not simply such of them as were rounded by apostles, but
in all those which are united with them in the fellowship of the mystery of
the gospel of Christ(7)) that Gospel of Luke which we are defending with
all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas
Marcion's Gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it
known without being at the same time(8) condemned. It too, of course,(9)
has its churches, but specially its own--as late as they are spurious; and
should you want to know their original,(10) you will more easily discover
apostasy in it than apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder,
or some one of Marcion's swarm.(11) Even wasps make combs;(12) so also
these Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic
churches will afford evidence(13) to the other Gospels also, which we
possess equally through their means,(14) and according to their usage--I
mean the Gospels of John and Matthew--whilst that which Mark published may
be affirmed to be Peter's(15) whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's
form(16) of the Gospel men unsually ascribe to Paul.(17) And it may well
seem(18) that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters.
Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account(19) concerning
these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in
preference(20) on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free course in the
churches, as well as Luke's Gospel, from the beginning. Nay, it is even
more credible that they(21) existed from the very beginning; for, being the
work of apostles, they were prior, and coeval in origin with(22) the
churches themselves. But how comes it to pass, if the apostles published
nothing, that their disciples were more forward in such a work; for they
could not have been disciples, without any instruction from their masters?
If, then, it be evident that these (Gospels) also were current in the
churches, why did not Marcion touch them--either to amend them if they were
adulterated, or to acknowledge them if they were uncorrupt? For it is but
natural(23) that they who were perverting the gospel, should be more
solicitous about the perversion of those things whose authority they knew
to be more generally received. Even the false apostles (were so called) on
this very account, because they imitated the apostles by means of their
falsification. In as far, then, as he might have amended what there was to
amend, if found corrupt, in so far did he firmly imply(24) that all was
free from corruption which he did not think required amendment. In
short,(25) he simply amended what he thought was corrupt; though, indeed,
not even this justly, because it was not really corrupt. For if the
(Gospels) of the apostles(26) have come down to us in their integrity,
whilst Luke's, which is received amongst us,(27) so far accords with their
rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the
churches, it clearly follows that Luke's Gospel also has come down to us in
like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when
Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels
of the apostles. I will therefore advise his followers, that they either
change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their
own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings
(for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by
us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-
condemned(28) either way--when once(29) he hands on the truth of the gospel
conscience smitten, or again(29) subverts it by shameless tampering. Such
are the summary arguments which we  use, when we take up arms(1) against
heretics for the faith(2) of the gospel, maintaining both that order of
periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers,(3) and that
authority of churches(4) which lends support to the tradition of the
apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed
straight from those by whom it has been handed on.

CHAP.VI.--MARCION'S OBJECT IN ADULTERATING THE GOSPEL. NO DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE CHRIST OF THE CREATOR AND THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPEL. NO RIVAL
CHRIST ADMISSIBLE. THE CONNECTION OF THE TRUE CHRIST WITH THE DISPENSATION
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ASSERTED.

   But we now advance a step further on, and challenge (as we promised to
do) the very Gospel of Marcion, with the intention of thus proving that it
has been adulterated. For it is certain(5) that the whole aim at which he
has strenuously laboured even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres
in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New
Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as
belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the prophets. It
is certain, also, that with this view(6) he has erased everything that was
contrary to his own opinion and made for the Creator, as if it had been
interpolated by His advocates, whilst everything which agreed with his own
opinion he has retained. The latter statements we shall strictly
examine;(7) and if they shall turn out rather for our side, and shatter the
assumption of Marcion, we shall embrace them. It will then become evident,
that in retaining them he has shown no   less of the defect of blindness,
which characterizes heresy, than he displayed when he erased all the former
class of subjects. Such, then, is to be(8) the drift and form of my little
treatise; subject, of course, to whatever condition may have become
requisite on both sides of the question.(9) Marcion has laid down the
position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously
unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different
being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of
the Jewish state, and who is yet to come. Between these he interposes the
separation of(10) a great and absolute difference--as great as lies between
what is just and what is good;(11) as great as lies between the law and the
gospel; as great, (in short,) as is the difference between Judaism and
Christianity. Hence will arise also our rule,(12) by which we determine(13)
that there ought to be nothing in common between the Christ of the rival
god and the Creator; but that (Christ) must be pronounced to belong to the
Creator,(14) if He has administered His dispensations, fulfilled His
prophecies, promoted(15) His laws, given reality to(16) His promises,
revived His mighty power,(17) remoulded His determinations(18) expressed
His attributes, His properties. This law and this rule I earnestly request
the reader to have ever in his mind, and so let him begin to investigate
whether Christ be Marcion's or the Creator's.

CHAP.VII.--MARCION REJECTED THE PRECEDINGPORTION OF ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL.
THEREFORE THIS REVIEW OPENS WITH AN EXAMINATION OF THE CASE OF THE EVIL
SPIRIT IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF CAPERNAUM. HE WHOM THE DEMON ACKNOWLEDGED WAS
THE CREATOR'S CHRIST.

   In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius(19) (for such is
Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum," of
course meaning(20) from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had
previously descended from his own. What then had been his Course,(21) for
him to be described as first descending from his own heaven to the
Creator's? For why should I abstain from censuring those parts of the
statement which do not satisfy the requirement of an ordinary narrative,
but always end in a falsehood? To be sure, our censure has been once for
all expressed in the question, which we have already(22) suggested:
Whether, when descending through the Creator's domain, and indeed   in
hostility to him, he could possibly have been admitted by him, and by him
been transmitted to the earth, which was equally his territory? Now,
however, I want also to know the remainder of his course down, assuming
that he came down. For we must not be too nice in inquiring(1) whether it
is supposed that he was seen in any place. To come into view(2)
indicates(3) a sudden unexpected glance, which for a moment fixed(4) the
eye upon the object that passed before the view, without staying. But when
it happens that a descent has been effected, it is apparent, and comes
under the notice of the eyes.(5) Moreover, it takes account of fact, and
thus obliges one to examine in what condition with what preparation,(6)
with how much violence or moderation, and further, at what time of the day
or night, the descent was made; who, again, saw the descent, who reported
it, who seriously avouched the fact, which certainly was not easy to be
believed, even after the asseveration. It is, in short, too bad(7) that
Romulus should have had in Proculus an avoucher of his ascent to heaven,
when the Christ of (this) god could not find any one to announce his
descent from heaven; just as if the ascent of the one and the descent of
the other were not effected on one and the same ladder of falsehood! Then,
what had he to do with Galilee, if he did not belong to the Creator by
whom(8) that region was destined (for His Christ) when about to enter on
His ministry?(9) As Isaiah says: "Drink in this first, and be prompt, O
region of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, and ye others who (inhabit) the
sea-coast, and that of Jordan, Galilee of the nations, ye people who sit in
darkness, behold a great light; upon you, who inhabit (that) land, sitting
in the shadow of death, the light hath arisen."(10) It is, however, well
that Marcion's god does claim to be the enlightener of the nations, that so
he might have the better reason for coming down from heaven; only, if it
must needs be,(11) he should rather have made Pontus his place of descent
than Galilee. But since both the place and the work of illumination
according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to
discern(12) that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the
very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the
prophets, but rather to fulfil them;(13) for Marcion has erased the passage
as an interpolation.(14) It will, however, be vain for him to deny that
Christ uttered in word what He forthwith did partially indeed. For the
prophecy about place He at once fulfilled. From heaven straight to the
synagogue. As the adage runs: "The business on which we are come, do at
once." Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto
the lost sheep of the house of Israel;"(15) and, "It is not meet to take
the children's  bread, and to cast it to dogs,"(16)--in order,  forsooth,
that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite. But facts will satisfy me
instead of words. Withdraw all the sayings of my Christ, His acts shall
speak. Lo, He enters the synagogue; surely (this is going) to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel. Behold, it is to Israelites first that He
offers the "bread" of His doctrine; surely it is because they are
"children" that He shows them this priority.(17) Observe, He does not yet
impart it to others; surely He passes them by as "dogs." For to whom else
could He better have imparted it, than to such as were strangers to the
Creator, if He especially belonged not to the Creator? And yet how could He
have been admitted into the synagogue--one so abruptly appearing,(18) so
unknown; one, of whom no one had as yet been apprised of His tribe, His
nation, His family, and lastly, His enrolment in the census of Augustus--
that most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of
Rome? They certainly would have remembered, if they did not know Him to be
circumcised, that He must not be admitted into their most holy places. And
even if He had the general right of entering(19) the synagogue (like other
Jews), yet the function of giving instruction was allowed only to a man who
was extremely well known, and examined and tried, and for some time
invested with the privilege after experience duly attested elsewhere. But
"they were all astonished at His doctrine." Of course they were; "for, says
(St. Luke), "His word was with power(20)--not because He taught in
opposition to the law and the prophets. No doubt, His divine discourse(1)
gave forth both power and grace, building up rather than pulling down the
substance of the law and the prophets. Otherwise, instead of "astonishment,
they would feel horror. It would not be admiration, but aversion, prompt
and sure, which they would bestow on one who was the destroyer of law and
prophets, and the especial propounder as a natural consequence of a rival
god; for he would have been unable to teach anything to the disparagement
of the law and the prophets, and so far of the Creator also, without
premising the doctrine of a different and rival divinity, Inasmuch, then,
as the Scripture makes no other statement on the matter than that the
simple force and power of His word produced astonishment, it more
naturally(2) shows that His teaching was in accordance with the Creator by
not denying (that it was so), than that it was in opposition to the
Creator, by not asserting (such a fact). And thus He will either have to be
acknowledged as belonging to Him,(3) in accordance with whom He taught; or
else will have to be adjudged a deceiver since He taught in accordance with
One whom He had come to oppose. In the same passage, "the spirit of an
unclean devil" exclaims: "What have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus? Art
Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God."(4)
I do not here raise the question whether this appellation was suitable to
one who ought not to be called Christ, unless he were sent by the
Creator.(5) Elsewhere(6) there has been already given a full consideration
of His titles. My present discussion is, how the evil spirit could have
known that He was called by such a name, when there had never at any time
been uttered about Him a single prophecy by a god who was unknown, and up
to that time silent, of whom it was not possible for Him to be attested as
"the Holy One," as (of a god) unknown even to his own Creator. What similar
event could he then have published(7) of a new deity, whereby he might
betoken for "the holy one" of the rival god? Simply that he went into the
synagogue, and did nothing even in word against the Creator? As therefore
he could not by any means acknowledge him, whom he was ignorant of, to be
Jesus and the Holy One of God; so did he acknowledge Him whom he knew (to
be both). For he remembered how that the prophet had prophesied(8) of "the
Holy One" of God, and how that God's name of "Jesus" was in the son of
Nun.(9) These facts he had also received(10) from the angel, according to
our Gospel: "Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called the
Holy One, the Son of God;"(11) and, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus."(12)
Thus he actually had (although only an evil spirit) some idea of the Lord's
dispensation, rather than Of any strange and heretofore imperfectly
understood one. Because he also premised this question: "What have we to do
with Thee?"--not as if referring to a strange Jesus, to whom pertain the
evil spirits of the Creator. Nor did he say, What hast Thou to do with us?
but, "What have we to do with Thee?" as if deploring himself, and
deprecating his own calamity; at the prospect of which he adds: "Art Thou
come to destroy us?" So completely did he acknowledge in Jesus the Son of
that God who was judicial and avenging, and (so to speak) severe,(13) and
not of him who was simply good,(14) and knew not how to destroy or how to
punish! Now for what purpose have we adduced his passage first?(15) In
order to show that Jesus was neither acknowledged by the evil spirit, nor
affirmed by Himself, to be any other than the Creator's. Well, but Jesus
rebuked him, you say. To be sure he did, as being an envious (spirit), and
in his very confession only petulant, and evil in adulation--just as if it
had been Christ's highest glory to have come for the destruction of demons,
and not for the salvation of mankind; whereas His wish really was that His
disciples should not glory in the subjection of evil spirits but in the
fair beauty of salvation.(16) Why else(17) did He rebuke him? If it was
because he was entirely wrong (in his invocation), then He was neither
Jesus nor the Holy One of God; if it was because he was partially wrong--
for having supposed him to be, rightly enough,(18) Jesus and the Holy One
of God, but also as belonging to the Creator--most unjustly would He have
rebuked him for thinking what he knew he ought to think (about Him), and
for not supposing that of Him which he knew not that he ought to suppose--
that he was another Jesus, and the holy one of the other god. If, however,
the rebuke has not a more probable meaning(1) than that which we ascribe to
it, follows that the evil spirit made no mistake, and was not rebuked for
lying; for it was Jesus Himself, besides whom it was impossible for the
evil spirit to have acknowledged any other, whilst Jesus affirmed that He
was He whom the evil spirit had acknowledged, by not rebuking him for
uttering a lie.

CHAP. VIII."--OTHER PROOFS FROM THE SAME CHAPTER, THAT JESUS, WHO PREACHED
AT NAZARETH, AND WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY  CERTAIN DEMONS AS CHRIST THE SON OF
GOD, WAS THE CREATOR'S CHRIST. AS OCCASION OFFERS, THE DOCETIC ERRORS OF
MARCION ARE EXPOSED.

   The Christ of the Creator had(2) to be called a Nazarene according to
prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account,(3)
Nazerenes(4) after Him. For we are they of whom it is written, "Her
Nazarites were whiter than snow;"(5) even they who were once defiled with
the stains of sin, and darkened with the clouds of ignorance. But to Christ
the title Nazarene was destined to become a suitable one, from the hiding-
place of His infancy, for which He went down and dwelt at Nazareth,(6) to
escape from Archelaus the son of Herod. This fact I have not refrained from
mentioning on this account, because it behoved Marcion's Christ to have
forborne all connection whatever with the domestic localities of the
Creator's Christ, when he had so many towns in Judaea which had not been by
the prophets thus assigned(7) to the Creator's Christ. But Christ will be
(the Christ) of the prophets, wheresoever He is found in accordance with
the prophets. And yet even at Nazareth He is not remarked as having
preached anything new,(8) whilst in another verse He is said to have been
rejected(9) by reason of a simple proverb.(10) Here at once, when I observe
that they laid their hands on Him, I cannot help drawing a conclusion
respecting His bodily substance, which cannot be believed to have been a
phantom,(11) since it was capable of being touched and even violently
handled, when He was seized and taken and led to the very brink of a
precipice. For although He escaped through the midst of them, He had
already experienced their rough treatment, and afterwards went His way, no
doubt(12) because the crowd (as usually happens) gave way, or was even
broken through; but not because it was eluded as by an impalpable
disguise,(13) which, if there had been such, would not at all have
submitted to any touch.

  "Tangere enim et tangi, nisi corpus, nulla potest res,"(14)

is even a sentence worthy of a place in the world's wisdom. In short, He
did himself touch others, upon whom He laid His hands, which were capable
of being felt, and conferred the blessings of healing,(15) which were not
less true, not less unimaginary, than were the hands wherewith He bestowed
them. He was therefore the very Christ of Isaiah, the healer of our
sicknesses.(16) "Surely," says he, "He hath borne our griefs and carried
our sorrows." Now the Greeks are accustomed to use for carry a word which
also signifies to take away. A general promise Is enough for me in
passing.(17) Whatever were the cures which Jesus effected, He is mine. We
will come, however, to the kinds of cures. To liberate men, then, from evil
spirits, is a cure of sickness. Accordingly, wicked spirits (just in the
manner of our former example) used to go forth with a testimony,
exclaiming, "Thou art the Son of God,"(18)--of what God, is clear enough
from the case itself. But they were rebuked, and ordered not to speak;
precisely because(19) Christ willed Himself to be proclaimed by men, not by
unclean spirits, as the Son of God--even that Christ alone to whom this was
befitting, because He had sent beforehand men through whom He might become
known, and who were assuredly worthier preachers. It was natural to Him(20)
to refuse the proclamation of an unclean spirit, at whose command there was
an abundance of saints. He, however,(21) who had never been foretold (if,
indeed, he wished to be acknowledged; for if he did not wish so much, his
coming was in vain), would not have spurned the testimony of an alien or
any sort of substance, who did not happen to have a substance of his
own,(22) but had descended in an alien one. And now, too, as the destroyer
also of the Creator, he would have desired nothing better than to be
acknowledged by His spirits, and to be divulged for the sake of being
feared:(1) only that Marcion says(2) that his god is not feared;
maintaining that a good being Is not an object of fear, but only a judicial
being, in whom reside the grounds(3) of fear--anger, severity, judgments,
vengeance, condemnation. But it was from fear, undoubtedly, that the evil
spirits were cowed.(4) Therefore they confessed that (Christ) was the Son
of a God who was to be feared, because they would have an occasion of not
submitting if there were none for fearing. Besides, He showed that He was
to be feared, because He drave them out, not by persuasion like a good
being, but by command and reproof. Or else did he(5) reprove them, because
they were making him an object of fear, when all the while he did not want
to be feared? And in what manner did he wish them to go forth, when they
could not do so except with fear? So that he fell into the dilemma(6) of
having to conduct himself contrary to his nature, whereas he might in his
simple goodness have at once treated them with leniency. He fell, too, into
another false position(7)--of prevarication, when he permitted himself to
be feared by the demons as the Son of the Creator, that he might drive them
out, not indeed by his own power, but by the authority of the Creator. "He
departed, and went into a desert place."(8) This was, indeed, the Creator's
customary region. It was proper that the Word(9) should there appear in
body, where He had aforetime, wrought in a cloud. To the gospel also was
suitable that condition of place(10) which had once been determined on for
the law.(11) "Let the wilderness and the solitary place, therefore, be glad
and rejoice;" so had Isaiah promised.(12) When "stayed" by the crowds, He
said," I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also."(13) Had He
displayed His God anywhere yet? I suppose as yet nowhere. But was He
speaking of those who knew of another god also? I do not believe so. If,
therefore, neither He had preached, nor they had known, any other God but
the Creator, He was announcing the kingdom of that God whom He knew to be
the only God known to those who were listening to Him.

CHAP. IX.--OUT OF ST. LUKE'S FIFTH CHAPTER ARE FOUND PROOFS OF CHRIST'S
BELONGING TO THE CREATOR, E.G. IN THE CALL OF FISHERMEN TO THE APOSTOLIC
OFFICE, AND IN THE CLEANSING OF THE LEPER.  CHRIST COMPARED WITH THE
PROPHET ELISHA.

   Out of so many kinds of occupations, why indeed had He such respect for
that of fishermen, as to select from it for apostles Simon and the sons of
Zebedee (for it cannot seem to be the mere fact itself for which the
narrative was meant to be drawn out(14)), saying to Peter, when he trembled
at the very large draught of the fishes, "Fear not; from henceforth thou
shalt catch men?"(15) By saying this, He suggested to them the meaning of
the fulfilled prophecy, that it was even He who by Jeremiah had foretold,
"Behold, I will send many fishers; and they shall fish them,"(16) that is,
men. Then at last they left their boats, and followed Him, understanding
that it was He who had begun to accomplish what He had declared. It is
quite another case, when he affected to choose from the college of
shipmasters, intending one day to appoint the shipmaster Marcion his
apostle. We have indeed already laid it down, in opposition to his
Antitheses, that the position of Marcion derives no advantage from the
diversity which he supposes to exist between the Law and the Gospel,
inasmuch as even this was ordained by the Creator, and indeed predicted in
the promise of the new Law, and the new Word, and the new Testament. Since,
however, he quotes with especial care,(17) as a proof in his domain,(18) a
certain companion in misery (suntalai'pwron), and associate in hatred
(summisou'menon), with himself, for the cure of leprosy,(19) I shall not be
sorry to meet him, and before anything else to point out to him the force
of the law figuratively interpreted, which, in this example of a leper (who
was not to be touched, but was rather to be removed from all intercourse
with others), prohibited any communication with a person who was defiled
with sins, with whom the apostle also forbids us even to eat food,(20)
forasmuch as the taint of sins would be communicated as if contagious:
wherever a man should mix himself with the sinner. The Lord, therefore,
wishing that the law should be more profoundly understood as signifying
spiritual truths by carnal facts(21)--and thus(22) not destroying, but
rather building up, that law which He wanted to have more earnestly
acknowledged-touched the leper, by whom (even although as man He might have
been defiled) He could not be defiled as God, being of course
incorruptible. The prescription, therefore, could not be meant for Him,
that He was bound to observe the law and not touch the unclean person,
seeing that contact with the unclean would not cause defilement to Him. I
thus teach that this (immunity) is consistent in my Christ, the rather when
I show that it is not consistent in yours. Now, if it was as an enemy(1) of
the law that He touched the leper--disregarding the precept of the law by a
contempt of the defilement--how could he be defiled, when he possessed not
a body(2) which could be defiled? For a phantom is not susceptible of
defilement. He therefore, who could not be defiled, as being a phantom,
will not have an immunity from pollution by any divine power, but owing to
his fantastic vacuity; nor can he be regarded as having despised pollution,
who had not in fact any material capacity(3) for it; nor, in like manner,
as having destroyed the law, who had escaped defilement from the occasion
of his phantom nature, not from any display of virtue. If, however, the
Creator's prophet Elisha cleansed Naaman the Syrian alone,(4) to the
exclusion of(5) so many lepers in Israel,(6) this fact contributes nothing
to the distinction of Christ, as if he were in this way the better one for
cleansing this Israelite leper, although a stranger to him, whom his own
Lord had been unable to cleanse. The cleansing of the Syrian rather(7) was
significant throughout the nations of the world(8) of their own cleansing
in Christ their light,(9) steeped as they were in the stains of the seven
deadly sins:(10) idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false-
witness, and fraud.(11) Seven times, therefore, as if once for each," did
he wash in Jordan; both in order that he might celebrate the expiation of a
perfect hebdomad;(13) and because the virtue and fulness of the one baptism
was thus solemnly imputed(14) to Christ, alone, who was one day to
establish on earth not only a revelation, but also a baptism, endued with
compendious efficacy.(15) Even Marcion finds here an antithesis:(16) how
that Elisha indeed required a material resource, applied water, and that
seven times; whereas Christ, by the employment of a word only, and that but
once for all, instantly effected(17) the cure. And surely I might
venture(18) to claim(19) the Very Word also as of the Creator's substance.
There is nothing of which He who was the primitive Author is not also the
more powerful one. Forsooth,(20) it is incredible that that power of the
Creator should  have, by a word, produced a remedy for a single malady,
which once by a word brought into being so vast a fabric as the world! From
what can the Christ of the Creator be better discerned, than from the power
of His word? But Christ is on this account another (Christ), because He
acted differently from Elisha--because, in fact, the master is more
powerful than his servant! Why, Marcion, do you lay down the rule, that
things are done by servants just as they are by their very masters? Are you
not afraid that it will turn to your discredit, if you deny that Christ
belongs to the Creator, on the ground that He was once more powerful than a
servant of the Creator--since, in comparison with the weakness of Elisha,
He is acknowledged to be the greater, if indeed greater!(21) For the cure
is the same, although there is a difference in the working of it. What has
your Christ performed more than my Elisha? Nay, what great thing has the
word of your Christ performed, when it has simply done that which a river
of the Creator effected? On the same principle occurs all the rest. So far
as renouncing all human glory went, He forbade the man to publish abroad
the cure; but so far as the honour of the law was concerned, He requested
that the usual course should be followed: "Go, show thyself to the priest,
and present the offering which Moses commanded."(1) For the figurative
signs of the law in its types He still would have observed, because of
their prophetic import.(2) These types signified that a man, once a sinner,
but afterwards purified(3) from the stains thereof by the word of God, was
bound to offer unto God in the temple a gift, even prayer and thanksgiving
in the church through Christ Jesus, who is the Catholic Priest of the
Father.(4) Accordingly He added: "that it may be for a testimony unto you"-
-one, no doubt, whereby He would testify that He was not destroying the
law, but fulfilling it; whereby, too, He would testify that it was He
Himself who was foretold as about to undertake(5) their sicknesses and
infirmities. This very consistent and becoming explanation of "the
testimony," that adulator of his own Christ, Marcion seeks to exclude under
the cover of mercy and gentleness. For, being both good (such are his
words), and knowing, besides, that every man who had been freed from
leprosy would be sure to perform the solemnities of the law, therefore He
gave this precept. Well, what then? Has He continued in his goodness (that
is to say, in his permission of the law) or not? For if he has persevered
in his goodness, he will never become a destroyer of the law; nor will he
ever be accounted as belonging to another god, because there would not
exist that destruction of the law which would constitute his claim to
belong to the other god. If, however, he has not continued good, by a
subsequent destruction of the law, it is a false testimony which he has
since imposed upon them in his cure of the leper; because he has forsaken
his goodness, in destroying the law. If, therefore, he was good whilst
upholding the law,(6) he has now become evil as a destroyer of the law.
However, by the support which he gave to the law, he affirmed that the law
was good. For no one permits himself in the support of an evil thing.
Therefore he is not only bad if he has permitted obedience to a bad law;
but even worse still, if he has appeared(7) as the destroyer of a good law.
So that if he commanded the offering of the gift because he knew that every
cured leper would be sure to bring one; he possibly abstained from
commanding what he knew would be spontaneously done. In vain, therefore,
was his coming down, as if with the intention of destroying the law, when
he makes concessions to the keepers of the law. And yet,(8) because he knew
their disposition,(9) he ought the more earnestly to have prevented their
neglect of the law,(10) since he had come for this purpose. Why then did he
not keep silent, that man might of his own simple will obey the law? For
then might he have seemed to some extent(11)to have persisted in his
patience. But he adds also his own authority increased by the weight of
this "testimony." Of what testimony, I ask,(12) if not that of the
assertion of the law? Surely it matters not in what way he asserted the
law--whether as good, or as supererogatory,(13) or as patient, or as
inconstant-provided, Marcion, I drive you from your position.(14)
Observe,(15) he commanded that the law should be fulfilled. In whatever way
he commanded it, in the same way might he also have first uttered that
sentiment:(16) "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it."(17) What
business, therefore, had you to erase out of the Gospel that which was
quite consistent in it?(18) For you have confessed that, in his goodness,
he did in act what you deny that he did in word.(19) We have therefore good
proof that He uttered the word, in the fact that He did the deed; and that
you have rather expunged the Lord's word, than that our (evangelists)(20)
have inserted it.

CHAP. X.--FURTHER PROOFS OF THE SAME TRUTH IN THE SAME CHAPTER, FROM THE
HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC, AND FROM THE DESIGNATION SON OF MAN WHICH JESUS
GIVES HIMSELF. TERTULLIAN SUSTAINS HIS ARGUMENT BY SEVERAL QUOTATIONS FROM
THE PROPHETS.

   The sick of the palsy is healed,(21) and that in public, in the sight
of the people. For, says Isaiah, "they shall see the glory of the Lord, and
the excellency of our God."(22) What glory, and what excellency? "Be
strong, ye weak hands, and ye feeble knees:"(23) this refers to the palsy.
"Be strong; fear not."(24) Be strong is not vainly repeated, nor is fear
not vainly added; because with the renewal of the limbs there was to be,
according to the promise, a restoration also of bodily energies: "Arise,
and take up thy couch;" and likewise moral courage(1) not to be afraid of
those who should say, "Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" So that you
have here not only the fulfilment of the prophecy which promised a
particular kind of healing, but also of the symptoms which followed the
cure. In like manner, you should also recognise Christ in the same prophet
as the forgiver of sins. "For," he says, "He shall remit to many their
sins, and shall Himself take away our sins."(2) For in an earlier passage,
speaking in the person of the Lord himself, he had said: "Even though your
sins be as scarlet, I will make them as white as snow; even though they be
like crimson, I will whiten them as wool."(3) In the scarlet colour He
indicates the blood of the prophets; in the crimson, that of the Lord, as
the brighter. Concerning the forgiveness of sins, Micah also says: "Who is
a God like unto Thee? pardoning iniquity, and passing by the transgressions
of the remnant of Thine heritage. He retaineth not His anger as a testimony
against them, because He delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, and will
have compassion upon us; He wipeth away our iniquities, and casteth our
sins into the depths of the sea."(4) Now, if nothing of this sort had been
predicted of Christ, I should find in the Creator examples of such a
benignity as would hold out to me the promise of similar affections also in
the Son of whom He is the Father. I see how the Ninevites obtained
forgiveness of their sins from the Creator(5)--not to say from Christ, even
then, because from the beginning He acted in the Father's name. I read,
too, how that, when David acknowledged his sin against Uriah, the prophet
Nathan said unto him, "The Lord hath cancelled(6) thy sin, and thou shalt
not die;"(7) how king Ahab in like manner, the husband of Jezebel, guilty
of idolatry and of the blood of Naboth, obtained pardon because of his
repentance;(8) and how Jonathan the son of Saul blotted out by his
deprecation the guilt of a violated fast.(9) Why should I recount the
frequent restoration of the nation itself after the forgiveness of their
sins?--by that God, indeed, who will have mercy rather than sacrifice, and
a sinner's repentance rather than his death.(10) You will first have to
deny that the Creator ever forgave sins; then you must in reason show(11)
that He never ordained any such prerogative for His Christ; and so you will
prove how novel is that boasted(12) benevolence of the, of course, novel
Christ when you shall have proved that it is neither compatible with(13)
the Creator nor predicted by the Creator. But whether to remit sins can
appertain to one who is said to be unable to retain them, and whether to
absolve can belong to him who is incompetent even to condemn, and whether
to forgive is suitable to him against whom no offence can be committed, are
questions which we have encountered elsewhere,(14) when we preferred to
drop suggestions(15) rather than treat them anew.(16) Concerning the Son of
man our rule(17) is a twofold one: that Christ cannot lie, so as to declare
Himself the Son of man, if He be not truly so; nor can He be constituted
the Son of man, unless He be born of a human parent, either father or
mother. And then the discussion will turn on the point, of which human
parent He ought to be accounted the son--of the father or the mother? Since
He is (begotten) of God the Father, He is not, of course, (the son) of a
human father. If He is not of a human father, it follows that He must be
(the son) of a human mother. If of a human mother, it is evident that she
must be a virgin. For to whom a human father is not ascribed, to his mother
a husband will not be reckoned; and then to what mother a husband is not
reckoned, the condition of virginity belongs.(18) But if His mother be not
a virgin, two fathers will have to be reckoned to Him--a divine and a human
one. For she must have a husband, not to be a virgin; and by having a
husband, she would cause two fathers--one divine, the other human--to
accrue to Him, who would thus be Son both of God and of a man. Such a
nativity (if one may call it so)(19) the mythic stories assign to Castor or
to Hercules. Now, if this distinction be observed, that is to say, if He be
Son of man as born of His mother, because not begotten of a father, and His
mother be a virgin, because His father is not human--He will be that Christ
whom Isaiah foretold that a virgin should conceive,(20) On what principle
you, Marcion, can admit Him Son of man, I cannot possibly see. If through a
human father, then you deny him to be Son of God; if through a divine one
also,(1) then you make Christ the Hercules of fable; if through a human
mother only, then you concede my point; if not through a human father
also,(2) then He is not the son of any man,(3) and He must have been guilty
of a lie for having declared Himself to be what He was not. One thing alone
can help you in your difficulty: boldness on your part either to surname
your God as actually the human father of Christ, as Valentinus did(4) with
his AEon; or else to deny that the Virgin was human, which even Valentinus
did not do. What now, if Christ be described(5) in Daniel by this very
title of "Son of man?" Is not this enough to prove that He is the Christ of
prophecy? For if He gives Himself that appellation which was provided in
the prophecy for the Christ of the Creator, He undoubtedly offers Himself
to be understood as Him to whom (the appellation) was assigned by the
prophet. But perhaps(6) it can be regarded as a simple identity of
names;(7) and yet we have maintained(8) that neither Christ nor Jesus ought
to have been called by these names, if they possessed any condition of
diversity. But as regards the appellation "Son of man," in as far as it
Occurs by accident,(9) in so far there is a difficulty in its occurrence
along with(10) a casual identity of names. For it is of pure(11) accident,
especially when the same cause does not appear(12) whereby the identity may
be occasioned. And therefore, if Marcion's Christ be also said to be born
of man, then he too would receive an identical appellation, and there would
be two Sons of man, as also two Christs and two Jesuses. Therefore, since
the appellation is the sole right of Him in whom it has a suitable
reason,(13) if it be claimed for another in whom there is an identity of
name, but not of appellation,(14) then the identity of name even looks
suspicious in him for whom is claimed without reason the identity of
appellation. And it follows that He must be believed to be One and the
Same, who is found to be the more fit to receive both the name and the
appellation; while the other is excluded, who has no right to the
appellation, because he has no reason to show for it. Nor will any other be
better entitled to both than He who is the earlier, and has had allotted to
Him the name of Christ and the appellation of Son of man, even the Jesus of
the Creator. It was He who was seen by the king of Babylon in the furnace
with His martyrs: "the fourth, who was like the Son of man."(15) He also
was revealed to Daniel himself expressly as "the Son of man, coming in the
clouds of heaven" as a Judge, as also the Scripture shows.(16) What I have
advanced might have been sufficient concerning the designation in prophecy
of the Son of man. But the Scripture offers me further information, even in
the interpretation of the Lord Himself. For when the Jews, who looked at
Him as merely man, and were not yet sure that He was God also, as being
likewise the Son of God, rightly enough said that a man could not forgive
sins, but God alone, why did He not, following up their point(17) about
man, answer them,that He(18) had power to remit sins; inasmuch as, when He
mentioned the Son of man, He also named a human being? except it were
because He wanted, by help of the very designation "Son of man" from the
book of Daniel, so to induce them to reflect(19) as to show them that He
who remitted sins was God and man--that only Son of man, indeed, in the
prophecy of Daniel, who had obtained the power of judging, and thereby, of
course, of forgiving sins likewise (for He who judges also absolves); so
that, when once that objection of theirs(20) was shattered to pieces by
their recollection  of Scripture, they might the more easily acknowledge
Him to be the Son of man Himself by His own actual forgiveness of sins. I
make one more observation,(21) how that He has nowhere as yet professed
Himself to be the Son of God--but for the first time in this passage, in
which for the first time He has remitted sins; that is, in which for the
first time He has used His function of judgment, by the absolution. All
that the opposite side has to allege in argument against these things, (I
beg you) carefully weigh(22) what it amounts to. For it must needs strain
itself to such a pitch of infatuation as, on the one hand, to maintain that
(their Christ) is also Son of man, in order to save Him from the charge of
falsehood; and, on the other hand, to deny that He was born of woman, lest
they grant that He was the Virgin's son. Since, however, the divine
authority and the nature of the case, and common sense, do not admit this
insane position of the heretics, we have here the opportunity of putting in
a veto(1) in the briefest possible terms, on the substance of Christ's
body, against Marcion's phantoms. Since He is born of man, being the Son of
man. He is body derived from body.(2) You may, I assure you,(3) more easily
find a man born without a heart or without brains, like Marcion himself,
than without a body, like Marcion's Christ. And let this be the limit to
your examination of the heart, or, at any rate, the brains of the heretic
of Pontus.(4)

CHAP. XI.--THE CALL OF LEVI THE PUBLICAN. CHRIST IN RELATION TO THE
BAPTIST. CHRIST AS THE BRIDEGROOM. THE PARABLE OF THE OLD WINE AND THE NEW.
ARGUMENTS CONNECTING CHRIST WITH THE CREATOR.

   The publican who was chosen by the Lord,(5) he adduces for a proof that
he was chosen as a stranger to the law and uninitiated in(6) Judaism, by
one who was an adversary to the law. The case of Peter escaped his memory,
who, although he was a man of the law, was not only chosen by the Lord, but
also obtained the testimony of possessing knowledge which was given to him
by the Father.(7) He had nowhere read of Christ's being foretold as the
light, and hope, and expectation of the Gentiles! He, however, rather spoke
of the Jews in a favourable light, when he said, "The whole needed not a
physician, but they that are sick."(8) For since by "those that are sick"
he meant that the heathens and publicans should be understood, whom he was
choosing, he affirmed of the Jews that they were "whole" for whom he said
that a physician was not necessary. This being the case, he makes a mistake
in coming down(9) to destroy the law, as if for the remedy of a diseased
condition. because they who were living under it were "whole," and "not in
want of a physician." How, moreover, does it happen that he proposed the
similitude of a physician, if he did not verify it? For, just as nobody
uses a physician for healthy persons, so will no one do so for strangers,
in so far as he is one of Marcion's god-made men,(10) having to himself
both a creator and preserver, and a specially good physician, in his
Christ. This much the comparison predetermines, that a physician is more
usually furnished by him to whom the sick people belong. Whence, too, does
John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John!(11)
After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system. They have their
own special and plenary course(12) in the Creator's dispensation. Of John,
however, what else I have to say will be found in another passage.(13) To
the several points which now come before us an answer must be given. This,
then, I will take care to do(14)--demonstrate that, reciprocally, John is
suitable to Christ, and Christ to Joan, the latter, of course, as a prophet
of the Creator, just as the former is the Creator's Christ; and so the
heretic may blush at frustrating, to his own frustration, the mission of
John the Baptist. For if there had been no ministry of John at all--"the
voice," as Isaiah calls him, "of one crying in the wilderness," and the
preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of
repentance; if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself(15) along with
others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate
and drank, to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly
fasting and praying; because, if there existed any diversity(16) between
Christ and John, and their followers respectively, no exact comparison
would be possible, nor would there be a single point where it could be
challenged. For nobody would feel surprise, and nobody would be perplexed,
although there should arise rival predictions of a diverse deity, which
should also mutually differ about modes of conduct,(17) having a prior
difference about the authorities(18) upon which they were based. Therefore
Christ belonged to John, and John to Christ; while both belonged to the
Creator, and both were of the law and the prophets, preachers and masters.
Else Christ would have rejected the discipline of John, as of the rival
god, and would also have defended the disciples, as very properly pursuing
a different walk, because consecrated to the service of another and
contrary deity. But as it is, while modestly(19) giving a reason why "the
children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the
bridegroom is with them," but promising that "they should afterwards fast,
when the bridegroom was taken away from them,"(1) He neither defended the
disciples, (but rather excused them, as if they had not been blamed without
some reason), nor rejected the discipline of John, but rather allowed(2)
it, referring it to the time of John, although destining it for His own
time. Otherwise His purpose would have been to reject it,(3) and to defend
its opponents, if He had not Himself already belonged to it as then in
force. I hold also that it is my Christ who is meant by the bridegroom, of
whom the psalm says: "He is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; His
going forth is from the end of the heaven, and His return is back to the
end of it again."(4) By the mouth of Isaiah He also says exultingly of the
Father: "Let my soul rejoice in the Lord; for He hath clothed me with the
garment of salvation and with the tunic of joy, as a bridegroom. He hath
put a mitre round about my head, as a bride."(5) To Himself likewise He
appropriates(6) the church, concerning which the same(7) Spirit says to
Him: "Thou shall clothe Thee with them all, as with a bridal ornament."(8)
This spouse Christ invites home to Himself also by Solomon from the call of
the Gentiles, because you read: "Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse."(9)
He elegantly makes mention of Lebanon (the mountain, of course) because it
stands for the name of frankincense with the Greeks;(10) for it was from
idolatry that He betrothed Himself the church. Deny now, Marcion, your
utter madness, (if you can)! Behold, you impugn even the law of your god.
He unites not in the nuptial bond, nor, when contracted, does he allow it;
no one does he baptize but a coelebs or a eunuch; until death or divorce
does he reserve baptism.(11) Wherefore, then, do you make his Christ a
bridegroom? This is the designation of Him who united man and woman, not of
him who separated them. You have erred also in that declaration of Christ,
wherein He seems to make a difference between things new and old. You are
inflated about the old bottles, and brain-muddled with the new wine; and
therefore to the old (that is to say, to the prior) gospel you have sewed
on the patch of your new-fangled heresy. I should like to know in what
respect the Creator is inconsistent with Himself.(12) When by Jeremiah He
gave this precept, "Break up for yourselves new pastures,"(13) does He not
turn away from the old state of things? And when by Isaiah He proclaims how
"old things were passed away; and, behold, all things, which I am making,
are new,"(14) does He not advert to a new state of things? We have
generally been of opinion's that the destination of the former state of
things was rather promised by the Creator, and exhibited in reality by
Christ, only under the authority of one and the same God, to whom appertain
both the old things and the new. For new wine is not put into old bottles,
except by one who has the old bottles; nor does anybody put a new piece to
an old garment, unless the old garment be forthcoming to him. That person
only(16) does not do a thing when it is not to be done, who has the
materials wherewithal to do it if it were to be done. And therefore, since
His object in making the comparison was to show that He was separating the
new condition(17) of the gospel from the old state(18) of the law, He
proved that that(19) from which He was separating His own(20) ought not to
have been branded(21) as a separation(22) of things which were alien to
each other; for nobody ever unites his own things with things that are
alien to them,(23) in order that he may afterwards be able to separate them
from the alien things. A separation is possible by help of the conjunction
through which it is made. Accordingly, the things which He separated He
also  proved to have been once one; as they would have remained, were it
not for His separation. But still we make this concession, that there is a
separation, by reformation, by amplification,(24) by progress; just as the
fruit is separated from the seed, although the fruit comes from the seed.
So likewise the gospel is separated from the law, whilst it advances(25)
from the law--a different thing(26) from it, but not an alien one; diverse,
but not contrary. Nor in Christ do we even find any novel form of
discourse. Whether He proposes similitudes or refute questions, it comes
from the seventy-seventh Psalm. "I will open," says He, "my mouth in a
parable" (that is, in a similitude); "I will utter dark problems" (that is,
I will set forth questions).(1) If you should wish to prove that a man
belonged to another race, no doubt you would fetch your proof from the
idiom of his language.

CHAP. XII.--CHRIST'S AUTHORITY OVER THE SABBATH. AS ITS LORD HE RECALLED IT
FROM PHARISAIC NEGLECT TO THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE OF ITS INSTITUTION BY THE
CREATOR THE CASE OF THE DISCIPLES WHO PLUCKED THE EARS OF CORN ON THE
SABBATH. THE WITHERED HAND HEALED ON THE SABBATH.

   Concerning the Sabbath also I have this to premise, that this question
could not have arisen, if Christ did not publicly proclaim(2) the Lord of
the Sabbath. Nor could there be any discussion about His annulling(3) the
Sabbath, if He had a right(4) to annul it. Moreover, He would have the
right, if He belonged to the rival god; nor would it cause surprise to any
one that He did what it was right for Him to do. Men's astonishment
therefore arose from their opinion that it was improper for Him to proclaim
the Creator to be God and yet to impugn His Sabbath. Now, that we may
decide these several points first, lest we should be renewing them at every
turn to meet each argument of our adversary which rests on some novel
institution s of Christ, let this stand as a settled point, that discussion
concerning the novel character of each institution ensued on this account,
because as nothing was as yet advanced by Christ touching any new deity, so
discussion thereon was inadmissible; nor could it be retorted, that from
the very novelty of each several institution another deity was clearly
enough demonstrated by Christ, inasmuch as it was plain that novelty was
not in itself a characteristic to be wondered at in Christ, because it had
been foretold by the Creator. And it would have been, of course, but right
that a new(6) god should first be expounded, and his discipline be
introduced afterwards; because it Would be the god that would impart
authority to the discipline, and not the discipline to the god; except that
(to be sure) it has happened that Marcion acquired his very perverse
opinions not from a master, but his master from his opinion! All other
points respecting the Sabbath I thus rule. If Christ interfered with(7) the
Sabbath, He simply acted after the Creator's example; inasmuch as in the
siege of the city of Jericho the carrying around the walls of the ark of
the covenant for eight days running, and therefore on a Sabbath-day,
actually(8) annulled the Sabbath, by the Creator's command--according to
the opinion of those who think this of Christ in this passage of St. Luke,
in their ignorance that neither Christ nor the Creator violated the
Sabbath, as we shall by and by show. And yet the Sabbath was actually then
broken(9) by Joshua,(10) so that the present charge might be alleged also
against Christ. But even if, as being not the Christ of the Jews, He
displayed a hatred against the Jews' most solemn day, He was only
professedly following(11) the Creator, as being His Christ, in this very
hatred of the Sabbath; for He exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah: "Your new
moons and your Sabbaths my soul hateth."(12) Now, in whatever sense these
words were spoken, we know that an abrupt defence must, in a subject of
this sort, be used in answer to an abrupt challenge. I shall now transfer
the discussion to the very matter in which the teaching of Christ seemed to
annul the Sabbath. The disciples had been hungry; on that the Sabbath day
they had plucked some ears and rubbed them in their hands; by thus
preparing their food, they had violated the holy day. Christ excuses them,
and became their accomplice in breaking the Sabbath. The Pharisees bring
the charge against Him. Marcion sophistically interprets the stages of the
controversy (if I may call in the aid of the truth of my Lord to ridicule
his arts), both in the scriptural record and in Christ's purpose.(13) For
from the Creator's Scripture, and from the purpose of Christ, there is
derived a colourable precedent(14)--as from the example of David, when he
went into the temple on the Sabbath, and provided food by boldly breaking
up the shew-bread.(15) Even he remembered that this privilege (I mean the
dispensation from fasting) was allowed to the Sabbath from the very
beginning, when the Sabbath-day itself was instituted. For although the
Creator had forbidden that the manna should be gathered for two days, He
yet permitted it on the one occasion only of the day before the Sabbath, in
order that the yesterday's provision of food might free from fasting the
feast of the following Sabbath-day. Good reason, therefore, had the Lord
for pursuing the same principle in the annulling of the Sabbath (since that
is the word which men will use); good reason, too, for expressing the
Creator's will,(1) when He bestowed the privilege of not fasting on the
Sabbath-day. In short, He would have then and there(2) put an end to the
Sabbath, nay, to the Creator Himself, if He had commanded His disciples to
fast on the Sabbath-day, contrary to the intention(3) of the Scripture and
of the Creator's will. But because He did not directly defend(4) His
disciples, but excuses them; because He interposes human want, as if
deprecating censure; because He maintains the honour of the Sabbath as a
day which is to be free from gloom rather than from work;(5) because he
puts David and his companions on a level with His own disciples in their
fault and their extenuation; because He is pleased to endorse(6) the
Creator's indulgence:(7) because He is Himself good according to His
example--is He therefore alien from the Creator? Then the Pharisees watch
whether He would heal on the Sabbath-day,(8) that they might accuse Him--
surely as a violator of the Sabbath, not as the propounder of a new god;
for perhaps I might be content with insisting on all occasions on this one
point, that another Christ(9) is nowhere proclaimed. The Pharisees,
however, were in utter error concerning the law of the Sabbath, not
observing that its terms were conditional, when it enjoined rest from
labour, making certain distinctions of labour. For when it says of the
Sabbath-day, "In it thou shalt not do any work of thine,"(10) by the word
thine(11) it restricts the prohibition to human work--which every one
performs in his own employment or business--and not to divine work. Now the
work of healing or preserving is not proper to man, but to God. So again,
in the law it says, "Thou shalt not do any manner of work in it,"(12)
except what is to be done for any soul,(13) that is to say, in the matter
of delivering the soul;(14) because what is God's work may be done by human
agency for the salvation of the soul. By God, however, would that be done
which the man Christ was to do, for He was likewise God.(15) Wishing,
therefore, to initiate them into this meaning of the law by the restoration
of the withered hand, He requires, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath-days to do
good, or not? to save life, or to destroy it?"(16) In order that He might,
whilst allowing that amount of work which He was about to perform for a
soul,(17) remind them what works the law of the Sabbath forbade--even human
works; and what it enjoined--even divine works, which might be done for the
benefit of any soul,(18) He was called "Lord of the Sabbath,"(19) because
He maintained(20) the Sabbath as His own institution. Now, even if He had
annulled the Sabbath, He would have had the right to do so,(21) as being
its Lord, (and) still more as He who instituted it. But He did not utterly
destroy it, although  its Lord, in order that it might henceforth be plain
that the Sabbath was not broken(22) by the Creator, even at the time when
the ark was carried around Jericho. For that was really(23) God's work,
which He commanded Himself, and which He had ordered for the sake of the
lives of His servants when exposed to the perils of war. Now, although He
has in a certain place expressed an aversion of Sabbaths, by calling them
your Sabbaths,(24) reckoning them as men's Sabbaths, not His own, because
they were celebrated without the fear of God by a people full of
iniquities, and loving God "with the lip, not the heart,"(25) He has yet
put His own Sabbaths (those, that is, which were kept according to His
prescription) in a different position; for by the same prophet, in a later
passage,(26) He declared them to be "true, and delightful, and inviolable."
Thus Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath: He kept the law thereof,
and both in the former case did a work which was beneficial to the life of
His disciples, for He indulged them with the relief of food when they were
hungry, and in the present instance cured the withered hand; in each case
intimating by facts, "I came not to destroy, the law, but to fulfil it,"(1)
although Marcion has gagged(2) His mouth by this word.(3) For even in the
case before us He fulfilled the law, while interpreting its condition;
moreover, He exhibits in a dear light the different kinds of work, while
doing what the law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath(4) and while
imparting to the Sabbath-day itself, which from the beginning had been
consecrated by the benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by His
own beneficent action. For He furnished to this day divine safeguards,(5)--
a course which(6) His adversary would have pursued for some other days, to
avoid honouring the Creator's Sabbath, and restoring to the Sabbath the
works which were proper for it. Since, in like manner, the prophet Elisha
on this day restored to life the dead son of the Shunammite woman,(7) you
see, O Pharisee, and you too, O Marcion, how that it was proffer employment
for the Creator's Sabbaths of old(8) to do good, to save life, not to
destroy it; how that Christ introduced nothing new, which was not after the
example,(9) the gentleness, the mercy, and the prediction also of the
Creator. For in this very example He fulfils(10) the prophetic announcement
of a specific healing: "The weak hands are strengthened," as were also "the
feeble knees"(11)in the sick of the palsy.

CHAP. XIII.--CHRIST'S CONNECTION WITH THE CREATOR SHOWN. MANY QUOTATIONS
OUT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETICALLY BEAR ON CERTAIN EVENTS OF THE LIFE
OF JESUS--SUCH AS HIS ASCENT TO PRAYING ON THE MOUNTAIN; HIS SELECTION OF
TWELVE APOSTLES; HIS CHANGING SIMON'S NAME TO PETER, AND GENTILES FROM TYRE
AND SIDON RESORTING TO HIM.

   Surely to Sion He brings good tidings, and to Jerusalem peace and all
blessings; He goes up into a mountain, and there spends a night in
prayer,(12) and He is indeed heard by the Father. Accordingly turn over the
prophets, and learn therefrom His entire course.(13) "Into the high
mountain," says Isaiah, "get Thee up, who bringest good tidings to Sion;
lift up Thy voice with strength, who bringest good tidings to
Jerusalem."(14) "They were mightily(15) astonished at His doctrine; for He
was teaching as one who had power."(16) And again: "Therefore, my people
shall know my name in that day." What name does the prophet mean, but
Christ's? "That I am He that doth speak--even I."(17) For it was He who
used to speak in the prophets--the Word, the Creator's Son. "I am present,
while it is the hour, upon the mountains, as one that bringeth glad tidings
of peace, as one that publisheth good tidings of good."(18) So one of the
twelve (minor prophets), Naburn: "For behold upon the mountain the swift
feet of Him that bringeth glad tidings of peace."(19) Moreover, concerning
the voice of His prayer to the Father by night, the psalm manifestly says:
"O my God, I will cry in the day-time, and Thou shalt hear; and in the
night season, and it shall not be in vain to me."(20) in another passage
touching the same voice and place, the psalm says: "I cried unto the Lord
with my voice, and He heard me out of His holy mountain."(21) You have a
representation of the name; you have the action of the Evangelizer; you
have a mountain for the site; and the night as the time; and the sound of a
voice; and the audience of the Father: you have, (in short,) the Christ of
the prophets. But why was it that He chose twelve apostles,(22) and not
some other number? In truth,(23) I might from this very point conclude(24)
of my Christ, that He was foretold not only by the words of prophets, but
by the indications of facts. For of this number I find figurative hints up
and down the Creator's dispensation(25) in the twelve springs of Elfin;(26)
in the twelve gems of Aaron's priestly vestment;(27) and in the twelve
stones appointed by Joshua to be taken out of the Jordan, and set up for
the ark of the covenant. Now, the same number of apostles was thus
portended, as if they were to be fountains and rivers which should water
the Gentile world, which was formerly dry and destitute of knowledge (as He
says by Isaiah: "I will put streams in the unwatered ground"(28)); as if
they were to be gems to shed lustre upon the church's sacred robe, which
Christ, the High Priest of the Father, puts on; as if, also, they were to
be stones massive in their faith, which the true Joshua took out of the
layer of the Jordan, and placed in the sanctuary of His covenant. What
equally good defence of such a number has Marcion's Christ to show? It is
impossible that anything can be shown to have been done by him
unconnectedly,(1) which cannot be shown to have been done by my Christ in
connection (with preceding types).(2) To him will appertain the event(3) in
whom is discovered the preparation for the same.(4) Again, He changes the
name of Simon to peter,(5) inasmuch as the Creator also altered the names
of Abram, and Sarai, and Oshea, by calling the latter Joshua, and adding a
syllable to each of the former. But why Peter? If it was because of the
vigour of his faith, there were many solid materials which might lend a
name from their strength. Was it because Christ was both a rock and a
stone? For we read of His being placed "for a stone of stumbling and for a
rock of offence."(6) I omit the rest of the passage.(7) Therefore He would
fain(8) impart to the dearest of His disciples a name which was suggested
by one of His own especial designations in figure; because it was, I
suppose, more peculiarly fit than a name which might have been derived from
no figurative description of Himself.(9) There come to Him from Tyre, and
from other districts even, a transmarine multitude. This fact the psalm had
in view: "And behold tribes of foreign people, and Tyre, and the people of
the Ethiopians; they were there. Sion is my mother, shall a man say; and in
her was born a man" (forasmuch as the God-man was born), and He built her
by the Father's will; that you may know how Gentiles then flocked to Him,
because He was born the God-man who was to build the church according to
the Father's will--even of other races also.(10) So says Isaiah too:
"Behold, these come from far; and these from the north and from the
west;(11) and these from the land of the Persians."(12) Concerning whom He
says again: "Lift up thine eyes round about, and behold, all these have
gathered themselves together."(13) And yet again: "Thou seest these unknown
and strange ones; and thou wilt say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me
these? But who hath brought me up these? And these, where have they
been?"(14) Will such a Christ not be (the Christ) of the prophets? And what
will be the Christ of the Marcionites? Since perversion of truth is their
pleasure, he could not be (the Christ) of the prophets.

CHAP. XIV.--CHRIST'S SERMON ON THE MOUNT. IN MANNER AND CONTENTS IT SO
RESEMBLES THE CREATOR'S DISPENSATIONAL WORDS AND DEEDS. IT SUGGESTS
THEREFORE THE CONCLUSION THAT JESUS IS THE CREATOR'S CHRIST. THE
BEATITUDES.

   I now come to those ordinary precepts of His, by means of which He
adapts the peculiarity(15) of His doctrine to what I may call His official
proclamation as the Christ.(16) "Blessed are the needy" (for no less than
this is required for interpreting the word in the Greek,(17) "because
theirs is the kingdom of heaven."(18) Now this very fact, that He begins
with beatitudes, is characteristic of the Creator, who used no other voice
than that of blessing either in the first fiat or the final dedication of
the universe: for "my heart," says He, "hath indited a very good word."(19)
This will be that "very good word" of blessing which is admitted to be the
initiating principle of the New Testament, after the example of the Old.
What is there, then, to wonder at, if He entered on His ministry with the
very attributes(20) of the Creator, who ever in language of the same sort
loved, consoled, protected, and avenged the beggar, and the poor, and the
humble, and the widow, and the orphan? So that you may believe this private
bounty as it were of Christ to be a rivulet streaming from the springs of
salvation. Indeed, I hardly know whiCh way to turn amidst so vast a wealth
of good words like these; as if I were in a forest, or a meadow, or an
orchard of apples. I must therefore look out for such matter as chance may
present to me.(21)

   In the psalm he exclaims: "Defend the fatherless and the needy; do
justice to the humble and the poor; deliver the poor, and rid the needy out
of the hand of the wicked."(22) Similarly in the seventy-first Psalm: "In
righteousness shall He judge the needy amongst the people, and shall save
the children of the poor."(1) And in the following words he says of Christ:
"All nations shall serve Him."(2) Now David only reigned over the Jewish
nation, so that nobody can suppose that this was spoken of David; whereas
He had taken upon Himself the condition of the poor, and such as were
oppressed with want, "Because He should deliver the needy out of the hand
of the mighty man; He shall spare the needy and the poor, and shall deliver
the souls of the poor. From usury and injustice shall He redeem their
souls, and in His sight shall their name be honoured."(3) Again: "The
wicked shall be turned into hell, even all the nations that forget God;
because the needy shall not alway be forgotten; the endurance of the poor
shall not perish for ever."(4) Again: "Who is like unto the Lord our God,
who dwelleth on high, and yet looketh on the humble things that are in
heaven and on earth!--who raiseth up the needy from off the ground, and out
of the dunghill exalteth the poor; that He may set him with the princes of
His people,"(5) that is, in His own kingdom. And likewise earlier, in the
book of Kings,(6) Hannah the mother of Samuel gives glory to God in these
words: "He raiseth the poor man from the ground, and the beggar, that He
may set him amongst the princes of His people (that is, in His own
kingdom), and on thrones of glory" (even royal ones).(7) And by Isaiah how
He inveighs against the oppressors of the needy "What mean ye that ye set
fire to my vineyard, and that the spoil of the poor is in your houses?
Wherefore do ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the face of the
needy?"(8) And again: "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees; for
in their decrees they decree wickedness, turning aside the needy from
judgment, and taking away their rights from the poor of my people."(9)
These righteous judgments He requires for the fatherless also, and the
widows, as well as for consolation(10) to the very needy themselves. "Do
justice to the fatherless, and deal justly with the widow; and come, let us
be reconciled,(11) saith the Lord."(12) To him, for whom in every stage of
lowliness there is provided so much of the Creator's compassionate regard,
shall be given that kingdom also which is promised by Christ, to whose
merciful compassion belong, and for a great while have belonged,(13) those
to whom the promise is made. For even if you suppose that the promises of
the Creator were earthly, but that Christ's are heavenly, it is quite clear
that heaven has been as yet the property of no other God whatever, than Him
who owns the earth also; quite clear that the Creator has given even the
lesser promises (of earthly blessing), in order that I may more readily
believe Him concerning His greater promises (of heavenly blessings) also,
than (Marcion's god), who has never given proof of his liberality by any
preceding bestowal of minor blessings. "Blessed are they that hunger, for
they shall be filled."(14) I might connect this clause with the former one,
because none but the poor and needy suffer hunger, if the Creator had not
specially designed that the promise of a similar blessing should serve as a
preparation for the gospel, that so men might know it to be His.(15) For
thus does He say, by Isaiah, concerning those whom He was about to call
from the ends of the earth--that is, the Gentiles: "Behold, they shall come
swiftly with speed:"(16) swiftly, because hastening towards the fulness of
the times; with speed, because unclogged by the weights of the ancient law.
They shall neither hunger nor thirst. Therefore they shall be filled,--a
promise which is made to none but those who hunger and thirst. And again He
says: "Behold, my servants shall be filled, but ye shall be hungry; behold,
my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty."(17) As for these
oppositions, we shall see whether they are not premonitors of Christ.(18)
Meanwhile the promise of fulness to the hungry is a provision of God the
Creator. "Blessed are they that weep, for they shall laugh."(19) Turn again
to the passage of Isaiah: "Behold, my servants shall exult with joy, but ye
shall be ashamed; behold, my servants shall be glad, but ye shall cry for
sorrow of heart."(20) And recognise these oppositions also in the
dispensation of Christ. Surely gladness and joyous exultation is promised
to those who are in an opposite condition--to the sorrowful, and sad, and
anxious. Just as it is said in the 125th Psalm: "They who sow in tears
shall reap in joy."(21) Moreover, laughter is as much an accessory to the
exulting and glad, as weeping is to the sorrowful and grieving. Therefore
the Creator, in foretelling matters for laughter and tears, was the first
who said that those who mourned should laugh. Accordingly, He who began
(His course) with consolation for the poor, and the humble, and the hungry,
and the weeping, was at once eager(1) to represent Himself as Him whom He
had pointed out by the mouth of Isaiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because He hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the poor."(2)
"Blessed are the needy, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven."(3) "He
hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted."(4) "Blessed are they that
hunger, for they shall be filled."(5) "To comfort all that mourn."(6)
"Blessed are they that weep, for they shall laugh."(7) "To give unto them
that mourn in Sion, beauty (or glory) for ashes, and the oil of joy for
mourning, and the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness."(8) Now
since Christ, as soon as He entered on His course,(9) fulfilled such a
ministration as this, He is either, Himself, He who predicted His own
coming to do all this; or else if he is not yet come who predicted this,
the charge to Marcion's Christ must be a ridiculous one (although I should
perhaps add a necessary(10) one), which bade him say, "Blessed shall ye be,
when men shall bate you, and shall reproach you, and shall cast out your
name as evil, for the Son of man's sake."(11) In this declaration there is,
no doubt, an exhortation to patience. Well, what did the Creator say
otherwise by Isaiah? "Fear ye not the reproach of men, nor be diminished by
their contempt."(12) What reproach? what contempt? That which was to be
incurred for the sake of the Son of man. What Son of man? He who (is come)
according to the Creator's will. Whence shall we get our proof? From the
very cutting off, which was predicted against Him; as when He says by
Isaiah to the Jews, who were the instigators of hatred against Him:
"Because of you, my name is blasphemed amongst the Gentiles;"(13) and in
another passage: "Lay the penalty on(14) Him who surrenders(15) His own
life, who is held in contempt by the Gentiles, whether servants or
magistrates."(16) Now, since hatred was predicted against that Son of man
who has His mission from the Creator, whilst the Gospel testifies that the
name of Christians, as derived from Christ, was to be hated for the Son of
man's sake, because He is Christ, it determines the point that that was the
Son of man in the matter of hatred who came according to the Creator's
purpose, and against whom the hatred was predicted. And even if He had not
yet come, the hatred of His name which exists at the present day could not
in any case have possibly preceded Him who was to bear the name.(17) But He
has both suffered the penalty(18) in out presence, and surrendered His
life, laying it down for our sakes, and is held in contempt by the
Gentiles. And He who was born (into the world) will be that very Son of man
on whose account our name also is rejected.

CHAP. XV.--SERMON ON THE MOUNT CONTINUED. ITS WOES IN STRICT AGREEMENT WITH
THE CREATOR'S DISPOSITION. MANY QUOTATIONS OUT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN
PROOF OF THIS.

   "In the like manner," says He,(19) "did their fathers unto the
prophets." What a turncoat(20) is Marcion's Christ! Now the destroyer, now
the advocate of the prophets! He destroyed them as their rival, by
converting their disciples; he took up their cause as their friend, by
stigmatizing(21) their persecutors. But,(22) in as far as the defence of
the prophets could not be consistent in the Christ of Marcion, who came to
destroy them; in so far is it becoming to the Creator's Christ that He
should stigmatize those who persecuted the prophets, for He in all things
accomplished their predictions. Again, it is more characteristic of the
Creator to upbraid sons with their fathers' sins, than it is of that god
who chastizes no man for even his own misdeeds. But you will say, He cannot
be regarded as defending the prophets simply because He wished to affirm
the iniquity of the Jews for their impious dealings with their own
prophets. Well, then, in this case,(23) no sin ought to have been charged
against the Jews: they were rather deserving of praise and approbation when
they maltreated(24 those whom the absolutely good god of Marcion, after so
long a time, bestirred himself(2) to destroy. I suppose, however, that by
this time he bad ceased to be the absolutely good god;(2) he had now
sojourned a considerable while even with the Creator, and was no longer
(like) the god of Epicurus(3) purely and simply. For see how he
condescends(4) to curse, and proves himself capable of taking offence and
feeling anger! He actually pronounces a woe! But a doubt is raised against
us as to the import of this word, as if it carried with it less the sense
of a curse than of an admonition. Where, however, is the difference, since
even an admonition is not given without the sting of a threat, especially
when it is embittered with a woe? Moreover, both admonition and threatening
will be the resources of him s who knows how to feel angry, For no one will
forbid the doing of a thing with an admonition or a threat, except him who
will inflict punishment for the doing of it. No one would inflict
punishment, except him who was susceptible of anger. Others, again, admit
that the word implies a curse; but they will have it that Christ pronounced
the woe, not as if it were His own genuine feeling, but because the woe is
from the Creator, and He wanted to set forth to them the severity of the
Creator in order that He might the more commend His own long-suffering(6)
in His beatitudes Just as if it were not competent to the Creator, in the
pre-eminence of both His attributes as the good God and Judge, that, as He
had made clemency(7) the preamble of His benediction so He should place
severity in the sequel of His curses; thus fully developing His discipline
in both directions, both in following out the blessing and in providing
against the curse.(8) He had already said of old, "Behold, I have set
before you blessing and cursing."(9) Which statement was really a presage
of(10) this temper of the gospel. Besides, what sort of being is that who,
to insinuate a belief in his own goodness, invidiously contrasted(11) with
it the Creator's severity? Of little worth is the recommendation which has
for its prop the defamation of another. And yet by thus setting forth the
severity of the Creator, he, in fact, affirmed Him to be an object of
fear.(12) Now if He be an object of fear, He is of course more worthy of
being obeyed than slighted; and thus Marcion's Christ begins to teach
favourably to the Creator's interests.(13) Then, on the admission above
mentioned, since the woe which has regard to the rich is the Creator's, it
follows that it is not Christ, but the Creator, who is angry with the rich;
while Christ approves of(14) the incentives of the rich(15)--I mean, their
pride, their pomp,(16) their love of the world, and their contempt of God,
owing to which they deserve the woe of the Creator. But how happens it that
the reprobation of the rich does not proceed from the same Gad who had just
before expressed approbation of the poor? There is nobody but reprobates
the opposite of that which he has approved. If, therefore, there be imputed
to the Creator the woe pronounced against the rich, there must be claimed
for Him also the promise of the blessing upon the poor; and thus the entire
work of the Creator devolves on Christ.--If to Marcion's god there be
ascribed the blessing of the poor, he must also have imputed to him the
malediction of the rich; and thus will he become the Creator's equal,(17)
both good and judicial; nor will there be left any room for that
distinction whereby two gods are made; and when this distinction is
removed, there will remain the verity which pronounces the Creator to be
the one only God. Since, therefore, "woe" is a word indicative of
malediction, or of some unusually austere(18) exclamation; and since it is
by Christ uttered against the rich, I shall have to show that the Creator
is also a despiser(19) of the rich, as I have shown Him to be the
defender(20) of the poor, in order that I may prove Christ to be on the
Creator's side in this matter, even when He enriched Solomon.(21) But with
respect to this man, since, when a choice was left to him, he preferred
asking for what he knew to be well-pleasing to God--even wisdom--he further
merited the attainment of the riches, which he did not prefer. The endowing
of a man indeed with riches, is not an incongruity to God, for by the help
of riches even rich men are comforted and assisted; moreover, by them many
a work of justice and charity is carried out. But yet there are serious
faults(22) which accompany riches; and it is because of these that woes are
denounced on the rich, even in the Gospel. "Ye have received," says He,
"your consolation;"(23) that is, of course, from their riches, in the pomps
and vanities of the world which these purchase for them. Accordingly, in
Deuteronomy, Moses says: "Lest, when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast
built goodly houses, and when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, as well as
thy silver and thy gold, thine heart be then lifted up, and thou forget the
Lord thy God."(1) in similar terms, when king Hezekiah became proud of his
treasures, and gloried in them rather than in God before those who had come
on an embassy from Babylon,(2) (the Creator) breaks forth(3) against him by
the mouth of Isaiah: "Behold, the days come when all that is in thine
house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store, shall be carried
to Babylon."(4) So by Jeremiah likewise did He say: "Let not the rich man
glory in his riches but let him that glorieth even glory in the Lord."(5)
Similarly against the daughters of Sion does He inveigh by Isaiah, when
they were haughty through their pomp and the abundance of their riches,(6)
just as in another passage He utters His threats against the proud and
noble: "Hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth, and down to it
shall descend the illustrious, and the great, and the rich (this shall be
Christ's 'woe to the rich'); and man(7) shall be humbled," even he that
exalts himself with riches; "and the mighty man(8) shall be dishonoured,"
even he who is mighty from his wealth.(9) Concerning whom He says again:
"Behold, the Lord of hosts shall confound the pompous together with their
strength: those that are lifted up shall be hewn down, and such as are
lofty shall fall by the sword."(10) And who are these but the rich? Because
they have indeed received their consolation, glory, and honour and a lofty
position from their wealth. In Ps. xlviii. He also turns off our care from
these and says: "Be not thou afraid when one is made rich, and when his
glory is increased: for when he shall die, he shall carry nothing away; nor
shall his glory descend along with him."(11) So also in Ps. lxi.: "Do not
desire riches; and if they do yield you their lustre,(12) do not set your
heart upon them."(13) Lastly, this very same woe is pronounced of old by
Amos against the rich, who also abounded in delights. "Woe unto them," says
he, "who sleep upon beds of ivory, and deliciously stretch themselves upon
their couches; who eat the kids from the flocks of the goats, and sucking
calves from the flocks of the heifers, while they chant to the sound of the
viol; as if they thought they should continue long, and were not fleeting;
who drink their refined wines, and anoint themselves with the costliest
ointments."(14) Therefore, even if I could do nothing else than show that
the Creator dissuades men from riches, without at the same time first
condemning the rich, in the very same terms in which Christ also did, no
one could doubt that, from the same authority, there was added a
commination against the rich in that woe of Christ, from whom also had
first proceeded the dissuasion against the material sin of these persons,
that is, their riches. For such commination is the necessary sequel to such
a dissuasive. He inflicts a woe also on "the full, because they shall
hunger; on those too which laugh now,, because they shall mourn."(15) To
these will correspond these opposites which occur, as we have seen above,
in the benedictions of the Creator: "Behold, my servants shall be full, but
ye shall be hungry "--even because ye have been filled; "behold, my
servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed"(16)--even ye who shall
mourn, who now are laughing. For as it is written in the psalm, "They who
sow in tears shall reap in joy,"(17) so does it run in the Gospel: They who
sow in laughter, that is, in joy, shall reap in tears. These principles did
the Creator lay down of old; and Christ has renewed them, by simply
bringing them into prominent view,(18) not by making any change in them.
"Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their
fathers to the false prophets."(19) With equal stress does the Creator, by
His prophet Isaiah, censure those who seek after human flattery and praise:
"O my people, they who call you happy mislead you, and disturb the paths of
your feet."(20) In another passage He forbids all implicit trust in man,
and likewise in the applause of man; as by the prophet Jeremiah: "Cursed be
the man that trusteth in man."(21) Whereas in Ps. cxvii. it is said: "It is
better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man; it is better to
trust in the Lord than to place hope in princes."(22) Thus everything which
is caught at by men is adjured by the Creator, down to their good words.(1)
It is as much His property to condemn the praise and flattering words
bestowed on the false prophets by their fathers, as to condemn their
vexatious and persecuting treatment of the (true) prophets. As the injuries
suffered by the prophets could not be imputed(2) to their own God, so the
applause bestowed on the false prophets could not have been displeasing to
any other god but the God of the true prophets.

CHAP. XVI.--THE PRECEPT OF LOVING ONE'S ENEMIES. IT IS AS MUCH TAUGHT IN
THE CREATOR'S SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AS IN CHRIST'S SERMON. THE
LEX TALIONIS OF MOSES ADMIRABLY EXPLAINED IN CONSISTENCY WITH THE KINDNESS
AND LOVE WHICH JESUS CHRIST CAME TO PROCLAIM AND ENFORCE IN BEHALF OF THE
CREATOR. SUNDRY PRECEPTS OF CHARITY EXPLAINED.

   "But I say unto you which hear" (displaying here that old injunction,
of the Creator: "Speak to the ears of those who lend them to you"(3)),
"Love your enemies, and bless(4) those which hate you, and pray for them
which calumniate you."(5) These commands the Creator included in one
precept by His prophet Isaiah: "Say, Ye are our brethren, to those who hate
you."(6) For if they who are our enemies, and hate us, and speak evil of
us, and calumniate us, are to be called our brethren, surely He did in
effect bid us bless them that hate us, and pray for them who calumniate us,
when He instructed us to reckon them as brethren. Well, but Christ plainly
teaches a new kind of patience,(7) when He actually prohibits the reprisals
which the Creator permitted in requiring "an eye for an eye,(8) and a tooth
for a tooth,"(9) and bids us, on the contrary, "to him who smiteth us on
the one cheek, to offer the other also, and to give up our coat to him that
taketh away our cloak."(10) No doubt these are supplementary additions by
Christ, but they are quite in keeping with the teaching of the Creator. And
therefore this question must at once be determined,(11) Whether the
discipline of patience be enjoined by(12) the Creator? When by Zechariah He
commanded, "Let none of you imagine evil against his brother,"(13) He did
not expressly include his neighbour; but then in another passage He says,
"Let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour."(14) He
who counselled that an injury should be forgotten, was still more likely to
counsel the patient endurance of it. But then, when He said, "Vengeance is
mine, and I will repay,"(15) He thereby teaches that patience calmly waits
for the infliction of vengeance. Therefore, inasmuch as it is
incredible(16) that the same (God) should seem to require "a tooth for a
tooth and an eye for an eye," in return for an injury, who forbids not only
all reprisals, but even a revengeful thought or recollection of an injury,
in so far does it become plain to us in what sense He required "an eye for
an eye and a tooth for a tooth,"--not, indeed, for the purpose of
permitting the repetition of the injury by retaliating it, which it
virtually prohibited when it forbade vengeance; but for the purpose of
restraining the injury in the first instance, which it had forbidden on
pain of retaliation or reciprocity;(17) so that every man, in view of the
permission to inflict a second (or retaliatory) injury, might abstain from
the commission of the first (or provocative) wrong. For He knows how much
more easy it is to repress violence by the prospect of retaliation, than by
the promise of (indefinite) vengeance. Both results, however, it was
necessary to provide, in consideration of the nature and the faith of men,
that the man who believed in God might expect vengeance from God, while he
who had no faith (to restrain him) might fear the laws which prescribed
retaliation.(18) This purpose(19) of the law, which it was difficult to
understand, Christ, as the Lord of the Sabbath and of the law, and of all
the dispensations of the Father, both revealed and made intelligible,(20)
when He commanded that "the other cheek should be offered (to the smiter),"
in order that He might the more effectually extinguish all reprisals of an
injury, which the law had wished to prevent by the method of retaliation,
(and) which most certainly revelation(21) had manifestly restricted, both
by prohibiting the memory of the wrong, and referring the vengeance thereof
to God. Thus, whatever (new provision) Christ introduced, He did it not in
opposition to the law, but rather in furtherance of it, without at all
impairing the prescription(1) of the Creator. If, therefore,(2) one looks
carefully(3) into the very grounds for which patience is enjoined (and
trial to such a full and complete extent), one finds that it cannot stand
if it is not the precept of the Creator, who promises vengeance, who
presents Himself as the judge (in the case). If it were not so,(4)--if so
vast a weight of patience--which is to refrain from giving blow for blow;
which is to offer the other cheek; which is not only not to return railing
for railing, but contrariwise blessing; and which, so far from keeping the
coat, is to give up the cloak also--is laid upon me by one who means not to
help me,--(then all I can say is,) he has taught me patience to no
purpose,(5) because he shows me no reward to his precept--I mean no fruit
of such patience. There is revenge which he ought to have permitted me to
take, if he meant not to inflict it himself; if he did not give me that
permission, then he should himself have inflicted it;(6) since it is for
the interest of discipline itself that an injury should be avenged. For by
the fear of vengeance all iniquity is curbed. But if licence is allowed to
it without discrimination,(7) it will get the mastery--it will put out (a
man's) both eyes; it will knock out(8) every tooth in the safety of its
impunity. This, however, is (the principle) of your good and simply
beneficent god--to do a wrong to patience, to open the door to violence, to
leave the righteous undefended, and the wicked unrestrained! "Give to every
one that asketh of thee"(9)--to the indigent of course, or rather to the
indigent more especially, although to the affluent likewise. But in order
that no man may be indigent, you have in Deuteronomy a provision commanded
by the Creator to the creditor.(10) "There shall not be in thine hand an
indigent man; so that the Lord thy God shall bless thee with
blessings,"(11)--thee meaning the creditor to whom it was owing that the
man was not indigent. But more than this. To one who does not ask, He bids
a gift to be given. "Let there be, not," He says, "a poor man in thine
hand;" in other words, see that there be not, so far as thy will can
prevent;(12) by which command, too, He all the more strongly by inference
requires(13) men to give to him that asks, as in the following words also:
"If there be among you a poor man of thy brethren, thou shalt not turn away
thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother. But thou shalt open
thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him as much as he
wanteth,"(14) Loans are not usually given, except to such as ask for them.
On this subject of lending,(15) however, more hereafter.(16) Now, should
any one wish to argue that the Creator's precepts extended only to a man's
brethren, but Christ's to all that ask, so as to make the latter a new and
different precept, (I have to reply) that one rule only can be made out of
those principles, which show the law of the Creator to be repeated in
Christ.(17) For that is not a different thing which Christ enjoined to be
done towards all men, from that which the Creator prescribed in favour of a
man's brethren. For although that is a greater charity, which is shown to
strangers, it is yet not preferable to that(18) which was previously due to
one's neighbours. For what man will be able to bestow the love (which
proceeds from knowledge of character,(19) upon strangers? Since, however,
the second step(20) in charity is towards strangers, while the first is
towards one's neighbours, the second step will belong to him to whom the
first also belongs, more fitly than the second will belong to him who owned
no first.(21) Accordingly, the Creator, when following the course of
nature, taught in the first instance kindness to neighbours,(22) intending
afterwards to enjoin it towards strangers; and when following the method of
His dispensation, He limited charity first to the Jews, but afterwards
extended it to the whole race of mankind. So long, therefore, as the
mystery of His government(23) was confined to Israel, He properly commanded
that pity should be shown only to a man's brethren; but when Christ had
given to Him "the Gentiles for His heritage, and the ends of the earth for
His possession," then began to be accomplished what was said by Hosea: "Ye
are not my people, who were my people; ye have not obtained mercy, who once
obtained mercy"(1)--that is, the (Jewish) nation. Thenceforth Christ
extended to all men the law of His Father's compassion, excepting none from
His mercy, as He omitted none in His invitation. So that, whatever was the
ampler scope of His teaching, He received it all in His heritage of the
nations. "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them
likewise."(2) In this command is no doubt implied its counterpart: "And as
ye would not that men should do to you, so should ye also not do to them
likewise." Now, if this were the teaching of the new and previously unknown
and not yet fully proclaimed deity, who had favoured me with no instruction
beforehand, whereby I might first learn what I ought to choose or to refuse
for myself, and to do to others what I would wish done to myself, not doing
to them what I should be unwilling to have done to myself, it would
certainly be nothing else than the chance-medley of my own sentiments(3)
which he would have left to me, binding me to no proper rule of wish or
action, in order that I might do to others what I would like for myself, or
refrain from doing to others what I should dislike to have done to myself.
For he has not, in fact, defined what I ought to wish or not to wish for
myself as well as for others, so that I shape my conduct(4) according to
the law of my own will, and have it in my power(5) not to render(6) to
another what I would like to have rendered to myself--love, obedience,
consolation, protection, and such like blessings; and in like manner to do
to another what I should be unwilling to have done to myself--violence,
wrong, insult, deceit, and evils of like sort. Indeed, the heathen who have
not been instructed by God act on this incongruous liberty of the will and
the conduct.(7) For although good and evil are severally known by nature,
yet life is not thereby spent(8) under the discipline of God, which alone
at last teaches men the proper liberty of their will and action in faith,
as in the fear of God. The god of Marcion, therefore, although specially
revealed, was, in spite of his revelation, unable to publish any summary of
the precept in question, which had hitherto been so confined,(9) and
obscure, and dark, and admitting of no ready interpretation, except
according to my own arbitrary thought,(10) because he had provided no
previous discrimination in the matter of such a precept. This, however, was
not the case with my God, for He always and everywhere enjoined that the
poor, and the orphan, and the widow should be protected, assisted,
refreshed; thus by Isaiah He says: "Deal thy bread to the hungry, and them
that are houseless bring into thine house; when thou seest the naked, cover
him."(12) By Ezekiel also He thus describes the just man: "His bread will
he give to the hungry, and the naked will he cover with a garment."(13)
That teaching was even then a sufficient inducement to me to do to others
what I would that they should do unto me. Accordingly, when He uttered such
denunciations as, "Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery;
thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness," He taught me to
refrain from doing to others what I should be unwilling to have done to
myself; and therefore the precept developed in the Gospel will belong to
Him alone, who anciently drew it up, and gave it distinctive point, and
arranged it after the decision of His own teaching, and has now reduced it,
suitably to its importance,(15) to a compendious formula, because (as it
was predicted in another passage) the Lord--that is, Christ" was to make
(or utter) a concise word on earth."(16)

CHAP. XVII.--CONCERNING LOANS. PROHIBITION OF USURY AND THE USURIOUS
SPIRIT. THE LAW PREPARATORY TO THE GOSPEL IN ITS PROVISIONS; SO IN THE
PRESENT INSTANCE. ON REPRISALS. CHRIST'S TEACHING THROUGHOUT PROVES HIM TO
BE SENT BY THE CREATOR.

   And now, on the subject of a loan, when He asks, "And if ye lend to
them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye?"(17) compare with this
the following words of Ezekiel, in which He says of the before-mentioned
just man, "He hath not given his money upon usury, nor will he take any
increase"(18)--meaning the redundance of interest,(19) which is usury. The
first step was to eradicate the fruit of the money lent,(20) the more
easily to accustom a man to the loss, should it happen, of the money
itself, the interest of which he had learnt to lose. Now this, we affirm,
was the function of the law as preparatory to the gospel. It was engaged
in forming the faith of such as would learn,(1) by gradual stages, for the
perfect light of the Christian discipline, through the best precepts of
which it was capable,(2) inculcating a benevolence which as yet expressed
itself but falteringly.(3) For in the passage of Ezekiel quoted above He
says, "And thou shalt restore the pledge of the loan "(4)--to him,
certainly, who is incapable of repayment, because, as a matter of course,
He would not anyhow prescribe the restoration of a pledge to one who was
solvent. Much more clearly is it enjoined in Deuteronomy: "Thou shalt not
sleep upon his pledge; thou shalt be sure to return to him his garment
about sunset, and he shall sleep in his own garment."(5) Clearer still is a
former passage: "Thou shalt remit every debt which thy neighbour oweth
thee; and of thy brother thou shalt not require it, because it is called
the release of the Lord thy God."(6) Now, when He commands that a debt be
remitted to a man who shall be unable to pay it (for it is a still stronger
argument when He forbids its being asked for from a man who is even able to
repay it), what else does He teach than that we should lend to those of
whom we cannot receive again, inasmuch as He has imposed so great a loss on
lending? "And ye shall be the children of God."(7) What can be more
shameless, than for him to be making us his children, who has not permitted
us to make children for ourselves by forbidding marriage?(8) How does he
propose to invest his followers with a name which he has already erased? I
cannot be the son of a eunuch Especially when I have for my Father the same
great Being whom the universe claims for its! For is not the Founder of the
universe as much a Father, even of all men, as (Marcion's) castrated
deity,(9) who is the maker of no existing thing? Even if the Creator had
not united male and female, and if He had not allowed any living creature
whatever to have children, I yet had this relation to Him(10) before
Paradise, before the fall, before the expulsion, before the two became
one.(11) I became His son a second time,(12) as soon as He fashioned me(13)
with His hands, and gave me motion with His inbreathing. Now again He names
me His son, not begetting me into natural life, but into spiritual
life.(14) "Because," says He, "He is kind unto the unthankful and to the
evil."(15) Well done,(16) Marcion! how cleverly have you withdrawn from Him
the showers and the sunshine, that He might not seem to be a Creator! But
who is this kind being(17) which hitherto has not been even known? How can
he be kind who had previously shown no evidences of such a kindness as
this, which consists of the loan to us of sunshine and rain?--who is not
destined to receive from the human race (the homage due to that) Creator,--
who, up to this very moment, in return for His vast liberality in the gift
of the elements, bears with men while they offer to idols, more readily
than Himself, the due returns of His graciousness. But God is truly kind
even in spiritual blessings. "The utterances(18) of the Lord are sweeter
than honey and honeycombs."(19) He then has taunted(20) men as ungrateful
who deserved to have their gratitude--even He, whose sunshine and rain even
you, O Marcion, have enjoyed, but without gratitude! Your god, however, had
no right to complain of man's ingratitude, because he had used no means to
make them grateful. Compassion also does He teach: "Be ye merciful," says
He, "as your Father also that had mercy upon you."(21) This injunction will
be of a piece with, "Deal thy bread to the hungry; and if he be houseless,
bring him into thine house; and if thou seest the naked, cover him;"(22)
also with, "Judge the fatherless, plead with the widow."(23) I recognise
here that ancient doctrine of Him who "prefers mercy to sacrifice."(24) If,
however, it be now some other being which teaches mercy, on the ground of
his own mercifulness, how happens it that he has been wanting in mercy to
me for so vast an age? "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not,
and ye shall not be condemned; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; give, and
it shall be given unto you: good measure, pressed down, and running over,
shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye measure
withal, it shall be measured to you again."(1) As it seems to me, this
passage announces a retribution proportioned to the merits. But from whom
shall come the retribution? If only from men, in that case he teaches a
merely human discipline and recompense; and in everything we shall have to
obey man: if from the Creator, as the Judge and the Recompenser of merits,
then He compels our submission to Him, in whose hands(2) He has placed a
retribution which will be acceptable or terrible according as every man
shall have judged or condemned, acquitted or dealt with,(3) his neighbour;
if from (Marcion's god) himself, he will then exercise a judicial function
which Marcion denies. Let the Marcionites therefore make their choice: Will
it not be just the same inconsistency to desert the prescription of their
master, as to have Christ teaching in the interest of men or of the
Creator? But "a blind man will lead a blind man into the ditch."(4) Some
persons believe Marcion. But "the disciple is not above his master."(5)
Apelles ought to have remembered this--a corrector of Marcion, although his
disciple.(6) The heretic ought to take the beam out of his own eye, and
then he may convict(7) the Christian, should he suspect a mote to be in his
eye. Just as a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, so neither can truth
generate heresy; and as a corrupt tree cannot yield good fruit, so heresy
will not produce truth. Thus, Marcion brought nothing good out of Cerdon's
evil treasure; nor Apelles out of Marcion's.(8) For in applying to these
heretics the figurative words which Christ used of men in general, we shall
make a much more suitable interpretation of them than if we were to deduce
out of them two gods, according to Marcion's grievous exposition.(9) I
think that I have the best reason possible for insisting still upon the
position which I have all along occupied, that in no passage to be anywhere
found has another God been revealed by Christ. I wonder that in this place
alone Marcion's hands should have felt benumbed in their adulterating
labour.(10) But even robbers have their qualms now and then. There is no
wrong-doing without fear, because there is none without a guilty
conscience. So long, then, were the Jews cognisant of no other god but Him,
beside whom they knew none else; nor did they call upon any other than Him
whom alone they knew. This being the case, who will He clearly be(11) that
said, "Why tallest thou me Lord, Lord?"(12) Will it be he who had as yet
never been called on, because never yet revealed;(13) or He who was ever
regarded as the Lord, because known from the beginning--even the God of the
Jews? Who, again, could possibly have added, "and do not the things which I
say?" Could it have been he who was only then doing his best(14) to teach
them? Or He who from the beginning had addressed to them His messages(15)
both by the law and the prophets? He could then upbraid them with
disobedience, even if He had no ground at any time else for His reproof.
The fact is, that He who was then imputing to them their ancient obstinacy
was none other than He who, before the coming of Christ, had addressed to
them these words, "This people honoureth me with their lips, but their
heart standeth far off from me."(16) Otherwise, how absurd it were that a
new god, a new Christ, the revealer of a new and so grand a religion should
denounce as obstinate and disobedient those whom he had never had it in his
power to make trial of!

CHAP. XVIII.--CONCERNING THE CENTURION'S FAITH. THE RAISING OF THE WIDOW'S
SON. JOHN BAPTIST, AND HIS MESSAGE TO CHRIST; AND THE WOMAN WHO WAS A
SINNER. PROOFS EXTRACTED FROM ALL OF THE RELATION OF CHRIST TO THE CREATOR.

   Likewise, when extolling the centurion's faith, how incredible a thing
it is, that He should confess that He had "found so great a faith not even
in Israel."(17) to whom Israel's faith was in no way interesting!(18) But
not from the fact (here stated by Christ)(19) could it have been of any
interest to Him to approve and compare what was hitherto crude, nay, I
might say, hitherto naught. Why, however, might He not have used the
example of faith in another(20) god? Because, if He had done so, He would
have said that no such faith had ever had existence in Israel; but as the
case stands,(1) He intimates that He ought to have found so great a faith
in Israel, inasmuch as He had indeed come for the purpose of finding it,
being in truth the God and Christ of Israel, and had now stigmatized(2) it,
only as one who would enforce and Uphold it. If, indeed, He had been its
antagonist,(3) He would have preferred finding it to be such faith,(4)
having come to weaken and destroy it rather than to approve of it. He
raised also the widow's son from death.(5) This was not a strange
miracle.(6) The Creator's prophets had wrought such; then why not His Son
much rather? Now, so evidently had the Lord Christ introduced no other god
for the working of so momentous a miracle as this, that all who were
present gave glory to the Creator, saying: "A great prophet is risen up
among us, and God hath visited His people."(7) What God? He, of course,
whose people they were, and from whom had  come their prophets. But if they
glorified the Creator, and Christ (on hearing them, and knowing their
meaning) refrained from correcting them even in their very act of
invoking(8) the Creator in that vast manifestation of His glory in this
raising of the dead, undoubtedly He either announced no other God but Him,
whom He thus permitted to be honoured in His own beneficent acts and
miracles, or else how happens it that He quietly permitted these persons to
remain so long in their error, especially as He came for the very purpose
to cure them of their error? But John is offended(9) when he hears of the
miracles of Christ, as of an alien god.(10) Well, I on my side(11) will
first explain the reason of his offence, that I may the more easily explode
the scandal(12) of our heretic. Now, that the very Lord Himself of all
might, the Word and Spirit of the Father,(13) was operating and preaching
on earth, it was necessary that the portion of the Holy Spirit which, in
the form of the prophetic gift,(14) had been through John preparing the
ways of the Lord, should now depart from John,(15) and return back again of
course to the Lord, as to its all-embracing original.(16) Therefore John,
being now an ordinary person, and only one of the many,(17) was offended
indeed as a man, but not because he expected or thought of another Christ
as teaching or doing nothing new, for he was not even expecting such a
one.(18) Nobody will entertain doubts about any one whom (since he knows
him not to exist) he has no expectation or thought of. Now John was quite
sure that there was no other God but the Creator, even as a Jew, especially
as a prophet.(19) Whatever doubt he felt was evidently rather(20)
entertained about Him(21) whom he knew indeed to exist but knew not whether
He were the very Christ. With this fear, therefore, even John asks the
question, "Art thou He that should come, or look we for another?"(22)--
simply inquiring whether He was come as He whom he was looking for. "Art
thou He that should come?" i.e. Art thou the coming One? "or look we for
another?" i.e. Is He whom we are expecting some other than Thou, if Thou
art not He whom we expect to come? For he was supposing,(23) as all men
then thought, from the similarity of the miraculous evidences,(24) that a
prophet might possibly have been meanwhile sent, from whom the Lord
Himself, whose coming was then expected, was different, and to whom He was
superior.(25) And there lay John's difficulty.(26) He was in doubt whether
He was actually come whom all men were looking for; whom, moreover, they
ought to have recognised by His predicted works, even as the Lord sent word
to John, that it was by means of these very works that He was to be
recognised.(27)  Now, inasmuch as these predictions evidently related to
the Creator's Christ--as we have proved in the examination of each of them-
-it was perverse enough, if he gave himself out to be not the Christ of the
Creator, and rested the proof of his statement on those very evidences
whereby he was urging his claims to be received as the Creator's Christ.
Far greater still is his perverseness when, not being the Christ of
John,(1) he yet bestows on John his testimony, affirming him to be a
prophet, nay more, his messenger,(2) applying to him the Scripture,
"Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way
before thee."(3) He graciously(4) adduced the prophecy in the superior
sense of the alternative mentioned by the perplexed John, in order that, by
affirming that His own precursor was already come in the person of John, He
might quench the doubt(5) which lurked in his question: "Art thou He that,
should come, or look we for another?" Now that the forerunner had fulfilled
his mission, and the way of the Lord was prepared, He ought now to be
acknowledged as that (Christ) for whom the forerunner had made ready the
way. That forerunner was indeed "greater than all of women born;"(6) but
for all that, He who was least in the kingdom of God(7) was not subject to
him;(8) as if the kingdom in which the least person was greater than John
belonged to one God, while John, who was greater than all of women born,
belonged himself to another God. For whether He speaks of any "least
person" by reason of his humble position, or of Himself, as being thought
to be less than John--since all were running into the wilderness after John
rather than after Christ ("What went ye out into the wilderness to
see?"(9))--the Creator has equal right(10) to claim as His own both John,
greater than any born of women, and Christ, or every "least person in the
kingdom of heaven," who was destined to be greater than John in that
kingdom, although equally pertaining to the Creator, and who would be so
much greater than the prophet,(11) because he would not have been offended
at Christ, as infirmity which then lessened the greatness John.We have
already spoken of the forgiveness(12) of sins. The behaviour of "the woman
which was a sinner," when she covered the Lord's feet with her kisses,
bathed them with her tears, wiped them with the hairs of her head, anointed
them with ointment,(13)  produced an evidence that what she handled was not
an empty phantom,(14) but a really solid body, and that her repentance as a
sinner deserved forgiveness according to the mind of the Creator, who is
accustomed to prefer mercy to sacrifice.(15) But even if the stimulus of
her repentance proceeded from her faith, she heard her justification by
faith through her repentance pronounced in the words, "Thy faith hath saved
thee," by Him who had declared by Habakkuk, "The just shall live by his
faith."(16)

CHAP. XIX.--THE RICH WOMEN OF PIETY WHO FOLLOWED JESUS CHRIST'S TEACHING BY
PARABLES. THE MARCIONITE CAVIL DERIVED FROM CHRIST'S REMARK, WHEN TOLD OF
HIS MOTHER AND HIS BRETHREN.  EXPLANATION OF CHRIST'S APPARENT REJECTION
THEM.

   The fact that certain rich women clave to Christ, "which ministered
unto Him of their substance," amongst whom was the wife of the king's
steward, is a subject of prophecy. By Isaiah the Lord called these wealthy
ladies--"Rise up, ye women that are at ease, and hear my voice"(17)--that
He might prove(18) them first as disciples, and then as assistants and
helpers: "Daughters, hear my words in hope; this day of the year cherish
the memory of, in labour with hope." For it was "in labour" that they
followed Him, and "with hope" did they minister to Him. On the subject of
parables, let it suffice that it has been once for all shown that this kind
of language(19) was with equal distinctness promised by the Creator. But
there is that direct mode of His speaking(20) to the people"Ye shall hear
with the ear, but ye shall not understand"(21)--which now claims notice as
having furnished to Christ that frequent form of His earnest instruction:
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."(1) Not as if Christ, actuated
with a diverse spirit, permitted a hearing which the Creator had refused;
but because the exhortation followed the threatening. First came, "Ye shall
hear with the ear, but shall not understand;" then followed, "He that hath
ears to hear, let him hear." For they wilfully refused to hear, although
they had ears. He, however, was teaching them that it was the ears of the
heart which were necessary; and with these the Creator had said that they
would not hear. Therefore it is that He adds by His Christ, "Take heed how
ye hear,"(2) and hear not,--meaning, of course, with the hearing of the
heart, not of the ear. If you only attach a proper, sense to the Creator's
admonition(3) suitable to the meaning of Him who was rousing the people to
hear by the words, "Take heed how ye hear," it amounted to a menace to such
as would not hear. In fact,(4) that most merciful god of yours, who judges
not, neither is angry, is minatory. This is proved even by the sentence
which immediately follows: "Whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and
whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to
have."(5) What shall be given? The increase of faith, or understanding, or
even salvation. What shall be taken away? That, of course, which shall be,
given. By whom shall the gift and the deprivation be made? If by the
Creator it be taken away, by Him also shall it be given. If by Marcion's
god it be given, by Marcion's god also will it be taken away. Now, for
whatever reason He threatens the "deprivation," it will not be the work of
a god who knows not how to threaten, because incapable of anger. I am,
moreover, astonished when he says that "a candle is not usually hidden,"(6)
who had hidden himself--a greater and more needful light--during so long a
time; and when he promises that "everything shall be brought out of its
secrecy and made manifest,"(7) who hitherto has kept his god in obscurity,
waiting (I suppose) until Marcion be born. We now come to the most
strenuously-plied argument of all those who call in question the Lord's
nativity. They say that He testifies Himself to His not having been born,
when He asks, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?"(8) In this
manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they
choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal
interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a
simple solution,(9) as in this passage. We, for our part, say in reply,
first, that it could not possibly have been told Him that His mother and
His brethren stood without, desiring to see Him, if He had had no mother
and no brethren. They must have been known to him who announced them,
either some time previously, or then at that very time, when they desired
to see Him, or sent Him their message. To this our first position this
answer is usually given by the other side. But suppose they sent Him the
message for the purpose of tempting Him? Well, but the Scripture does not
say so; and inasmuch as it is usual for it to indicate what is done in the
way of temptation ("Behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted
Him;"(10)again, when inquiring about tribute, the Pharisees came to Him,
tempting Him(11)), so, when it makes no mention of temptation, it does not
admit the interpretation of temptation. However, although I do not allow
this sense, I may as well ask, by way of a superfluous refutation, for the
reasons of the alleged temptation, To what purpose could they have tempted
Him by naming His mother and His brethren? If it was to ascertain whether
He had been born or not--when was a question raised on this point, which
they must resolve by tempting Him in this way? Who could doubt His having
been born, when they(12) saw Him before them a veritable man?--whom they
had heard call Himself "Son of man?"--of whom they doubted whether He were
God or Son of God, from seeing Him, as they did, in the perfect garb of
human quality?--supposing Him rather to be a prophet, a great one
indeed,(13) but still one who had been born as man? Even if it had been
necessary that He should thus be tried in the investigation of His birth,
surely any other proof would have better answered the trial than that to be
obtained from mentioning those relatives which it was quite possible for
Him, in spite of His true nativity, not at that moment to have had. For
tell me now, does a mother live on contemporaneously(14) with her sons in
every case? Have all sons brothers born for them?(15) May a man rather not
have fathers and sisters (living), or even no relatives at all? But there
is historical proof(1) that at this very time(2) a census  had been taken
in Judaea by Sentius Saturni-nus,(3) which might have satisfied their
inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of
testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it and they "who
were standing without" were really "His mother and His brethren." It
remains for us to examine His meaning when He resorts to non-literal(4)
words, saying "Who is my mother or my brethren?" It seems as if His
language amounted to a denial of His family and His birth; but it arose
actually from the absolute nature of the case, and the conditional sense in
which His words were to be explained.(5) He was justly indignant, that
persons so very near to Him" stood without," while strangers were within
hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the
solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow(6) them. And
therefore, when to the previous question, "Who is my mother, and who are my
brethren?(7) He added the answer "None but they who hear my words and do
them," He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He
judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith. Now no
one transfers a thing except from him who possesses that which is
transferred. If, therefore, He made them "His mother and His brethren" who
were not so, how could He deny them these reIationships who really had
them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any
disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual
example,(8) that "whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the
Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him."(9) Besides,(10) His
admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the
fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only
confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of
their offence, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer
relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did
prefer to kindred (that) faith which it(11) did not possess.(12)

CHAP. XX.--COMPARISON OF CHRIST'S POWER OVER WINDS AND WAVES WITH MOSES'
COMMAND OF THE WATERS OF THE RED SEA AND THE JORDAN. CHRIST'S POWER OVER
UNCLEAN SPIRITS. THE CASE OF THE LEGION THE CURE OF THE ISSUE OF BLOOD. THE
MOSAIC UNCLEANNESS ON THIS POINT EXPLAINED.

   But "what manner of man is this? for He commandeth even the winds and
water!"(13) Of course He is the new master and proprietor of the elements,
now that the Creator is deposed, and excluded from their possession!
Nothing of the kind. But the elements own(14) their own Maker, just as they
had been accustomed to obey His servants also. Examine well the Exodus,
Marcion; look at the rod of Moses, as it waves His command to the Red Sea,
ampler than all the lakes of Judaea. How the sea yawns from its very
depths, then fixes itself in two solidified masses, and so, out of the
interval between them,(15) makes a way for the people to pass dry-shod
across; again does the same red vibrate, the sea returns in its strength,
and in the concourse of its waters the chivalry of Egypt is engulphed! To
that consummation the very winds subserved! Read, too, how that the Jordan
was as a sword, to hinder the emigrant nation in their passage across its
stream; how that its waters from above stood still, and its current below
wholly ceased to run at the bidding of Joshua,(16) when his priests began
to pass over!(17) What will you say to this? If it be your Christ that is
meant say he will not be more potent than the servants of the Creator. But
I should have been content with the examples I have adduced without
addition,(1) if a prediction of His present passage on the sea had not
preceded Christ's coming. As psalm is, in fact, accomplished by this(2)
crossing over the lake. "The Lord," says the psalmist, "is upon many
waters."(3) When He disperses its waves, Habakkuk's words are fulfilled,
where he says, "Scattering the waters in His passage."(4) When at His
rebuke the sea is calmed, Nahum is also verified: He rebuketh the sea, and
maketh it dry,"(5) including the winds indeed, whereby it was disquieted.
With what evidence would you have my Christ vindicated? Shall it come from
the examples, or from the prophecies, of the Creator? You suppose that He
is predicted as a military and armed warrior,(6) instead of one who in a
figurative and allegorical sense was to wage a spiritual warfare against
spiritual enemies, in spiritual campaigns, and with spiritual weapons: come
now, when in one man alone you discover a multitude of demons calling
itself Legion,(7) of course comprised of spirits, you should learn that
Christ also must be understood to be an exterminator of spiritual foes, who
wields spiritual arms and fights in spiritual strife; and that it was none
other than He,(8) who now had to contend with even a legion of demons.
Therefore it is of such a war as this that the Psalm may evidently have
spoken: "The Lord is strong, The Lord is mighty in battle."(9) For with the
last enemy death did He fight, and through the trophy of the cross He
triumphed. Now of what God did the Legion testify that Jesus was the
Son?(10) No doubt, of that God whose torments and abyss they knew and
dreaded. It seems impossible for them to have remained up to this time in
ignorance of what the power of the recent and unknown god was working in
the world, because it is very unlikely that the Creator was ignorant
thereof. For if He had been at any time ignorant that there was another god
above Himself, He had by this time at all events discovered that there was
one at work(11) below His heaven. Now, what their Lord had discovered had
by this time become notorious to His entire  family within the same world
and the same circuit of heaven, in which the strange deity dwelt and
acted.(12) As therefore both the Creator and His creatures(13) must have
had knowledge of him, if he had been in existence, so, inasmuch as he had
no existence, the demons really knew none other than the Christ of their
own God. They do not ask of the strange god, what they recollected they
must beg of the Creator--not to be plunged into the Creator's abyss. They
at last had their request granted. On what ground? Because they had lied?
Because they had proclaimed Him to be the Son of a ruthless God? And what
sort of god will that be who helped the lying, and upheld his detractors?
However, no need of this thought, for,(14) inasmuch as they had not lied,
inasmuch as they had acknowledged that the God of the abyss was also their
God, so did He actually Himself affirm that He was the same whom these
demons acknowledged--Jesus, the Judge and Son of the avenging God. Now,
behold an inkling(15) of the Creator's failings(16) and infirmities in
Christ; for I on my side(17) mean to impute to Him ignorance. Allow me some
indulgence in my effort against the heretic. Jesus is touched by the woman
who had an issue of blood,(18) He knew not by whom. "Who touched me?" He
asks, when His disciples alleged an excuse. He even persists in His
assertion of ignorance: "Somebody hath touched me," He says, and advances
some proof: "For I perceive that virtue is gone out of me." What says our
heretic? Could Christ have known the person? And why did He speak as if He
were ignorant? Why? Surely it was to challenge her faith, and to try her
fear. Precisely as He had once questioned Adam, as if in ignorance: Adam,
where art thou?"(19) Thus you have both the Creator excused in the same way
as Christ, and Christ acting similarly to(20) the Creator. But in this case
He acted as an adversary of the law; and therefore, as the law forbids
contact with a woman with an issue,(21) He desired not only that this woman
should touch Him, but that He should heal her.(23) Here, then, is a God who
is not merciful by nature, but in hostility! Yet, if we find that such was
the merit of this woman's faith, that He said unto her, Thy faith hath
saved thee."(1) what are you, that you should detect an hostility to the
law in that act, which the Lord Himself shows us to have been done as a
reward of faith? But will you have it that this faith of the woman
consisted in the contempt which she had acquired for the law? Who can
suppose, that a woman who had been. hitherto unconscious of any God,
uninitiated as yet in any new law, should violently infringe that law by
which she was up to this time bound? On what faith, indeed, was such an
infringement hazarded? In what God believing? Whom despising? The Creator?
Her touch at least was an act of faith. And if of faith in the Creator, how
could she have violated His law,(2) when she was ignorant of any other God?
Whatever her infringement of the law amounted to, it proceeded from and was
proportionate to her faith in the Creator. But how can these two things be
compatible? That she violated the law, and violated it in faith, which
ought to have restrained her from such violation? I will tell you how her
faith was this above all:(3) it made her believe that her God preferred
mercy even to sacrifice; she was certain that her God was working in
Christ; she touched Him, therefore, nor as a holy man simply, nor as a
prophet, whom she knew to be capable of contamination by reason of his
human nature, but as very God, whom she assumed to be beyond all
possibility of pollution by any uncleanness.(4) She therefore, not without
reason,(5) interpreted for herself the law, as meaning that such things as
are susceptible of defilement become defiled, but not so God, whom she knew
for certain to be in Christ. But she recollected this also, that what came
under the prohibition of the law(6) was that ordinary and usual issue of
blood which proceeds from natural functions every month, and in childbirth,
not that which was the result of disordered health. Her case, however, was
one of long abounding(7) ill health, for which she knew that the succour of
God's mercy was needed, and not the natural relief of time. And thus she
may: evidently be regarded as having discerned(8) the law, instead of
breaking it. This will prove to be the faith which was to confer
intelligence likewise. "If ye will not believe," says (the prophet), "ye
shall not understand."(9) When Christ approved of the faith of this woman,
which simply rested in the Creator, He declared by His answer to her,(10)
that He was Himself the divine object of the faith of which He approved.
Nor can I overlook the fact that His garment, by being touched,
demonstrated also the truth of His body; for of course"(11) it was a body,
and not a phantom, which the garment clothed.(12) This indeed is not our
point now; but the remark has a natural bearing on the question we are
discussing. For if it were not a veritable body, but only a fantastic one,
it could not for certain have received contamination, as being an
unsubstantial thing.(13) He therefore, who, by reason of this vacuity of
his substance, was incapable of contamination, how could he possibly have
desired this touch?(14)  As an adversary of the law, his conduct was
deceitful, for he was not susceptible of a real pollution.

CHAP. XXI.--CHRIST'S CONNECTION WITH THE CREATOR SHOWN FROM SEVERAL
INCIDENTS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, COMPARED WITH ST. LUKE'S NARRATIVE OF THE
MISSION OF THE DISCIPLES. THE FEEDING OF THE MULTITUDE. THE CONFESSION OF
ST. PETER.  BEING ASHAMED OF CHRIST. THIS SHAME IS ONLY POSSIBLE OF THE
TRUE CHRIST. MARCIONITE PRETENSIONS ABSURD.

   He sends forth His disciples to preach the kingdom of God.(15) Does He
here say of what God? He forbids their taking anything for their journey,
by way of either food or raiment. Who would have given such a commandment
as this, but He who feeds the ravens and clothes(16) the flowers of the
field? Who anciently enjoined for the treading ox an unmuzzled mouth,(17)
that he might be at liberty to gather his fodder from his labour, on the
principle that the worker is worthy of his hire?(18) Marcion may expunge
such precepts, but no matter, provided the sense of them survives. But when
He charges them to shake off the dust of their feet against such as should
refuse to receive them, He also bids that this be done as a witness. Now no
one bears witness except in a case which is decided by judicial process;
and whoever orders inhuman conduct to be submitted to the trial by
testimony,(1) does really threaten as a judge. Again, that it was no new
god which recommended(2) by Christ, was dearly attested by the opinion of
all men, because some maintained to Herod that Jesus was the Christ;
others, that He was John; some, that He was Elias; and others, that He was
one of the old prophetss.(3) Now, whosoever of all these He might have
been, He certainly was not raised up for the purpose of announcing another
god after His resurrection. He feeds the multitude in the desert place;(4)
this, you must knows(5) was after the manner of the Old Testament.(6) Or
else,(7) if there was not the same grandeur, it follows that He is now
inferior to the Creator. For He, not for one day, but during forty years,
not on the inferior aliment of bread and fish, but with the manna of
heaven, supported the lives(8) of not five thousand, but of six hundred
thousand human beings. However, such was the greatness of His miracle, that
He willed the slender supply of food, not only to be enough, but even to
prove superabundant;(9) and herein He followed the ancient precedent. For
in like manner, during the famine in Elijah's time, the scanty and final
meal of the widow of Sarepta was multiplied(10) by the blessing of the
prophet throughout the period of the famine. You have the third book of the
Kings.(11) If you also turn to the fourth book, you will discover all this
conduct(12) of Christ pursued by that man of God, who ordered ten(13)
barley loaves which had been given him to be distributed among the people;
and when his servitor, after contrasting the large number of the persons
with the small supply of the food, answered, "What, shall I set this before
a hundred men?" he said again, "Give them, and they shall eat: for thus
saith the Lord, They shall eat, and shall leave thereof, according to the
word of the Lord."(14) O Christ, even in Thy novelties Thou art old!
Accordingly, when Peter, who had been an eye-witness of the miracle, and
had compared it with the ancient precedents, and had discovered in them
prophetic intimations of what should one day come to pass, answered (as the
mouthpiece of them all) the Lord's inquiry, "Whom say ye that I am?"(15) in
the words, "Thou art the Christ," he could not but have perceived that He
was that Christ, beside whom he knew of none else in the Scriptures, and
whom he was now surveying(16) in His wonderful deeds. This conclusion He
even Himself confirms by thus far bearing with it, nay, even enjoining
silence respecting it.(17) For if Peter was unable to acknowledge Him to be
any other than the Creator's Christ, while He commanded them "to tell no
man that saying," surely(18) He was unwilling to have the conclusion
promulged which Peter had drawn. No doubt of that,(19) you say; but as
Peter's conclusion was a wrong one, therefore He was unwilling to have a
lie disseminated. It was, however, a different reason which He assigned for
the silence, even because "the Son of man must suffer many things, and be
rejected of the elders, and scribes, and priests, and be slain, and be
raised again the third day."(20) Now, inasmuch as these sufferings were
actually foretold for the Creator's Christ (as we shall fully show in the
proper place(21)), so by this application of them to His own case(22) does
He prove that it is He Himself of whom they were predicted. At all events,
even if they had not been predicted, the reason which He alleged for
imposing silence (on the disciples) was such as made it clear enough that
Peter had made no mistake, that reason being the necessity of His
undergoing these sufferings. "Whosoever," says He, "will save his life,
shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall
save it."(23) Surely(24) it is the Son of man(25) who uttered this
sentence. Look carefully, then, along with the king of Babylon, into his
burning fiery furnace, and there you will discover one "like the Son of
man" (for He was not yet really Son of man, because not yet born of man),
even as early as then(26) appointing issues such as these. He saved the
lives of the three brethren,(27) who had agreed  to lose them for God's
sake; but He destroyed those of the Chaldaeans, when they had preferred to
save them by the means of their idolatry. Where is that novelty, which you
pretend(28) in a doctrine which possesses these ancient proofs? But all the
predictions have been fulfilled(29) concerning martydoms which were to
happen, and were to receive the recompenses of their reward from God.
"See," says Isaiah, "how the righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to
heart; and just men are taken away, and no man considereth."(1) When does
this more frequently happen than in the persecution of His saints? This,
indeed, is no ordinary matter,(2) no common casualty of the law of nature;
but it is that illustrious devotion, that fighting for the faith, wherein
whosoever loses his life for God saves it, so that you may here again
recognize the Judge who recompenses the evil gain of life with its
destruction, and the good loss thereof with its salvation. It is, however,
a jealous God whom He here presents to me one who returns evil for evil.
"For whosoever," says He, "shall be ashamed of me, of him will I also be
ashamed."(3) Now to none but my Christ can be assigned the occasion(4) of
such a shame as this. His whole course(5) was so exposed to shame as to
open a way for even the taunts of heretics, declaiming(6) with all the
bitterness in their power against the utter disgrace(7) of His birth and
bringing-up, and the unworthiness of His very flesh.(8) But how can that
Christ of yours be liable to a shame, which it is impossible for him to
experience? Since he was never condensed(9) into human flesh in the womb of
a woman, although a virgin; never grew from human seed, although only after
the law of corporeal substance, from the fluids(10) of a woman; was never
deemed flesh before shaped in the womb; never called foetus(11) after such
shaping; was never delivered from a ten months' writhing in the womb;(12)
was never shed forth upon the ground, amidst the sudden pains of
parturition, with the unclean issue which flows at such a time through the
sewerage of the body, forthwith to inaugurate the light(13) of life with
tears, and with that primal wound which severs the child from her who bears
him;(14) never received the copious ablution, nor the meditation of salt
and honey;(15) nor did he initiate a shroud with swaddling clothes;(16) nor
afterwards did he ever wallow(17) in his own uncleanness, in his mother's
lap; nibbling at her breast; long an infant; gradually(18) a boy; by slow
degrees(19) a man.(20) But he was revealed(21) from heaven, full-grown at
once, at once complete; immediately Christ; simply spirit, and power, and
god. But as withal he was not true, because not visible; therefore he was
no object to be ashamed of from the curse of the cross, the real
endurance(22) of which he escaped, because wanting in bodily substance.
Never, therefore, could he have said, "Whosever shall be ashamed of me."
But as for our Christ, He could do no otherwise than make such a
declaration;(23) "made" by the Father "a little lower than the angels,"(24)
"a worm and no man, a reproach of men, and despised of the people;"(25)
seeing that it was His will that "with His stripes we should be
healed,"(26) that by His humiliation our salvation should be established.
And justly did He humble Himself(27) for His own creature man, for the
image and likeness of Himself, and not of another, in order that man, since
he had not felt ashamed when bowing down to a stone or a stock, might with
similar courage give satisfaction to God for the shamelessness of his
idolatry, by displaying an equal degree of shamelessness in his faith, in
not being ashamed of Christ. Now, Marcion, which of these courses is better
suited to your Christ, in respect of a meritorious shame?(28) Plainly, you
ought yourself to blush with shame for having given him a fictitious
existence.(29)

CHAP. XXII.--THE SAME CONCLUSION SUPPORTED BY THE TRANSFIGURATION. MARCION
INCONSISTENT IN ASSOCIATING WITH CHRIST IN GLORY TWO SUCH EMINENT SERVANTS
OF THE CREATOR AS MOSES AND ELIJAH. ST. PETER'S IGNORANCE ACCOUNTED FOR ON
MONTANIST PRINCIPLE.

   You ought to be very much ashamed of yourself on this account too, for
permitting him to appear on the retired mountain in the company of Moses
and Elias,(1) whom he had  come to destroy. This, to be sure,(2) was what
he wished to be understood as the meaning of that voice from heaven: "This
is my beloved Son, hear Him"(3)--Him, that is, not Moses or Elias any
longer. The voice alone, therefore, was enough, without the display of
Moses and Elias; for, by expressly mentioning whom they were to hear, he
must have forbidden all(4) others from being heard. Or else, did he mean
that Isaiah and Jeremiah and the others whom he did not exhibit were to be
heard, since he prohibited those whom he did display? Now, even if their
presence was necessary, they surely should not be represented as conversing
together, which is a sign of familiarity; nor as associated in glory with
him, for this indicates respect and graciousness; but they should be shown
in some slough(5) as a sure token of their ruin, or even in that darkness
of the Creator which Christ was sent to disperse, far removed from the
glory of Him who was about to sever their words and writings from His
gospel. This, then, is the way(6) how he demonstrates them to be aliens,(7)
even by keeping them in his own company! This is how he shows they ought to
be relinquished: he associates them with himself instead! This is how he
destroys them: he irradiates them with his glory! How would their own
Christ act? I suppose He would have imitated the frowardness (of
heresy),(8) and revealed them just as Marcion's Christ was bound to do, or
at least as having with Him any others rather than His own prophets! But
what could so well befit the Creator's Christ, as to manifest Him in the
company of His own foreannouncers?(9)--to let Him be seen with those to
whom He had appeared in revelations?--to let Him be speaking with those who
had spoken of Him?--to share His glory with those by whom He used to be
called the Lord of glory; even with those chief servants of His, one of
whom was once the moulder(10) of His people, the other afterwards the
reformer(11) thereof; one the initiator of the Old Testament, the other the
consummator(12) of the New? Well therefore does Peter, when recognizing the
companions of his Christ in their indissoluble connection with Him, suggest
an expedient: "It is good for us to be here" (good: that evidently means to
be where Moses and EIias are); "and let us make three tabernacles, one for
Thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. But he knew not what he said."
How knew not? Was his ignorance the result of simple error? Or was it on
the principle which we maintain(14) in the cause of the new prophecy,(15)
that to grace ecstasy. or rapture(16) is incident. For when a man is rapt
in the Spirit, especially when he beholds the glory of God, or when God
speaks through him, he necessarily loses his sensation,(17) because he is
overshadowed with the power of God,--a point concerning which there is a
question between us and the carnally-minded.(18) Now, it is no difficult
matter to prove the rapture of Peter. For how could he have known Moses and
Elias, except (by being) in the Spirit? People could not have had their
images, or statues, or likenesses; for that the law forbade. How, if it
were not that he had seen them in the Spirit? And therefore, because it was
in the Spirit that he had now spoken, and not in his natural senses, he
could not know what he had said. But if, on the other hand,(20) he was thus
ignorant, because he erroneously supposed that (Jesus) was their Christ, it
is then evident that Peter, when previously asked by Christ, "Whom they
thought Him to be," meant the Creator's Christ, when he answered, "Thou art
the Christ;" because if he had been then aware that He belonged to the
rival god, he would not have made a mistake here. But if he was in error
here cause of his previous erroneous opinion,(21) then you may be sure that
up to that very day no new divinity had been revealed by Christ, and that
Peter had so far made no mistake, because hitherto Christ had revealed
nothing of the kind; and that Christ accordingly was not to be regarded as
belonging to any other than the Creator, whose entire dispensation(1) he,
in fact, here described. He selects from His disciples three witnesses of
the impending vision and voice. And this is just the way of the Creator.
"In the mouth of three witnesses," says He, "shall every word be
established."(2) He withdraws to a mountain. In the nature of the place I
see much meaning. For the Creator had originally formed His ancient people
on a mountain both with visible glory and His voice. It was only tight that
the New Testament should be attested(3) on such an elevated spot(4) as that
whereon the Old Testament had been composed;(5) under a like covering of
cloud also, which nobody will doubt, was condensed out of the Creator's
air. Unless, indeed, he(6) had brought down his own clouds thither, because
he had himself forced his way through the Creator's heaven;(7) or else it
was only a precarious cloud,(8) as it were, of the Creator which he used.
On the present (as also on the former)(9) occasion, therefore, the cloud
was not silent; but there was the accustomed voice from heaven, and the
Father's testimony to the Son; precisely as in the first Psalm He had said,
"Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee."(10) By the mouth of Isaiah
also He had asked concerning Him, "Who is there among you that feareth God?
Let him hear the voice of His Son."(11) When therefore He here presents Him
with the words, "This is my (beloved) Son," this clause is of course
understood, "whom I have promised." For if He once promised, and then
afterwards says, "This is He," it is suitable conduct for one who
accomplishes His purpose(12) that He should utter His voice in proof of the
promise which He had formerly made; but unsuitable in one who is amenable
to the retort, Can you, indeed, have a right to say, "This is my son,"
concerning whom  you have given us no previous information,(13) any more
than you have favoured us with a revelation about your own prior existence?
"Hear ye Him," therefore, whom from the beginning (the Creator) had
declared entitled to be heard in the name of a prophet, since it was as a
prophet that He had to be regarded by the people. "A prophet," says Moses,
"shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your sons" (that is, of
course, after a carnal descent(14); "unto Him shall ye hearken, as unto
me."(15) "Every one who will not hearken unto Him, his soul(16) shall be
cut off from amongst his people."(17), So also Isaiah: "Who is there among
you that feareth God? Let him hear the voice of His Son."(18) This voice
the Father was going Himself to recommend. For, says he,(19) He establishes
the words of His Son, when He says, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him."
Therefore, even if there be made a transfer of the obedient "heating" from
Moses and Elias to(20) Christ, it is still not from(21) another God, or to
another Christ; but from" the Creator to His Christ, in consequence of the
departure of the old covenant and the supervening of the new. "Not an
ambassador, nor an angel, but He Himself," says Isaiah, "shall save
them;"(22) for it is He Himself who is now declaring and fulfilling the law
and the prophets. The Father gave to the Son new disciples,(23) after that
Moses and Elias had been exhibited along with Him in the honour of His
glory, and had then been dismissed as having fully discharged their duty
and office, for the express purpose of affirming for Marcion's information
the fact that Moses and Elias had a share in even the glory of Christ. But
we have the entire structure(24) of this same vision in Habakkuk also,
where the Spirit in the person of some(25) of the apostles says, "O Lord, I
have heard Thy speech, and was afraid." What speech was this, other than
the words of the voice from heaven, This is my beloved Son, hear ye, Him?
"I considered thy works, and was astonished." When could this have better
happened than when Peter, on seeing His glory, knew not what he was saying?
"In the midst of the two Thou shalt be known"--even Moses and Elias.(1)
These likewise did Zechariah see under the figure of the two olive trees
and olive branches.(2) For these are they of whom he says, "They are the
two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth." And again
Habakkuk says, "His glory covered the heavens" (that is, with that cloud),
"and His splendour shall be like the light--even the light, wherewith His
very raiment glistened." And if we would make mention of(3) the promise to
Moses, we shall find it accomplished here. For when Moses desired to see
the Lord, saying, "If therefore I have found grace in Thy sight, manifest
Thyself to me, that I may see Thee distinctly,"(4) the sight which he
desired to have was of that condition which he was to assume as man, and
which as a prophet he knew was to occur. Respecting the face of God,
however, he had already heard, "No man shall see me, and live." "This
thing," said He, "which thou hast spoken, will I do unto thee." Then Moses
said, "Show me Thy glory." And the Lord, with like reference to the future,
replied, "I will pass before thee in my glory," etc. Then at the last He
says, "And then thou shall see my back."(5) Not loins, or calves of the
legs, did he want to behold, but the glory which was to be revealed in the
latter days.(6) He had promised that He would make Himself thus face to
face visible to him, when He said to Aaron, "If there shall be a prophet
among you, I will make myself known to him by vision, and by vision will I
speak with him; but not so is my manner to Moses; with him will I speak
mouth to mouth, even apparently" (that is to say, in the form of man which
He was to assume), "and not in dark speeches."(7) Now, although Marcion has
denied(8) that he is here represented as speaking with the Lord, but only
as standing, yet, inasmuch as he stood "mouth to mouth," he must also have
stood "face to face" with him, to use his words,(9) not far from him, in
His very glory--not to say,(10) in His presence. And with this glory he
went away enlightened from Christ, just as he used to do from the Creator;
as then to dazzle the eyes of the children of Israel, so now to smite those
of the blinded Marcion, who has failed to see how this argument also makes
against him.

CHAP. XXIII.--IMPOSSIBLE THAT MARCION'S CHRIST SHOULD REPROVE THE FAITHLESS
GENERATION. SUCH LOVING CONSIDERATION FOR INFANTS AS THE TRUE CHRIST WAS
APT TO SHEW, ALSO IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE OTHER. ON THE THREE DIFFERENT
CHARACTERS CONFRONTED AND INSTRUCTED BY CHRIST SAMARIA.

   I take on myself the character(11) of Israel. Let Marcion's Christ
stand forth, and exclaim, "O faithless generation!(12) how long shall I be
with you? how long shall I suffer you?"(13) He will immediately have to
submit to this remonstrance from me: "Whoever you are, O stranger,(14)
first tell us who you are, from whom you come, and what right you have over
us. Thus far, all you possess(15) belongs to the Creator. Of course, if you
come from Him, and are acting for Him, we will bear your reproof. But if
you come from some other god, I should wish you to tell us what you have
ever committed to us belonging to yourself,(16) which it was our duty to
believe, seeing that you are upbraiding us with 'faithlessness,' who have
never yet revealed to us your own self. How long ago(17) did you begin to
treat with us, that you should be complaining of the delay? On what points
have you borne with us, that you should adduce(18) your patience? Like
AEsop's ass, you are just come from the well,(19) and are filling every
place with your braying." I assume, besides,(20) the person of the
disciple, against whom he has inveighed:(21) "O perverse nation! how long
shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?" This outburst of his I
might, of course, retort upon him most justly in such words as these:
"Whoever you are, O stranger, first tell us who you are, from whom you
come, what right you have over us. Thus far, I suppose, you belong to the
Creator, and so we have followed you, recognising in you all things which
are His. Now, if you come from Him, we will bear your reproof. If, however,
you are acting for another, prythee tell us what you have ever conferred
upon us that is simply your own, which it had become our duty to believe,
seeing that you reproach us with 'faithlessness,' although up to this
moment you show us no credentials. How long since did you begin to plead
with us, that you are charging us with delay? Wherein have you borne with
us, that you should even boast of your patience? The ass has only just
arrived from AEsop's well, and he is already braying." Now who would not
thus have rebutted the unfairness of the rebuke, if he had supposed its
author to belong to him who had had no right as yet to complain? Except
that not even He(1) would have inveighed against them, if He had not dwelt
among them of old in the law and by the prophets, and with mighty deeds and
many mercies, and had always experienced them to be "faithless." But,
behold, Christ takes(2) infants, and teaches how all ought to be like them,
if they ever wish to be greater.(3) The Creator, on the contrary,(4) let
loose bears against children, in order to avenge His prophet Elisha, who
had been mocked by them.(5) This antithesis is impudent enough, since it
throws together(6) things so different as infants(7) and children,(8)--an
age still innocent, and one already capable of discretion--able to mock, if
not to blaspheme. As therefore God is a just God, He spared not impious
children, exacting as He does honour for every time of life, and
especially, of course, from youth. And as God is good, He so loves infants
as to have blessed the midwives in Egypt, when they protected the infants
of the Hebrews(9) which were in peril from Pharaoh's command.(10) Christ
therefore shares this kindness with the Creator. As indeed for Marcion's
god, who is an enemy to marriage, how can he possibly seem to be a lover of
little children, which are simply the issue of marriage? He who hates the
seed must needs also detest the fruit. Yea, he ought to be deemed more
ruthless than the king of Egypt.(11) For whereas Pharaoh forbade infants to
be brought up, he will not allow them even to be born, depriving them of
their ten months' existence in the womb. And how much more credible it is,
that kindness to little children should be attributed to Him who blessed
matrimony for the procreation of mankind, and in such benediction included
also the promise of connubial fruit itself, the first of which is that of
infancy!(12) The Creator, at the request of Elias, inflicts the blow(13)of
fire from heaven in the case of that false prophet (of Baalzebub).(14) I
recognise herein the severity of the Judge. And I, on the contrary, the
severe rebuke(15) of Christ on His disciples, when they were for
inflicting(16) a like visitation on that obscure village of the
Samaritans.(17) The heretic, too, may discover that this gentleness of
Christ was promised by the selfsame severest Judge. "He shall not contend,"
says He, "nor shall His voice be heard in the street; a bruised reed shall
He not crush, and smoking flax shall He not quench."(18) Being of such a
character, He was of course much the less disposed to burn men. For even at
that time the Lord said to Elias,(19) "He was not in the fire, but in the
still small voice."(20) Well, but why does this most humane and merciful
God reject the man who offers himself to Him as an inseparable
companion?(21) If it were from pride or from hypocrisy that he had said, "I
will follow Thee whithersoever Thou goest,' then, by judicially reproving
an act of either pride or hypocrisy as worthy of rejection, He performed
the office of a Judge. And, of course, him whom He rejected He condemned to
the loss of not following the Saviour.(22) For as He calls to salvation him
whom He does not reject, or him whom He voluntarily invites, so does He
consign to perdition him whom He rejects. When, however, He answers the
man, who alleged as an excuse his father's burial, "Let the dead bury their
dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God,"(23) He gave a clear
confirmation to those two laws of the Creator--that in Leviticus, which
concerns the sacerdotal office, and forbids the priests to be present at
the funerals even of their parents. "The priest," says He, "shall not enter
where there is any dead person;(24) and for his father he shall not be
defiled"(25); as well as that in Numbers, which relates to the (Nazarite)
vow of separation; for there he who devotes himself to God, among other
things, is bidden "not to come at any dead body," not even of his father,
or his mother, or his brother.(26) Now it was, I suppose, for the Nazarite
and the priestly office that He intended this man whom He had been
inspiring(1) to preach the kingdom of God. Or else, if it be not so, he
must be pronounced impious enough who, without the intervention of any
precept of the law, commanded that burials of parents should be neglected
by their sons. When, indeed, in the third case before us, (Christ) forbids
the man "to look back" who wanted first "to bid his family farewell," He
only follows out the rule(2) of the Creator. For this (retrospection) He
had been against their making, whom He had rescued out of Sodom.(3)

CHAP. XXIV.--ON THE MISSION OF THE SEVENTY DISCIPLES, AND CHRIST'S CHARGE
TO THEM. PRECEDENTS DRAWN FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. ABSURDITY OF SUPPOSING
THAT MARCION'S CHRIST COULD HAVE GIVEN THE POWER OF TREADING ON SERPENTS
AND SCORPIONS.

   He chose also seventy other missionaries(4) besides the twelve. Now
why, if the twelve followed the number of the twelve fountains of Elim,(5)
should not the seventy correspond to the like number of the palms of that
place?(6) Whatever be the Antitheses of the comparison, it is a diversity
in the causes, not in the powers, which has mainly produced them. But if
one does not keep in view the diversity of the causes,(7) he is very apt to
infer a difference of powers.(8) When the children of Israel went out of
Egypt, the Creator brought them forth laden with their spoils of gold and
silver vessels, and with loads besides of raiment and unleavened dough;(9)
whereas Christ commanded His disciples not to carry even a staff(10) for
their journey. The former were thrust forth into a desert, but the latter
were sent into cities. Consider the difference presented in the
occasions,(11) and you will understand how it was one and the same power
which arranged the mission(12) of His people according to their poverty in
the one case, and their plenty in the other. He cut down(13) their supplies
when they could be replenished through the cities, just as He had
accumulated" them when exposed to the scantiness of the desert. Even shoes
He forbade them to carry. For it was He under whose very protection the
people wore not out a shoe,(15) even in the wilderness for the space of so
many years. "No one," says He, "shall ye salute by the way."(16) What a
destroyer of the prophets, forsooth, is Christ, seeing it is from them that
He received his precept also! When Elisha sent on his servant Gehazi before
him to raise the Shunammite's son from death, I rather think he gave him
these instructions:(17) "Gird up thy loins, and take my staff in thine
hand, and go thy way: if thou meet any man, salute him not;(18) and if any
salute thee, answer him not again."(19) For what is a wayside blessing but
a mutual salutation as men meet? So also the Lord commands: "Into
whatsoever house they enter, let them say, Peace be to it."(20) Herein He
follows the very same example. For Elisha enjoined upon his servant the
same salutation when he met the Shunammite; he was to say to her: "Peace to
thine husband, peace to thy child."(21) Such will be rather our Antitheses;
they compare Christ with, instead of sundering Him from, the Creator. "The
labourer is worthy of his hire."(22) Who could better pronounce such a
sentence than the Judge? For to decide that the workman deserves his wages,
is in itself a judicial act. There is no award which consists not in
process of judgment. The law of the Creator on this point also presents us
with a corroboration, for He judges that labouring oxen are as labourers
worthy of their hire: "Thou shall not muzzle," says He. "the ox when he
treadeth out the corn."(23) Now, who so good to man(24) as He who is also
merciful to cattle? Now, when Christ pronounced labourers to be worthy of
their hire, He, in fact, exonerated from blame that precept of the Creator
about depriving the Egyptians of their gold and silver vessels.(25) For
they who had built for the Egyptians their houses and cities, were surely
workmen worthy of their hire, and were not instructed in a fraudulent act,
but only set to claim compensation for their hire, which they were unable
in any other way to exact from their masters.(26) That the kingdom of God
was neither new nor unheard of, He in this way affirmed, whilst at the same
time He bids them announce that it was near at hand.(27) Now it is that
which was once far off, which can be properly said to have become near. If,
however, a thing had never existed previous to its becoming near, it could
never have been said to have approached, because it had never existed at a
distance. Everything which is new and unknown is also sudden.(1) Everything
which is sudden, then, first receives the accident of time(2) when it is
announced, for it then first puts on appearance of form.(3) Besides it will
be impossible for a thing either to have been tardy(4) all the while it
remained unannounced,(5) or to have approached(6) from the time it shall
begin to be announced.

   He likewise adds, that they should say to such as would not receive
them: "Notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come
nigh unto you."(7) If He does not enjoin this by way of a commination, the
injunction is a most useless one. For what mattered it to them that the
kingdom was at hand, unless its approach was accompanied with judgment?--
even for the salvation of such as received the announcement thereof. How,
if there can be a threat without its accomplishment, can you have in a
threatening god, one that executes also, and in both, one that is a
judicial being?(8) So, again, He commands that the dust be shaken off
against them, as a testimony,--the very particles of their ground which
might cleave(9) to the sandal, not to mention(10) any other sort of
communication with them.(11) But if their churlishness(12) and
inhospitality were to receive no vengeance from Him, for what purpose does
He premise a testimony, which surely forbodes some threats? Furthermore,
when the Creator also, in the book of Deuteronomy, forbids the reception of
the Ammonites and the Moabites into the church,(13) because, when His
people came from Egypt, they fraudulently withheld provisions from them
with inhumanity and inhospitality,(14) it will be manifest that the
prohibition of intercourse descended to Christ from Him. The form of it
which He uses--"He that despiseth you, despiseth me"(15)--the Creator had
also addressed to Moses: "Not against thee have they murmured, but against
me."(16) Moses, indeed, was as much an apostle as the apostles were
prophets. The authority of both offices will have to be equally divided, as
it proceeds from one and the same Lord, (the God) of apostles and prophets.
Who is He that shall bestow "the power of treading on serpents and
scorpions?"(17) Shall it be He who is the Lord of all living creatures or
he who is not god over a single lizard? Happily the Creator has promised by
Isaiah to give this power even to little children, of putting their hand in
the cockatrice den and on the hole of the young asps without at all
receiving hurt.(18) And, indeed, we are aware (without doing violence to
the literal sense of the passage, since even these noxious animals have
actually been unable to do hurt where there has been faith) that under the
figure of scorpions and serpents are portended evil spirits, whose very
prince is described(19) by the name of serpent, dragon, and every other
most conspicuous beast in the power of the Creator.(20) This power the
Creator conferred first of all upon His Christ, even as the ninetieth Psalm
says to Him: "Upon the asp and the basilisk shall Thou tread; the lion and
the dragon shall Thou trample under foot."(21) So also Isaiah: "In that day
the Lord God shall draw His sacred, great, and strong sword" (even His
Christ) "against that dragon, that great and tortuous serpent; and He shall
slay him in that day."(22) But when the same prophet says, "The way shall
be called a clean and holy way; over it the unclean thing shall not pass,
nor shall be there any unclean way; but the dispersed shall pass over it,
and they shall not err therein; no lion shall be there, nor any ravenous
beast shall go up thereon; it shall not be found there,"(23) he points out
the way of faith, by which we shall reach to God; and then to this way of
faith he promises this utter crippling(24) and subjugation of all noxious
animals. Lastly, you may discover the suitable times of the promise, if you
read what precedes the passage: "Be strong, ye weak hands and ye feeble
knees: then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf
shall hear; then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the
dumb shall be articulate."(25) When, therefore, He proclaimed the benefits
of His cures, then also did He put the scorpions and the serpents under the
feet of His saints--even He who had first received this power from the
Father, in order to bestow it upon others and then manfested it forth
conformably to the order of prophecy.(1)

CHAP. XXV.--CHRIST THANKS THE FATHER FOR REVEALING TO BABES WHAT HE HAD
CONCEALED FROM THE WISE. THIS CONCEALMENT JUDICIOUSLY EFFECTED BY THE
CREATOR. OTHER POINTS IN ST. LUKE'S CHAP. X. SHOWN TO BE ONLY POSSIBLE TO
THE CREATOR'S CHRIST.

   Who shall be invoked as the Lord of heaven, that does not first show
Himself(2) 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."(3) 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;(4) for nothing at all had he ever
produced(5) in which anything could have been hidden--no prophecies, no
parables, no visions, no evidences(6) of things, or words, or names,
obscured by allegories and figures, or cloudy enigmas, 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,(7)
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,(8) by any declaration of his works, or any vestiges whereby
they might become(9) 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. 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.(10) 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"(11); 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,(12) or
who rashly philosophized about Him, and thereby furnished to heretics their
arts;(13) and lastly, He is a jealous God. Accordingly,(14) that which
Christ thanks God for doing, He long ago (15) announced by Isaiah: "I will
destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of the prudent will I
hide."(16) 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."(17) And again: "Who
else shall scatter the tokens of ventriloquists,(18) and the devices of
those who divine out of their own heart; turning wise men backward, and
making their counsels foolish?"(19) Now, if He has designated His Christ as
an enlightener of the Gentiles, saying, "I have set thee for a light of the
Gentiles;"(20) and if we understand these to be meant in the word
babes(21)--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. Else, if it was Marcion's god who
revealed the things which had been formerly hidden by the Creator, it
follows(22) that he did the Creator's work by setting forth His deeds.(23)
But he did it, say you, for His destruction, that he might refute them.(24)
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. But after all, it is, I presume, the edification(1) rather than the
demolition(2) 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."(3) 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(4) Him, that is to say,
by His Word. If, on the contrary, he is the notorious stranger,(5) what are
the" all things" which have been delivered to him by the Father? Are they
the Creator's? 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(6) is no longer good who has invaded another's good (domains) to
deliver it to his son, thus teaching robbery(7) 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,(8) if nothing
of the Creator's has been delivered to him by the Father, by what right(9)
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. 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:(10) "I will give Thee the heathen for Thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession."(11)
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. 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."(12) 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 cloth
not know me, and my people doth not consider me;"(13) nor to the Gentiles:
"For, behold," says He, "of the nations I have no man."(14) Therefore He
reckoned them "as the drop of a bucket,"(15) while "Sion He left as a look-
out(16) in a vineyard."(17) 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. Arguments, therefore, will be of no use for
belief in the rival god which may be suitable(18) 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,"(19) 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,(20) since even the prophets had not seen the things
which were being seen under Christ. 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(21) unable to see, since it was of things which they
had never predicted that they had not obtained the sight;(22) if it were
not because they might justly(23) have seen the things pertaining to their
God, which they had even predicted, but which they at the same time(24) had
not seen? This, however, will be the blessedness of others, even of such as
were seeing the things which others had only foretold. 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 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,(1) 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,"(2) since the question
was concerning the conditions of mere life. But the lawyer of course knew
very well in what way the life which the law meant(3) 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(4) one, he would lose no more time in
merely looking on (at the wonderful things which had made him) so high in
hope.(5) He therefore consulted him about the attainment of eternal life.
Accordingly, the Lord, being Himself the same,(6) and introducing no new
precept other than that which relates above all others(7) to (man's) entire
salvation, even including the present and the future life,(8) places before
him(9) the very essence(10) of the law--that he should in every possible
way love the Lord his God. 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,(11) 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. 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(12) for one and the other life. What the Creator teaches
to be loved, that must He necessarily maintain(13) also by Christ,(14) 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. It matters not(15) then, whether the word eternal
has been interpolated by us.(16) It is enough for me, that the Christ who
invited men to the eternal--not the lengthened--life, when consuited 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!

CHAP.XXVI.--FROM ST. LUKE'S ELEVENTH CHAPTER OTHER EVIDENCE THAT CHRIST
COMES FROM THE CREATOR. THE LORD'S PRAYER AND OTHER WORDS OF CHRIST. THE
DUMB SPIRIT AND CHRIST'S DISCOURSE ON OCCASION OF THE EXPULSION. THE
EXCLAMATION OF THE WOMAN IN THE CROWD.

   When in a certain place he had been praying to that Father above,(17)
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(18) 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. 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(19) 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. Christ
accordingly(1) 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(2) of the prayer what God is addressed therein. To
whom can I say, "Father?"(3) 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;(5) or of Him "who maketh His
angels spirits," and whose Spirit it was which in the beginning hovered
upon the waters.(6) 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(7) bread? Shall it be he who produces
for me not a grain of miIlet-seed;(8) or He who even from heaven gave to
His people day by day the bread of angels?(9) Who shall forgive me my
trespasses?(10) 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?
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(11) the angel tempter? If any one, with such a
form,(12) invokes another god and not the Creator, he does not pray; he
only blasphemes.(13) 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?(14) 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. 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(15) 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.(16) 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. As for that most excellent god of yours,
coming as he professes gratuitously to help man, who was not his
(creature),(17) 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,(18) 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. Accordingly, the preceding similitude(19) 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.(20)
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(21) and the end
thereof. As for the new god, however, no one could have knocked at his door
late, for he has hardly yet(22) 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, 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."(1)
Impoprtant, however, the recent god could not have permitted any one to be
in the short time (since his appearance).(2) 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.(3) 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. In like manner, it is He who
will give the Holy Spirit, at whose command(4) is also the unholy spirit.
When He cast out the "demon which was dumb"(5) (and by a cure of this sort
verified Isaiah),(6) 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?"(7) 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, "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."(8)
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?"(9) For the magicians who stood
before Pharaoh and resisted Moses called the power of the Creator" the
finger of God."(10) It was the finger of God, because it was a sign(11)
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,(12) He said that the power of God must
be understood to be the finger of none other God than Him, under(13) whom
it had received this appellation. His kingdom, therefore, was come near to
them, whose power was called His "finger." Well, therefore, did He connect"
with the parable of "the strong man armed," whom "a stronger man still
overcame,(15) 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,(16) 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(17) to the ground,
and were so often admonished by even a scorpion, that the Creator had by no
means been overcome?(18) "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.'"(19) Now He had in precisely similar terms rejected His
mother or His brethren, whilst preferring those who heard and obeyed
God.(20) 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.(21) On
hearing this (salutation) the second time, He the second time transferred,
as He had done before,(22) 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.

CHAP. XXVII.--CHRIST'S REPREHENSION OF THE PHARISEES SEEKING A SIGN. HIS
CENSURE OF THEIR LOVE OF OUTWARD SHOW RATHER THAN INWARD HOLINESS.SCRIPTURE
ABOUNDS WITH ADMONITIONS OF A SIMILAR PURPORT, PROOFS OF HIS MISSION FROM
THE CREATOR.

   I prefer elsewhere refuting(23) the faults which the Marcionites find
in the Creator. It is here enough that they are also found in Christ.(24)
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."(1) 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.(2) He forbids cursing again, and cursing much more of
course; and yet he heaps his woe upon the Pharisees and doctors of the
law.(3) Who so closely resembles my God as: His own Christ? We have often
already laid it down for certain,(4) that He could not have been branded(5)
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,(6)
expressed some surprise(7) 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.(8) 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,"(9) 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?--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,(10) but even to sacrifice.(11) For
He subjoins the command: "Give what ye possess as alms, and alI things
shall be clean unto you."(12) 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(13) 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. In like manner, He upbraids them
for tithing paltry herbs,(14) but at the same time "passing over
hospitality(15) and the love of God. (16) 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."(17) Besides, time enough had not yet
passed to admit of Christ's requiring so premature--nay, as yet so
distasteful(18)--a love towards a new and recent, not to say a hardly i yet
developed,(19) deity. 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,(20) who calls ambitious persons of this character
"rulers of Sodom"(21) who forbids us "to put confidence even in
princes,"(22) and pronounces him to be altogether wretched who places his
confidence in man. But whoever(23) aims at high position, because he would
glory in the officious attentions(24) 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(25) censured all who were
ambitious of high positions. 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;"(26) but not as if He made a mock of(27) 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,(28) and the love of
God? Nor, indeed, was it only these great things (which He recognized), but
even(29) 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?(1)
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(2) 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.(3) Of these Isaiah also says, "Woe unto
them that are strong in Jerusalem!"(4) and again, "They that demand you
shall rule over you."(5) And who did this more than the lawyers?(6) 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. But why is a
"woe" pronounced against them for "building the sepulchres of the prophets
whom their fathers had killed?"(7) 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(8) of such a
disposition as the Marcionites denounce,(9) visiting the sins of the
fathers upon the children unto the fourth generation? What "key," indeed,
was it which these lawyers had,(10) 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.(11) But all
these imprecations He uttered in order to tarnish the Creator as a cruel
Being,(12) against whom such as offended were destined to have a "woe." And
who would not rather have feared to provoke a cruel Being,(13) by
withdrawing allegiance(14) 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.

CHAP. XXVIII.--EXAMPLES FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT, BALAAM, MOSES, AND
HEZEKIAH, TO SHOW HOW COMPLETELY THE INSTRUCTION AND CONDUCT OF CHRIST(15)
ARE IN KEEPING WITH THE WILL AND PURPOSE OF THE CREATOR.

   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(16) 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. 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,"(17) 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. 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."(18) They will, however, find Isaiah had already said, "See how the
just man is taken away, and no man layeth it to heart."(19) "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."(1) 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(2) 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. 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."(3) Now they who
shall confess Christ will have to be slain(4) 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"(5)--by Him, of course,
who would have confessed him, if he had only confessed God. 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,(6) 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. After
deterring 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."(7) 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. Now, since it is Christ who
averts blasphemy from the Creator, I am at a loss to know in what manner
His adversary.(8) could have come. Else, if by these sayings He throws a
black cloud of censure(9) 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."(10) If such an injunction(11) 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(12)
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.(13) The novel doctrines of the new Christ are
such as the Creator's servants initiated long before! But see how clear a
difference there is between the example of Moses and of Christ.(14) Moses
voluntarily interferes with brothers(15) 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?"(16) 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. 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?"(17) No other word of excuse was he able to find, without
using(1) that with which the wicked, man and impious brother had
rejected(2) 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(3) 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.(4) I think that we have already, in another
passage,(5) 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."(6) 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?"(7) 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,(8) in his
treasures and the deposits of his precious things.(9)

CHAP. XXIX.--PARALLELS FROM THE PROPHETS TO ILLUSTRATE CHRIST'S TEACHING IN
THE REST OF THIS CHAPTER OF ST. LUKE. THE STERNER ATTRIBUTES OF CHRIST, IN
HIS JUDICIAL CAPACITY, SHOW HIM TO HAVE COME FROM THE CREATOR. INCIDENTAL
REBUKES OF MARCION'S DOCTRINE OF CELIBACY, AND OF HIS ALTERING OF THE TEXT
OF THE GOSPEL.

   Who would be unwilling that we should distress ourselves(10) about
sustenance for our life, or clothing for our body,(11) 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(12) 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.(13) 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(14) by reason of
their very worthlessness,(15) will appear a little further on. Meanwhile,
how is it that He chides them as being "of little faith?"(16) What faith?
Does He mean that faith which they were as yet unable to manifest perfectly
in a god who has hardly yet revealed,(17) 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,"(18) 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,"(19) I would first ask, what Father Christ would have to be
here understood? 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 pro vision 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(1) which I deferred giving above. 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?(2) Is he liberal with
another's property?(3) "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(4) is he that promises
what belongs to another? If these things are "additions" to the kingdom,
they must be placed in the second rank;(5) and the second rank belongs to
Him to whom the first also does; His are the food and raiment, whose is the
kingdom. Thus to the Creator belongs the entire promise, the full
reality(6) of its parables, the perfect equalization(7) of its similitudes;
for these have respect to none other than Him to whom they have a parity of
relation in every point.(8) We are servants because we have a Lord in our
God. We ought "to have our loins girded:"(9) in other words, we are to be
free from the embarrassments of a perplexed and much occupied life; "to
have our lights burning,"(10) that is, our minds kindled by faith, and
resplendent with the works of truth. And thus "to wait for our Lord,"(11)
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. 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."(12) 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(13) rather acts the part of
one who swoops down on the things of another, and alienates man from his
Lord.(14) 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(15) by him, He warns us "to be ready," for
this reason, because "we know not the hour when the Son of man shall
come"(16)--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. Since, then, He is the Son of man, I hold Him to be the Judge,
and in the Judge I claim(17) 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(18) 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(19)--
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. When,
therefore, Peter asked whether He had spoken the parable "unto them, or
even to all,"(20) He sets forth for them, and for all who should bear rule
in the churches, the similitude of stewards.(21) 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(22)--even that Son of man, the Creator's Christ, not a thief,
but a Judge. He accordingly, in this passage, either presents to us the
Lord as a Judge, and instructs us in His character,(23) 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 i the severed
ones? Will it not be the for feiture 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? 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(1) for me to obey, but Him who
remunerates? Your Christ proclaims, "I am come to send fire on the
earth."(2) That(3) 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(4) 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."(5) By Hoses He uttered the threat, "I will send a
fire upon the cities of Judah;"(6) and(7) 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(8) what fire
you insist upon being understood. 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."(9) It is written "a sword,"(10) but Marcion makes an
emendation(11) of the word, 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."(12) Since this battle among the relatives(13) was sung
by the prophet's trumpet in the very words, I fear that Micah(14) must have
predicted it to Marcion's Christ! 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,"(15) 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."(16) Of old does He command by Zechariah, "Execute the judgment of
truth and peace;"(17) by Jeremiah, "Execute judgment and
righteousness;"(18) by Isaiah, "Judge the fatherless, plead for the
widow,"(19) charging it  as a fault upon the vine of Sorech,(20) that when
"He looked for righteousness therefrom, there was only a cry"(21) (of
oppression). The same God who had taught them to act as He commanded
them,(22) was now requiring that they should act of their own accord.(23)
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,"(24) 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.(25) 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.

CHAP. XXX.--PARABLES OF THE MUSTARD-SEED, AND OF THE LEAVEN. TRANSITION TO
THE SOLEMN EXCLUSION WHICH WILL ENSUE WHEN THE MASTER OF THE HOUSE HAS SHUT
THE DOOR. THIS JUDICIAL EXCLUSION WILL BE ADMINISTERED BY CHRIST, WHO IS
SHOWN THEREBY TO POSSESS THE ATTRIBUTE OF THE CREATOR.

   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?"(1)
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;(2) and
if for any one, then how much more for a human life? In the case of the
parables, it is allowed that I(3) 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." 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(4)--in man
at the present day, for instance.(5) 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,(6) 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(7) 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?(8) With regard, indeed, to
the following similitude, I have my fears lest it should somehow(9) 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.(10) 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,"(11) and contend
with even leaven is suitable for the kingdom of the Creator, because after
it comes the oven, or, if you please,(12) the furnace of hell. 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;"(13) but in what sense except that in which Isaiah said, "When
He ariseth to shake terribly the earth?"(14) "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."(15) But where? 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,(16) 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,(17) for the greater irritation of
His rival? 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.

CHAP. XXXI.--CHRIST'S ADVICE TO INVITE THE POOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH ISAIAH.
THE PARABLE OF THE GREAT SUPPER A PICTORIAL SKETCH OF THE CREATOR'S OWN
DISPENSATIONS OF MERCY AND GRACE. THE REJECTIONS OF THE INVITATION
PARALLELED BY QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT MARCION'S CHRIST COULD NOT
FULFIL THE CONDITIONS INDICATED IN THIS PARABLE THE ABSURDITY OF THE
MARCIONITE INTERPRETATION.

   What kind of persons does He bid should be invited to a dinner or a
supper?(1) 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,"(2) 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(3) of the
Creator, who dislikes those who love gifts and follow after reward.
Consider also to which deity(4) is better suited the parable of him who
issued invitations: "A certain man made a great supper, and bade many."(5)
The preparation for the supper is no doubt a figure of the abundant
provision(6) 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. My next remark is,(7) 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(8) beginning to be known, when already(9) 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? 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;(10) and again,
afterwards, when "they heard indeed with the ear, but did not
understand"(11) their calling of God. In a manner most germane(12) I 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."(13) This is the invitation of God. "But," says He, "they
hearkened not, nor inclined their ear."(14) This is the refusal of the
people. "They departed, and walked every one in the imagination of their
evil heart."(15) "I have bought a field--and I have bought some oxen--and I
have married a wife."(16) And still He urges them: "I have sent unto you
all my servants the prophets, rising early even before day-light."(17) 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."(18) 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."(19) 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?"(20) 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."(21) Therefore He sent
out to call others, but from the same city.(22) My third remark is
this,(23) 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(1)
(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"(2)--even with us, whose hope
the Jews still entertain.(3) But this hope the Lord says they should not
realize;(4) "Sion being left as a cottages(5) in a vineyard, as a lodge in
a garden of cucumbers,"(6) since the nation rejected the latest invitation
to Christ. (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,(7) and possesses neither the Creator's(8) course nor His
dispensation in harmony with the parable? Or, again in what will consist
his first invitation,(9) and what his admonition(10) at the second stage?
Some at first would surely decline; others afterwards must have
accepted."(11) But now he comes to invite both parties promiscuously out of
the city,(12) out of the hedges,(13) contrary to the  drift(14) of the
parable. It is impossible for him now to condemn as scorners of his
invitation(15) 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(16) the election of the Gentiles in their stead. Certainly(17) 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.

CHAP. XXXII.--A SORT OF SORITES, AS THE  LOGICIANS CALL IT, TO SHOW THAT
THE PARABLES OF THE LOST SHEEP AND THE LOST DRACHMA HAVE NO SUITABLE
APPLICATION TO THE CHRIST OF MARCION.

   Who sought after the lost sheep and the lost piece of silver?(18) Was
it not the loser? But who was the loser? Was it not he who once
possessed(19) them? Who, then, was that? Was it not he to whom they
belonged?(20) 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. Therefore the purport(21) of neither parable has anything
whatever to do with him(22) 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.

CHAP. XXXIII.--THE MARCIONITE INTERPRETATION OF GOD AND MAMMON REFUTED. THE
PROPHETS JUSTIFY CHRIST'S ADMONITION AGAINST COVETOUSNESS AND PRIDE. JOHN
BAPTIST THE LINK BETWEEN THE OLD AND THE NEW DISPENSATIONS OF THE CREATOR.
SO SAID CHRIST--BUT SO ALSO HAD ISAIAH SAID LONG BEFORE. ONE ONLY GOD, THE
CREATOR, BY HIS OWN WILL CHANGED THE DISPENSATIONS.NO NEW GOD HAD A HAND IN
THE CHANGE

   What the two masters are who, He says, cannot be served,(23) on the
ground that while one is pleased(24) the other must needs be
displeased,(25) 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.(1) 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,(2) 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. Now we are all of us aware that money is the instigator(3) of
unrighteousness, and the lord of the whole world. Therefore, when he saw
the covetousness of the Pharisees doing servile worship(4) to it, He
hurled(5) this sentence against them, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon."(6)
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.(7) 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,(8) 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(9) the Creator if He were Himself a
rival(10) to Him, He did (virtually) name the Creator, when He refrained
from insisting"(11) that He was Master alone, without a rival god.
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?"(12) "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?"(13) 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. He could
only seem to have spoken them in this sense, if, when remarking(14) 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(15) from the very thing which is in question. But when the
Pharisees "justified themselves before men," 16) 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." (17) Since the prophet
went on to say, "But the Lord knoweth your hearts,"(18) he magnified the
power of that God who declared Himself to be as a lamp, "searching the
reins and the heart."(19) When He strikes at pride in the words: "That
which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God,"(20)
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."(21) 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."(1) 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(2) 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-pater 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,(3) than from the conceit that the law and the
prophets ended in John, and a new state of things began after him. "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."(4) "For,"
as says Isaiah: "the word of our God shall stand for ever."(5) Since even
then by Isaiah it was Christ, the Word and Spirit(6) of the Creator, who
prophetically described John as "the voice of one crying in the wilderness
to prepare the way of the Lord,"(7) 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.

CHAP. XXXIV.--MOSES, ALLOWING DIVORCE, AND CHRIST PROHIBITING IT,
EXPLAINED. JOHN BAPTIST AND HEROD. MARCION'S ATTEMPT TO DISCOVER AN
ANTITHESIS IN THE PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN AND THE POOR MAN IN HADES
CONFUTED. THE CREATOR'S APPOINTMENT MANIFESTED IN BOTH STATES.

   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."(8) In order to
forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman that has been put
away. Moses, however, permitted repudiation m 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."(9) You see, therefore, that there is a difference
between the law and the gospel- between Moses and Christ?(10)  To be sure
there is!(11) But then you have rejected that other gospel which witnesses
to the same verity and the same Christ.(12) 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"(13)--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."(14) 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(15) 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(16) the Father, even Him who
united male and female, must He not have rather exculpated(17) 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. 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(1) 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,"(2)--"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. Permanent is the marriage which is not
rightly dissolved; to marry,(3) 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,(4) when there is an
absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. In very deed(5) His
teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially(6) defends, I
will not(7) say confirms. If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way
permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side(8) 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,(9)
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,(10) if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own
apostle, you know,(11) does not permit "the members of Christ to be joined
to a harlot."(12) Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved,(13) 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."(14) 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.(15) 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."(16) 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. I have(17) now to show whence the Lord derived this
decision(18) 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(19) 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,(20) when
it even prescribed such a marriage, in order that by his own brother, and
from his own wife,(21) seed might be reckoned to the deceased husband),(22)
and was in consequence cast into prison, and finally, by the same Herod,
was even put to death. The Lord having therefore made mention of John, and
of course of the occurrence of his death, hurled His censure(23) 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;(1) and who, when the prophet asserted against
him the law, had therefore put him to death. The remarks I have advanced on
this case will be also of use to me in illustrating the subsequent parable
of the rich man(2) tormented in hell, and the poor man resting in Abraham's
bosom.(3) For this passage, so far as its letter goes, comes before us
abruptly; but if we regard its sense and purport, it naturally(4) fits in
with the mention of John wickedly slain, and of Herod, who had been
condemned by him for his impious marriage.(5) It sets forth in bold
outline(6) 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."(7) 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(8) 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(9) 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. Besides, the rich
man could not have "lifted up his eyes,"(10) 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.
This region, therefore, I call Abraham's bosom. Although it is not in
heaven, it is yet higher than hell,(11) 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."(12) 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. Amos, however, tells us of
"those stories towards heaven"(13) 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?"(14) 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,(15) 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(16) of both judgments? 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.(17) 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. For
even Peter would not have been able(18) to say, "Thou art the Christ," (19)
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.(1) 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(2) 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.(3) 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,(4) but only a difference in the actual matters(5) before us.

CHAP. XXXV.--THE JUDICIAL SEVERITY OF CHRIST AND THE TENDERNESS OF THE
CREATOR, ASSERTED IN CONTRADICTION TO MARCION. THE CURE OF THE TEN LEPERS.
OLD TESTAMENT ANALOGIES. THE KINGDOM OF GOD WITHIN YOU; THIS TEACHING
SIMILAR TO THAT OF MOSES. CHRIST, THE STONE REJECTED BY THE BUILDERS.
INDICATIONS OF SEVERITY IN THE COMING OF CHRIST. PROOFS THAT HE IS NOT THE
IMPASSIBLE BEING MARCION IMAGINED.

   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,"(6) 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. 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."(7) Such identity of care proceeds from one and the same
Being. A trespassing brother He will have rebuked.(8) 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,(9) 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."(10) 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."(11) 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,"(12) 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(13) an offence, but forget it. The law
about lepers had a profound meaning as respects(14) the forms of the
disease itself, and of the inspection by the high priest.(15) The
interpretation of this sense it will be our task to ascertain. Marcion's
labour, however, is to object to us the strictness(16) of the law, with the
view of maintaining that here also Christ is its enemy--forestalling(17)
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"(18)--without a touch, and without a word, by His silent power and
simple will. 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,(19) to busy Himself with inquiries(20)
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.(1) Now, although He said in a preceding chapter,(2) 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 diferenee in the gods, as tending to the
abasement(3) 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?
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(4) 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."(5) 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? Well, the matter must of course pass as it best may,(6)
if anybody supposes that Christ had such views as these!(7) 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(8) 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?(9) 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 pro-founder
reason. Consider, therefore, the true motives.(10) The miracle was
performed in the district of Samaria, to which country also belonged one of
the lepers.(11) Samaria, however, had revolted from Israel, carrying with
it the disaffected nine tribes,(12) which, having been alienated(13) by the
prophet Ahijah,(14) 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(15) Thou art greater," etc.; and again,
"Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; but ye say, that in Jerusalem is
the place where men ought to worship."(16) Accordingly, He who said, "Woe
unto them that trust in the mountain of Samaria,"(17) 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(18) the Samaritan to the Jew, inasmuch as
"salvation was of the Jews,"(19) whether to the Israelite or the Samaritan.
To the tribe of Judah, indeed, wholly appertained the promised Christ,(20)
in order that men might know that at Jerusalem were both  the priests and
the temple; that there also was the womb(21) of religion, and its living
fountain, not its mere "well."(22) Seeing, therefore, that they
recognised(23) the truth that at Jerusalem the law was to be fulfilled, He
healed them. whose salvation was to come(24) of faith(25) 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;(26) 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,"(1) 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. 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, La here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God
is within you."(2) 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? 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.(3) "The commandment is not a
lofty one,(4) 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."(5) This means,
"Neither in this place nor that place is the kingdom of God; for, behold,
it is within you."(6) 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,(7) at
which His kingdom will be really(8) 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(9) 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: "The stone," says He, "which the
builders rejected, is become the head-stone of the corner. This is the
Lord's doing."(10) 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.(11) 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,"(13) 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? If He really does
punish, like the Creator,(14) 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(15) 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,(16) 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.

CHAP. XXXVI.--THE PARABLES OF THE IMPORTUNATE WIDOW, AND OF THE PHARISEE
AND THE PUBLICAN. CHRIST'S ANSWER TO THE RICH RULER, THE CURE OF THE BLIND
MAN. HIS SALUTATION--SON OF DAVID. ALL PROOFS OF CHRIST'S RELATION TO THE
CREATOR, MARCION'S ANTITHESIS BETWEEN DAVID AND CHRIST CONFUTED.

   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.(17) 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."(18) Since, then, He who judges will also Himself be
the avenger, He proved that the Creator is on that account the specially
good God,(1) 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,(2) the other
justified,(3) 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.(4) 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(5) 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,(6) 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! But who is this good God? There is, He says, "none
but one."(7) 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,(8) 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;"(9) sustaining and nourishing
and assisting even Marcionites themselves! 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(10) that it was by the
Creator's precepts that eternal life is acquired.(11) Then, when he
affirmed that from his youth up he had kept all the principal commandments,
l (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."(12) Well now, Marcion, and all ye who are companions in
misery, and associates in hatred(13) 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(14) what was wanting to them? This very precept, however, about giving
to the poor, was very largely(15) diffused through the pages of the law and
the prophets. This vainglorious observer of the commandments was therefore
convicted(16) of holding money in much higher estimation (than charity).
This verity of the gospel then stands unimpaired: "I am not come to destroy
the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them."(17) 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?"(18) 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."(19) 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.(20)
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(21) of his descent, but was
to be regarded as one of that obscure class of whom nothing was in any way
known. Why then did the blind man, on hearing that He was passing by,
exclaim, "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me?"(1) unless he was
considered, in no uncertain manner,(2) 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."(3) 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. 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."(4) 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,(5) that you may not slander(6) 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."(7) 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(8) 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 named of Jesus, the Son of
David. He, who knew all this of Himself,(10) 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.(11)
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,(12) 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)(14)--in which respect (I should rather say) that they were a
type of people equally blind,(15) 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.(16) If all this were so, why did Marcion allege that the blind man's
faith was of so worthless(17) a stamp? The fact is,(18) the Son of David so
acted,(19) that the Antithesis must lose its point by its own
absurdity.(20) 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.(21) 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(22) 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.

CHAP. XXXVII.--CHRIST AND ZACCHAEUS. THE SALVATION OF THE BODY AS DENIED BY
MARCION. THE PARABLE OF THE TEN SERVANTS ENTRUSTED WITH TEN POUNDS. CHRIST
A JUDGE, WHO IS TO ADMINISTER THE WILL OF THE AUSTERE MAN, I.E. THE
CREATOR.

   "Salvation comes to the house" of Zacchaeus even.(1) 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,(2)
he yet from his intercourse with Jews had obtained a smattering(3) 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."(4) 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."(5) This he promised to do, in
an equally satisfactory way, when he offered the half of his goods for all
works of mercy.(6) So also "he loosened the bands of wickedness. undid the
heavy burdens, let the oppressed go free, and broke every yoke,"(7) when he
said, "If I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore
him fourfold."(8) Therefore the Lord said, "This day is salvation come to
this house."(9) Thus did He give His testimony, that the precepts of the
Creator spoken by the prophet tended to salvation.(10) But when He adds,
"For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost,"(11)
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. Now, since he consists of two
pans,(12) 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,(13) 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,(14) 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. 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,(16) not only bestows honour, but also takes
away what a man seems to have.(17) 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,"(18) my instructor even here is He, (whoever
He may be,) to whom belongs the money He teaches me fruitfully to
expend.(19)

CHAP. XXXVIII.--CHRIST'S REFUTATIONS OF THE PHARISEES. RENDERING DUES TO
CAESAR AND TO GOD. NEXT OF THE SADDUCEES, RESPECTING MARRIAGE IN THE
RESURRECTION. THESE PROVE HIM NOT TO BE MARCION'S BUT THE CREATOR'S CHRIST.
MARCION'S TAMPERINGS IN ORDER TO MAKE ROOM FOR HIS SECOND GOD, EXPOSED AND
CONFUTED.

   Christ knew "the baptism of John, whence it was."(20) 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.(21) Some Marcion, in rivalry
to Marcion, would have stood up(22) 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(1) on the very precipice. For
thus do men treat of the Creator respecting His law of the tree.(2) But
John's baptism was "from heaven." "Why, therefore," asks Christ, "did ye
not believe him?"(3) He therefore who had wished men to believe John,
purposing to censure(4) them because they had not believed him, belonged to
Him whose sacrament John was administering. But, at any rate,(5) 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,"(6) He
returned evil for evil! ''Render unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's,
and unto God the things which be God's."(7) 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.(8) Let Marcion's god look after his own
mint.(9) 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.(10) The truth,
however, must be confessed, this god has not a denarius to call his own! 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(11)
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?(12) 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(13) for Him either to evade
their questions, or to make them the occasion of indirectly mooring(14) 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."(15) 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."(16) 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,(17) then the Lord's reply admits of no other interpretation than
that by which the question is clearly understood.(18) 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. 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,(19) and after the rule (I have laid down about questions
and answers),(20) to deal with the arguments which have any consistency in
them.(21) They procured then a copy of the Scripture, and made short work
with its text, by reading it thus:(22) "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,(1) in other words, "Those whom God shall
account worthy of obtaining and rising to that world." 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?"(2) 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. 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."(3) For He had
affirmed the resurrection, by describing the form(4) 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. If, however, the
Scribes thought Christ was David's Son, whereas (David) himself calls Him
Lord,(5) what relation has this to Christ? David did not literally
confute(6) 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,"(7) 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,(8) 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(9) but Himself the Creator's Christ.

CHAP. XXXIX.--CONCERNING THOSE WHO COME IN THE NAME OF CHRIST. THE TERRIBLE
SIGNS OF HIS COMING. HE WhOSE COMING IS SO GRANDLY DESCRIBED BOTH IN THE
OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW TESTAMENT, IS NONE OTHER THAN THE CHRIST OF THE
CREATOR. THIS PROOF ENHANCED BY THE PARABLE OF THE FIG-TREE AND ALL THE
TREES. PARALLEL PASSAGES OF PROPHECY.

   As touching the propriety of His names, it has already been seen(10)
that both of them"(11) are suitable to Him who was the first both to
announce His Christ to mankind, and to give Him the further name (12) 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(13) ) 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. But when "they shall by and by come and
say, I am Christ,"(14) they will be received by you, who have already
received one altogether like them.(15) 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! 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"(1)--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,"(2) 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). "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.(3) Hear what is predicted in Zechariah: "The Lord of hosts(4)
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,"(5) etc.
And that you may not suppose that these predictions refer to such
sufferings as await them from so many wars with strangers,(6) 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. 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,"(7) 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,(8)
even as once He suggested to Balaam the message which he had not thought
of,(9) nay, contrary to what he had thought; and promised "a mouth" to
Moses, when he pleaded in excuse the slowness of his speech,(10) 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."(11) Now, what plea is wiser and
more irresistible than the simple and open"(12) confession made in a
martyr's cause, who "prevails with God"--which is what "Israel" means?(13)
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);"(14) except that
Marcion introduces to us a Christ who is not subject to the Father. That
persecutions from one's nearest friends are predicted, and calumny out of
hatred to His name,(15) I need not again refer to. But "by patience,"(16)
says He, "ye shall yourselves be saved."(17) Of this very patience the
Psalm says, "The patient endurance of the just shall not perish for
ever;"(18) 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."(19) 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,"(1) 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."(2) That "the very powers also of heaven have to be shaken,"(3)
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."(4) In Habakkuk also you have this statement: "With rivers shall
the earth be cleaved; the nations shall see thee, and be m pangs. Thou
shalt disperse the waters with thy step; the deep uttered its voice; the
height of its fear was raised;(5) 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."(6) 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.(7) "So likewise ye, when ye
shall see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is
nigh at hand."(8) 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,"(9) etc.
"And there was given unto Him the kingly power," (10) 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(11)--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."(12) "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,"(13) because in it "men shall
not die, neither shall they marry, but be like the angels."(14) 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,(15)--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. (If you examine) the whole passage of this
Gospel Scripture, from the inquiry of the disciples(16) down to the parable
of the fig-tree(17) 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. For asmuch, 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 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!
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."(1) Now, if the
fructification of the common trees(2) 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. 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. He further declares, "that heaven and earth shall not
pass away till all things be fulfilled."(3) 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(4) the
heaven and earth will peaceabIy 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.(5) 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 "(6)--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? Some places there were in
Jerusalem where to teach; other places outside Jerusalem whither to
retire(8)--"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."(9) "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."(10) Fit hours for an audience there also were. "Early in
the morning"(11) 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."(12) Now if this is to
destroy the prophets,(13) what will it be to fulfil them?

CHAP. XL.--HOW THE STEPS IN THE PASSION OF THE SAVIOUR WERE PREDETERMINED
IN PROPHECY. THE PASSOVER. THE TREACHERY OF JUDAS. THE INSTITUTION OF THE
LORD'S SUPPER. THE DOCETIC ERROR OF MARCION CONFUTED BY THE BODY AND THE
BLOOD OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

   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.(14) In this Moses had
declared that there  was a sacred mystery:(15) "It is the Lord's
passover."(16) 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."(17) 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?(1) 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,"(2) that He so profoundly wished to accomplish the symbol of His own
redeeming blood? 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(3) his heel against me."(4) 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."(5) The very amount and the
destination(6) of the money, which on Judas' remorse was recalled from its
first purpose of a fee,(7) and appropriated to the purchase of a potter's
field, as narrated in the Gospel of Matthew, were clearly foretold by
Jeremiah:(8) "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him
who was valued? and gave them for the potter's field." 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,"(10) that is, the figure
of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were
first a veritable body.(11) 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,(12) that bread should have been
crucified!  But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible
thing, say) a melon,(13) 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(14) they devised a device against me,
saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,"(15) which means, of course,
the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon
the ancient prophecies,(16) 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,"(17)
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. 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?"(18) 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,(1) saying, "He
washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes"(2)--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.

CHAP. XLI.--THE WOE PRONOUNCED ON THE TRAITOR A JUDICIAL ACT, WHICH
DISPROVES CHRIST TO BE SUCH AS MARCION WOULD HAVE HIM TO BE. CHRIST'S
CONDUCT BEFORE THE  COUNCIL EXPLAINED.CHRIST EVEN THEN DIRECTS THE MINDS OF
HIS JUDGES TO THE PROPHETIC EVIDENCES OF HIS OWN MISSION. THE MORAL
RESPONSIBILITY OF THESE MEN ASSERTED.

   "Woe," says He, "to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed!"(3)
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
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(4) 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:(5) either
that he was ignorant, and had no foresight to hinder the future sinner;(6)
or that he was unable to hinder him, even if he was ignorant;(7) 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. 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,(8)
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.(9) The Christ of the prophets was
destined, moreover, to be betrayed with a kiss,(10) for He was the Son
indeed of Him who was "honoured with the lips" by the people.(11) When led
before the council, He is asked whether He is the Christ.(12) Of what
Christ could the Jews have inquired(13) 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. For
he said, "If I tell you, ye will not believe."(14) 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(15) 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,(16) because a spontaneous recognition was due to Him.
But yet for all this, He with a solemn gesture(17) says, "Hereafter shall
the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God."(18) For it was
on the authority of the prophecy of Daniel that He intimated to them that
He was "the Son of man,"(19) and of David's Psalm, that He would "sit at
the right hand of God."(20) 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?"(21) 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;"(1)
as if He meant: It is ye who say this--not I. But at the same time He
allowed Himself to be all that they had said, in this their second
question.(2) By what means, however, are you going to prove to us that they
pronounced the sentence "Ergo tu fulius Dei es" inter-rogatively, and not
affirmatively?(3) Just as, (on the one hand,) because He had shown them in
an indirect manner,(4) 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,(5) as much as to
say, "You do not wish to say this of yourself plainly,(6) so, (on the other
hand,) He likewise answered them, "Ye say that I am," in a sense equally
free from doubt, even affirmatively;(7) and so completely was His statement
to this effect, that they insisted on accepting that sense which His
statement indicated.(8)

CHAP. XLII.--OTHER INCIDENTS OF THE PASSION MINUTELY COMPARED WITH
PROPHECY. PILATE AND HEROD. BARABBAS PREFERRED TO JESUS. DETAILS OF THE
CRUCIFIXION. THE EARTHQUAKE AND THE MID-DAY DARKNESS. ALL WONDERFULLY
FORETOLD IN THE SCRIPTURES OF THE CREATOR. CHRIST'S GIVING UP THE GHOST NO
EVIDENCE OF MARCION'S DOCETIC OPINIONS. IN HIS SEPULTURE THERE IS A
REFUTATION THEREOF.

   For when He was brought before Pilate, they proceeded to urge Him with
the serious charge(9), of declaring Himself to be Christ the King;(10) that
is, undoubtedly, as the Son of God, who was to sit at God's right hand.
They would, however, have burdened Him(11) 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 Pirate asked Him, "Art thou
Christ (the King)?" He answered, as He had before (to the Jewish
council)(12) "Thou sayest that I am"(13) in order that He might not seem to
have been driven by a fear of his power to give him a fuller answer. "And
so the Lord i hath stood on His trial."(14) 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.(15) 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."(16) 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. When, indeed, He was sent to Herod gratuitously(17) by
Pilate,(18) the words of Hosea were accomplished, for he had prophesied of
Christ: "And they shall carry Him bound as a present to the king."(19)
Herod was "exceeding glad" when he saw Jesus, but he heard not a word from
Him.(20) For, "as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so He opened not His
mouth,"(21) because "the Lord had given to Him a disciplined tongue, that
he might know how and when it behoved Him to speak"(22)--even that "tongue
which clove to His jaws," as the Psalm(23) said it should, through His not
speaking. 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.(24) Moreover two malefactors are
crucified around Him, in order that He might Le reckoned amongst the
transgressors.(25) Although His raiment was, without doubt, parted among
the soldiers, and partly distributed by lot, yet Marcion has erased it all
(from his Gospel),(26) for he had his eye upon the Psalm: "They parted my
garments amongst them, and cast lots upon my vesture."(27) 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."(28) 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."(1) 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.(2)
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(3)--gladly gazing at
Marcion's Christ suspended on his gibbet! These proofs(4) 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."(5) 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."(6) (At noon)(7) the veil of. the temple
was rent"(8) by the escape of the cherubim,(9) which "left the daughter of
Sion as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers."(10)
With what constancy has He also, in Psalm xxx., laboured to present to us
the very Christ! He calls with a loud voice to the Father, "Into Thine
hands I commend my spirit,"(11) that even when dying He might expend His
last breath in fulfilling the prophets. Having said this, He gave up the
ghost."(12) Who? Did the spirit(13) 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.(14) 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?
Indeed, if it was not flesh (upon the cross), but a phantom(15) of flesh
(and(16) a phantom is but spirit, and(16) 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.(17) Nothing
therefore remained upon the cross, nothing hung there, after "the giving up
of the ghost;"(18) 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.(19) Still it was not nothing(20) 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. 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?(21) That same Joseph "who had not consented" with the Jews
in their crime?(22) 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."(23)

CHAP. XLIII.--CONCLUSIONS.JESUS AS THE CHRIST OF THE CREATOR PROVED FROM
THE EVENTS OF THE LAST CHAPTER OF ST. LUKE. THE PIOUS WOMEN AT THE
SEPULCHRE. THE ANGELS AT THE RESURRECTION. THE MANIFOLD APPEARANCES OF
CHRIST AFTER THE RESURRECTION. HIS MISSION OF THE APOSTLES AMONGST ALL
NATIONS. ALL SHOWN TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WISDOM OF THE ALMIGHTY
FATHER, AS INDICATED IN PROPHECY.    THE BODY OF CHRIST AFTER DEATH NO MERE
PHANTOM.    MARCION'S MANIPULATION OF THE GOSPEL ON THIS POINT.

   It was very meet that the man who buried the Lord should thus be
noticed in prophecy, and thenceforth be "blessed;"(24) 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.(1) For of this
incident it is said by Hosea: "To seek my face they will watch tiIl 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(3) 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),"(4) "His sepulture was removed from the midst of them,"(5)
according to the prophecy of Isaiah. "Two angels however, appeared
there."(6) For just so many honorary companions(7) were required by the
word of God, which usually prescribes "two witnesses."(8) 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;"(9) that is, "come," to report the resurrection of the Lord. 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,(10) they say: "But we trusted that
it had been He which should have redeemed Israel,"(11)--meaning their own,
that is, the Creator's Christ. 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(12) reproached them: "O fools, and slow of heart in not
believing that which He spake unto you."(13) By saying this, He proves that
He does not belong to the rival god, but to the same God. 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."(14) "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. 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(15) my hands and my feet, that it
is I myself; for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have."(16) 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?" 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,"(1) 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,(2) for the express purpose of showing them
that He had teeth.(3)

   And now, as I would venture to believe,(4) 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,(5)
affections, feelings, miracles, sufferings, and even resurrection--as
foretold by the prophets.(6) 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;"(7) for He thus fulfilled the psalm: "Their sound is
gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the
world."(8) Marcion, I pity you; your labour has been in vain. For the Jesus
Christ who appears in your Gospel is mine.

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION.

BOOK V.

WHEREIN TERTULLIAN PROVES, WITH RESPECT TO ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES, WHAT HE HAD
PROVED IN THE PRECEDING BOOK WITH RESPECT TO ST. LUKE'S GOSPEL. FAR FROM
BEING AT VARIANCE, THEY WERE IN PERFECT UNISON WITH THE WRITINGS OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT, AND THEREFORE TESTIFIED THAT THE CREATOR WAS THE ONLY GOD, AND
THAT THE LORD JESUS WAS HIS CHRIST. AS IN THE PRECEDING BOOKS, TERTULLIAN
SUPPORTS HIS ARGUMENT WITH PROFOUND REASONING, AND MANY HAPPY ILLUSTRATIONS
OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

CHAP. I.--INTRODUCTORY. THE APOSTLE PAUL HIMSELF NOT THE PREACHER OF A NEW
GOD. CALLED BY JESUS CHRIST, ALTHOUGH AFTER THE OTHER APOSTLES, HIS MISSION
WAS FROM THE CREATOR. STATES HOW. THE ARGUMENT, AS IN THE CASE OF THE
GOSPEL, CONFINING PROOFS TO SUCH PORTIONS OF ST. PAUL'S WRITINGS AS MARCION
ALLOWED.

   There is nothing without a beginning but God alone. Now, inasmuch as
the beginning: occupies the first place in the condition of all  things, so
it must necessarily take precedence in the treatment of them, if a clear
knowledge is to be arrived at concerning their condition; for you could not
find the means of examining even the quality of anything, unless you were
certain of its existence, and that after discovering its origin.(1) Since
therefore I am brought, in the course of my little work, to this point,(2)
I require to know of Marcion the origin of his apostles even--I, who am to
some degree a new disciple? the follower of no other master; who at the
same time(5) can believe nothing, except that nothing ought to be believed
hastily(6) (and that  I may further say is hastily believed, which is
believed without any examination(7) of its beginning); in short, I who have
the best reason possible for bringing this inquiry to a most careful
solution,(8) since a man is affirmed to me to be an apostle whom I do not
find mentioned in the Gospel in the catalogue, of the apostles. Indeed,
when I hear that this man was chosen by the Lord after He had attained His
rest in heaven, I feel that a kind of improvidence is imputable to Christ,
for not knowing before that this man was necessary to Him; and because He
thought that he must be added to the apostolic body in the way of a
fortuitous encounter(10) rather than a deliberate selection; by necessity
(so to speak), and not voluntary choice, although the members of the
apostolate had been duly ordained, and were now dismissed to their several
missions. Wherefore, O shipmaster of Pontus,(1) if you have never taken on
board your small craft(2) any contraband goods or smuggler's cargo, if you
have never thrown overboard or tampered with a freight, you are still more
careful and conscientious, I doubt not, in divine things; and so I should
be glad if you would inform us under what bill of lading(3) you admitted
the Apostle Paul on board, who ticketed him,(4) what owner forwarded
him,(5) who handed him to you,(6) that so you may land him without any
misgiving,(7) lest he should turn out to belong to him,(8) who can
substantiate his claim to him by producing all his apostolic writings.(9)
He professes himself to be "an apostle"--to use his own, words--"not of
men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ."(10) Of course, any one may make a
profession concerning himself; but his profession is only rendered valid by
the authority of a second person. One man signs, another countersigns;(11)
one man appends his seal, another registers in the public records.(12) No
one is at once a proposer and a seconder to himself. Besides, you have
read, no doubt, that "many shall come, saying, I am Christ."(13) Now if any
one can pretend that he is Christ, how much more might a man profess to be
an apostle of Christ !But still, for my own part, I appear(14) in the
character of a disciple and an inquirer; that so I may even thus(15) both
refute your belief, who have nothing to support it, and confound your
shamelessness, who make claims without possessing the means of establishing
them. Let there be a Christ, let there be an apostle, although of another
god; but what matter? since they are only to draw their proofs out of the
Testament of the Creator. Because even the book of Genesis so long ago
promised me the Apostle Paul. For among the types and prophetic blessings
which he pronounced over his sons, Jacob, when he turned his attention to
Benjamin, exclaimed, "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf; in the morning He
shall devour the prey, and at night he shall impart nourishment."(16) He
foresaw that Paul would arise out of the tribe of Benjamin, a voracious
wolf, devouring his prey in the morning: in order words, in the early
period of his life he would devastate the Lord's sheep, as a persecutor of
the churches; but in the evening he would give them nourishment, which
means that in his declining years he would educate the fold of Christ, as
the teacher of the Gentiles. Then, again, in Saul's conduct towards David,
exhibited first in violent persecution of him, and then in remorse and
reparation,(17) on his receiving from him good for evil, we have nothing
else than an anticipation(18) of Paul in Saul--belonging, too, as they did,
to the same tribe--and of Jesus in David, from whom He descended according
to the Virgin's genealogy.(19) Should you, however, disapprove of these
types,(20) the Acts of the Apostles," at all events, have handed down to me
this career of Paul, which you must not refuse to accept. Thence I
demonstrate that from a persecutor he became "an apostle, not of men,
neither by man;"(22) thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence
do I find reason for rejecting your defence of him,(23) and for bearing
fearlessly your taunt. "Then you deny the Apostle Paul." I do not
calumniate him whom I defend.(24) I deny him, to compel you to the proof of
him. I deny him, to convince you that he is mine. If you have regard to our
belief you should admit the particulars which comprise it. If you challenge
us to your belief, (pray) tell us what things constitute its basis.(25)
Either prove the truth of what you believe, or failing in your proof, (tell
us) how you believe. Else what conduct is yours,(26) believing in
opposition to Him from whom alone comes the proof of that which you
believe? Take now from my point of view(27) the apostle, in the same manner
as you have received the Christ--the apostle shown to be as much mine as
the Christ is. And here, too, we will fight within the same lines, and
challenge our adversary on the mere ground of a simple rule,(1) that even
an apostle who is said not to belong to the Creator-nay, is displayed as in
actual hostility to the Creator--can be fairly regarded as teaching(2)
nothing, knowing nothing, wishing nothing in favour of the Creator whilst
it would be a first principle with him to set forth(3) another god with as
much eagerness as he would use in withdrawing us from the law of the
Creator. It is not at all likely that he would call men away from Judaism
without showing them at the same time what was the god in whom he invited
them to believe; because nobody could possibly pass from allegiance to the
Creator without knowing to whom he had to cross over. For either Christ had
already revealed another god--in which case the apostle's testimony would
also follow to the same effect, for fear of his not being else regarded(4)
as an apostle of the god whom Christ had revealed, and because of the
impropriety of his being concealed by the apostle who had been already
revealed by Christ--or Christ had made no such revelation concerning God;
then there was all the greater need why the apostle should reveal a God who
could now be made known by no one else, and who would undoubtedly be left
without any belief at all, if he were revealed not even by an apostle. We
have laid down this as our first principle, because we wish at once to
profess that we shall pursue the same method here in the apostle's case as
we adopted before in Christ's case, to prove that he proclaimed no new
god;(5) that is, we shall draw our evidence from the epistles of St. Paul
himself. Now, the garbled form in which we have found the heretic's Gospel
will have already prepared us to expect to find(6) the epistles also
mutilated by him with like perverseness--and that even as respects their
number.(7)

CHAP.II.--ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

   THE ABOLITION OF THE ORDINANCES OF THE MOSAIC LAW NO PROOF OF ANOTHER
GOD. THE DIVINE LAWGIVER, THE CREATOR HIMSELF, WAS THE ABROGATOR. THE
APOSTLE'S DOCTRINE IN THE FIRST CHAPTER SHOWN TO ACCORD WITH THE
TEACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES SHOWN TO BE
GENUINE AGAINST MARCION. THIS BOOK AGREES WITH THE PAULINE EPISTLES.

   The epistle which we also allow to be the most decisive(8) against
Judaism, is that wherein the apostle instructs the Galatians. For the
abolition of the ancient law we fully admit, and hold that it actually
proceeds from the dispensation of the Creator,--a point which we have
already often treated in the course of our discussion, when we showed that
the innovation was foretold by the prophets of our God.(9) Now, if the
Creator indeed promised that "the ancient things should pass any,"(10) to
be superseded by a new course of things which should arise, whilst Christ
marks the period of the separation when He says, "The law and the prophets
were until John"(11)--thus making the Baptist the limit between the two
dispensations of the old things then terminating--and the new things then
beginning, the apostle cannot of course do otherwise, (coming as he does)
in Christ, who was revealed after John, than invalidate "the old things"
and confirm "the new," and yet promote thereby the faith of no other god
than the Creator, at whose instance(12) it was foretold that the ancient
things should pass away. Therefore both the abrogation of the law and the
establishment of the gospel help my argument even in this epistle, wherein
they both have reference to the fond assumption of the Galatians, which led
them to suppose that faith in Christ (the Creator's Christ, of course) was
obligatory, but without annulling the law, because it still appeared to
them a thing incredible that the law should be set aside by its own author.
Again,(13) if they had at all heard of any other god from the apostle,
would they not have concluded at once, of themselves, that they must give
up the law of that God whom they had left, in order to follow another? For
what man would be long in learning, that he ought to pursue a new
discipline, after he had taken up with a new god? Since, however,(14) the
same God was declared in the gospel which had always been so well known in
the law, the only change being in the dispensation,(15) the sole point of
the question to be discussed was, whether the law of the Creator ought by
the gospel to be excluded in the Christ of the Creator? Take away this
point, and the controversy falls to the ground. Now, since they would all
know of themselves,(16) on the withdrawal of this point, that they must of
course renounce all submission to the Creator by reason of their faith in
another god, there could have been no call for the apostle to teach them so
earnestly that which their own belief must have spontaneously suggested to
them. Therefore the entire purport of this epistle is simply to show us
that the supersession(1) of the law comes from the appointment of the
Creator--a point, which we shall still have to keep in mind.(2) Since also
he makes mention of no other god (and he could have found no other
opportunity of doing so, more suitable than when his purpose was to set
forth the reason for the abolition of the law--especially as the
prescription of a new god would have afforded a singularly good and most
sufficient reason), it is clear enough in what sense he writes, "I marvel
that ye are so soon removed from Him who hath called you to His grace to
another gospel"(3)--He means) "another" as to the conduct it prescribes,
not in respect of its worship; "another" as to the discipline it teaches,
not in respect of its divinity; because it is the office of(4) Christ's
gospel to call men from the law to grace, not from the Creator to another
god. For nobody had induced them to apostatize from(5) the Creator, that
they should seem to "be removed to another gospel," simply when they return
again to the Creator. When he adds, too, the words, "which is not
another,"(6) he confirms the fact that the gospel which he maintains is the
Creator's. For the Creator Himself promises the gospel, when He says by
Isaiah: "Get thee up into the high mountain, thou that bringest to Sion
good tidings; lift up thy voice with strength, thou that bringest the
gospel to Jerusalem."(7) Also when, with respect to the apostles
personally, He says, "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the
gospel of peace, that bring good tidings of good"(8)--even proclaiming the
gospel to the Gentiles, because He also says, "In His name shall the
Gentiles trust;"(9) that is, in the name of Christ, to whom He says, "I
have given thee as a light of the Gentiles."(10) However, you will have it
that it is the gospel of a new god which was then set forth by the apostle.
So that there are two gospels for(11) two gods; and the apostle made a
great mistake when he said that "there is not another" gospel," since there
is (on the hypothesis)(13) another; and so he might have made a better
defence of his gospel, by rather demonstrating this, than by insisting on
its being but one. But perhaps, to avoid this difficulty, you will say that
he therefore added just afterwards, "Though an angel from heaven preach any
other gospel, let him be accursed,"(14) because he was aware that the
Creator was going to introduce a gospel! But you thus entangle yourself
still more. For this is now the mesh in which you are caught. To affirm
that there are two gospels, is not the part of a man who has already denied
that there is another. His meaning, however, is clear, for he has mentioned
himself first (in the anathema): "But though we or an angel from heaven
preach any other gospel."(15) It is by way of an example that he has
expressed himself. If even he himself might not preach any other gospel,
then neither might an angel. He said "angel"' in this way, that he might
show how much more men ought not to be believed, when neither an angel nor
an apostle ought to be; not that he meant to apply(16) an angel to the
gospel of the Creator. He then cursorily touches on his own conversion from
a persecutor to an apostle--confirming thereby the Acts of the
Apostles,(17) in which book may be found the very subject(18) of this
epistle, how that certain persons interposed, and said that men ought to be
circumcised, and that the law of Moses was to be observed; and how the
apostles, when consulted, determined, by the authority of the Holy Ghost,
that "a yoke should not be put upon men's necks which their fathers even
had not been able to bear."(19) Now, since the Acts of the Apostles thus
agree with Paul, it becomes apparent why you reject them. It is because
they declare no other God than the Creator, and prove Christ to belong to
no other God than the Creator; whilst the promise of the Holy Ghost is
shown to have been fulfilled in no other document than the Acts of the
Apostles. Now, it is not very likely that these(20) should be found in
agreement with the apostle, on the one hand, when they described his career
in accordance with his own statement; but should, on the other hand, be at
variance with him when they announce the (attribute of) divinity in the
Creator's Christ--as if Paul did not follow(1) the preaching of the
apostles when he received from them the prescription(2) of not teaching the
Law.(3)

CHAP. III.--ST. PAUL QUITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ST. PETER AND OTHER APOSTLES
OF THE CIRCUMCISION. HIS CENSURE OF ST. PETER EXPLAINED, AND RESCUED FROM
MARCION'S MISAPPLICATION. THE STRONG PROTESTS OF THIS EPISTLE AGAINST
JUDAIZERS, YET ITS TEACHING IS SHOWN TO BE IN KEEPING WITH THE LAW AND THE
PROPHETS, MARCION'S TAMPERING WITH ST. PAUL'S WRITINGS CENSURED.

   But with regard to the countenance(4) of Peter and the rest of the
apostles, he tells us s that "fourteen years after he went up to
Jerusalem," in order to confer with them(6) about the rule which he
followed in his gospel, lest perchance he should all those years have been
running, and be running still, in vain, (which would be the case,) of
course, if his preaching of the gospel fell short of their method.(7) So
great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you
wish on all occasions(8) to be understood as in alliance with Judaism! When
indeed he says, that "neither was Titus circumcised,"(9) he for the first
time shows us that circumcision was the only question connected with the
maintenance(10) of the law, which had been as yet agitated by those whom he
therefore calls "false brethren unawares brought in."(11) These persons
went no further than to insist on a continuance of the law, retaining
unquestionably a sincere belief in the Creator. They perverted the gospel
in their teaching, not indeed by such a tampering with the Scripture(12) as
should enable them to expunge(13) the Creator's Christ, but by so retaining
the ancient regime as not to exclude the Creator's law. Therefore he says:
"Because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy
out our liberty which we have in Christ, that they might bring us into
bondage, to whom we gave place by subjection not even for an hour."(14) Let
us only attend to the clear(15) sense and to the reason of the thing, and
the perversion of the Scripture will be apparent. When he first says,
"Neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be
circumcised," and then adds, "And that because of false brethren unawares
brought in,"(16) etc., he gives us an insight into his reason(17) for
acting in a clean contrary way,(18) showing us wherefore he did that which
he would neither have done nor shown to us, if that had not happened which
induced him to act as he did. But then(19) I want you to tell us whether
they would have yielded to the subjection that was demanded,(20) if these
false brethren had not crept in to spy out their liberty? I apprehend not.
They therefore gave way (in a partial concession), because there were
persons whose weak faith required consideration.(21) For their rudimentary
belief, which was still in suspense about the observance of the law,
deserved this concessive treatment,(22) when even the apostle himself had
some suspicion that he might have run, and be still running, in vain.(23)
Accordingly, the false brethren who were the spies of their Christian
liberty must be thwarted in their efforts to bring it under the yoke of
their own Judaism before that Paul discovered whether his labour had been
in vain, before that those who preceded him in the apostolate gave him
their right hands of fellowship, before that he entered on the office of
preaching to the Gentiles, according to their arrangement with him.(24) He
therefore made some concession, as was necessary, for a time; and this was
the reason why he had Timothy circumcised,(25) and the Nazarites introduced
into the temple,(26) which incidents are described in the Acts. Their truth
may be inferred from their agreement with the apostle's own profession, how
"to the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and to them
that were under the law, as under the law,"--and so here with respect to
those who come in secretly,--"and lastly, how he became all things to all
men, that he might gain all."(1) Now, inasmuch as the circumstances require
such an interpretation as this, no one will refuse to admit that Paul
preached that God and that Christ whose law he was excluding all the while,
however much he allowed it, owing to the times, but which he would have had
summarily to abolish if he had published a new god. Rightly, then, did
Peter and James and John give their right hand of fellowship to Paul, and
agree on such a division of their work, as that Paul should go to the
heathen, and themselves to the circumcision.(2) Their agreement, also, "to
remember the poor"(3) was in complete conformity with the law of the
Creator, which cherished the poor and needy, as has been shown in our
observations on your Gospel.(4) It is thus certain that the question was
one which simply regarded the law, while at the same time it is apparent
what portion of the law it was convenient to have observed. Paul, however,
censures Peter for not walking straightforwardly according to the truth of
the gospel. No doubt he blames him; but it was solely because of his
inconsistency in the matter of "eating,"(5) which he varied according to
the sort of persons (whom he associated with) "fearing them which were of
the circumcision,"(6) but not on account of any perverse opinion touching
another god. For if such a question had arisen, others also would have been
"resisted face to face" by the man who had not even spared Peter on the
comparatively small matter of his doubtful conversation. But what do the
Marcionites wish to have believed (on the point)? For the rest, the apostle
must (be permitted to) go on with his own statement, wherein he says that
"a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith:"(7) faith,
however, in the same God to whom belongs the law also. For of course he
would have bestowed no labour on severing faith from the law, when the
difference of the god would, if there had only been any, have of itself
produced such a severance. Justly, therefore, did he refuse to "build up
again (the structure of the law) which he had overthrown."(8) The law,
indeed, had to be overthrown, from the moment when John "cried in the
wilderness, Prepare ye the ways of the Lord," that valleys(9) and hills and
mountains may be filled up and levelled, and the crooked and the rough ways
be made straight and smooth(10)--in other words, that the difficulties of
the law might be changed into the facilities of the gospel. For he
remembered that the time was come of which the Psalm spake, "Let us break
their bands asunder, and cast off their yoke from us;"(11) since the time
when "the nations became tumultuous, and the people imagined vain
counsels;" when "the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were
gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ,"(12) in order
that thenceforward man might be justified by the liberty of faith, not by
servitude to the law,(13) "because the just shall live by his faith."(14)
Now, although the prophet Habakkuk first said this, yet you have the
apostle here confirming the prophets, even as Christ did. The object,
therefore, of the faith whereby the just man shall live, will be that same
God to whom likewise belongs the law, by doing which no man is justified.
Since, then, there equally are found the curse in the law and the blessing
in faith, you have both conditions set forth by(15) the Creator: "Behold,"
says He, "I have set before you a blessing and a curse."(16) You cannot
establish a diversity of authors because there happens to be one of things;
for the diversity is itself proposed by one and the same author. Why,
however, "Christ was made a curse for us,"(17) is declared by the apostle
himself in a way which quite helps our side, as being the result of the
Creator's appointment. But yet it by no means follows, because the Creator
said of old, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,"(18) that Christ
belonged to another god, and on that account was accursed even then in the
law. And how, indeed, could the Creator have cursed by anticipation one
whom He knew not of? Why, however, may it not be more suitable for the
Creator to have delivered His own Son to His own curse, than to have
submitted Him to the malediction of that god of yours,--in behalf, too, of
man, who is an alien to him? Now, if this appointment of the Creator
respecting His Son appears to you to be a cruel one, it is equally so in
the case of your own god; if, on the contrary, it be in accordance with
reason in your god, it is equally so--nay, much more so--in mine. For it
would be more credible that that God had provided blessing for man, through
the curse of Christ, who formerly set both a blessing and a curse before
man, than that he had done so, who, according to you,(1) never at any time
pronounced either. "We have received therefore, the promise of the Spirit,"
as the apostle says, "through faith," even that faith by which the just man
lives, in accordance with the Creator's purpose.(2) What I say, then, is
this, that that God is the object of faith who prefigured the grace of
faith. But when he also adds, ".For ye are all the children of faith,"(3)
it becomes dear that what the heretic's industry erased was the mention of
Abraham's name; for by faith the apostle declares us to be "children of
Abraham,"(4) and after mentioning him he expressly called us "children of
faith" also. But how are we children of faith? and of whose faith, if not
Abraham's? For since "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for
righteousness;"(5) since, also, he deserved for that reason to be called
"the father of many nations," whilst we, who are even more like him(6) in
believing in God, are thereby justified as Abraham was, and thereby also
obtain life--since the just lives by his faith,--it therefore happens that,
as he in the previous passage called us "sons of Abraham," since he is in
faith our (common) father,(7) so here also he named us "children of faith,"
for it was owing to his faith that it was promised that Abraham should be
the father of (many) nations. As to the fact itself of his calling off
faith from circumcision, did he not seek thereby to constitute us the
children of Abraham, who had believed previous to his circumcision in the
flesh?(8) In short,(9) faith in one of two gods cannot possibly admit us to
the dispensation(10) of the other,(11) so that it should impute
righteousness to those who believe in him, and make the just live through
him, and declare the Gentiles to be his children through faith. Such a
dispensation as this belongs wholly to Him through whose appointment it was
already made known by the call of this self-same Abraham, as is
conclusively shown(12)' by the natural meaning.(13)

CHAP. IV.--ANOTHER INSTANCE OF MARCION'S TAMPERING WITH ST. PAUL'S TEXT.
THE FULNESS OF TIME, ANNOUNCED BY THE APOSTLE, FORETOLD BY THE PROPHETS.
MOSAIC RITES ABROGATED BY THE CREATOR HIMSELF. MARCION'S TRICKS ABOUT
ABRAHAM'S NAME. THE CREATOR, BY HIS CHRIST, THE FOUNTAIN OF THE GRACE AND
THE LIBERTY WHICH ST. PAUL ANNOUNCED. MARCION'S DOCETISM REFUTED.

   "But," says he, "I speak after the manner of men: when we were
children, we were placed in bondage under the elements of the world."(14)
This, however, was not said "after the manner of men." For there is no
figure(15) here, but literal truth. For (with respect to the latter clause
of this passage), what child (in the sense, that is, in which the Gentiles
are children) is not in bondage to the elements of the world, which he
looks up to(16) in the light of a god? With regard, however, to the former
clause, there was a figure (as the apostle wrote it); because after he had
said, "I speak after the manner of men," he adds), "Though it be but a
man's covenant, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto."(17) For by the
figure of the permanency of a human covenant he was defending the divine
testament. "To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He said not
'to seeds,' as of many; but as of one, 'to thy seed,' which is Christ."(18)
Fie on(19) Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what
he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he
has retained.(20) "But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth
His Son"(21)--the God, of course, who is the Lord of that very succession
of times which constitutes an age; who also ordained, as "signs" of time,
suns and moons and constellations and stars; who furthermore both
predetermined and predicted that the revelation of His Son should be
postponed to the end of the times.(1) "It shall come to pass in the last
days, that the mountain (of the house) of the Lord shall be manifested";(2)
"and in the last days I will. pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh"(3) as
Joel  says. It was characteristic of Him (only)(4) to wait patiently for
the fulness of time, to  whom belonged the end of time no less than the
beginning. But as for that idle god, who  has neither any work nor any
prophecy, nor  accordingly any time, to show for himself  what has he ever
done to bring about the fulness of time, or to wait patiently its
completion? If nothing, what an impotent state to have to wait for the
Creator's time, in servility to the Creator! But for what end did He send
His Son? "To redeem them that were under the law,"(5) in other words, to
"make the crooked ways straight, and the rough places smooth," as Isaiah
says(6)--in order that old things might pass away, and a new course begin,
even "the new law out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,"(7)
and "that we might receive the adoption of sons,"(8) that is, the Gentiles,
who once were not sons. For He is to be "the light of the Gentiles," and
"in His name shall the Gentiles trust."(9) That we may have, therefore the
assurance that we are the children of God, "He hath sent forth His Spirit
into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father."(10) For "in the last days," saith
He," I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh."(11) Now, from whom comes
this grace, but from Him who proclaimed the promise thereof? Who is (our)
Father, but He who is also our Maker? Therefore, after such affluence (of
grace), they should not have returned "to weak and beggarly elements."(12)
By the Romans, however, the rudiments of learning are wont to be called
elements. He did not therefore seek, by any depreciation of the mundane
elements, to turn them away from their god, although, when he said just
before, "Howbeit, then, ye serve them which by nature are no gods,"(13) he
censured the error of that physical or natural superstition which holds the
elements to be god; but at the God of those elements he aimed not in this
censure.(14) He tells us himself clearly enough what he means by
"elements," even the rudiments of the law: "Ye observe days, and months,
and times, and years"(15)--the sabbaths, I suppose, and "the
preparations,"(16) and the fasts, and the "high days."(17) For the
cessation of even these, no less than of cicumcision, was appointed by the
Creator's decrees, who had said by Isaiah, "Your new moons, and your
sabbaths, and your high days I cannot bear; your fasting, and feasts, and
ceremonies my soul hateth;"(18) also by Amos, "I hate, I despise your
feast-days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies;"(19) and again
by Hosea, "I will cause to cease all her mirth, and her feast-days, and her
sabbaths, and her new moons, and all her solemn assemblies."(20) The
institutions which He set up Himself, you ask, did He then destroy? Yes,
rather than any other. Or if another destroyed them, he only helped on the
purpose of the Creator, by removing what even He had condemned. But this is
not the place to discuss the question why the Creator abolished His own
laws. It is enough for us to have proved that He intended such an
abolition, that so it may be affirmed that the apostle determined nothing
to the prejudice of the Creator, since the abolition itself proceeds from
the Creator. But as, in the case of thieves, something of the stolen goods
is apt to drop by the way, as a clue to their detection; so, as it seems to
me, it has happened to Marcion: the last mention of Abraham's name he has
left untouched (in the epistle), although no passage required his erasure
more than this, even  his partial alteration of the text.(21) "For (it is
written) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a
free woman; but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but
he of the free woman was by promise: which things are allegorized"(22)
(that is to say, they presaged something besides the literal history); "for
these are the two covenants," or the two exhibitions (of the divine
plans),(1) as we have found the word interpreted," the one from the Mount
Sinai," in relation to the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law,
"which gendereth to bondage"--"the other gendereth" (to liberty, being
raised) above all principality, and  power, and dominion, and every name
that is l named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come,
"which is the mother of us all," in which we have the promise of (Christ's)
holy church; by reason of which he adds in conclusion: "So then, brethren,
we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free."(2) In this passage
he has undoubtedly shown that Christianity had a noble birth, being sprung,
as the mystery of the allegory indicates, from that son of Abraham who was
born of the free woman; whereas from the son of the bond maid came the
legal bondage of Judaism. Both dispensations, therefore, emanate from that
same God by whom,(3) as we have found, they were both sketched out
beforehand. When he speaks of "the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us
free,"(4) does not the very phrase indicate that He is the Liberator who
was once the Master? For Galba himself never liberated slaves which were
not his own, even when about to restore free men to their liberty.(5) By
Him, therefore, will liberty be bestowed, at whose command lay the
enslaving power of the law. And very properly. It was not meet that those
who had received liberty should be "entangled again with the yoke of
bondage"(6)--that is, of the law; now that the Psalm had its prophecy
accomplished: "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords
from us, since the rulers have gathered themselves together against the
Lord and against His Christ.''(7) All those, therefore, who had been
delivered from the yoke of slavery he would earnestly have to obliterate
the very mark of slavery--even circumcision, on the authority of the
prophet's   prediction. He remembered how that Jeremiah had said,
"Circumcise the foreskins of your heart;"(8) as Moses likewise had
enjoined, "Circumcise your hard hearts"(9)--not the literal flesh. If, now,
he were for excluding circumcision, as the messenger of a new god, why does
he say that "in Christ neither circumcisoin availeth anything, nor
uncircumcision?(10) For it was his duty to prefer the rival principle of
that which he was abolishing, if he had a mission from the god who was the
enemy of circumcision. Furthermore, since both circumcision and
uncircumcision were attributed to the same Deity, both lost their power(11)
in Christ, by reason of the excellency of faith--of that faith concerning
which it had been written, "And in His name shall the Gentiles trust?"(12)-
-of that faith "which," he says "worketh by love."(13) By this saying he
also shows that the Creator is the source of that grace. For whether he
speaks of the love which is due to God, or that which is due to one's
neighbor--in either case, the Creator's grace is meant: for it is He who
enjoins the first in these words, "Thou shalt love God with all thine
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength;" (14) and also the
second in another passage: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."(15)
"But he that troubleth you shall have to bear judgment."(16) From what God?
From (Marcion's) most excellent god? But he does not execute judgment. From
the Creator? But neither will He condemn the maintainer of circumcision.
Now, if none other but the Creator shall be found to execute judgment, it
follows that only He, who has determined on the cessation of the law, shall
be able to  condemn the defenders of the law; and what, if he also affirms
the law in that portion of it where it ought (to be permanent)? "For," says
he, "all the law is fulfilled in you by this: 'Thou shalt love thy
neighhour as thyself.' "(17) If, indeed, he will have it that by the words
"it is fulfilled" it is implied that the law no longer has to be fulfilled,
then of course he does not mean that I should any more love my neighbour as
myself, since this precept must have ceased together with the law. But no!
we must evermore continue to observe this commandment. The Creator's law,
therefore, has received the approval of the rival god, who has, in fact,
bestowed upon  it not the sentence of a summary dismissal,(18) but the
favour of a compendious acceptance;(19) the gist of it all being
concentrated in this one precept! But this condensation of the law is, in
fact, only possible to Him who is the Author of it. When, therefore, he
says, "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ,"(1)
since this cannot be accomplished except a man love his neighhour as
himself, it is evident that the precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself"  (which, in fact, underlies the injunction, 'Bear ye one another's
burdens"), is really "the law of Christ," though literally the law of the
Creator. Christ, therefore, is the Creator's Christ, as Christ's law is the
Creator's law. "Be not deceived,(2) God is not mocked."(3) But Marcion's
god can be mocked; for he knows not how to be angry, or how to take
vengeance. "For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."(4) It is
then the God of recompense and judgment who threatens(5) this. "Let us not
be weary in well-doing;"(6) and "as we have opportunity, let us do
good."(7) Deny now that the Creator has given a commandment to do good, and
then a diversity of precept may argue a difference of gods. If, however, He
also announces recompense, then from the same God must come the harvest
both of death(8) and of life. But "in due time we shall reap;"(9) because
in Ecclesiastes it is said, "For everything there will be a time."(10)
Moreover, "the world is crucified unto me," who am a servant of the
Creator--"the world," (I say,) but not the God who made the world--"and I
unto the world,"(11) not unto the God who made the world. The world, in the
apostle's sense, here means life and conversation according to worldly
principles; it is in renouncing these that we and they are mutually
crucified and mutually slain. He calls them "persecutors of Christ."(12)
But when he adds, that "he bare in his body the scars(13) of Christ"--
since scars, of course, are accidents of body(14)--he therefore expressed
the truth, that the flesh of Christ is not putative, but real and
substantial,(15) the scars of which he represents as borne upon his body.

CHAP. V.--THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. THE PAULINE SALUTATION OF
GRACE AND PEACE SHOWN TO BE ANTI-MARCIONITE. THE CROSS OF CHRIST PURPOSED
BY THE CREATOR. MARCION ONLY PERPETUATES THE OFFENCE AND FOOLISHNESS OF
CHRIST'S CROSS BY HIS IMPIOUS SEVERANCE OF THE GOSPEL FROM THE
CREATOR.ANALOGIES BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL IN THE MATTER OF WEAK
THINGS, AND FOOLISH THINGS AND BASE THINGS.

   My preliminary remarks(16) on the preceding epistle called me away from
treating of its superscription,(17) for I was sure that another opportunity
would occur for considering the matter, it being of constant recurrence,
and in the same form too, in every epistle. The point, then, is, that it is
not (the usual) health which the apostle prescribes for those to whom he
writes, but "grace and peace."(18) I do not ask, indeed, what a destroyer
of Judaism has to do with a formula which the Jews still use. For to this
day they salute each other(19) with the greeting of "peace," and formerly
in their Scriptures they did the same. But I understand him by his
practice(20) plainly enough to have corroborated the declaration of the
Creator: "How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of
good, who preach the gospel of peace!"(21) For the herald of good, that is,
of God's "grace" was well aware that along with it "peace" also was to be
proclaimed.(22) Now, when he announces these blessings as "from God the
Father and the Lord Jesus,"(23) he uses titles that are common to both, and
which are also adapted to the mystery of our faith; and I suppose it to be
impossible accurately to determine what God is declared to be the Father
and the Lord Jesus, unless (we consider) which of their accruing attributes
are more suited to them severally.(25) First, then, I assert that none
other than the Creator and Sustainer of both man and the universe can be
acknowledged as Father and Lord; next, that to the Father also the title of
Lord accrues by reason of His power, and that the Son too receives the same
through the Father; then that "grace and peace" are not only His who had
them published, but His likewise to whom offence had been given. For
neither does grace exist, except after offence; nor peace, except after
war. Now, both the people (of Israel) by their transgression of His
laws,(1) and the whole race of mankind by their neglect of natural duty,(2)
had both sinned and rebelled against the Creator. Marcion's god, however,
could not have been offended, both because he was unknown to everybody, and
because he is incapable of being irritated. What grace, therefore, can be
had of a god who has not been offended? What peace from one who has never
experienced rebellion? "The cross of Christ," he says, "is to them that
perish foolishness; but unto such as shall obtain salvation, it is the
power of God and the wisdom of God."(3) And then, that we may known from
whence this comes, he adds: "For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom
of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the
prudent.'"(4) Now, since these are the Creator's words, and since what
pertains to the doctrine s of the cross he accounts as foolishness,
therefore both the cross, and also Christ by reason of the cross, will
appertain to the Creator, by whom were predicted the incidents of the
cross. But if(6) the Creator, as an enemy, took away their wisdom in order
that the cross of Christ, considered as his adversary, should be accounted
foolishness, how by any possibility can the Creator have foretold anything
about the cross of a Christ who is not His own, and of whom He knew
nothing, when He published the prediction? But, again, how happens it, that
in the system of a Lord(7) who is so very good, and so profuse in mercy,
some carry off salvation, when they believe the cross to be the wisdom and
power of God, whilst others incur perdition, to whom the cross of Christ is
accounted folly;--(how happens it, I repeat,) unless it is in the Creator's
dispensation to have punished both the people of Israel and the human race,
for some great offence committed against Him, with the loss of wisdom and
prudence? What follows will confirm this suggestion, when he asks, "Hath
not God infatuated the wisdom of this world?"(8) and when he adds the
reason why: "For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew
not God, it pleased God(9) by the foolishness of preaching to save them
that believe."(10) But first a word about the expression "the world;"
because in this passage particularly,(11) the heretics expend a great deal
of their subtlety in showing that by world is meant the lord of the world.
We, however, understand the term to apply to any person that is in the
world, by a simple idiom of human language, which often substitutes that
which contains for that which is contained. "The circus shouted," "The
forum spoke," and "The basilica murmured," are well-known expressions,
meaning that the people in these places did so. Since then the man, not the
god, of the world(12) in his wisdom knew not God, whom indeed he ought to
have known (both the Jew by his knowledge of the Scriptures, and all the
human race by their knowledge of God's works), therefore that God, who was
not acknowledged in His wisdom, resolved to smite men's knowledge with His
foolishness, by saving all those who believe in the folly of the preached
cross. "Because the Jews require signs," who ought to have already made up
their minds about God, "and the Greeks seek after wisdom,''(13) who rely
upon their own wisdom, and not upon God's. If, however, it was a new god
that was being preached, what sin had the Jews committed, in seeking after
signs to believe; or the Greeks, when they hunted after a wisdom which they
would prefer to accept? Thus the very retribution which overtook both Jews
and Greeks proves that God is both a jealous God and a Judge, inasmuch as
He infatuated the world's wisdom by an angry(14) and a judicial
retribution. Since, then, the causes(15) are in the hands of Him who gave
us the Scriptures which we use, it follows that the apostle, when treating
of the Creator, (as Him whom both Jew and Gentile as yet have) not known,
means undoubtedly to teach us, that the God who is to become known (in
Christ) is the Creator. The very "stumbling-block" which he declares Christ
to be "to the Jews,"(16) points unmistakeably(17) to the Creator's prophecy
respecting Him, when by Isaiah He says: "Behold I lay in Siona stone of
stumbling and a rock of offence."(18) This rock or stone is Christ.(19)
This stumbling-stone Marcion retains still.(20) Now, what is that
"foolishness of God which is wiser than men," but the cross and death of
Christ? What is that "weakness of God which is stronger than men,"(1) but
the nativity and incarnation(2) of God? If, however, Christ was not born of
the Virgin, was not constituted of human flesh, and thereby really suffered
neither death nor the cross there was nothing in Him either of foolishness
or weakness; nor is it any longer true, that "God hath chosen the foolish
things of the world to confound the wise;" nor, again, hath "God chosen the
weak things of the world to confound the mighty;" nor "the base things" and
the least things "in the world, and things which are despised, which are
even as nothing" (that is, things which really(3) are not), "to bring to
nothing things which are" (that is, which really are).(4) For nothing in
the dispensation of God is found to be mean, and ignoble, and contemptible.
Such only occurs in man's arrangement. The very Old Testament of the
Creators itself, it is possible, no doubt, to charge with foolishness, and
weakness, and dishonour and meanness, and contempt. What is more foolish
and more weak than God's requirement of bloody sacrifices and of savoury
holocausts? What is weaker than the cleansing of vessels and of beds?(6)
What more dishonourable than the discoloration of the reddening skin?(7)
What so mean as the statute of retaliation? What so contemptible as the
exception in meats and drinks? The whole of the Old Testament, the heretic,
to the best of my belief, holds in derision. For God has chosen the foolish
things of the world to confound its wisdom. Marcion's god has no such
discipline, because he does not take after(8) (the Creator) in the process
of confusing opposites by their opposites, so that "no flesh shall glory;
but, as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."(9) In
what Lord? Surely in Him who gave this precept.(10) Unless, forsooth, the
Creator en-joined us to glory in the god of Marcion

CHAP. VI.--THE DIVINE WAY OF WISDOM, AND GREATNESS, AND MIGHT. GOD'S HIDING
OF HIMSELF, AND SUBSEQUENT REVELATION. TO MARCION'S GOD SUCH A CONCEALMENT
AND MANIFESTATION IMPOSSIBLE. GOD'S PREDESTINATION. NO SUCH PRIOR SYSTEM OF
INTENTION POSSIBLE TO A GOD PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN AS WAS MARCION'S. THE POWERS
OF THE WORLD WHICH CRUCIFIED CHRIST. ST. PAUL, AS A WISE MASTER-BUILDER,
ASSOCIATED WITH PROPHECY. SUNDRY INJUNCTIONS OF THE APOSTLE PARALLEL WITH
THE TEACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

   By all these statements, therefore, does he show us what God he means,
when he says, "We speak the wisdom of God among them that are perfect."(11)
It is that God who has confounded the wisdom of the wise, who has brought
to nought the understanding of the prudent, who has reduced to folly(12)
the world's wisdom, by choosing its foolish things, and disposing them to
the attainment of salvation. This wisdom, he says, once lay hidden in
things that were foolish, weak, and lacking in honour; once also was latent
under figures, allegories, and enigmatical types; but it was afterwards to
be revealed in Christ, who was set "as a light to the Gentiles,"(13) by the
Creator who promised through the mouth of Isaiah that He would discover
"the hidden treasures, which eye had not seen."(14) Now, that that god
should have ever hidden anything who had never made a cover wherein to
practise concealment, is in itself a wholly incredible idea. If he existed,
concealment of himself was out of the question--to say nothing(15) of any
of his religious ordinances.(16) The Creator, on the contrary, was as well
known in Himself as His ordinances were. These, we know, were publicly
instituted(17) in Israel; but they lay overshadowed with latent meanings,
in which the wisdom of God was concealed(18) to be brought to light by and
by amongst "the perfect," when the time should come, but "pre-ordained in
the counsels of God before the ages."(19) But whose ages, if not the
Creator's? For because ages consist of times, and times are made up of
days, and months, and years; since also days, and months, and years are
measured by suns, and moons, and stars, which He ordained for this purpose
(for "they shall be," says He, "for signs of the months and the years"),
(20) it clearly follows that the ages belong to the Creator, and that
nothing of what was fore-ordained before the ages can be said to be the
property of any other being than Him who claims the ages also as His own.
Else let Marcion show that the ages belong to his god. He must then also
claim the world itself for him; for it is in it that the ages are reckoned,
the vessel as it were(1) of the times, as well as the signs thereof, or
their order. But he has no such demonstration to show us. I go back
therefore to the point, and ask him this question: Why did (his god) fore-
ordain our glory before the ages of the Creator? I could understand his
having predetermined it before the ages, if he had revealed it at the
commencement of time.(2) But when he does this almost at the very
expiration of all the ages(3) of the Creator, his predestination before the
ages, and not rather within the ages, was in vain, because he did not mean
to make any revelation of his purpose until the ages had almost run out
their course. For it is wholly inconsistent in him to be so forward in
planning purposes, who is so backward in revealing them. In the Creator,
however, the two courses were perfectly compatible--both the predestination
before the ages and the revelation at the end thereof, because that which
He both fore-ordained and revealed He also in the intermediate space of
time announced by the pre-ministration of figures, and symbols, and
allegories. But because (the apostle) subjoins, on the subject of our
glory, that "none of the princes of this world knew it for had they known
it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory,"(4) the heretic argues
that the princes of this world crucified the Lord (that is, the Christ of
the rival god) in order that this blow might even recoil(5) on the Creator
Himself. Any one, however, who has seen from what we have already said how
our glory must be regarded as issuing from the Creator, will already have
come to the conclusion that, inasmuch as the Creator settled it in His own
secret purpose, it properly enough was unknown to all the princes(6) and
powers of the Creator, on the principle that servants are not permitted to
know their masters' plans, much less the fallen angels and the leader of
transgression himself, the devil; for I should contend that these, on
account of their fall, were greater strangers still to any knowledge of the
Creator's dispensations. But it is no longer open to me(7) even to
interpret the princes and powers of this world as the Creator's, since the
apostle imputes ignorance to them, whereas even the devil according to our
Gospel recognised Jesus in the temptation,(8) and, according to the record
which is common to both (Marcionites and ourselves) the evil spirit knew
that Jesus was the Holy One of God, and that Jesus was His name, and that
He was come to destroy them.(9) The parable also of the strong man armed,
whom a stronger than he overcame and seized his goods, is admitted by
Marcion to have reference to the Creator:(10) therefore the Creator could
not have been ignorant any longer of the God of glory, since He is overcome
by him;(11) nor could He have crucified him whom He was unable to cope
with. The inevitable inference, therefore, as it seems to me, is that we
must believe that the princes and powers of the Creator did knowingly
crucify the God of glory in His Christ, with that desperation and excessive
malice with which the most abandoned slaves do not even hesitate to slay
their masters. For it is written in my Gospel(12) that "Satan entered into
Judas."(13) According to Marcion, however, the apostle in the passage under
consideration(14) does not allow the imputation of ignorance, with respect
to the Lord of glory, to the powers of the Creator; because, indeed, he
will have it that these are not meant by "the princes of this world." But
(the apostle) evidently(15) did not speak of spiritual princes; so that he
meant secular ones, those of the princely people, (chief in the divine
dispensation, although) not, of course, amongst the nations of the world,
and their rulers, and king Herod, and even Pilate, and, as represented by
him,(16) that power of Rome which was the greatest in the world, and then
presided over by him. Thus the arguments of the other side are pulled down,
and our own proofs are thereby built up. But you still maintain that our
glory comes from your god, with whom it also lay in secret. Then why does
your god employ the self-same Scripture(17) which the apostle also relies
on? What has your god to do at all with the sayings of the prophets? "Who
hath discovered the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor?"(18)
So says Isaiah. What has he also to do with illustrations from our God? For
when (the apostle) calls himself "a wise master-builder,"(19) we find that
the Creator by Isaiah designates the teacher who sketches(20) out the
divine discipline by the same title, "I will take away from Judah the
cunning artificer,"(1) etc. And was it not Paul himself who was there
foretold, destined "to be taken away from Judah"--that is, from Judaism--
for the erection of Christianity, in order "to lay that only foundation,
which is Christ?"(2) Of this work the Creator also by the same prophet
says, "Behold, I lay in Sion for a foundation a precious stone and
honourable; and he that resteth thereon shall not be confounded."(3) Unless
it be, that God professed Himself to be the builder up of an earthly work,
that so He might not give any sign of His Christ, as destined to be the
foundation of such as believe in Him, upon which every man should build at
will the superstructure of either sound or worthless doctrine; forasmuch as
it is the Creator's function, when a man's work shall be tried by fire,(or)
when a reward shall be recompensed to him by fire; because it is by fire
that the test is applied to the building which you erect upon the
foundation which is laid by Him, that is, the foundation of His Christ.(4)
"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God
dwelleth in you?"(5) Now, since man is the property, and the work, and the
image and likeness of the Creator, having his flesh, formed by Him of the
ground, and his soul of His afflatus, it follows that Marcion's god wholly
dwells in a temple which belongs to another, if so be we are not the
Creator's temple. But "if any man defile the temple of God, he shall be
himself destroyed"(6)--of course, by the God of the temple.(7) If you
threaten an avenger, you threaten us with the Creator. "Ye must become
fools, that ye may be wise." (8) Wherefore? "Because the wisdom of this
world is foolishness with God."(9) With what God? Even if the ancient
Scriptures have contributed nothing in support of our view thus far,(10) an
excellent testimony turns up in what (the apostle) here adjoins: "For it is
written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness; and again, The Lord
knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."(11) For in general
we may conclude for certain that he could not possibly have cited the
authority of that God whom he was bound to destroy, since he would not
teach for Him.(12) "Therefore," says he, "let no man glory in man;"(13) an
injunction which is in accordance with the teaching of the Creator,
"wretched is the man that trusteth in man;"(14) again, "It is better to
trust in the Lord than to confide in man;"(15) and the same thing is said
about glorying (in princes).(16)

CHAP. VII.--ST. PAUL'S PHRASEOLOGY OFTEN SUGGESTED BY THE JEWISH
SCRIPTURES. CHRIST OUR PASSOVER--A PHRASE WHICH INTRODUCES US TO THE VERY
HEART OF THE ANCIENT DISPENSATION. CHRIST'S TRUE CORPOREITY. MARRIED AND
UNMARRIED STATES. MEANING OF THE TIME IS SHORT. IN HIS EXHORTATIONS AND
DOCTRINE, THE APOSTLE WHOLLY TEACHES ACCORDING TO THE MIND AND PURPOSES OF
THE GOD OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. PROHIBITION OF MEATS AND DRINKS WITHDRAWN BY
THE CREATOR.

   "And the hidden things of darkness He will Himself bring to light,"(17)
even by Christ; for He has promised Christ to be a Light,(18) and Himself
He has declared to be a lamp, "searching the hearts and reins."(19) From
Him also shall "praise be had by every man,"(20) from whom proceeds, as
from a judge, the opposite also of praise. But here,  at least, you say he
interprets the world to be the God thereof, when he says: "We are made a
spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men."(21) For if by world
he had meant the people thereof, he would not have afterwards specially
mentioned "men." To  prevent, however, your using such an argument as this,
the Holy Ghost has providentially explained the meaning of the passage
thus: "We are made a spectacle to the world," i.e. "both to angels," who
minister therein, "and to men," who are the objects of their
ministration.(22) Of course,(23) a man of the noble courage of our apostle
(to say nothing of the Holy Ghost) was afraid, when writing to the children
whom he had begotten in the gospel, to speak freely of the God of the
world; for against Him he could not possibly seem to have a word to say,
except only in a straightforward manner!(1) I quite admit, that, according
to the Creator's law,(2) the man was an offender" who had his father's
wife."(3) He followed, no doubt,(4) the principles of natural and public
law. When, however, he condemns the man "to be delivered unto Satan,"(5) he
becomes the herald of an avenging God. It does not matter(6) that he also
said, "For the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in
the day of the Lord,"(7) since both in the destruction of the flesh and in
the saving of the spirit there is, on His part, judicial process; and when
he bade "the wicked person be put away from the midst of them,"(8) he only
mentioned what is a very frequently recurring sentence of the Creator.
"Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are
unleavened."(9) The unleavened bread was therefore, in the Creator's
ordinance, a figure of us (Christians). "For even Christ our passover is
sacrificed for us."(10) But why is Christ our passover, if the passover be
not a type of Christ, in the similitude of the blood which saves, and of
the Lamb, which is Christ?(11) Why does (the apostle) clothe us and Christ
with symbols of the Creator's solemn rites, unless they had relation to
ourselves? When, again, he warns us against fornication, he reveals the
resurrection of the flesh. "The body," says he, "is not for fornication,
but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body,"(12) just as the temple is for
God, and God for the temple. A temple will therefore pass away(15) with its
god, and its god with the temple. You see, then, how that "He who raised up
the Lord will also raise us up."(14) In the body will He raise us, because
the body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And suitably does he
add the question: "Know ye not that your bodies are the members of
Christ?''(15) What has the heretic to say? That these members of Christ
will not rise again, for they are no longer our own? "For," he says, "ye
are bought with a price."(16) A price! surely none at all was paid, since
Christ was a phantom, nor had He any corporeal substance which He could pay
for our bodies! But, in truth, Christ had wherewithal to redeem us; and
since He has redeemed, at a great price, these bodies of ours, against
which fornication must not be committed (because they are now members of
Christ, and not our own), surely He will secure, on His own account, the
safety of those whom He made His own at so much cost! Now, how shall we
glorify, how shall we exalt, God in our body,(27) which is doomed to
perish? We must now encounter the subject of marriage, which Marcion, more
continent(18) than the apostle, prohibits. For the apostle, although
preferring the grace of continence,(19) yet permits the contraction of
marriage and the enjoyment of it,(20) and advises the continuance therein
rather than the dissolution thoreof.(21) Christ plainly forbids divorce,
Moses unquestionably permits it.(22) Now, when Marcion wholly prohibits all
carnal intercourse to the faithful (for we will say nothing(23) about his
catechumens), and when he prescribes repudiation of all engagements before
marriage, whose teaching does he follow, that of Moses or of Christ? Even
Christ,(24) however, when He here commands "the wife not to depart from her
husband, or if she depart, to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her
husband,"(25) both permitted divorce, which indeed He never absolutely
prohibited, and confirmed (the sanctity) of marriage, by first forbidding
its dissolution; and, if separation had taken place, by wishing the nuptial
bond to be resumed by reconciliation. But what reasons does (the apostle)
allege for continence? Because "the time is short."(26) I had almost
thought it was because in Christ there was another god! And yet He from
whom emanates this shortness of the time, will also send what suits the
said brevity. No one makes provision for the time which is another's. You
degrade your god, O Marcion, when you make him circumscribed at all by the
Creator's time. Assuredly also, when (the apostle) rules that marriage
should be "only in the Lord,"(27) that no Christian should intermarry with
a heathen, he maintains a law of the Creator, who everywhere prohibits
marriage with strangers. But when he says, "although there be that are
called gods, whether in l heaven or in earth,"(1) the meaning of his words
is clear--not as if there were gods in reality, but as if there were some
who are called gods, without being truly so. He introduces his discussion
about meats offered to idols with a statement concerning idols
(themselves): "We know that an idol is nothing in the world."(2) Marcion,
however, does not say that the Creator is not God; so that the apostle can
hardly be thought to have ranked the Creator amongst those who are called
gods, without being so; since, even if they had been gods, "to us there is
but one God, the Father."(3) Now, from whom do all things come to us, but
from Him to whom all things belong? And pray, what things are these? You
have them in a preceding part of the epistle: "All things are yours;
whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or
things present, or things to come."(4) He makes the Creator, then the God
of all things, from whom proceed both the world and life and death, which.
cannot possibly belong to the other god. From Him, therefore, amongst the
"all things" comes also Christ.(5) When he teaches that every man ought to
live of his own industry,(6) he begins with a copious induction of
examples--of soldiers, and shepherds, and husbandmen.(7) But he(8) wanted
divine authority. What was the use, however, of adducing the Creator's,
which he was destroying? It was vain to do so; for his god had no such
authority! (The apostle) says: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth
out the corn,"(9) and adds: "Doth God take care of oxen?" Yes, of oxen, for
the sake of men! For, says he, "it is written for our sakes."(10) Thus he
showed that the law had a symbolic reference to ourselves, and that it
gives its sanction in favour of those who live of the gospel. (He showed)
also, that those who preach the gospel are on this account sent by no other
god but Him to whom belongs the law, which made provision for them, when he
says: "For our sakes was this writ. ten."(11) Still he declined to use this
power which the law gave him, because he preferred working without any
restraint.(12) Of this he boasted, and suffered no man to rob him of such
glory(13)--certainly with no view of destroying the law, which he proved
that another man might use. For behold Marcion, in his blindness, stumbled
at the rock whereof our fathers drank in the wilderness. For since "that
rock was Christ,"(14) it was, of course, the Creator's, to whom also
belonged the people. But why resort to the figure of a sacred sign given by
an extraneous god?(15) Was it to teach the very truth, that ancient things
prefigured the Christ who was to be educed(16) out of them? For, being
about to take a cursory view of what befell the people (of Israel) he
begins with saying: "Now these things happened as examples for us."(17)
Now, tell me, were these examples given by the Creator to men belonging to
a rival god? Or did one god borrow examples from another, and a hostile one
too? He withdraws me to himself in alarm(28) from Him from whom he
transfers my allegiance. Will his antagonist make me better disposed to
him? Should I now commit the same sins as the people, shall I have to
suffer the same penalties, or not?(19) But if not the same, how vainly does
he propose to me terrors which I shall not have to endure! From whom,
again, shall I have to endure them? If from the Creator, What evils does it
appertain to Him to inflict? And how will it happen that, jealous God as He
is, He shall punish the man who offends His rival, instead of rather
encouraging(20) him. If, however, from the other god--but he knows not how
to punish. So that the whole declaration of the apostle lacks a reasonable
basis, if it is not meant to relate to the Creator's discipline. But the
fact is, the apostle's conclusion corresponds to the beginning: "Now all
these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our
admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."(21) What a Creator!
how prescient already, and considerate in warning Christians who belong to
another god! Whenever cavils occur the like to those which have been
already dealt with, I pass them by; certain others I despatch briefly. A
great argument for another god is the permission to eat of all kinds of
meats, contrary to the law.(22) Just as if we did not ourselves allow that
the burdensome ordinances of the law were abrogated--but by  Him who
imposed them, who also promised the new condition of things.(1) The same,
therefore, who prohibited meats, also restored the use of them, just as He
had indeed allowed them from the beginning. If, however,  some strange god
had come to destroy our God, his foremost prohibition would certainly have
been, that his own votaries should abstain from supporting their lives on
the resources of his adversary.

CHAP. VIII.--MAN THE IMAGE OF THE CREATOR AND CHRIST THE HEAD OF THE MAN.
SPIRITUAL GIFTS. THE SEVENFOLD SPIRIT DESCRIBED BY ISAIAH. THE APOSTLE AND
THE PROPHET COMPARED. MARCION CHALLENGED TO PRODUCE ANYTHING LIKE THESE
GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT FORETOLD IN PROPHECY HIS GOD.

   "The head of every man is Christ."(2) What Christ, if He is not the
author of man? The head he has here put for authority; now "authority" will
accrue to none else than the "author." Of what man indeed is He the head?
Surely of him concerning whom he adds soon afterwards: "The man ought not
to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image of God."(3) Since then he
is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who
was to become man, said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our
likeness"(4)), how can I possibly have another head but Him whose image I
am? For if I am the image of the Creator there is no room in me for another
head But wherefore "ought the woman to have power over her head, because of
the angels?"(5) If it is because "she was created for the man,''(6) and
taken out of the man, according to the Creator's purpose, then in this way
too has the apostle maintained the discipline of that God from whose
institution he explains the reasons of His discipline. He adds: "Because of
the angels."(7) What angels? In other words, whose angels? If he means the
fallen angels of the Creator,(8) there is great propriety in his meaning.
It is right that that face which was a snare to them should wear some mark
of a humble guise and obscured beauty. If, however, the angels of the rival
god are referred to, what fear is there for them? for not even Marcion's
disciples, (to say nothing of his angels,) have any desire for women. We
have often shown before now, that the apostle classes heresies as evil(9)
among "works of the flesh," and that he would have those persons accounted
estimable(10) who shun heresies as an evil thing. In like manner, when
treating of the gospel,(11) we have proved from the sacrament of the bread
and the cup(12) the verity of the Lord's body and blood in opposition to
Marcion's phantom; whilst throughout almost the whole of my work it has
been contended that all mention of judicial attributes points conclusively
to the Creator as to a God who judges. Now, on the subject of "spiritual
gifts,"(13) I have to remark that these also were promised by the Creator
through Christ; and I think that we may derive from this a very just
conclusion that the bestowal of a gift is not the work of a god other than
Him who is proved to have given the promise. Here is a prophecy of Isaiah
"There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower(14)
shall spring up from his root; and upon Him shall rest the Spirit of the
Lord." After which he enumerates the special gifts of the same "The spirit
of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of
knowledge and of religion.(15) And with the fear of the Lord(16) shall the
Spirit fill Him."(17) In this figure of a flower he shows that Christ was
to arise out of the rod which sprang from the stem of Jesse; in other
words, from the virgin of the race of David, the son of Jesse. In this
Christ the whole substantia of the Spirit would have to rest, not meaning
that it would be as it were some subsequent acquisition accruing to Him who
was always, even before His incarnation, the Spirit of God;(18) so that you
cannot argue from this that the prophecy has reference to that Christ who
(as mere man of the race only of David) was to obtain the Spirit of his
God. (The prophet says,) on the contrary, that from the time when (the true
Christ) should appear in the flesh as the flower predicted,(19) rising from
the root of Jesse, there would have to rest upon Him the entire operation
of the Spirit of grace, which, so far as the Jews were concerned, would
cease and come to an end. This result the case itself shows; for after this
time the Spirit of the Creator never breathed amongst them. From Judah were
taken away "the wise man, and the cunning artificer, and the counsellor,
and the prophet;"(1) that so it might prove true that "the law and the
prophets were until John.''(2) Now hear how he declared that by Christ
Himself, when returned to heaven, these spiritual gifts were to be sent:
"He ascended up. on high," that is, into heaven; "He led captivity
captive," meaning death or slavery of man; "He gave gifts to the sons of
men,"(3) that is, the gratuities, which we call charismata. He says
specifically "sons of men,"(4) and not men promiscuously; thus exhibiting
to us those who were the children of men truly so called, choice men,
apostles. "For," says he, "I have begotten you through the gospel;"(5) and
"Ye are my children, of whom I travail again in birth."(6) Now was
absolutely fulfilled that promise of the Spirit which was given by the word
of Joel: "In the last days will I pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, and
their sons and their daughters shall prophesy; and upon my servants and
upon my handmaids will I pour out of my Spirit."(7) Since, then, the
Creator promised the gift of His Spirit in the latter days; and since
Christ has in these last days appeared as the dispenser of spiritual gifts
(as the apostle says, "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent
forth His Son;"(8) and again, "This I say, brethren, that the time is
short"(9)), it evidently follows in connection with this prediction of the
last days, that this gift of the Spirit belongs to Him who is the Christ of
the predicters. Now compare the Spirit's specific graces, as they are
described by the apostle, and promised by the prophet Isaiah. "To one is
given," says he, "by the Spirit the word of wisdom;" this we see at once is
what Isaiah declared to be "the spirit of wisdom." "To another, the word of
knowledge;" this will be "the (prophet's) spirit of understanding and
counsel." "To another, faith by the same Spirit;" this will be "the spirit
of religion and the fear of the Lord." "To another, the gifts of healing,
and to another the working of miracles;" this will be "the spirit of
might." "To another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another
divers kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues;" this
will be "the spirit of knowledge."(10) See how the apostle agrees with the
prophet both in making the distribution of the one Spirit, and in
interpreting His special graces. This, too, I may confidently say: he who
has likened the unity of our body throughout its manifold and divers
members to the compacting together of the various gifts of the Spirit,(11)
shows also that there is but one Lord of the human body and of the Holy
Spirit. This Spirit, (according to the apostle's showing,)(12) meant
not(13) that the service(14) of these gifts should be in the body,(15) nor
did He place them in the human body); and on the subject of the superiority
of love(16) above all these gifts, He even taught the apostle that it was
the chief commandment,(17) just as Christ has shown it to be: "Thou shalt
love the Lord with all thine heart and soul,(18) with all thy strength, and
with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thine own self."(19) When he
mentions the fact that "it is written in the law,"(20) how that the Creator
would speak with other tongues and other lips, whilst confirming indeed the
gift of tongues by such a mention, he yet cannot be thought to have
affirmed that the gift was that of another god by his reference to the
Creator's prediction.(21) In precisely the same manner,(22) when enjoining
on women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake(23)
of learning(24) (although that even they have the right of prophesying, he
has already shown(25) when he covers the woman that prophesies with a
veil), he goes to the law for his sanction that woman should be under
obedience.(26) Now this law, let me say once for all, he ought to have made
no other acquaintance with, than to destroy it. But that we may now leave
the subject of spiritual gifts, facts themselves will be enough to prove
which of us acts rashly in claiming them for his God, and whether it is
possible that they are opposed to our side, even if(27) the Creator
promised them for His Christ who is not yet revealed, as being destined
only for the Jews, to have their operations in His time, in His Christ, and
among His people. Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some
prophets, such as have not spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of
God, such as have both predicted things to come, and have made manifest(1)
the secrets of the heart;(2) let him produce a psalm, a vision, a
prayer(3)--only let it be by the Spirit,(4) in an ecstasy, that is, in a
rapture,(5) whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him; let
him show to me also, that any woman of boastful tongue(6) in his community
has ever prophesied from amongst those specially holy sisters of his. Now
all these signs (of spiritual gifts) are forthcoming from my side without
any difficulty, and they agree, too, with the rules, and the dispensations,
and the instructions of the Creator; therefore without doubt the Christ,
and the Spirit, and the apostle, belong severally(7) to my God. Here, then,
is my frank avowal for any one who cares to require it.

CHAP. IX.--THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. THE BODY WILL RISE AGAIN.
CHRIST'S JUDICIAL CHARACTER. JEWISH PERVERSIONS OF PROPHECY EXPOSED AND
CONFUTED. MESSIANIC PSALMS VINDICATED. JEWISH AND RATIONALISTIC
INTERPRETATIONS ON THIS POINT SIMILAR. JESUS--NOT HEZEKIAH OR SOLOMON--THE
SUBJECT OF THESE PROPHECIES IN THE PSALMS. NONE BUT HE IS THE CHRIST OF THE
OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS.

   Meanwhile the Marcionite will exhibit nothing of this kind; he is by
this time afraid to say which side has the better right to a Christ who is
not yet revealed. Just as my Christ is to be expected,(8) who was predicted
from the beginning, so his Christ therefore has no existence, as not having
been announced from  the beginning. Ours is a better faith, which believes
in a future Christ, than the heretic's, which has none at all to believe
in. Touching the resurrection of the dead,(9) let us first inquire how some
persons then denied it. No doubt in the same way in which it is even now
denied, since the resurrection of the flesh has at all times men to deny
it. But many wise men claim for the soul a divine nature, and are confident
of its undying destiny, and even the multitude worship the dead(10) in the
presumption which they boldly entertain that their souls survive. As for
our bodies, however, it is manifest that they perish either at once by fire
or the wild beasts,(11) or even when most carefully kept by length of time.
When, therefore, the apostle refutes those who deny the resurrection of the
flesh, he indeed defends, in opposition to them, the precise matter of
their denial, that is, the resurrection of the body. You have the whole
answer wrapped up in this.(12) All the rest is superfluous. Now in this
very point, which is called the resurrection of the dead, it is requisite
that the proper force of the words should be accurately maintained.(13) The
word dead expresses simply what has lost the vital principle,(14) by means
of which it used to live. Now the body is that which loses life, and as the
result of losing it becomes dead. To the body, therefore, the term dead is
only suitable. Moreover, as resurrection accrues to what is dead, and dead
is a term applicable only to a body, therefore the body alone has a
resurrection incidental to it. So again the word Resurrection, or (rising
affairs), embraces only that which has fallen down. "To rise," indeed, can
be predicated of that which has never fallen down, but had already been
always lying down. But "to rise again" is predicable only of that which has
fallen down; because it is by rising again, in consequence of its having
fallen down, that it is said to have re-risen.(15) For the syllable RE
always implies iteration (or happening again). We say, therefore, that the
body falls to the ground by death, as indeed facts themselves show, in
accordance with the law of God. For to the body it was said, ("Till thou
return to the ground, for out of it wast thou taken; for) dust thou art,
and unto dust shalt thou return."(16) That, therefore, which came from the
ground shall return to the ground. Now that falls down which returns to the
ground; and that rises again which falls down. "Since by man came death,
by man came also the resurrection."(17) Here in the word man, who consists
of bodily sub stance, as we have often shown already, is presented to me
the body of Christ. But if we are all so made alive in Christ, as we die in
Adam, it follows of necessity that we are made alive in Christ as a bodily
substance, since we died in Adam as a bodily substance. The similarity,
indeed, is not complete, unless our revival(18) in Christ concur in
identity of substance with our mortality(1) in Adam. But at this point(2)
(the apostle) has made a parenthetical statement(3) concerning Christ,
which, bearing as it does on our present discussion, must not pass
unnoticed. For the resurrection of the body will receive all the better
proof, in proportion as I shall succeed in showing that Christ belongs to
that God who is believed to have provided this resurrection of the flesh in
His dispensation. When he says, "For He must reign, till He hath put all
enemies under His feet,"(4) we can see at once(5) from this statement that
he speaks of a God of vengeance, and therefore of Him who made the
following promise to Christ: "Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine
enemies Thy footstool. The rod of Thy strength shall the Lord send forth
from Sion, and He shall rule along with Thee in the midst of Thine
enemies."(6) It is necessary for me to lay claim to those Scriptures which
the Jews endeavour to deprive us of, and to show that they sustain my view.
Now they say that this Psalm(7) was a chant in honour of Hezekiah,(8)
because "he went up to the house of the Lord,"(9) and God turned back and
removed his enemies. Therefore, (as they further hold,) those other words,
"Before the morning star did I beget thee from the womb,"(10) are
applicable to Hezekiah, and to the birth of Hezekiah. We on our side(11)
have published Gospels (to the  credibility of which we have to thank(12)
them(13) for having given some confirmation, indeed, already in so great a
subject(14)); and these declare that the Lord was born at night, that so it
might be "before the morning star," as is evident both from the star
especially, and from the testimony of the angel, who at night announced to
the shepherds that Christ had at that moment been born,(15) and again from
the place of the birth, for it is towards night that persons arrive at the
(eastern)" inn." Perhaps, too, there was a mystic purpose in Christ's being
born at night, destined, as He was, to be the light of the truth amidst the
dark shadows of ignorance. Nor, again, would God have said, "I have
begotten  Thee," except to His true Son. For although He says of all the
people (Israel), "I have begotten(16) children,"(17) yet He added not "from
the womb." Now, why should He have added so superfluously this phrase "from
the womb" (as if there could be any doubt about any one's having been born
from the womb), unless the Holy Ghost had wished the words to be with
especial care(18) understood of Christ? "I have begotten Thee from the
womb," that is to say, from a womb only, without a man's seed, making it a
condition of a fleshly body(19) that it should come out of a womb. What is
here added (in the Psalm), "Thou art a priest for ever,"(20) relates to
(Christ) Himself. Hezekiah was no priest; and even if he had been one, he
would not have been a priest for ever. "After the order," says He, "of
Melchizedek." Now what had Hezekiah to do with Melchizedek, the priest of
the most high God, and him uncircumcised too, who blessed the circumcised
Abraham, after receiving from him the offering of tithes? To Christ,
however, "the order of Melchizedek" will be very suitable; for Christ is
the proper and legitimate High Priest of God. He is the Pontiff of the
priesthood of the uncircumcision, constituted such, even then, for the
Gentiles, by whom He was to be more fully received, although at His last
coming He will favour with His acceptance and blessing the circumcision
also, even the race of Abraham, which by and by is to acknowledge Him.
Well, then, there is also another Psalm, which begins with these words:
"Give Thy judgments, O God, to the King," that is, to Christ who was to
come as King, "and Thy righteousness unto the King's son,"(21) that is, to
Christ's people; for His sons are they who are born again in Him. But it
will here be said that this Psalm has reference to Solomon. However, will
not those portions of the Psalm which apply to Christ alone, be enough to
teach us that all the rest, too, relates to Christ, and not to Solomon? "He
shall come down," says He, "like rain upon a fleece,(1) and like dropping
showers upon the earth,"(2) describing His descent from heaven to the flesh
as gentle and unobserved.(3) Solomon, however, if he had indeed any descent
at all, came not down like a shower, because he descended not from heaven.
But I will set before you more literal points.(4) "He shall have dominion,"
says the Psalmist, "from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of
the earth."(5) To Christ alone was this given; whilst Solomon reigned over
only the moderately-sized kingdom of Judah. "Yea, all kings shall fall down
before Him." Whom, indeed, shall they all thus worship, except Christ? "All
nations shall serve Him."(6) To whom shall all thus do homage, but Christ?
"His name shall endure for ever." Whose name has this eternity of fame, but
Christ's? "Longer than the sun shall His name remain," for longer than the
sun shall be the Word of God, even Christ. "And in Him shall all nations be
blessed."(7) In Solomon was no nation blessed; in Christ every nation. And
what if the Psalm proves Him to be even God? "They shall call Him
blessed."(8) (On what  ground?) Because blessed Is the Lord God of Israel,
who only doeth wonderful things."(9) "Blessed also is His glorious name,
and with His glory shall all the earth be filled."(10) On the contrary,
Solomon (as I make bold to affirm) lost even the glory which he had from
God, seduced by his love of women even into idolatry. And thus, the
statement which occurs in about the middle of this Psalm, "His enemies
shall lick the dust"(11) (of course, as having been, (to use the apostle's
phrase,) "put under His feet"(12)), will bear upon the very object which I
had in view, when I both introduced the Psalm, and insisted on my opinion
of its sense,--namely, that I might demonstrate both the glory of His
kingdom and the subjection of His enemies in pursuance of the Creator's own
plans, with the view of laying down(13) this conclusion, that none but He
can be believed to be the Christ of the Creator.

CHAP.X.--DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY, CONTINUED. HOW ARE THE
DEAD RAISED? AND WITH WHAT BODY DO THEY COME? THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN
SUCH A SENSE AS TO MAINTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE RAISED BODY, AGAINST MARCION.
CHRIST AS THE SECOND ADAM CONNECTED WITH THE CREATOR OF THE FIRST MAN. LET
US BEAR THE IMAGE OF THE HEAVENLY. THE TRIUMPH OVER DEATH IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PROPHETS. HOSEA AND ST. PAUL COMPARED.

   Let us now return to the resurrection, to the defence of which against
heretics of all sorts we have given indeed sufficient attention in another
work of ours.(14) But we will not be wanting (in some defence of the
doctrine) even here, in consideration of such persons as are ignorant of
that little treatise. "What," asks he, "shall they do who are baptized for
the dead, if the dead rise not?"(15) Now, never mind(16) that practice,
(whatever it may have been.) The Februarian lustrations(17) will
perhaps(18) answer him (quite as well), by praying for the dead.(19) Do not
then suppose that the apostle here indicates some new god as the author and
advocate of this (baptism for the dead. His only aim in alluding to it was)
that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body,
in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the
practice from their belief of such a resurrection. We have the apostle in
another passage defining "but one baptism."(20) To be "baptized for the
dead" therefore means, in fact, to be baptized for the body;(21) for, as we
have shown, it is the body which becomes dead. What, then, shall they do
who are baptized for the body,(1) if the body(2) rises not again? We stand,
then, on firm ground (when we say) that(3) the next question which the
apostle has discussed equally relates to the body. But "some man will say,
'How are the dead raised up? With what body do they come?'"(4) Having
established the doctrine of the resurrection which was denied, it was
natural(5) to discuss what would be the sort of body (in the resurrection),
of which no one had an idea. On this point we have other opponents with
whom to engage, For Marcion does not in any wise admit the resurrection of
the flesh, and it is only the salvation of the soul which he promises;
consequently the question which he raises is not concerning the sort of
body, but the very substance thereof. Notwithstanding,(6) he is most
plainly refuted even from what the apostle advances respecting the quality
of the body, in answer to those who ask, "How are the dead raised up? with
what body do they come?" For as he treated of the sort of body, he of
course ipso facto proclaimed in the argument that it was a body which would
rise again. Indeed, since he proposes as his examples "wheat grain, or some
other grain, to which God giveth a body, such as it hath pleased Him;"(7)
since also he says, that "to every seed is its own body;"(8) that,
consequently,(9) "there is one kind of flesh of men, whilst there is
another of beasts, and (another) of birds; that there are also celestial
bodies and bodies terrestrial; and that there is one glory of the sun, and
another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars"(10)--does he not
therefore intimate that there is to be(11) a resurrection of the flesh or
body, which he illustrates by fleshly and corporeal samples? Does he not
also guarantee that the resurrection shall be accomplished by that God from
whom proceed all the (creatures which have served him for) examples? "So
also," says he, "is the resurrection of the dead."(12) How? Just as the
grain, which is sown a body, springs up a body. This sowing of the body he
called the dissolving thereof in the ground, "because it is sown in
corruption," (but "is raised) to honour and power."(13) Now, just as in the
case of the grain, so here: to Him will belong the work in the revival of
the body, who ordered the process in the dissolution thereof. If, however,
you remove the body from the resurrection which you submitted to the
dissolution, what becomes of the diversity in the issue? Likewise,
"although it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."(14)
Now, although the natural principle of life(15) and the spirit have each a
body proper to itself, so that the "natural body" may fairly be taken(16)
to signify the soul,(17) and "the spiritual body" the spirit, yet that is
no reason for supposing(18) the apostle to say that the soul is to become
spirit in the resurrection, but that body (which, as being born along with
the soul, and as retaining its life by means of the soul,(19) admits of
being called animal (or natural(20)) will became spiritual, since it rises
through the Spirit to an eternal life. In short, since it is not the soul,
but the flesh which is "sown in corruption," when it turns to decay in the
ground, it follows that (after such dissolution) the soul is no longer the
natural body, but the flesh, which was the natural body, (is the subject of
the future change), forasmuch as of a natural body it is made a spiritual
body, as he says further down, "That was not first which is spiritual."(21)
For to this effect he just before remarked of Christ Himself: "The first
man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening
spirit."(22) Our heretic, however, in the excess of his folly, being
unwilling that the statement should remain in this shape, altered "last
Adam" into "last Lord;"(23) because he feared, of course, that if he
allowed the Lord to be the last (or second) Adam, we should contend that
Christ, being the second Adam, must needs belong to that God who owned also
the first Adam. But the falsification is transparent. For why is there a
first Adam, unless it be that there is also a second Adam? For things are
not classed together unless they be severally alike, and have an identity
of either name, or substance, or origin.(24) Now, although among things
which are even individually diverse, one must be first and another last,
yet they must have one author. If, however, the author be a different one,
he himself indeed may be called the last. But the thing which he introduces
is the first, and that only can be the last, which is like this first in
nature.(1) It is, however, not like the first in nature, when it is not the
work of the same author. In like manner (the heretic) will be refuted also
with the word "man:" "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man
is the Lord from heaven."(2) Now, since the first was a how can there be a
second, unless he is a man also? Or, else, if the second is" Lord," was the
first "Lord" also?(3) It is, however, quite enough for me, that in his
Gospel he admits the Son of man to be both Christ and Man; so that he will
not be able to deny Him (in this passage), in the "Adam" and the "man" (of
the apostle). What follows will also be too much for him. For when the
apostle says, "As is the earthy," that is, man, "such also are they that
are earthy"-men again, of course; "therefore as is the heavenly," meaning
the Man, from heaven, "such are the men also that are heavenly." For he
could not possibly have opposed to earthly men any heavenly beings that
were not men also; his object being the more accurately to distinguish
their state and expectation by using this name in common for them both. For
in respect of their present state and their future expectation he calls men
earthly and heavenly, still reserving their parity of name, according as
they are reckoned (as to their ultimate conditions) in Adam or in Christ.
Therefore, when exhorting them to cherish the hope of heaven, he says: "As
we have borne the image of the earthy, so let us also bear the image of the
heavenly,"(6)--language which relates not to any condition of resurrection
life, but to the rule of the present time. He says, Let us bear, as a
precept; not We shall bear, in the sense of a promise--wishing us to walk
even as he himself was walking, and to put off the likeness of the earthly,
that is, of the old man, in the works of the flesh. For what are this next
words? "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God."(7) He means the works of the flesh and blood, which, in
his Epistle to the Galatians, deprive men of the kingdom of God.(8) In
other passages also he is accustomed to put the natural condition instead
of the works that are done therein, as when he says, that "they who are in
the flesh cannot please God."(9) Now, when shall we be able to please God
except whilst we are in this flesh? There is, I imagine, no other time
wherein a man can work. If, however, whilst we are even naturally living in
the flesh, we  yet eschew the deeds of the flesh, then we shall not be in
the flesh; since, although we are not absent from the substance of the
flesh, we are notwithstanding strangers to the sin thereof. Now, since in
the word flesh we are enjoined to put off, not the substance, but the works
of the flesh, therefore in the use of the same word the kingdom of God is
denied to the works of the flesh, not to the substance thereof. For not
that is condemned in which evil is done, but only the evil which is done in
it. To administer poison is a crime, but the cup in which it is given is
not guilty. So the body is the vessel of the works of the flesh, whilst the
soul which is within it mixes the poison of a wicked act. How then is it,
that the soul, which is the real author of the works of the flesh, shall
attain to(10) the kingdom of God, after the deeds done in the body have
been stoned for, whilst the body, which was nothing but (the soul's)
ministering agent, must remain in condemnation? Is the cup to be punished,
but the poisoner to escape? Not that we indeed claim the kingdom of God for
the flesh: all we do is, to assert a resurrection for the substance
thereof, as the gate of the kingdom through which it is entered. But the
resurrection is one thing, and the kingdom is another. The resurrection is
first, and afterwards the kingdom. We say, therefore, that the flesh rises
again, but that when changed it obtains the kingdom. "For the dead shall be
raised incorruptible," even those who had been corruptible when their
bodies fell into decay; "and we shall be changed, in a moment, in the
twinkling of an eye.(11) For this corruptible"--and as he spake, the
apostle seemingly pointed to his own flesh--" must put on incorruption, and
this mortal must put on immortality."(12) in order, indeed, that it may be
rendered a fit substance for the kingdom of God. "For we shall be like the
angels."(13) This will be the perfect change of our flesh--only after its
resurrection.(1) Now if, on the contrary,(2) there is to be no flesh, how
then shall it put on incorruption and immortality? Having then become
something else by its change, it will obtain the kingdom of God, no longer
the (old) flesh and blood, but the body which God shall have given it.
Rightly then does the apostle declare, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God;"(3) for this (honour) does he ascribe to the changed
condition(4) which ensues on the resurrection. Since, therefore, shall then
be accomplished the word which was written by the Creator, "O death, where
is thy victory"--or thy struggle?(5) "O death, where is thy sting?"(6) --
written, I say, by the Creator, for He wrote them by His prophet(7)--to Him
will belong the gift, that is, the kingdom, who proclaimed the word which
is to be accomplished in the kingdom. And to none other God does he tell us
that "thanks" are due, for having enabled us to achieve "the victory" even
over death, than to Him from whom he received the very expression(8) of the
exulting and triumphant challenge to the mortal foe.

CHAP. XI.-- THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. THE CREATOR THE FATHER
OF MERCIES. SHOWN TO BE SUCH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, AND ALSO IN CHRIST. THE
NEWNESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. THE VEIL OF OBDURATE BLINDNESS UPON ISRAEL,
NOT REPREHENSIBLE ON MARCION'S PRINCIPLES. THE JEWS GUILTY IN REJECTING THE
CHRIST OF THE CREATOR. SATAN, THE GOD OF THIS WORLD. THE TREASURE IN
EARTHEN VESSELS EXPLAINED AGAINST MARCION. THE CREATOR'S RELATION TO THESE
VESSELS, I.E. OUR BODIES.

   If, owing to the fault of human error, the word God has become a common
name (since in the world there are said and believed to be "gods many"(9)),
yet "the blessed God," (who is "the Father) of our Lord Jesus Christ,(10)
will be understood to be no other God than the Creator, who both blessed
all things (that He had made), as you find in Genesis,(11) and is Himself
"blessed by all things," as Daniel tells us.(12) Now, if the title of
Father may be claimed for (Marcion's) sterile god, how much more for the
Creator? To none other than Him is it suitable, who is also "the Father of
mercies,"(13) and (in the prophets) has been described as "full of
compassion, and gracious, and plenteous in mercy."(14) In Jonah you find
the signal act of His mercy, which He showed to the praying Ninevites.(15)
How inflexible was He at the tears of Hezekiah!(16) How ready to forgive
Ahab, the husband of Jezebel, the blood of Naborb, when he deprecated His
anger.(17) How prompt in pardoning David on his confession of his sin(18)--
preferring, indeed, the sinner's repentance to his death, of course because
of His gracious attribute of mercy.(19) Now, if Marcion's god has exhibited
or proclaimed any such thing as this, I will allow him to be "the Father of
mercies." Since, however, he ascribes to him this title only from the time
he has been revealed, as if he were the father of mercies from the time
only when he began to liberate the human race, then we on our side,
too,(20) adopt the same precise date of his alleged revelation; but it is
that we may deny him! It is then not  competent to him to ascribe any
quality to  his god, whom indeed he only promulged by the fact of such an
ascription; for only if it were previously evident that his god had an
existence, could he be permitted to ascribe an attribute to him. The
ascribed attribute is only an accident; but accidents(21) are preceded by
the statement of the thing itself of which they are predicated, especially
when another claims the attribute which is ascribed to him who has not been
previously shown to exist. Our denial of his existence will be all the more
peremptory, because of the fact that the attribute which is alleged in
proof of it belongs to that God who has been already revealed. Therefore
"the New Testament" will appertain to none other than Him who promised it--
if not "its letter, yet its spirit;"(22) and herein will lie its newness.
Indeed, He who had engraved its letter in stones is the same as He who had
said of its spirit, "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh."(23) Even
if "the letter killeth, yet the Spirit giveth life;"(24) and both belong to
Him who says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal."(1) We have
already made good the Creator's claim to this twofold character of judgment
and goodness(2)--"killing in the letter" through the law, and "quickening
in the Spirit" through the Gospel. Now these attributes, however different
they be, cannot possibly make two gods; for they have already (in the
prevenient dispensation of the Old Testament) been found to meet in One.(3)
He alludes to Moses' veil, covered with which "his face could not be
stedfastly seen by the children of Israel."(4) Since he did this to
maintain the superiority of the glory of the New Testament, which is
permanent in its glory, over that of the Old, "which was to be done
away,"(5) this fact gives support to my belief which exalts the Gospel
above the law and you must look well to it that it does not even more than
this. For only there is superiority possible where was previously the thing
over which superiority can be affirmed. But then he says, "But their minds
were blinded"(6)--of the world; certainly not the Creator's mind, but the
minds of the people which are in the world.(7) Of Israel he says, Even unto
this day the same veil is upon their heart;"(8) showing that the veil which
was on the face of Moses was a figure of the veil which is on the heart of
the nation still; because even now Moses is not seen by them in heart, just
as he was not then seen by them in eye. But what concern has Paul with the
veil which still obscures Moses from their view, if the Christ of the
Creator, whom Moses predicted, is not yet come? How are the hearts of the
Jews represented as still covered and veiled, if the predictions of Moses
relating to Christ, in whom it was their duty to believe through him, are
as yet unfulfilled? What had the apostle of a strange Christ to complain
of, if the Jews failed in understanding the mysterious announcements of
their own God, unless the veil which was upon their hearts had reference to
that blindness which concealed from their eyes the Christ of Moses? Then,
again, the words which follow, But when it shall turn to the Lord, the evil
shall be taken away,"(9) properly refer to the Jew, over whose gaze Moses'
veil is spread, to the effect that, when he is turned to the faith of
Christ, he will understand how Moses spoke of Christ. But how shall the
veil of the Creator be taken away by the Christ of another god, whose
mysteries the Creator could not possibly have veiled--unknown mysteries, as
they were of an unknown god? So he says that "we now with open face"
(meaning the candour of the heart, which in the Jews had been covered with
a veil), "beholding Christ, are changed into the same image, from that
glory" (wherewith Moses was transfigured as by the glory of the Lord) "to
another glory."(10) By thus setting forth the glory which illumined the
person of Moses from his interview with God, and the veil which concealed
the same from the infirmity of the people, and by superinducing thereupon
the revelation and the glory of the Spirit in the person of Christ--"even
as," to use his words, "by the Spirit. of the Lord"(11)--he testifies that
the whole MOsaic system(12) was a figure of Christ, of whom the Jews indeed
were ignorant, but who is known to us Christians. We are quite aware that
some passages are open to ambiguity, from the way in which they are read,
or else from their punctuation, when there is room for these two causes of
ambiguity. The latter method has been adopted by Marcion, by reading the
passage which follows, "in whom the God of this world,"(13) as if it
described the Creator as the God of this world, in order that he may, by
these words, imply that there is another God for the other world. We,
however, say that the passage ought to be punctuated with a comma after
God, to this effect: "In whom God hath blinded the eyes of the unbelievers
of this world."(14) "In whom" means the Jewish unbelievers, from some of
whom the gospel is still hidden under Moses' veil. Now it is these whom God
had threatened for "loving Him indeed with the lip, whilst their heart was
far from Him,"(15) in these angry words: "Ye shall hear with your ears, and
not understand; and see with your eyes, but not perceive;"(16) and, "If ye
will not believe, ye shall not understand;"(17) and again, "I will take
away the wisdom of their wise men, and bring to nought(1) the understanding
of their prudent ones." But these words, of course, He did not pronounce
against them for concealing the gospel of the unknown God. At any rate, if
there is a God of this world,(2) He blinds the heart of the unbelievers of
this world, because they have not of their own accord recognised His
Christ, who ought to be understood from His Scriptures.(3) Content with my
advantage, I can willingly refrain from noticing to any greater length(4)
this point of ambiguous punctuation, so as not to give my adversary any
advantage,(5) indeed, I might have wholly omitted the discussion. A simpler
answer I shall find ready to hand in interpreting "the god of this world"
of the devil, who once said, as the prophet describes him: "I will be like
the Most High; I will exalt my throne in the clouds."(6) The whole
superstition, indeed, of this world has got into his hands,(7) so that he
blinds effectually the hearts of unbelievers, and of none more than the
apostate Marcion's. Now he did not observe how much this clause of the
sentence made against him: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out
of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to (give) the light of the
knowledge (of His glory) in the face of (Jesus) Christ."(8) Now who was it
that said; "Let there be light?"(9) And who was it that said to Christ
concerning giving light to the world: "I have set Thee as a light to the
Gentiles"(10)--to them, that is, "who sit in darkness and in the shadow of
death?"(11) (None else, surely, than He), to whom the Spirit in the Psalm
answers, in His foresight of the future, saying, "The light of Thy
countenance, O Lord, hath been displayed upon us."(12) Now the countenance
(or person(13)) of the Lord here is Christ. Wherefore the apostle said
above: Christ, who is the image of God."(14) Since Christ, then, is the
person of the Creator, who said, "Let there be light," it follows that
Christ and the apostles, and the gospel, and the veil, and Moses--nay, the
whole of the dispensations--belong to the God who is the Creator of this
world, according to the testimony of the clause (above adverted to), and
certainly not to him who never said, "Let there be light." I here pass over
discussion about another epistle, which we hold to have been written to the
Ephesians, but the heretics to the Laodiceans. In it he tells(15) them to
remember, that at the time when they were Gentiles they were without
Christ, aliens from (the commonwealth of) Israel, without intercourse,
without the covenants and any hope of promise, nay, without God, even in
his own world,(16) as the Creator thereof. Since therefore he said, that
the Gentiles were without God, whilst their god was the devil, not the
Creator, it is clear that he must be understood to be the lord of this
world, whom the Gentiles received as their god--not the Creator, of whom
they were in ignorance. But how does it happen, that "the treasure which we
have in these earthen  vessels of ours"(17) should not be regarded as
belonging to the God who owns the vessels? Now since God's glory is, that
so great a treasure is contained in earthen vessels, and since these
earthen vessels are of the Creator's make, it follows that the glory is the
Creator's; nay, since these vessels of His smack so much of the excellency
of the power of God, that power itself must be His also! Indeed, all these
things have been consigned to the said "earthen vessels" for the very
purpose that His excellence might be manifested forth. Henceforth, then,
the rival god will have no claim to the glory, and consequently none to the
power. Rather, dishonour and weakness will acrue to him, because the
earthen vessels with which he had nothing to do have received all the
excellency! Well, then, if it be in these very earthen vessels that he
tells us we have to endure so great sufferings,(18) in which we bear about
with us the very dying of God,(19) (Marcion's) god is really ungrateful and
unjust, if he does not mean to restore this same I substance of ours at the
resurrection, wherein so much has been endured in loyalty to him, in which
Christ's very death is borne about, wherein too the excellency of his power
is treasured.(20) For he gives prominence to the statement, "That the life
also of Christ may be manifested in our body,"(21) as a contrast to the
preceding, that His death is borne about in our body. Now of what life of
Christ does he here speak? Of that which we are now living? Then how is it,
that in the words which follow he exhorts us not to the things which are
seen and are temporal, but to those which are not seen and are eternal(1)--
in other words, not to the present, but to the future? But if it be of the
future life of Christ that he speaks, intimating that it is to be made
manifest in our body,(2) then he has clearly predicted the resurrection of
the flesh.(3) He says, too, that "our outward man perishes,"(4) not meaning
by an eternal perdition after death, but by labours and sufferings, in
reference to which he previously said, "For which cause we will not
faint."(5) Now, when he adds of "the inward man" also, that it "is renewed
day by day," he demonstrates both issues here--the wasting away of the body
by the wear and tear(6) of its trials, and the renewal of the soul(7) by
its contemplation of the promises.

CHAP. XII.--THE ETERNAL HOME IN HEAVEN. BEAUTIFUL EXPOSITION BY TERTULLIAN
OF THE APOSTLE'S CONSOLATORY TEACHING AGAINST THE FEAR OF DEATH, SO APT TO
ARISE UNDER ANTI-CHRISTIAN OPPRESSION. THE JUDGMENT-SEAT OF CHRIST--THE
IDEA, ANTI-MARCIONITE. PARADISE. JUDICIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CHRIST WHICH
ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE HERETICAL VIEWS ABOUT HIM; THE APOSTLE'S
SHARPNESS, OR SEVERITY, SHOWS HIM TO BE A FIT PREACHER OF THE CREATOR'S
CHRIST.

   As to the house of this our earthly dwelling-place, when he says that
"we have an eternal home in heaven, not made with hands,"(8) he by no means
would imply that, because it was built by the Creator's hand, it must
perish in a perpetual dissolution after death.(9) He treats of this subject
in order to offer consolation against the fear of death and the dread of
this very dissolution, as is even more manifest from what follows, when he
adds, that "in this tabernacle of our earthly body we do groan, earnestly
desiring to be clothed upon with the vesture which is from heaven,(10) if
so be, that having been unclothed,(11) we shall not be found naked;" in
other words, shall regain that of which we have been divested, even our
body. And again he says: "We that are in this tabernacle do groan, not as
if we were oppressed(12) with an unwillingness to be unclothed, but (we
wish)to be clothed upon."(13) He here  says expressly, what he touched but
lightly(14) in his first epistle, where he wrote:) "The dead shall be
raised Incorruptible (meaning those who had undergone mortality), "and we
shall be changed"(whom God shall find to be yet in the flesh).(15) Both
those shall be raised incorruptible, because they shall regain their body--
and that a renewed one, from which shall come their incorruptibility; and
these also shall, in the crisis of the last moment, and from their
instantaneous death, whilst encountering the oppressions of anti-christ,
undergo a change, obtaining therein not so much a divestiture of body as "a
clothing upon" with the vesture which is from heaven.(16) So that whilst
these shall put on over their (changed) body this, heavenly raiment, the
dead also shall for their part(17) recover their body, over which they too
have a supervesture to put on, even the incorruption of heaven;(18) because
of these it was that he said: "This corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortal must put on immortality."(19) The one put on this
(heavenly) apparel,(20) when they recover their bodies; the others put it
on as a supervesture,(21) when they indeed hardly lose them (in the
suddenness of their change). It was accordingly not without good reason
that he described them as "not wishing indeed to be unclothed," but (rather
as wanting) "to be clothed upon;"(22) in other words, as wishing not to
undergo death, but to be surprised into life,(23) "that this moral (body)
might be swallowed up of life,"(24) by being rescued from death in the
supervesture of its changed state. This is why he shows us how much better
it is for us not to be sorry, if we should be surprised by death, and tells
us that we even hold of God "the earnest of His Spirit"(25) (pledged as it
were thereby to have "the clothing upon," which is the object of our hope),
and that "so long as we are in the flesh, we are absent from the Lord;"(26)
moreover, that we ought on this account to prefer(27) "rather to be absent
from the body and to be present with the Lord,"(28) and so to be ready to
meet even death with joy. In this view it is that he informs us how "we
must all appear before the judgement-seat of Christ, that every one may
receive the things done in his body, according as he hath done either good
or bad."(1) Since, however, there is then to be a retribution according to
men's merits, how will any be able to reckon with(2) God? But by mentioning
both the judgment-seat and the distinction between works good and bad, he
sets before us a Judge who is to award both sentences,(3) and has thereby
affirmed that all will have to be present at the tribunal in their bodies.
For it will be impossible to pass sentence except on the body, for what has
been done in the body. God would be unjust, if any one were not punished or
else rewarded in that very condition,(4) wherein the merit was itself
achieved. "If therefore any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old;
things are passed away; behold, all things are become new;"(5) and so is
accomplished the prophecy of Isaiah.(6) When also he (in a later passage)
enjoins us "to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and blood"(7)
(since this substance enters not the kingdom of Gods(8)); when, again, he
"espouses the church as a chaste virgin to Christ,"(9) a spouse to a spouse
in very deed,(10) an image cannot be combined and compared with what is
opposed to the real nature the thing (with which it is compared). when he
designates "false apostles, deceitful workers transforming themselves" into
likenesses of himself,(11) of course by their hypocrisy, he charges them
with the guilt of disorderly conversation, rather than of false
doctrine.(12) The contrariety, therefore, was one of conduct, not of
gods.(13) If "Satan himself, too, is transformed into an angel of
light,"(14) such an assertion must not be used to the prejudice of the
Creator. The Creator is not an angel, but God. Into a god of light, and not
an angel of light, must Satan then have been said to be transformed, if he
did not mean to call him "the angel," which both we and Marcion know him to
be. Paradise is the title of a treatise of ours, in which is discussed all
that the subject admits of.(15) I shall here simply wonder, in connection
with this matter, whether a god who has no dispensation of any kind on
earth could possibly have a paradise to call his own--without perchance
availing himself of the paradise of the Creator, to use it as he does His
world--much in the character of a mendicant.(16) And yet of the removal of
a man from earth to heaven we have an instance afforded us by the Creator
in Elijah.(17) But what will excite my surprise still more is the case
(next supposed by Marcion), that a God so good and gracious, and so averse
to blows and cruelty, should have suborned the angel  Satan--not his own
either, but the Creator's--"to buffet" the apostle,(18) and then to have
refused his request, when thrice entreated to liberate him! It would seem,
therefore, that Marcion's god imitates the Creator's conduct, who is an
enemy to the proud, even "putting down the mighty from their seats." Is he
then the same God as He who gave Satan power over the person of Job that
his "strength might be made perfect in weakness?"(20) How is it that the
censurer of the Galatians(21) still retains the very formula of the law:
"In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established?"
How again is it that he threatens sinners "that he will not spare"
them(23)--he, the preacher of a most gentle god? Yea, he even declares that
"the Lord hath given to him the power of using sharpness in their
presence!''(24) Deny now, O heretic, (at your cost,) that your god is an
object to be feared, when his apostle was for making himself so formidable!

CHAP. XIII.--THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. ST. PAUL CANNOT HELP USING PHRASES
WHICH BESPEAK THE JUSTICE OF GOD, EVEN WHEN HE IS EULOGIZING THE MERCIES OF
THE GOSPEL. MARCION PARTICULARLY HARD IN MUTILATION OF THIS EPISTLE.YET OUR
AUTHOR ARGUES ON COMMON GROUND. THE JUDGMENT AT LAST WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE GOSPEL. THE JUSTIFIED BY FAITH EXHORTED TO HAVE PEACE WITH GOD.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE OLD AND THE NEW DISPENSATIONS IN ONE AND THE SAME
HAND.

   Since my little work is approaching its termination,(1) I must treat
but briefly the points which still occur, whilst those which have so often
turned up must be put aside. I regret still to have to contend about the
law--after I have so often proved that its replacement (by the gospel)(2)
affords no argument for another god, predicted as it was indeed in Christ,
and in the Creator's own plans(3) ordained for His Christ. (But I must
revert to that discussion) so far as (the apostle leads me, for) this very
epistle looks very much as if it abrogated(4) the law. We have, however,
often shown before now that God is declared by the apostle to be a Judge;
and that in the Judge is implied an Avenger; area in the Avenger, the
Creator. And so in the passage where he says: "I am not ashamed of the
gospel (of Christ): for it is the power of god unto salvtion to every one
that beheveth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek; for therein is the
righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith,''(5) he undoubtedly
ascribes both the gospel and salvation to Him whom (in accordance with our
heretic's own distinction) I have called the just God, not the good one. It
is He who removes (men) from confidence in the law to faith in the gospel--
that is to say,(6) His own law and His own gospel. When, again, he declares
that "the wrath (of God) is revealed from heaven against all un-godliness
and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness,"(7) (I
ask) the wrath of what God? Of the Creator certainly. The truth, therefore,
will be His, whose is also the wrath, which has to be revealed to avenge
the truth. Likewise, when adding, "We are sure that the judgment of God is
according to truth,"(8) he both vindicated that wrath from which comes this
judgment for the truth, and at the same time afforded another proof that
the truth emanates from the same God whose wrath he attested, by witnessing
to His judgment. Marcion's averment is quite a different matter, that(9)
the Creator in anger avenges Himself on the truth of the rival god which
had been detained in unrighteousness. But what serious gaps Marcion has
made in this epistle especially, by withdrawing whole passages at his will,
will be clear from the unmedullated text of our own copy.(10) It is enough
for my purpose to accept in evidence of its truth what he has seen fit to
leave unerased, strange instances as they are also of his negligence and
blindness. If, then, God will judge the secrets of men--both   of those who
have sinned in the law, and of those who have sinned without law (inasmuch
as they who know not the law yet do by nature the things contained in the
law)(11)--surely the God who shall judge is He to whom belong both the law,
and that nature which is the rule(12) to them who know not the law. But how
will He conduct this judgment? "According to my gospel," says (the
apostle), "by (Jesus) Christ."(13) So that both the gospel and Christ must
be His, to whom appertain the law and the nature which are to be vindicated
by the gospel and Christ--even at that judgment of God which, as he
previously said, was to be according to truth.(14) The wrath, therefore,
which is to vindicate truth, can only be revealed from heaven by the God of
wrath;(15) so that this sentence, which is quite in accordance with that
previous one wherein the judgment is declared to be the Creator's,(16)
cannot possibly be ascribed to another god who is not a judge, and is
incapable of wrath. It is only consistent in Him amongst whose attributes
are found the judgment and the wrath of which I am speaking, and to whom of
necessity must also appertain the media whereby these attributes are to be
carried into effect. even the gospel and Christ. Hence his invective
against the transgressors of the law, who teach that men should not steal,
and yet practise theft themselves.(17) (This invective he utters) in
perfect homage(18) to the law of God, not as if he meant to ten sure the
Creator Himself with having commanded(19) a fraud to be practised against
the Egyptians to get their gold and silver at the very time when He was
forbidding men to  steal,(20)--adopting such methods as they are  apt
(shamelessly) to charge upon Him in other particulars also. Are we then to
suppose(21) that the apostle abstained through fear  from openly
calumniating God, from whom  notwithstanding He did not hesitate to
withdraw men? Well, but he had gone so far in his censure of the Jews, as
to point against them the denunciation of the prophet, "Through you the
name of God is blasphemed (among the Gentiles).''(22) But how absurd, that
he should himself blaspheme Him for blaspheming whom he upbraids them as
evil-doers! He prefers even circumcision of heart to neglect of it in the
flesh. Now it is quite within the purpose of the God of the law that
circumcision should be that of the heart, not in the flesh; in the spirit,
and not in the letter.(1) Since this is the circumcision recommended by
Jeremiah: "Circumcise (yourselves to the Lord, and take away) the foreskins
of your heart;"(2) and even of Moses: "Circumcise, therefore, the hardness
of your heart,"(3)-the Spirit which circumcises the heart will proceed from
Him who presented the letter also which clips(4) the desh; and "the Jew
which is one inwardly" will be a subject of the self-same God as he also is
who is "a Jew outwardly;"(5) because the apostle would have preferred not
to have mentioned a Jew at all, unless he were a servant of the God of the
Jews. It was once(6) the law; now it is "the righteousness of God which is
by the faith of (Jesus) Christ."(7) What means this distinction? Has your
god been subserving the interests of the Creator's dispensation, by
affording time to Him and to His law? Is the "Now" in the hands of Him to
whom belonged the "That"? Surely, then, the law was His, whose is now the
righteousness of God. It is a distinction of dispensations, not of gods. He
enjoins those who are justified by faith in Christ and not by the law to
have peace with God.(8) With what God? Him whose enemies we have never, in
any dispensation,(9) been? Or Him against whom we have rebelled, both in
relation to His written law and His law of nature? Now, as peace is only
possible towards Him with whom there once was war, we shall be both
justified by Him, and to Him also will belong the Christ, in whom we are
justified by faith, and through whom alone God's(10) enemies can ever be
reduced to peace. "Moreover," says he, "the law entered, that the offence
might abound."(11) And wherefore this? "In order," he says, "that (where
sin abounded), grace might much more abound."(12) Whose grace, if not of
that God from whom also came the law? Unless it be, forsooth, that(13) the
Creator intercalated His law for the mere purpose of(14) producing some
employment for the grace of a rival god, an enemy to Himself (I had almost
said, a god unknown to Him), "that as sin had" in His own dispensation(15)
"reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto
(eternal) life by Jesus Christ,"(16) His own antagonist! For this (I
suppose it was, that) the law of the Creator had "concluded all under
sin,"(17) and had brought in "all the world as guilty (before God)," and
had "stopped every mouth,(18) so that none could glory through it, in order
that grace might be maintained to the glory of the Christ, not of the
Creator, but of Marcion! I may here anticipate a remark about the substance
of Christ, in the prospect of a question which will now turn up. For he
says that "we are dead to the law."(19) It may be contended that Christ's
body is indeed a body, but not exactly(20) flesh. Now, whatever may be the
substance, since he mentions "the body of Christ,"(21) whom he immediately
after states to have been "raised from the dead,"(22) none other body can
be understood than that of the flesh,(23) in respect of which the law was
called (the law) of death.(24) But, behold, he bears testimony to the law,
and excuses it on the ground of sin: "What shall we say, therefore? Is the
law sin? God forbid."(25) Fie on you, Marcion. "God forbid!" (See how) the
apostle recoils from all impeachment of the law. I, however, have no
acquaintance with sin except through the law.(26) But how high an encomium
of the law (do we obtain) from this fact, that by it there comes to light
the latent presence of sin!(1) It was not the law, therefore, which led me
astray, but "sin, taking occasion by the commandment."(2) Why then do you,
(O Marcion,) impute to the God of the law what His apostle dares not impute
even to the law itself? Nay, he adds a climax: "The law is holy, and its
commandment just and good."(3) Now if he thus reverences the Creator's law,
I am at a loss to know how he can destroy the Creator Himself. Who can draw
a distinction, and say that there are two gods, one just and the other when
He ought to be believed to be both one and the other, whose commandment is
both "just and good?" Then, again, when affirming the law to be
"spiritual"(4) he thereby implies that it is prophetic, and that it is
figurative. Now from even this circumstance I am bound to conclude that
Christ was predicted by the law but figuratively, so that indeed He could
not be recognised by all the Jews.

CHAP. XIV.--THE DIVINE POWER SHOWN IN CHRIST'S INCARNATION. MEANING OF ST.
PAUL'S PHRASE. LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH. NO DOCETISM IN IT. RESURRECTION OF
OUR REAL BODIES. A WIDE CHASM MADE IN THE EPISTLE BY MARCION'S ERASURE.
WHEN THE JEWS ARE UPBRAIDED BY THE APOSTLE FOR THEIR MISCONDUCT TO GOD;
INASMUCH AS THAT GOD WAS THE CREATOR, A PROOF IS IN FACT GIVEN THAT ST.
PAUL'S GOD WAS THE CREATOR. THE PRECEPTS AT THE END OF THE EPISTLE, WHICH
MARCION ALLOWED, SHOWN TO BE IN EXACT ACCORDANCE WITH THE CREATOR'S
SCRIPTURES.

   If the Father "sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,"(5) it
must not therefore be said that the flesh which He seemed to have was but a
phantom. For he in a previous verse ascribed sin to the flesh, and made it
out to be "the law of sin dwelling in his members," and "warring against
the law of the mind."(6) On this account, therefore, (does he mean to say
that) the Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, that He might
redeem this sinful flesh by a like substance, even a fleshly one, which
bare a resemblance to sinful flesh, although it was itself free from sin.
Now this will be the very perfection of divine power to effect the
salvation (of man) in a nature like his own,(7) For it would be no great
matter if the Spirit of God remedied the flesh; but when a flesh, which is
the very copy(8) of the sinning substance itself flesh also-only without
sin, (effects the remedy, then doubtless it is a great thing). The
likeness, therefore, will have reference to the quality(9) of the
sinfulness, and not to any falsity(10) of the substance. Because he would
not have added the attribute "sinful,"(11) if he meant the "likeness" to be
so predicated of the substance as to deny the verity thereof; in that case
he would only have used the word "flesh," and omitted the "sinful." But
inasmuch as he has put the two together, and said "sinful flesh," (or
"flesh of sin,")(12) he has both affirmed the substance, that is, the flesh
and referred the likeness to the fault of the substance, that is, to its
sin. But even suppose(13) that the likeness was predicated of the
substance, the truth of the said substance will not be thereby denied. Why
then call the true substance like? Because it is indeed true, only not of a
seed of like condition(14) with our own; but true still,  as being of a
nature 15 not really unlike ours.(16) And again, in contrary things there
is no likeness. Thus the likeness of flesh would not be called spirit,
because flesh is not susceptible of any likeness to spirit; but it would be
called phantom, if it seemed to be that which it really was not. It is,
however, called likeness, since it is what it seems to be. Now it is (what
it seems to be), because it is on a par with the other thing (with which it
is compared).(17) But a phantom, which is merely such and nothing else,(18)
is not a likeness. The apostle, however, himself here comes to our aid;
for, while explaining in what sense he would not have us "live in the
flesh," although in the flesh--even by not living in the works of the
flesh(1)--he shows that when he wrote the words, "Flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God,"(2) it was not with the view of condemning the
substance (of the flesh), but the works thereof; and because it is possible
for these not to be committed by us whilst we are still in the flesh, they
will therefore be properly chargeable,(3) not on the substance of the
flesh, but on its conduct. Likewise, if "the body indeed is dead because of
sin" (from which statement we see that not the death of the soul is meant,
but that of the body), "but the spirit is life because of
righteousness,"(4) it follows that this life accrues to that which incurred
death because of sin, that is, as we have just seen, the body. Now the
body(5) is only restored to him who had lost it; so that the resurrection
of the dead implies the resurrection of their bodies. He accordingly
subjoins: "He that raised up Christ from the dead, shall also quicken your
mortal bodies."(6) In these words he both affirmed the resurrection of the
flesh (without which nothing can rightly be called(7) body, nor can
anything be properly regarded as mortal), and proved the bodily substance
of Christ; inasmuch as our own mortal bodies will be quickened in precisely
the same way as He was raised; and that was in no other way than in the
body. I have here a very wide gulf of expunged Scripture tO leap across;(8)
however, I alight on the place where the apostle bears record of Israel
"that they have a zeal of God"-their own God, of course--"but not according
to knowledge. For," says he, "being ignorant of (the righteousness of) God,
and going about to establish their own righteousness, they have not
submitted themselves unto  the righteousness of God; for Christ is the end
of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth."(9) Hereupon we
shall be confronted with an argument of the heretic, that the Jews were
ignorant of the superior God,(10) since, in opposition to him, they set up
their own righteousness--that is, the righteousness of their law--not
receiving Christ, the end (or finisher) of the law. But how then is it that
he bears testimony to their zeal for their own God, if it is not in respect
of the same God that he upbraids them for their ignorance? They were
affected indeed with zeal for God, but it was not an intelligent zeal: they
were, in fact, ignorant of Him, because they were ignorant of His
dispensations by Christ, who was to bring about the consummation of the
law; and in this way did they maintain their own righteousness in
opposition to Him. But so does the Creator Himself testify to their
ignorance concerning Him: "Israel hath not known me; my people have not
understood me;"(11) and as to their preferring the establishment of their
own righteousness, (the Creator again describes them as) "teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men;"(12) moreover, as "having gathered
themselves together against the Lord and against His Christ"(13)--from
ignorance of Him, of course. Now nothing can be expounded of another god
which is applicable to the Creator; otherwise the apostle would not have
been just in reproaching the Jews with ignorance in respect of a god of
whom they knew nothing. For where had been their sin, if they only
maintained the righteousness of their own God against one of whom they were
ignorant? But he exclaims: "O the depth of the riches and the wisdom of
God; how unsearchable also are His ways!"(14) Whence this outburst of
feeling? Surely from the recollection of the Scriptures, which he had been
previously turning over, as well as from his contemplation of the mysteries
which he had been setting forth above, in relation to the faith of Christ
coming from the law.(15) If Marcion had an object in his erasures,(16) why
does his apostle utter such an exclamation, because his god has no riches
for him to contemplate? So poor and indigent was he, that he created
nothing, predicted nothing--in short, possessed nothing; for it was into
the world of another God that he descended. The truth is, the Creator's
resources and riches, which once had been hidden, were now disclosed. For
so had He promised: "I will give to  them treasures which have been hidden,
and which men have not seen will I open to them."(17) Hence, then, came the
exclamation, "O the depth of the riches and the wisdom of God!" For His
treasures were now opening out. This is the purport of what Isaiah said,
and of (the apostle's own) subsequent quotation of the self-same passage,
of the prophet: "Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been His
counsellor? Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed to him
again?"(1) Now, (Marcion,) since you have expunged so much from the
Scriptures, why did you retain these words, as if they too were not the
Creator's words? But come now, let us see without mistake(2) the precepts
of your new god: "Abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is
good."(3) Well, is the precept different in the Creator's teaching? "Take
away the evil from you, depart from it, and be doing good."(4) Then again:
"Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love."(5) Now is not
this of the same import as: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self?"(6)
(Again, your apostle says:) "Rejoicing in hope;"(7) that is, of God. So
says the Creator's Psalmist: "It is better to hope in the Lord, than to
hope even in princes."(8) "Patient in tribulation."(9) You have (this in)
the Psalm: "The Lord hear thee in the day of tribulation."(10) "Bless, and
curse not,"(11)(says your apostle.) But what better teacher of this will
you find than Him who created all things, and blessed them? "Mind not high
things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own
conceits."(12) For against such a disposition Isaiah pronounces a woe.(13)
"Recompense to no man evil for evil."(14) (Like unto which is the Creator's
precept:) "Thou shalt not remember thy brother's evil against thee."(15)
(Again:) "Avenge not yourselves; "(16) for it is written, "Vengeance is
mine, I will repay, saith the Lord."(17) "Live peaceably with all men."(18)
The retaliation of the law, therefore, permitted not retribution for an
injury; it rather repressed any attempt thereat by the fear of a
recompense. Very properly, then, did he sum up the entire teaching of the
Creator in this precept of His: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself."(19) Now, if this is the recapitulation of the law from the very
law itself, I am at a loss to know who is the God of the law. I fear He
must be Marcion's god (after all).(20) If also the gospel of Christ is
fulfilled in this same precept, but not the Creator's Christ, what is the
use of our contending any longer whether Christ did or did not say, "I am
not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it? "(21) In vain has (our man
of) Pontus laboured to deny this statement.(22) If the gospel has not
fulfilled the law, then all I can say is,(23) the law has fulfilled the
gospel. But it is well that in a later verse  he threatens us with "the
judgment-seat of Christ,"--the Judge, of course, and the Avenger, and
therefore the Creator's (Christ). This Creator, too, however much he may
preach up another god, he certainly sets forth for us as a Being to be
served,(24) if he holds Him thus up as an object to be feared.

CHAP. XV.--THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. THE SHORTER EPISTLES
PUNGENT IN SENSE AND VERY VALUABLE.ST. PAUL UPBRAIDS THE JEWS FOR THE DEATH
FIRST OF THEIR PROPHETS AND THEN OF CHRIST. THIS A PRESUMPTION THAT BOTH
Christ AND THE PROPHETS PERTAINED TO THE SAME GOD. THE LAW OF NATURE, WHICH
IS IN FACT THE CREATOR'S DISCIPLINE, AND THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST BOTH ENJOIN
CHASTITY. THE RESURRECTION PROVIDED FOR IN THE OLD TESTAMENT BY CHRIST.
MAN'S COMPOUND NATURE.

   I shall not be sorry to bestow attention on the shorter epistles also.
Even in brief works there is much pungency?(25) The Jews had slain their
prophets.(26) I may ask, What has this to do with the apostle of the rival
god, one so amiable withal, who could hardly be said to condemn even the
failings of his own people; and who, moreover, has himself some hand in
making away with the same prophets whom he is destroying? What injury did
Israel commit against him in slaying those whom he too has reprobated,
since he was the first to pass a hostile sentence on them? But Israel
sinned against their own God. He upbraided their iniquity to whom the
injured God pertains; and certainly he is anything but the adversary of the
injured Deity. Else he would not have burdened them with the charge of
killing even the Lord, in the words, "Who both killed the Lord Jesus and
their own prophets," although (the pronoun) their own be an addition of the
heretics.(1) Now, what was there so very acrimonious(2) in their killing
Christ the proclaimer of the new god, after they had put to death also the
prophets of their own god? The fact, however, of their having slain the
Lord and His servants, is put as a case of climax.(3) Now, if it were the
Christ of one god and the prophets of another god whom they slew, he would
certainly have placed the impious crimes on the same level, instead of
mentioning them in the way of a climax; but they did not admit of being put
on the same level: the climax, therefore, was only possible(4) by the sin
having been in fact committed against one and the same Lord in the two
respective circumstances.(5) To one and the same Lord, then, belonged
Christ and the prophets. What that "sanctification of ours" is, which he
declares to be "the will of God," you may discover from the opposite
conduct which he forbids. That we should "abstain from fornication," not
from marriage; that every one "should know how to possess his vessel in
honour."(6) In what way? "Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the
Gentiles."(7) Concupiscence, however, is not ascribed to marriage even
among the Gentiles, but to extravagant, unnatural, and enormous sins.(8)
The law of nature(9) is opposed to luxury as well as to grossness and
uncleanness;(10) it does not forbid connubial intercourse, but
concupiscence; and it takes care of(11) our vessel by the honourable estate
of matrimony. This passage (of the apostle) I would treat in such a way as
to maintain the superiority of the other and higher sanctity, preferring
continence and virginity to marriage, but by no means prohibiting the
latter. For my hostility is directed against" those who are for destroying
the God of marriage, not those who follow after chastity. He says that
those who "remain unto the coming of Christ," along with "the dead in
Christ, shall rise first," being "caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord
in the air."(13) I find it was in their foresight of all this, that the
heavenly intelligences gazed with admiration on "the Jerusalem which is
above,"(14) and by the mouth of Isaiah said long ago: "Who are these that
fly as clouds, and as doves with their young ones, unto me?"(15) Now, as
Christ has prepared for us this ascension into heaven, He must be the
Christ of whom Amos(16) spoke: "It is He who builds His ascent up to the
heavens,"(17) even for Himself and His people. Now, from whom shall I
expect (the fulfil-merit of) all this, except from Him whom I have heard
give the promise thereof? What "spirit" does he forbid us to "quench," and
what "prophesyings" to "despise?"(18) Not the Creator's spirit, nor the
Creator's prophesyings, Marcion of course replies. For he has already
quenched and despised the thing which he destroys, and is unable to forbid
what he has despised.(19) It is then incumbent on Marcion now to display in
his church that spirit of his god which must not be quenched, and the
prophesyings which must not be despised. And since he has made such a
display as he thinks fit, let him know that we shall challenge it whatever
it may be to the rule(20) of the grace and power of the Spirit and the
prophets--namely, to foretell the future, to reveal the secrets of the
heart, and to explain mysteries. And when he shall have failed to produce
and give proof of any such criterion, we will then on our side bring out
both the Spirit and the prophecies of the Creator, which utter predictions
according to His will. Thus it will be clearly seen of what the apostle
spoke, even of those things which were to happen in the church of his God;
and as long as He endures, so long also does His Spirit work, and so long
are His promises repeated.(21) Come now, you who deny the salvation of the
flesh, and who, whenever there occurs the specific mention of body in a
case of this sort,(22) interpret it as meaning anything rather than the
substance of the flesh, (tell me) how is it that the apostle has given
certain distinct names to all (our faculties), and has comprised them all
in one prayer for their safety, desiring that our "spirit and soul and body
may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord and Saviour (Jesus)
Christ?"(1) Now he has here pro-pounded the soul and the body as two
several and distinct things.(2) For although the soul has a kind of body of
a quality of its own,(3) just as the spirit has, yet as the soul and the
body are distinctly named, the soul has its own peculiar appellation, not
requiring the common designation of body. This is left for "the flesh,"
which having no proper name (in this passage), necessarily makes use of the
common designation. Indeed, I see no other substance in man, after spirit
and soul, to which the term body can be applied except "the flesh." This,
therefore, I understand to be meant by the word "body "--as often as the
latter is not specifically named. Much more do I so understand it in the
present passage, where the flesh(4) is expressly called by the name "body."

CHAP. XVI.--THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. AN ABSURD ERASURE OF
MARCION; ITS OBJECT TRANSPARENT. THE FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE HEATHEN AS WELL
AS THE JEWS COULD NOT BE ADMINISTERED. BY MARCION'S CHRIST. THE MAN OF SIN-
-WHAT? INCONSISTENCY OF MARCION'S VIEW. THE ANTICHRIST. THE GREAT EVENTS OF
THE LAST APOSTASY WITHIN THE PROVIDENCE AND INTENTION OF THE CREATOR, WHOSE
ARE ALL THINGS FROM THE BEGINNING. SIMILARITY OF THE PAULINE PRECEPTS WITH
THOSE OF THE CREATOR.

   We are obliged from time to time to recur to certain topics in order to
affirm truths which are connected with them We repeat then here, that as
the Lord is by the apostle proclaimed s as the awarder of both weal and
woe,(6) He must be either the Creator, or (as Marcion would be loth to
admit) One like the Creator--"with whom it is a righteous thing to
recompense tribulation to them who afflict us, and to ourselves, who are
afflicted, rest, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed as coming from
heaven with the angels of His might and in flaming fire."(7) The heretic,
however, has erased the flaming fire, no doubt that he might extinguish all
traces herein of our own God. But the folly of the obliteration is clearly
seen. For as the apostle declares that the Lord will come "to take
vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the gospel, who," he
says, "shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of
the Lord, and from the glory of His power"(8) --it follows that, as He
comes to inflict punishment, He must require "the flaming fire." Thus on
this consideration too we must, notwithstanding Marcion's opposition,
conclude that Christ belongs to a God who kindles the flames(9) (of
vengeance), and therefore to the Creator, inasmuch as He takes vengeance on
such as know not the Lord, that is, on the heathen. For he has mentioned
separately "those who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ,"(10)
whether they be sinners among Christians or among Jews. Now, to inflict
punishment on the heathen, who very likely have never heard of the Gospel,
is not the function of that God who is naturally unknown, and who is
revealed nowhere else than in the Gospel, and therefore cannot be known by
all men.(11) The Creator, however, ought to be known even by (the light of)
nature, for He may be understood from His works, and may thereby become the
object of a more widely spread knowledge. To Him, therefore, does it
appertain to punish such as know not God, for none ought to be ignorant of
Him. In the (apostle's) phrase, "From the presence of the Lord, and from
the glory of His power,"(12)he uses the words of Isaiah who for the express
reason makes the self-same Lord "arise to shake terribly the earth."(13)
Well, but who is the man of sin, the son of perdition," who must first be
revealed before the Lord comes; "who opposeth and exalteth himself above
all that is called God, or that is worshipped; who is to sit in the temple
of God, and boast himself as being God?"(1) According indeed to our view,
he is Antichrist; as it is taught us in both the ancient and the new
prophecies,(2) and especially by the Apostle John, who says that "already
many false prophets are gone out into the world," the fore-runners of
Antichrist, who deny that Christ is come in the flesh,(3) and do not
acknowledge(4) Jesus (to be the Christ), meaning in God the Creator.
According, however, to Marcion's view, it is really hard to know whether He
might not be (after all) the Creator's Christ; because according to him He
is not yet come. But whichsoever of the two it is, I want to know why he
comes "in all power, and with lying signs and wonders?"(5) "Because," he
says, "they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved;
for which cause God shall send them an instinct of delusion(6) (to believe
a lie), that they  all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness."(7) If therefore he be Antichrist, (as we
hold), and comes according to the Creator's purpose, it must be God the
Creator who sends him to fasten in their error those who did not believe
the truth, that they might be saved; His likewise must be the truth and the
salvation, who avenges (the contempt of) them by sending error as their
substitute(8)--that is, the Creator, to whom that very wrath is a fitting
attribute, which deceives with a lie those who are not captivated with
truth. If, however, he is not Antichrist, as we suppose (him to be) then He
is the Christ of the Creator, as Marcion will have it. In this case how
happens it that he(9) can suborn the Creator's Christ to avenge his truth?
But should he after all agree with us, that Antichrist is here meant, I
must then likewise ask how it is that he finds Satan, an angel of the
Creator, necessary to his purpose? Why, too, should Antichrist be slain by
Him, whilst commissioned by the Creator to execute the function(10) of
inspiring men with their love of untruth? In short, it is incontestable
that the emissary,(11) and the truth, and the salvation belong to Him to
whom also appertain the wrath, and the jealousy,(12) and "the sending of
the strong delusion,"(13) on those who despise and mock, as well as upon
those who are ignorant of Him; and therefore even Marcion will now have to
come down a step, and concede to us that his god is "a jealous god." (This
being then an unquestionable position, I ask) which God has the greater
fight to be angry? He, as I suppose, who from the beginning of all things
has given to man, as primary witnesses for the knowledge of Himself, nature
in her (manifold) works, kindly providences, plagues,(14) and indications
(of His divinity),(15) but who in spite of all this evidence has not been
acknowledged; or he who has been brought out to view(16) once for all in
one only copy of the gospel--and even that without any sure authority--
which actually makes no secret of proclaiming another god? Now He who has
the right of inflicting the vengeance, has also sole claim to that which
occasions(17) the vengeance, I mean the Gospel; (in other words,) both the
truth and (its accompanying) salvation. The charge, that "if  any would not
work, neither should he eat,"(18) is in strict accordance with the precept
of Him who ordered that "the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn
should not be muzzled."(19)

CHAP.XVII.--THE EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEANS. THE PROPER DESIGNATION IS TO THE
EPHESIANS. RECAPITULATION OF ALL THINGS IN CHRIST FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE
CREATION. NO ROOM FOR MARCION'S CHRIST HERE. NUMEROUS PARALLELS BETWEEN
THIS EPISTLE AND PASSAGES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. THE PRINCE OF THE POWER OF
THE AIR, AND THE GOD OF THIS WORLD--WHO CREATION AND REGENERATION THE WORK
OF ONE GOD. HOW CHRIST HAS MADE THE LAW OBSOLETE. A VAIN ERASURE OF
MARCION'S. THE APOSTLES AS WELL AS THE PROPHETS FROM THE CREATOR.

   We have it on the true tradition(20) of the Church, that this epistle
was sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans. Marcion, however, was
very desirous of giving it the new rifle (of Laodicean),(1) as if he were
extremely accurate in investigating such a point. But of what consequence
are the titles, since in writing to a certain church the apostle did in
fact write to all? It is certain that, whoever they were to whom he
wrote,(2) he declared Him to be God in Christ with whom all things agree
which are predicted.(3) Now, to what god will most suitably belong all
those things which relate to "that good pleasure, which God hath purposed
in the mystery of His will, that in the dispensation of the fulness of
times He might recapitulate" (if I may so say, according to the exact
meaning of the Greek word(4)) "all things in Christ, both which are in
heaven and which are on earth,"(5) but to Him whose are all things from
their beginning, yea the beginning itself too; from whom issue the times
and the dispensation of the fulness of times, according to which all things
up to the very first are gathered up in Christ? What beginning, however,
has the other god; that is to say, how can anything proceed from him, who
has no work to show? And if there be no beginning, how can there be times?
If no times, what fulness of times can there be? And if no fulness, what
dispensation?  Indeed, what has he ever done on earth, that any long
dispensation of times to be fulfilled can be put to his account, for the
accomplishment of all things in Christ, even of things in heaven? Nor can
we possibly suppose that any things whatever have been at any time done in
heaven by any other God than Him by whom, as all men allow, all things have
been done on earth. Now, if it is impossible for all these things from the
beginning to be reckoned to any other God than the Creator, who will
believe that an alien god has recapitulated them in an alien Christ,
instead of their own proper Author in His own Christ? If, again, they
belong to the Creator, they must needs be separate from the other god; and
if separate, then opposed to him. But then how can opposites be gathered
together into him by whom they are in short destroyed? Again, what Christ
do the following words announce,  when the apostle says: "That we should be
to the praise of His glory, who first trusted in Christ?"(6) Now who could
have first trusted--i.e. previously trusted(7)--in God, before His advent,
except the Jews to whom Christ was previously announced, from the
beginning? He who was thus foretold, was also foretrusted. Hence the
apostle refers the statement to himself, that is, to the Jews, in order
that he may draw a distinction with respect to the Gentiles, (when he goes
on to say:) "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of
truth, the gospel (of your salvation); in whom ye believed, and were sealed
with His Holy Spirit of promise."(8) Of what promise? That which was made
through Joel: "In the last days will I pour out of my Spirit upon all
flesh,"(9) that is, on all nations. Therefore the Spirit and the Gospel
will be found in the Christ, who was foretrusted, because foretold. Again,
"the Father of glory"(10) is He whose Christ, when ascending to heaven, is
celebrated as "the King of Glory" in the Psalm: "Who is this King of Glory?
the Lord of Hosts, He is the King of Glory."(11) From Him also is besought
"the spirit of wisdom,"" at whose disposal is enumerated that sevenfold
distribution of the spirit of grace by Isaiah.(13) He likewise will grant
"the enlightenment of the eyes of the understanding,"(14) who has also
enriched our natural eyes with light; to whom, moreover, the blindness of
the people is offensive: "And who is blind, but my servants?... yea, the
servants of God have become blind."(15) In His gift, too, are "the riches
(of the glory) of His inheritance in the saints,"(16) who promised such an
inheritance in the call of the Gentiles: "Ask of me, and I will give Thee
the heathen for Thine inheritance."(17) It was He who "wrought in Christ
His mighty power, by raising Him from the dead, and setting Him at His own
right hand, and putting all things under His feet"(18)--even the same who
said: "Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy
footstool."(19) For in another passage the Spirit says to the Father
concerning the Son: "Thou hast put all things under His feet."(20) Now, if
from all these facts which are found in the Creator there is yet to be
deduced(21) another god and another Christ, let us go in quest of the
Creator. I suppose, forsooth,(22) we find Him, when he speaks of such as
"were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein they had walked according to the
course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, who
worketh in the children of disobedience."(1) But Marcion must not here
interpret the world as meaning the God of the world? For a creature bears
no resemblance to the Creator; the thing made, none to its Maker; the
world, none to God. He, moreover, who is the Prince of the power of the
ages must not be thought to be called the prince of the power of the air;
for He who is chief over the higher powers derives no title from the lower
powers, although these, too, may be ascribed to Him. Nor, again, can He
possibly seem to be the instigator(3) of that unbelief which He Himself had
rather to endure at the hand of the Jews and the Gentiles alike. We may
therefore simply conclude that(4) these designations are unsuited to the
Creator. There is another being to whom they are more applicable --and the
apostle knew very well who that was. Who then is he? Undoubtedly he who has
raised up "children of disobedience" against the Creator Himself ever since
he took possession of that "air" of His; even as the prophet makes him say:
"I will set my throne above the stars; ... will go up above the clouds; I
will be like the Most High."(5) This must mean the devil, whom in another
passage (since such will they there have the apostle's meaning to be)we
shall recognize in the appellation the god of this world.(6) For he has
filled the whole world with the lying pretence of his own divinity. To be
sure,(7) if he had not existed, we might then possibly have applied these
descriptions to the Creator. But the apostle, too, had lived in Judaism;
and when he parenthetically observed of the sins (of that period of his
life), "in which also we all had our conversation in times past,"(8) he
must not be understood to indicate that the Creator was the lord of sinful
men, and the prince of this air; but as meaning that in his Judaism he had
been one of the children of disobedience, having the devil as his
instigator--when he persecuted the church and the Christ of the Creator.
Therefore he says: "We also were the children of wrath," but "by
nature."(9) Let the heretic, however, not contend that, because the Creator
called the Jews children, therefore the Creator is the lord of wrath.(10)
For when (the apostle) says," We were by nature the children of wrath,"
inasmuch as the Jews were not the Creator's children by nature, but by the
election of their fathers, he (must have) referred their being children of
wrath to nature, and not to the Creator, adding this at lasts" even as
others,"(11) who, of course, were not children of God. It is manifest that
sins, and lusts of the flesh, and unbelief, and anger, are ascribed to the
common nature of all mankind, the devil [however leading that nature
astray,(12) which he has already infected with the implanted germ of sin.
"We," says he, "are His workmanship, created in Christ."(13) It is one
thing to make (as a workman), another thing to create. But he assigns both
to One. Man is the workmanship of the Creator. He therefore who made man
(at first), created him also in Christ. As touching the substance of
nature, He "made" him; as touching the work of grace, He "created" him.
Look also at what follows in connection with these words: "Wherefore
remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called
uncircumcision by that which has the name of circumcision in the flesh made
by the hand--that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from
the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of
promise,(14) having no hope, and without God in the world."(15) Now,
without what God and without what Christ were these Gentiles? Surely,
without Him to whom the commonwealth(16) of Israel belonged, and the
covenants and the promise. "But now in Christ," says he, "ye who were
sometimes far off are made nigh by His blood."(17) From whom were they far
off before? From the privileges) whereof he speaks above, even tom the
Christ of the Creator, from the commonwealth of Israel, from the covenants,
from the hope of the promise, from God Himself. Since this is the case, the
Gentiles are consequently now in Christ made nigh to these (blessings),
from which they were once far off. But if we are in Christ brought so very
nigh to the commonwealth of Israel, which comprises the religion of the
divine Creator, and to the covenants and to the promise, yea to their very
God Himself, it is quite ridiculous (to suppose that) the Christ of the
other god has brought us to this proximity to the Creator from afar. The
apostle had in mind that it had been predicted concerning the call of the
Gentiles from their distant alienation in words like these: "They who were
far off from me have come to my righteousness."(1) For the Creator's
righteousness no less than His peace was announced in Christ, as we have
often shown already. Therefore he says: "He is our peace, who hath made
both one"(2)--that is, the Jewish nation and the Gentile world. What is
near, and what was far off now that "the middle wall has been broken down"
of their "enmity," (are made one) "in His flesh."(3) But Marcion erased the
pronoun His, that he might make the enmity refer to flesh, as if (the
apostle spoke) of a carnal enmity, instead of the enmity which was a rival
to Christ.(4) And thus you have (as I have said elsewhere) exhibited the
stupidity of Pontus, rather than the adroitness of a Marrucinian,(5) for
you here deny him flesh to whom in the verse above you allowed blood!
Since, however, He has made the law obsolete(6) by His own precepts, even
by Himself fulfilling the law (for superfluous is, "Thou shalt not commit
adultery," when He says, "Thou shalt not look on a woman to lust after
her;" superfluous also is, "Thou shalt do no murder," when He says, "Thou
shalt not speak evil of thy neighbour,") it is impossible to make an
adversary of the law out of one who so completely promotes it.(7) "For to
create(8) in Himself of twain," for He who had made is also the same who
creates (just as we have found it stated above: "For we are His
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus"),(9) "one new man, making peace"
(really new, and really man--no phantom--but new, and newly born of a
virgin by the Spirit of God), "that He might reconcile both unto God"(10)
(even the God whom both races had offended--both Jew and Gentile), "in one
body," says he, "having in it slain the enmity by the cross."(11) Thus we
find from this passage also, that there was in Christ a fleshly body, such
as was able to endure the cross. "When, therefore, He came and preached
peace to them that were near and to them which were afar off," we both
obtained "access to the Father," being "now no more strangers and
foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of
God" (even of Him from whom, as we have shown above, we were aliens, and
placed far off), "built upon the foundation of the apostles"(12)--(the
apostle added), "and the prophets;" these words, however, the heretic
erased, forgetting that the Lord had set in His Church not only apostles,
but prophets also. He feared, no doubt, that our building was to stand in
Christ upon the foundation of the ancient prophets,(13) since the apostle
himself never fails to build us up everywhere with (the words of) the
prophets. For whence did he learn to call Christ "the chief corner-
stone,"(14) but from the figure given him in the Psalm: "The stone which
the builders rejected is become the head (stone) of the corner?"(15)

CHAP. XVIII.--ANOTHER FOOLISH ERASURE OF MARCION'S EXPOSED. CERTAIN
FIGURATIVE EXPRESSIONS OF THE APOSTLE, SUGGESTED BY THE LANGUAGE OF THE OLD
TESTAMENT. COLLATION OF MANY PASSAGES OF THIS EPISTLE, WITH PRECEPTS AND
STATEMENTS IN THE PENTATEUCH, THE PSALMS, AND THE PROPHETS. ALL ALIKE TEACH
US THE WILL AND PURPOSE OF THE CREATOR.

   As our heretic is so fond of his pruning-knife, I do not wonder when
syllables are expunged by his hand, seeing that entire pages are usually
the matter on which he practises his effacing process. The apostle declares
that to himself, "less than the least of all  saints, was the grace given"
of enlightening  all men as to "what was the fellowship of the mystery,
which during the ages had been hid in God, who created all things."(16) The
heretic erased the preposition in, and made the clause run thus: ("what is
the fellowship of the mystery) which hath for ages been hidden from the God
who created all things."(17) The falsification, however, is flagrantly(18)
absurd. For the apostle goes on to infer (from his own statement): "in
order that unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might
become known through the church the manifold wisdom of God."(19) Whose
principalities and powers does he mean? If the Creator's, how does it come
to pass that such a God as He could have meant His wisdom to be displayed
to the principalities and powers, but not to Himself? For surely no
principalities could possibly have understood anything without their
sovereign Lord. Or if (the apostle) did not mention God in this passage, on
the ground that He (as their chief) is Himself reckoned among these
(principalities), then he would have plainly said that the mystery had been
hidden from the principalities and powers of Him who had created all
things, including Him amongst them. But if he states that it was hidden
from them, he must needs be understood(1) as having meant that it was
manifest to Him. From God, therefore, the mystery was not hidden; but it
was hidden in God, the Creator of all things, from His principalities and
powers. For "who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His
counsellor?"(2) Caught in this trap, the heretic probably changed the
passage, with the view of saying that his god wished to make known to his
principalities and powers the fellowship of his own mystery, of which God,
who created all things, had been ignorant. But what was the use of his
obtruding this ignorance of the Creator, who was a stranger to the superior
god,(4) and far enough removed from him, when even his own servants had
known nothing about him? To the Creator, however, the future was well
known. Then why was not that also known to Him, which had to be revealed
beneath His heaven, and on His earth? From this, therefore, there arises a
confirmation of what we have already laid down. For since the Creator was
sure to know, some time or other, that hidden mystery of the superior god,
even on the supposition that the true reading was (as Marcion has it)--
"hidden from the God who created all things"--he ought then to have
expressed the conclusion thus: "in order that the manifold wisdom of God
might be made known to Him, and then to the principalities and powers of
God, whosoever He might be, with whom the Creator was destined to share
their knowledge." So palpable is the erasure in this passage, when thus
read, consistently with its own true bearing. I, on my part, now wish to
engage with you in a discussion on the allegorical expressions of the
apostle. What figures of speech could the novel god have found in the
prophets (fit for himself)? "He led captivity captive," says the
apostle.(4) With what arms? In what conflicts? From the devastation of what
Country? From the overthrow of what city? What women, what children, what
princes did the Conqueror throw into chains? For when by David Christ is
sung as "girded with His sword upon His thigh,"(5) or by Isaiah as "taking
away the spoils of Samaria and the power of Damascus,"(6) you make Him out
to be(7) really and truly a warrior confest to the eye.(8) Learn then now,
that His is a spiritual armour and warfare, since you have already
discovered that the captivity is spiritual, in order that you may further
learn that this also belongs to Him, even because the apostle derived the
mention of the captivity from the same prophets as suggested to him his
precepts likewise: "Putting away lying," (says he,) "speak every man truth
with his neighbour;"(9) and again, using the very words in which the
Psalm(10) expresses his meaning, (he says,) "Be ye angry, and sin not;"(11)
"Let not the sun go down upon your wrath."(12) "Have no fellowship with the
unfruitful works of darkness;"(13) for (in the Psalm it is written,) "With
the holy man thou shalt be holy, and with the perverse thou shalt be
perverse;"(14) and, "Thou shalt put away evil from among you."(15) Again,
"Go ye out from the midst of them; touch not the unclean thing; separate
yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of the Lord."(16) (The apostle says
further:) "Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess,"(17)--a precept which
is suggested by the passage (of the prophet), where the seducers of the
consecrated (Nazarites) to drunkenness are rebuked: "Ye gave wine to my
holy ones to drink."(18) This prohibition from drink was given also to the
high priest Aaron and his sons, "when they went into the holy place."(19)
The command, to "sing to the Lord with psalms and hymns,"(20) comes
suitably from him who knew that those who "drank wine with drums and
psalteries" were blamed by God.(21) Now, when I find to what God belong
these precepts, whether in their germ or their development, I have no
difficulty in knowing to whom the apostle also belongs. But he declares
that "wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands:"(1) what reason
does he give for this? "Because," says he, "the husband is the head of the
wife."(2) Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority of
his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a comparative trifle;
for he actually derives from the same source the condition of his Christ
and his Church; for he says: "even as Christ is the head of the Church;"(3)
and again, in like manner: "He who loveth his wife, loveth his own flesh,
even as Christ loved the Church."(4) You see how your Christ and your
Church are put in comparison with the work of the Creator. How much honour
is given to the flesh in the name of the church! "No man," says the
apostle, "ever yet hated his own flesh" (except, of course, Marcion alone),
"but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord doth the Church."(5)
But you are the only man that hates his flesh, for you rob it of its
resurrection. It will be only right that you should hate the Church also,
because it is loved by Christ on the same principle.(6) Yea, Christ loved
the flesh even as the Church. For no man will love the picture of his wife
without taking care of it, and honouring it and crowning it. The likeness
partakes with the reality in the privileged honour. I shall now endeavour,
from my point of view,(7) to prove that the same God is (the God) of the
man(8) and of Christ, of the woman and of the Church, of the flesh and the
spirit, by the apostle's help who applies the Creator's injunction, and
adds even a comment on it: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and
his mother, (and shall be joined unto his wife), and they two shall be one
flesh. This is a great mystery."(9) In passing,(10) (I would say that) it
is enough for me that the works of the Creator are great mysteries(11) in
the estimation of the apostle, although they are so vilely esteemed by the
heretics. "But I am speaking," says he, "of Christ and the Church."(12)
This he says in explanation of the mystery, not for its disruption. He
shows us that the mystery was prefigured by Him who is also the author of
the mystery. Now what is Marcion's opinion? The Creator could not possibly
have furnished figures to an unknown god, or, if a known one, an adversary
to Himself. The superior god, in fact, ought to have borrowed nothing from
the inferior; he was bound rather to annihilate Him. "Children should obey
their parents."(13) Now, although Marcion has erased (the next clause),
"which is the first commandment with promise,"(14) still the law says
plainly, "Honour thy father and thy mother."(15) Again, (the apostle
writes:) "Parents, bring up your children in the fear and admonition of the
Lord."(16) For you have heard how it was said to them of old time: "Ye
shall relate these things to your children; and your children in like
manner to their children."(17) Of what use are two gods to me, when the
discipline is but one? If there must be two, I mean to follow Him who was
the first to teach the lesson. But as our struggle lies against "the rulers
of this world,"(18) what a host of Creator Gods there must be!(19) For why
should I not insist upon this point here, that he ought to have mentioned
but one "ruler of this world," if he meant only the Creator to be the being
to whom belonged all the powers which he previously mentioned? Again, when
in the preceding verse he bids us "put on the whole armour of God, that we
may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil,"(20) does he not show
that all the things which he mentions after the devil's name really belong
to the devil--"the principalities and the powers, and the tillers of the
darkness of this world,"(21) which we also ascribe to the devil's
authority? Else, if "the devil" means the Creator, who will be the devil in
the Creator's dispensation?(22) As there are two gods, must there also be
two devils, and a plurality of powers and rulers of this world? But how is
the Creator both a devil and a god at the same time, when the devil is not
at once both god and devil? For either they are both of them gods, if both
of them are devils; or else He who is God is not also devil, as neither is
he god who is the devil. I want to know indeed by what perversion(23) the
word devil is at all applicable to the Creator. Perhaps he perverted some
purpose of the superior god--conduct such as He experienced Himself from
the archangel, who lied indeed for the purpose. For He did not forbid (our
first parents) a taste of the miserable tree,(24) from any apprehension
that they would become gods; His prohibition was meant to prevent their
dying after the transgression. But "the spiritual wickedness"(1) did not
signify the Creator, because of the apostle's additional description, "in
heavenly places;"(2) for the apostle was quite aware that "spiritual
wickedness" had been at work in heavenly places, when angels were entrapped
into sin by the daughters of men.(3) But how happened it that (the apostle)
resorted to ambiguous descriptions, and I know not what obscure enigmas,
for the purpose of disparaging(4) the Creator, when he displayed to the
Church such constancy and plainness of speech in "making known the mystery
of the gospel for which he was an ambassador in bonds," owing to his
liberty in preaching--and actually requested (the Ephesians) to pray to God
that this "open-mouthed utterance" might be continued to him?(5)

CHAP. XIX.--THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. TIME THE CRITERION OF TRUTH AND
HERESY. APPLICATION OF THE CANON. THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD EXPLAINED.
PRE-EXISTENCE OF OUR CHRIST IN THE CREATOR'S ANCIENT DISPENSATIONS. WHAT IS
INCLUDED IN THE FULNESS OF CHRIST. THE EPICUREAN CHARACTER OF MARCION'S
GOD. THE CATHOLIC TRUTH IN OPPOSITION THERETO. THE LAW IS TO CHRIST WHAT
THE SHADOW IS TO THE SUBSTANCE.

   I am accustomed in my prescription against all heresies, to fix my
compendious criterion(6) (of truth) in the testimony of time; claiming
priority therein as our rule, and alleging lateness to be the
characteristic of every heresy. This shall now be proved even by the
apostle, when he says: "For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven,
whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; which is
come unto you, as it is unto all the world."(7) For if, even at that time,
the tradition of the gospel had spread everywhere, how much more now! Now,
if it is our gospel which has spread everywhere, rather than any heretical
gospel, much less Marcion's, which only dates from the reign of
Antoninus,(8) then ours will be the gospel of the apostles. But should
Marcion's gospel succeed in filling the whole world, it would not even in
that case be entitled to the character of apostolic. For this quality, it
will be evident, can only belong to that gospel which was the first to fill
the world; in other words, to the gospel of that God who of old declared
this of its promulgation: "Their sound is gone out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world."(9) He calls Christ "the image of
the invisible God."(10) We in like manner say that the Father of Christ is
invisible, for we know that it was the Son who was seen in ancient times
(whenever any appearance was vouchsafed to men in the name of God) as the
image of (the Father) Himself. He must not be regarded, however, as making
any difference between a visible and an invisible God; because long before
he wrote this we find a description of our God to this effect: "No man can
see the Lord, and live."(11) If Christ is not "the first-begotten before
every creature,"(12)as that "Word of God by whom all things were made, and
without whom nothing was made;"(13) if "all things were" not "in Him
created, whether in heaven or on earth, visible and invisible, whether they
be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers;" if "all things
were" not "created by Him and for Him" (for these truths Marcion ought not
to allow concerning Him), then the apostle could not have so positively
laid it down, that "He is before all."(14) For how is He before all, if He
is not before all things?(15) How, again, is He before all things, if He is
not "the first-born of every creature"--if He is not the Word of the
Creator?(16) Now how will he be proved to have been before all things, who
appeared after all things? Who can tell whether he had a prior existence,
when he has found no proof that he had any existence at all? In what way
also could it have "pleased (the Father) that in Him should all fulness
dwell?"(17) For, to begin with, what fulness is that which is not comprised
of the constituents which Marcion has removed from it,--even those that
were "created in Christ, whether in heaven or on earth," whether angels or
men? which is not made of the things that are visible and invisible? which
consists not of thrones and dominions and principalities and powers? If, on
the other hand,(18) our false apostles and Judaizing gospellers(19) have
intraduced all these things out of their own stores, and Martian has
applied them to constitute the fulness of his own god, (this hypothesis,
absurd though it be, alone would justify him;) for how, on any other
supposition,(1) could the rival and the destroyer of the Creator have been
willing that His fulness should dwell in his Christ? To whom, again, does
He "reconcile all things by Himself, making peace by the blood of His
cross,"(2) but to Him whom those very things had altogether(3) offended,
against whom they had rebelled by transgression, (but) to whom they had at
last returned?(4) Conciliated they might have been to a strange god; but
reconciled they could not possibly have been to any other than their own
God. Accordingly, ourselves "who were sometime alienated and enemies in our
mind by wicked works"(5) does He reconcile to the Creator, against whom we
had committed offence--worshipping the creature to the prejudice of the
Creator. As, however, he says elsewhere,(6) that the Church is the body of
Christ, so here also (the apostle) declares that he "fills up that which is
behind of the afflictions of Christ in his flesh for His body's sake, which
is the Church."(7) But you must not on this account suppose that on every
mention of His body the term is only a metaphor, instead of meaning real
flesh. For he says above that we are "reconciled in His body through
death;"(8) meaning, of course, that He died in that body wherein death was
possible through the flesh: (therefore he adds,) not through the Church(9)
(per ecclesiam), but expressly far the sake of the Church (proper
ecclesiam), exchanging body for body--one of flesh for a spiritual one.
When, again, he warns them to "beware of subtle words and philosophy," as
being "a vain deceit," such as is "after the rudiments of the world" (not
understanding thereby the mundane fabric of sky and earth, but worldly
learning, and "the tradition of men," subtle in their speech and their
philosophy),(10) it would be tedious, and the proper subject of a separate
work, to show how in this sentence (of the apostle's) all heresies are
condemned, on the ground of their consisting of the resources of subtle
speech and the rules of philosophy. But (once for all) let Marcion know
that the principle term of his creed comes from the school of Epicurus,
implying that the Lord is stupid and indifferent;(11) wherefore he refuses
to say that He is an object to be feared. Moreover, from the porch of the
Stoics he brings out matter, and places it on a par with the Divine
Creator.(12) He also denies the resurrection of the flesh,--a truth which
none of the schools of philosophy agreed together to hold.(13) But how
remote is our (Catholic) verity from the artifices of this heretic, when it
dreads to arouse the anger of God, and firmly believes that He produced all
things out of nothing, and promises to us a restoration from the grave of
the same flesh (that died) and holds without a blush that Christ was born
of the virgin's womb! At this, philosophers, and heretics, and the very
heathen, laugh and jeer. For "God hath chosen the foolish things of the
world to confound the wise"(14)--that God, no doubt, who in reference to
this very dispensation of His threatened long before that He would "destroy
the wisdom of the wise."(15) Thanks to this simplicity of truth, so opposed
to the subtlety and vain deceit of philosophy, we cannot possibly have any
relish for such perverse opinions. Then, if God "quickens us together with
Christ, forgiving us our trespasses,"(16) we cannot suppose that sins are
forgiven by Him against whom, as having been all along unknown, they could
not have been committed. Now tell me, Marcion, what is your opinion of the
apostle's language, when he says, "Let no man judge you in meat, or in
drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath,
which is a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ?"(17) We do
not now treat of the law, further than (to remark) that the apostle here
teaches clearly how it has been abolished, even by passing from shadow to
substance--that is, from figurative types to the reality, which is Christ.
The shadow, therefore, is His to whom belongs the body also; in other
words, the law is His, and so is Christ. If you separate the law and
Christ, assigning one to one god and the other to another, it is the same
as if you were to attempt to separate the shadow from the body of which it
is the shadow. Manifestly Christ has relation to the law, if the body has
to its shadow. But when he blames those who alleged visions of angels as
their authority for saying that men must abstain from meats--"you must not
touch, you must not taste"-in a voluntary humility, (at the same time)
"vainly puffed up in the fleshly mind, and not holding the Head,"(1) (the
apostle) does not in these terms attack the law or Moses, as if it was at
the suggestion of superstitious angels that he had enacted his prohibition
of sundry aliments. For Moses had evidently received the law from God.
When, therefore, he speaks of their "following the commandments and
doctrines of men,"(2) he refers to the conduct of those persons who "held
not the Head," even Him in whom all things are gathered together;(3) for
they are all recalled to Christ, and concentrated in Him as their
initiating principle(4)--even the meats and drinks which were indifferent
in their nature. All the rest of his precepts,(5) as we have shown
sufficiently, when treating of them as they occurred in another epistle,(6)
emanated from the Creator, who, while predicting that "old things were to
pass away," and that He would "make all things new,"(7) commanded men "to
break up fresh ground for themselves,"(8) and thereby taught them even then
to put off the old man and put on the new.

CHAP.XX.--THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. THE VARIANCES AMONGST THE
PREACHERS OF CHRIST NO ARGUMENT THAT THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE ONLY CHRIST.
ST. PAUL'S PHRASES--FORM OF A SERVANT, LIKENESS, AND FASHION OF A MAN--NO
SANCTION OF DOCETISM. NO ANTITHESIS (SUCH AS MARCION ALLEGED) IN THE GOD OF
JUDAISM AND THE GOD OF THE GOSPEL DEDUCIBLE FROM CERTAIN CONTRASTS
MENTIONED IN THIS EPISTLE.A PARALLEL WITH A PASSAGE IN GENESIS.THE
RESURRECTION OF THE BODY, AND THE CHANGE THEREOF.

   When (the apostle) mentions the several motives of those who were
preaching the gospel, how that some, "waxing confident by his bonds, were
more fearless in speaking the word," while others "preached Christ even out
of envy and strife, and again others out of good-will" many also "out of
love," and certain "out of contention," and some "in rivalry to
himself,"(9) he had a favourable opportunity, no doubt,(10) of taxing what
they preached with a diversity of doctrine, as if it were no less than this
which caused so great a variance in their tempers. But while he exposes
these tempers as the sole cause of the diversity, he avoids inculpating the
regular mysteries of the faith,(11) and affirms that there is,
notwithstanding, but one Christ and His one God, whatever motives men had
in preaching Him. Therefore, says he, it matters not to me "whether it be
in pretence or in truth that Christ is preached,"(12)because one Christ
alone was announced, whether in their "pretentious" or their "truthful"
faith. For it was to the faithfulness of their preaching that he applied
the word truth, not to the rightness of the rule itself, because there was
indeed but one rule; whereas the conduct of the preachers varied: in some
of them it was true, i. e. single-minded, while in others it was
sophisticated with over-much learning. This being the case, it is manifest
that that Christ was the subject of their preaching who was always the
theme of the prophets. Now, if it were a completely different Christ that
was being introduced by the apostle, the novelty of the thing would have
produced a diversity (in belief.). For there would not have been wanting,
in spite of the novel teaching,(13) men to interpret the preached gospel of
the Creator's Christ, since the majority of persons everywhere now-a-days
are of our way of thinking, rather than on the heretical side. So that the
apostle would not in such a passage as the present one have refrained from
remarking and censuring the diversity. Since, however, there is no blame of
a diversity, there is no proof of a novelty. Of course(14) the Marcionites
suppose that they have the apostle on their side in the following passage
in the matter of Christ's substance--that in Him there was nothing but a
phantom of flesh. For he says of Christ, that, "being in the form of God,
He thought it not robbery to be equal with God;(15) but emptied(16)
Himself, and took upon Him the form of a servant," not the reality, "and
was made in the likeness of man," not a man, "and was found in fashion as a
man,"(17) not in his substance, that is to say, his flesh; just as if to a
substance there did not accrue both form and likeness and fashion. It is
well for us that in another passage (the apostle) calls Christ "the image
of the invisible God."(1) For will it not follow with equal force from that
passage, that Christ is not truly God, because the apostle places Him in
the image of God, if, (as Marcion contends,) He is not truly man because of
His having taken on Him the form or image of a man? For in both cases the
true substance will have to be excluded, if image (or "fashion") and
likeness and form shall be claimed for a phantom. But since he is truly
God, as the Son of the Father, in His fashion and image, He has been
already by the force of this conclusion determined to be truly man, as the
Son of man, "found in the fashion "and image" of a man." For when he
propounded(2) Him as thus "found" in the manners of a man, he in fact
affirmed Him to be most certainly human. For what is found, manifestly
possesses existence. Therefore, as He was found to be God by His mighty
power, so was He found to be man by reason of His flesh, because the
apostle could not have pronounced Him to have "become obedient unto
death,"(4) if He had not been constituted of a mortal substance. Still more
plainly does this appear from the apostle's additional words, "even the
death of the cross."(5) For he could hardly mean this to be a climax(6) to
the human suffering, to extol the virtue(7) of His obedience, if he had
known it all to be the imaginary process of a phantom, which rather eluded
the cross than experienced it, and which displayed no virtue(8) in the
suffering, but only illusion. But "those things which he had once accounted
gain," and which he enumerates in the preceding verse--"trust in the
flesh," the sign of "circumcision," his origin as "an Hebrew of the
Hebrews," his descent from "the tribe of Benjamin," his dignity in the
honours of the Pharisee(9)--he now reckons to be only "loss" to
himself;(10) (in other words,) it was not the God of the Jews, but their
stupid obduracy, which he repudiates. These are also the things "which he
counts but dung for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ"(11) (but by
no means for the rejection of God the Creator); "whilst he has not his own
righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through Him," i.e.
Christ, "the righteousness which is of God."(12) Then, say you, according
to this distinction the law did not proceed from the God of Christ. Subtle
enough! But here is something still more subtle for you. For when (the
apostle) says, "Not (the righteousness) which is of the law, but that which
is through Him," he would not have used the phrase through Him  of any
other than Him to whom the law belonged. "Our conversation," says he, "is
in heaven."(13) I here recognise the Creator's ancient promise to Abraham:
"I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven."(14) Therefore "one star
differeth from another star in glory."(15) If, again, Christ in His advent
from heaven "shall change the body of our humiliation, that it may be
fashioned like unto His glorious body,"(16) it follows that this body of
ours shall rise again, which is now in a state of humiliation in its
sufferings and according to the law of mortality drops into the ground. But
how shall it be changed, if it shall have no real existence? If, however,
this is only said of those who shall be found in the flesh(17) at the
advent of God, and who shall have to be changed,"(18) what shall they do
who will rise first? They will have no substance from which to undergo a
change. But he says (elsewhere), "We shall be caught up together with them
in the clouds, to meet the Lord (in the air)."(19) Then, if we are to be
caught up alone with them, surely we shall likewise be changed together
with them.

CHAP. XXI.--THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON. THIS EPISTLE NOT MUTILATED. MARCION'S
INCONSISTENCY IN ACCEPTING THIS, AND REJECTING THREE OTHER EPISTLES
ADDRESSED TO INDIVIDUALS. CONCLUSIONS. TERTULLIAN VINDICATES THE SYMMETRY
AND DELIBERATE PURPOSE OF HIS WORK AGAINST MARCION.

   To this epistle alone did its brevity avail to protect it against the
falsifying hands of Marcion. I wonder, however, when he received (into his
Apostolicon) this letter which was written but to one man, that he rejected
the two epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus, which all treat of
ecclesiastical discipline. His aim, was, I suppose, to carry out his
interpolating process even to the number of (St. Paul's) epistles. And now,
reader,(1) I beg you to remember that we have here adduced proofs out of
the apostle, in support of the subjects which we previously(2) had to
handle,  and that we have now brought to a close(3) the topics which we
deferred to this (portion  of our) work. (This favour I request of you,)
that you may not think that any repetition here has been superfluous, for
we have only fulfilled our former engagement to you; nor look with
suspicion on any postponement there, where we merely set forth the
essential points (of the argument).(4) If you carefully examine the entire
work, you will acquit us of either having been redundant here, or diffident
there, in your own honest judgment.(5)


Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland beginning in
1867. (ANF 3, Roberts and Donaldson). The digital version is by The
Electronic Bible Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
  The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
  Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
  Provided courtesy of:

       EWTN On-Line Services
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Data: 703-791-4336
       FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
       Telnet: ewtn.com
       WWW: http://www.ewtn.com.
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.