THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS WRITINGS - VOLUME 6
Tertullian Against Marcion and the Heretics
c. AD 197 – 220

SermonIndex · sermonindex.net/books/

Texts are public domain except where marked in Sources and Credits. Modern English versions released under CC BY-SA 4.0.

============================================================

INTRODUCTION TO THIS VOLUME
===========================

HOW THIS BOOK IS ARRANGED

This is the sixth volume of a series that gathers the writings of the early Church in
order of date, from the generation after the apostles down to the eighth century. This
volume holds Tertullian’s writings against false teaching.

Within each work the text is divided into chapters and numbered sections, so that any
passage can be found again and cited. The small bold figures in the text are the section
numbers.

THE TRANSLATIONS

The text is in English only. Wherever a modern English version has been prepared for
SermonIndex it is used here; otherwise the book prints an older public-domain translation.
In both cases the wording is the translator’s own: older translations have not been
altered beyond dividing them into sections. The sources for every work are listed at the
back of the book, together with the licence under which each text is released. All the
works in this volume are printed in older public-domain translations.

IN THIS VOLUME

Tertullian’s controversial writings are among the most important documents of the early
Church. In the Prescription against Heretics he argues that the Scriptures belong to the
Church that received them from the apostles, so that those outside it have no claim to
them. The five books Against Marcion answer the teacher who rejected the Old Testament and
the God of Israel, and in doing so set out in detail how the early Church read the Old
Testament and the Gospel of Luke.

The shorter treatises answer other opponents in turn: Hermogenes, who held that matter had
always existed alongside God; the followers of Valentinus; and Praxeas, whom Tertullian
accused of confusing the Father and the Son. An Answer to the Jews is placed at the end of
the volume.

The first volume of Tertullian is Volume 5, and the rest of his writings, on the Christian
life, follow in Volume 7.

DATES AND AUTHORSHIP

Dates are approximate and are debated by scholars. Each work begins with a short
introduction that states what is known about its author and its date, and what is
uncertain.


THE PRESCRIPTION AGAINST HERETICS
=================================

THE PRESCRIPTION AGAINST HERETICS Tertullian

c. AD 155–220

North African lawyer and the first great Latin theologian.

INTRODUCTION

[Translated by the Rev. Peter Holmes, D.D., F.r.a.s., Etc., Etc.]

CHAPTER I.-INTRODUCTORY. HERESIES MUST EXIST, AND EVEN ABOUND; THEY ARE A PROBATION TO FAITH.

The character of the times in which we live is such as to call forth from us even this
admonition, that we ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which abound) neither
ought their existence to surprise us, for it was foretold that they should come to pass;
nor the fact that they subvert the faith of some, for their final cause is, by affording a
trial to faith, to give it also the opportunity of being "approved." Groundless,
therefore, and inconsiderate is the offence of the many who are scandalized by the very
fact that heresies prevail to such a degree. How great (might their offence have been) if
they had not existed. When it has been determined that a thing must by all means be, it
receives the (final) cause for which it has its being. This secures the power through
which it exists, in such a way that it is impossible for it not to have existence.

CHAPTER II.-ANALOGY BETWEEN FEVERS AND HERESIES. HERESIES NOT TO BE WONDERED AT: THEIR STRENGTH DERIVED FROM WEAKNESS OF MEN'S FAITH. THEY HAVE NOT THE TRUTH. SIMILE OF PUGILISTS AND GLADIATORS IN ILLUSTRATION.

1 Taking the similar case of fever, which is appointed a place amongst all other deadly
and excruciating issues (of life) for destroying man: we are not surprised either that it
exists, for there it is, or that it consumes man, for that is the purpose of its
existence. In like manner, with respect to heresies, which are produced for the weakening
and the extinction of faith, since we feel a dread because they have this power, we should
first dread the fact of their existence; for as long as they exist, they have they have
their power; and as long as they have their power, they, have their existence. But still
fever, as being an evil both in its cause and in its power, as all know, we rather loathe
than wonder at, and to the best of our power guard against, not having its extirpation in
our power. Some men prefer wondering at heresies, however, which bring with them eternal
death and the heat of a stronger fire, for possessing this power, instead of avoiding
their power when they have the means of escape: but heresies would have no power, if (men)
would cease to wonder that they have such power. For it either happens that, while men
wonder, they fall into a snare, or, because they are ensnared, they cherish their
surprise, as if heresies were so powerful because of some truth which belonged to them.

2 It would no doubt be a wonderful thing that evil should have any force of its own, were
it not that heresies are strong in those persons who are not strong in faith. In a combat
of boxers and gladiators, generally speaking, it is not because a man is strong that he
gains the victory, or loses it because he is not strong, but because he who is vanquished
was a man of no strength; and indeed this very conqueror, when afterwards matched against
a really powerful man, actually retires crest-fallen from the contest. In precisely the
same way, heresies derive such strength as they have from the infirmities of individuals-
having no strength whenever they encounter a really powerful faith.

CHAPTER III.-WEAK PEOPLE FALL AN EASY PREY TO HERESY, WHICH DERIVES STRENGTH FROM THE GENERAL FRAILTY OF MANKIND. EMINENT MEN HAVE FALLEN FROM FAITH; SAUL, DAVID, SOLOMON.THE CONSTANCY OF CHRIST.

1 It is usual, indeed, with persons of a weaker character, to be so built up (in
confidence) by certain individuals who are caught by heresy, as to topple over into ruin
themselves. How comes it to pass, (they ask), that this woman or that man, who were the
most faithful, the most prudent, and the most approved in the church, have gone over to
the other side? Who that asks such a question does not in fact reply to it himself, to the
effect that men whom heresies have been able to pervert ought never to have been esteemed
prudent, or faithful, or approved? This again is, I suppose, an extraordinary thing, that
one who has been approved should afterwards fall back? Saul, who was good beyond all
others, is afterwards subverted by envy. David, a good man "after the Lord's own heart,"
is guilty afterwards of murder and adultery. Solomon, endowed by the Lord with all grace
and wisdom, is led into idolatry, by women. For to the Son of God alone was it reserved to
persevere to the last without sin. But what if a bishop, if a deacon, if a widow, if a
virgin, if a doctor, if even a martyr, have fallen from the rule (of faith), will heresies
on that account appear to possess the truth? Do we prove the faith by the persons, or the
persons by the faith? No one is wise, no one is faithful, no one excels in dignity, but
the Christian;

2 and no one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end. You, as a man, know any
other man from the outside appearance. You think as you see. And you see as far only as
you have eyes. But says (the Scripture), "the eyes of the Lord are lofty. "Man looketh at
the outward appearance, but God looketh at the heart. "The Lord (beholdeth and) knoweth
them that are His; " and "the plant which (my heavenly Father) hath not planted, He
rooteth up; " and "the first shall," as He shows, "be last; " and He carries "His fan in
His hand to purge His threshing-floor. Let the chaff of a fickle faith fly off as much as
it will at every blast of temptation, all the purer will be that heap of corn which shall
be laid up in the garner of the Lord. Did not certain of the disciples turn back from the
Lord Himself, When they were offended? Yet the rest did not therefore think that they must
turn away from following Him, but because they knew that He was the Word of Life, and was
come from God, they continued in His company to the very last, after He had gently
inquired of them whether they also would go away. It is a comparatively small thing, that
certain men, like Phygellus, and Hermogenes, and Philetus, and Hymenµus, deserted His
apostle: the betrayer of Christ was himself one of the apostles.

3 We are surprised at seeing His churches forsaken by some men, although the things which
we suffer after the example of Christ Himself, show us to be Christians. "They went out
from us," says (St. John, ) "but they were not of us. If they had been of us, they would
no doubt have continued with us."

CHAPTER IV.-WARNINGS AGAINST HERESY GIVEN US IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. SUNDRY PASSAGES ADDUCED. THESE IMPLY THE POSSIBILITY OF FALLING INTO HERESY.

But let us rather be mindful of the sayings of the Lord, and of the letters of the
apostles; for they have both told us beforehand that there shall be heresies, and have
given us, in anticipation, warnings to avoid them; and inasmuch as we are not alarmed
because they exist, so we ought not to wonder that they are capable of doing that, on
account of which they must be shunned. The Lord teaches us that many "ravening wolves
shall come in sheep's clothing." Now, what are these sheep's clothing's, but the external
surface of the Christian profession? Who are the ravening wolves but those deceitful
senses and spirits which are lurking within to waste the flock of Christ? Who are the
false prophets but deceptive predictors of the future? Who are the false apostles but the
preachers of a spurious gospel? Who also are the Antichrists, both now and evermore, but
the men who rebel against Christ? Heresies, at the present time, will no less rend the
church by their perversion of doctrine, than will Antichrist persecute her at that day by
the cruelty of his attacks, except that persecution make seven martyrs, (but) heresy only
apostates. And therefore "heresies must needs be in order that they which are approved
might be made manifest, both those who remained stedfast under persecution, and those who
did not wander out of their way into heresy. For the apostle does not mean that those
persons should be deemed approved who exchange their creed for heresy; although they
contrariously interpret his words to their own side, when he says in another passage,
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good; " as if, after proving all things amiss,
one might not through error make a determined choice of some evil thing.

CHAPTER V.-HERESY, AS WELL AS SCHISM AND DISSENSION, DISAPPROVED BY ST. PAUL, WHO SPEAKS OF THE NECESSITY OF HERESIES, NOT AS A GOOD, BUT, BY THE WILL OF GOD, SALUTARY TRIALS FOR TRAINING AND APPROVING THE FAITH OF CHRISTIANS.

Moreover, when he blames dissensions and schisms, which undoubtedly are evils, he
immediately adds heresies likewise. Now, that which he subjoins to evil things, he of
course confesses to be itself an evil; and all the greater, indeed, because he tells us
that his belief of their schisms and dissensions was grounded on his knowledge that "there
must be heresies also." For he shows us that it was owing to the prospect of the greater
evil that he readily believed the existence of the lighter ones; and so far indeed was he
from believing, in respect of evils (of such a kind), that heresies were good, that his
object was to forewarn us that we ought not to be surprised at temptations of even a worse
stamp, since (he said) they tended "to make manifest all such as were approved; " in other
words, those whom they were unable to pervert. In short, since the whole passage points to
the maintenance of unity and the checking of divisions, inasmuch as heresies sever men
from unity no less than schisms and dissensions, no doubt he classes heresies under the
same head of censure as he does schisms also and dissensions. And by so doing, he makes
those to be "not approved," who have fallen into heresies; more especially when with
reproofs he exhorts men to turn away from such, teaching them that they should "all speak
and think the selfsame thing," the very object which heresies do not permit.

CHAPTER VI.-HERETICS ARE SELF-CONDEMNED. HERESY IS SELF-WILL, WHILST FAITH IS SUBMISSION OF OUR WILL TO THE DIVINE AUTHORITY. THE HERESY OF APELLES.

On this point, however, we dwell no longer, since it is the same Paul who, in his Epistle
to the Galatians, counts "heresies" among "the sins of the flesh," who also intimates to
Titus, that "a man who is a heretic" must be "rejected after the first admonition," on the
ground that "he that is such is perverted, and committeth sin, as a self-condemned man."
Indeed, in almost every epistle, when enjoining on us (the duty) of avoiding false
doctrines, he sharply condemns heresies. Of these the practical effects are false
doctrines, called in Greek heresies, a word used in the sense of that choice which a man
makes when he either teaches them (to others) or takes up with them (for himself). For
this reason it is that he calls the heretic self-condemned, because he has himself chosen
that for which he is condemned. We, however, are not permitted to cherish any object after
our own will, nor yet to make choice of that which another has introduced of his private
fancy. In the Lord's apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of
themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of
mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even "an angel
from heaven should preach any other gospel" (than theirs), he would be called accursed by
us. The Holy Ghost had even then foreseen that there would be in a certain virgin (called)
Philumene an angel of deceit, "transformed into an angel of light," by whose miracles and
illusions Apelles was led (when) he introduced his new heresy.

CHAPTER VII.-PAGAN PHILOSOPHY THE PARENT OF HERESIES. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN DEFLECTIONS FROM CHRISTIAN FAITH AND THE OLD SYSTEMS OF PAGAN PHILOSOPHY.

1 These are "the doctrines" of men and "of demons" produced for itching ears of the spirit
of this world's wisdom: this the Lord called "foolishness," and "chose the foolish things
of the world" to confound even philosophy itself. For (philosophy) it is which is the
material of the world's wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and the dispensation of
God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy. From this source came the
¦ons, and I known not what infinite forms, and the trinity of man in the system of
Valentinus, who was of Plato's school. From the same source came Marcion's better god,
with all his tranquillity; he came of the Stoics. Then, again, the opinion that the soul
dies is held by the Epicureans; while the denial of the restoration of the body is taken
from the aggregate school of all the philosophers; also, when matter is made equal to God,
then you have the teaching of Zeno; and when any doctrine is alleged touching a god of
fire, then Heraclitus comes in. The same subject-matter is discussed over and over again
by the heretics and the philosophers; the same arguments are involved. Whence comes evil?
Why is it permitted? What is the origin of man? and in what way does he come? Besides the
question which Valentinus has very lately proposed-Whence comes God? Which he settles with
the answer: From enthymesis and ectroma. Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men
dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down;

2 an art so evasive in its propositions, so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in
its arguments, so productive of contentions-embarrassing even to itself, retracting
everything, and really treating of nothing! Whence spring those "fables and endless
genealogies," and "unprofitable questions," and "words which spread like a cancer? " From
all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which
he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, "See that no
one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and
contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost. He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews
(with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know
the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold
heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do
with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between
heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had
himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all
attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition!
We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after
enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this isour palmary
faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.

CHAPTER VIII.-CHRIST'S WORD, SEEK, AND YE SHALL FIND, NO WARRANT FOR HERETICAL DEVIATIONS FROM THE FAITH. ALL CHRIST'S WORDS TO THE JEWS ARE FOR US, NOT INDEED AS SPECIFIC COMMANDS, BUT AS PRINCIPLES TO BE APPLIED.

1 I come now to the point which (is urged both by our own brethren and by the heretics).
Our brethren adduce it as a pretext for entering on curious inquiries, and the heretics
insist on it for importing the scrupulosity (of their unbelief). It is written, they say,
"Seek, and ye shall find." Let us remember at what time the Lord said this. I think it was
at the very outset of His teaching, when there was still a doubt felt by all whether He
were the Christ, and when even Peter had not yet declared Him to be the Son of God, and
John (Baptist) had actually ceased to feel assurance about Him. With good reason,
therefore, was it then said, "Seek, and ye shall find," when inquiry was still be to made
of Him who was not yet become known. Besides, this was said in respect of the Jews. For it
is to them that the whole matter of this reproof pertains, seeing that they had (a
revelation) where they might seek Christ.

2 "They have," says He, "Moses and Elias," -in other words, the law and the prophets,
which preach Christ; as also in another place He says plainly, "Search the Scriptures, in
which ye expect (to find) salvation; for they testify of me; " which will be the meaning
of "Seek, and ye shall find. For it is clear that the next words also apply to the Jews:
"Knock, and it shall be opened unto you. The Jews had formerly been in covenant with God;
but being afterwards cast off on account of their sins, they began to be without God. The
Gentiles, on the contrary, had never been in covenant with God; they were only as "a drop
from a bucket," and "as dust from the threshing floor, and were ever outside the door.
Now, how shall he who was always outside knock at the place where he never was? What door
does he know of, when he has passed through none, either by entrance or ejection? Is it
not rather he who is aware that he once lived within and was thrust out, that (probably)
found the door and knocked thereat? In like manner, "Ask, and ye shall receive," is
suitably said to one who was aware from whom he ought to ask,-by whom also some promise
had been given; that is to say, "the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. Now, the
Gentiles knew nothing either of Him, or of any of His promises.

3 Therefore it was to Israel that he spake when He said, "I am not sent but to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel. Not yet had He "cast to the dogs the children's bread; " not
yet did He charge them to "go into the way of the Gentiles. It is only at the last that He
instructs them to "go and teach all nations, and baptize them," when they were so soon to
receive "the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, who should guide them into all the truth. And
this, too, makes towards the the same conclusion. If the apostles, who were ordained to be
teachers to the Gentiles, were themselves to have the Comforter for their teacher, far
more needless was it to say to us, "Seek, and ye shall find," to whom was to come, without
research, our instruction by the apostles, and to the apostles themselves by the Holy
Ghost. All the Lord's sayings, indeed, are set forth for all men; through the ears of the
Jews have they passed on to us. Still most of them were addressed to Jewish persons; they
therefore did not constitute instruction properly designed for ourselves, but rather an
example.

CHAPTER IX.-THE RESEARCH AFTER DEFINITE TRUTH ENJOINED ON US. WHEN WE HAVE DISCOVERED THIS, WE SHOULD BE CONTENT.

I now purposely relinquish this ground of argument. Let it be granted, that the words,
"Seek, and ye shall find," were addressed to all men (equally). Yet even here one's aim is
carefully to determine the sense of the words consistently with (that reason), which is
the guiding principle in all interpretation. (Now) no divine saying is so unconnected and
diffuse, that its words only are to be insisted on, and their connection left
undetermined. But at the outset I lay down (this position) that there is some one, and
therefore definite, thing taught by Christ, which the Gentiles are by all means bound to
believe, and for that purpose to "seek," in order that they may be able, when they have
"found" it, to believe. However, there can be no indefinite seeking for that which has
been taught as one only definite thing. You must "seek" until you "find," and believe when
you have found; nor have you anything further to do but to keep what you have believed
provided you believe this besides, that nothing else is to be believed, and therefore
nothing else is to be sought, after you have found and believed what has been taught by
Him who charges you to seek no other thing than that which He has taught. When, indeed,
any man doubts about this, proof will be forthcoming, that we have in our possession that
which was taught by Christ. Meanwhile, such is my confidence in our proof, that I
anticipate it, in the shape of an admonition to certain persons, not "to seek" anything
beyond what they have believed-that this is what they ought to have sought, how to avoid
interpreting, "Seek, and ye shall find," without regard to the rule of reason.

CHAPTER X.-ONE HAS SUCCEEDED IN FINDING DEFINITE TRUTH, WHEN HE BELIEVES. HERETICAL WITS ARE ALWAYS OFFERING MANY THINGS FOR VAIN DISCUSSION, BUT WE ARE NOT TO BE ALWAYS SEEKING.

1 Now the reason of this saying is comprised in three points: in the matter, in the time,
in the limit. In the matter, so that you must consider what it is you have to seek; in the
time, when you have to seek; in the limit, how long. What you have "to seek," then, is
that which Christ has taught, (and you must go on seeking) of course for such time as you
fail to find, -until indeed you find it. But you have succeeded in finding when you have
believed. For you would not have believed if you had not found; as neither would you have
sought except with a view to find. Your object, therefore, in seeking was to find; and
your object in finding was to believe, All further delay for seeking and finding you have
prevented by believing. The very fruit of your seeking has determined for you this limit.
This boundary has He set for you Himself, who is unwilling that you should believe
anything else than what He has taught, or, therefore, even seek for it. If, however,
because so many other things have been taught by one and another, we are on that account
bound to go on seeking, so long as we are able to find anything, we must (at that rate) be
ever seeking, and never believe anything at all. For where shall be the end of seeking?
where the stop in believing? where the completion in finding? (Shall it be) with Marcion?

2 But even Valentinus proposes (to us the) maxim, "Seek, and ye shall find. Then shall it
be) with Valentinus? Well, but Apelles, too, will assail me with the same quotation;
Hebion also, and Simon, and all in turn, have no other argument wherewithal to entice me,
and draw me over to their side. Thus I shall be nowhere, and still be encountering (that
challenge), "Seek, and ye shall find," precisely as if I had no resting-place; as if
(indeed) I had never found that which Christ has taught-that which ought to be sought,
that which must needs be believed.

CHAPTER XI.-AFTER WE HAVE BELIEVED, SEARCH SHOULD CEASE; OTHERWISE IT MUST END IN A DENIAL OF WHAT WE HAVE BELIEVED. NO OTHER OBJECT PROPOSED FOR OUR FAITH.

1 There is impunity in erring, if there is no delinquency; although indeed to err it is
itself an act of delinquency. With impunity, I repeat, does a man ramble, when he
(purposely) deserts nothing. But yet, if I have believed what I was bound to believe, and
then afterwards think that there is something new to be sought after, I of course expect
that there is something else to be found, although I should by no means entertain such
expectation, unless it were because I either had not believed, although I apparently had
become a believer, or else have ceased to believe. If I thus desert my faith, I am found
to be a denier thereof. Once for all I would say, No man seeks, except him who either
never possessed, or else has lost (what he sought). The old woman (in the Gospel) had lost
one of her ten pieces of silver, and therefore she sought it; when, however, she found it,
she ceased to look for it. The neighbour was without bread, and therefore he knocked; but
as soon as the door was opened to him, and he received the bread, he discontinued
knocking. The widow kept asking to be heard by the judge, because she was not admitted;
but when her suit was heard, thenceforth she was silent. So that there is a limit both to
seeking, and to knocking, and to asking.

2 "For to every one that asketh," says He, "it shall be given, and to him that knocketh it
shall be opened, and by him that seeketh it shall be found. Away with the man who is ever
seeking because he never finds; for he seeks there where nothing can be found. Away with
him who is always knocking because it will never be opened to him; for he knocks where
there is none (to open). Away with him who is always asking because he will never be
heard; for he asks of one who does not hear.

CHAPTER XII.-A PROPER SEEKING AFTER DIVINE KNOWLEDGE, WHICH WILL NEVER BE OUT OF PLACE OR EXCESSIVE, IS ALWAYS WITHIN THE RULE OF FAITH.

As for us, although we must still seek, and that always, yet where ought our search to be
made? Amongst the heretics, where all things are foreign and opposed to our own verity,
and to whom we are forbidden to draw near? What slave looks for food from a stranger, not
to say an enemy of his master? What soldier expects to get bounty and pay from kings who
are unallied, I might almost say hostile-unless forsooth he be a deserter, and a runaway,
and a rebel? Even that old woman searched for the piece of silver within her own house. It
was also at his neighbour's door that the persevering assailant kept knocking. Nor was it
to a hostile judge, although a severe one, that the widow made her appeal. No man gets
instruction from that which tends to destruction. No man receives illumination from a
quarter where all is darkness. Let our "seeking," therefore be in that which is our own,
and from those who are our own: and concerning that which is our own,-that, and only that,
which can become an object of inquiry without impairing the rule of faith.

CHAPTER XIII.-SUMMARY OF THE CREED, OR RULE OF FAITH. NO QUESTIONS EVER RAISED ABOUT IT BY BELIEVERS. HERETICS ENCOURAGE AND PERPETUATE THOUGHT INDEPENDENT OF CHRIST'S TEACHING.

Now, with regard to this rule of faith-that we may from this point acknowledge what it is
which we defend-it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one
only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things
out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His
Son, and, under the name of God, was seen "in diverse manners" by the patriarchs, heard at
all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into
the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus
Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven,
worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having
ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself
the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the
saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn
the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have
happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. This rule, as it will be proved,
was taught by Christ, and raises amongst ourselves no other questions than those which
heresies introduce, and which make men heretics.

CHAPTER XIV.-CURIOSITY OUGHT NOT RANGE BEYOND THE RULE OF FAITH. RESTLESS CURIOSITY, THE FEATURE OF HERESY.

1 So long, however, as its form exists in its proper order, you may seek and discuss as
much as you please, and give full rein to your curiosity, in whatever seems to you to hang
in doubt, or to be shrouded in obscurity. You have at hand, no doubt, some learned brother
gifted with the grace of knowledge, some one of the experienced class, some one of your
close acquaintance who is curious like yourself; although with yourself, a seeker he will,
after all, be quite aware that it is better for you to remain in ignorance, lest you
should come to know what you ought not, because you have acquired the knowledge of what
you ought to know. "Thy faith," He says, "hath saved thee" not observe your skill in the
Scriptures. Now, faith has been deposited in the rule; it has a law, and (in the
observance thereof) salvation. Skill, however, consists in curious art, having for its
glory simply the readiness that comes from knack. Let such curious art give place to
faith; let such glory yield to salvation. At any rate, let them either relinquish their
noisiness. or else be quiet. To know nothing in opposition to the rule (of faith), is to
know all things. (Suppose) that heretics were not enemies to the truth, so that we were
not forewarned to avoid them, what sort of conduct would it be to agree with men who do
themselves confess that they are still seeking?

2 For if they are still seeking, they have not as yet found anything amounting to
certainty; and therefore, whatever they seem for a while to hold, they betray their own
scepticism, whilst they continue seeking. You therefore, who seek after their fashion,
looking to those who are themselves ever seeking, a doubter to doubters, a waverer to
waverers, must needs be "led, blindly by the blind, down into the ditch. But when, for the
sake of deceiving us, they pretend that they are still seeking, in order that they may
palm their essays upon us by the suggestion of an anxious sympathy, -when, in short (after
gaining an access to us), they proceed at once to insist on the necessity of our inquiring
into such points as they were in the habit of advancing, then it is high time for us in
moral obligation to repel them, so that they may know that it is not Christ, but
themselves, whom we disavow. For since they are still seekers, they have no fixed tenets
yet; and being not fixed in tenet, they have not yet believed; and being not yet
believers, they are not Christians. But even though they have their tenets and their
belief, they still say that inquiry is necessary in order to discussion. Previous,
however, to the discussion, they deny what they confess not yet to have believed, so long
as they keep it an object of inquiry.

3 When men, therefore, are not Christians even on their own admission, how much more (do
they fail to appear such) to us! What sort of truth is that which they patronize, when
they commend it to us with a lie? Well, but they actually treat of the Scriptures and
recommend (their opinions) out of the Scriptures! To be sure they do. From what other
source could they derive arguments concerning the things of the faith, except from the
records of the faith?

CHAPTER XV.-HERETICS NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO ARGUE OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES. THE SCRIPTURES, IN FACT, DO NOT BELONG TO THEM.

We are therefore come to (the gist of) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and
for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just
completed),-so that we may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries
challenge us. They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at
once influence some. In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch
the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step
above, all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures. If in these
lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs
the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no
title at all to the privilege.

CHAPTER XVI.-APOSTOLIC SANCTION TO THIS EXCLUSION OF HERETICS FROM THE USE OF THE SCRIPTURES, HERETICS, ACCORDING TO THE APOSTLE, ARE NOT TO BE DISPUTED WITH, BUT TO BE ADMONISHED.

I might be thought to have laid down this position to remedy distrust in my case, or from
a desire of entering on the contest in some other way, were there not reasons on my side,
especially this, that our faith owes deference to the apostle, who forbids us to enter on
"questions," or to lend our ears to new-fangled statements, or to consort with a heretic
"after the first and second admonition," not, (be it observed, ) after discussion.
Discussion he has inhibited in this way, by designating admonition as the purpose of
dealing with a heretic, and the first one too, because he is not a Christian; in order
that he might not, after the manner of a Christian, seem to require correction again and
again, and "before two or three witnesses," seeing that he ought to be corrected, for the
very reason that he is not to be disputed with; and in the next place, because a
controversy over the Scriptures can, clearly, produce no other effect than help to upset
either the stomach or the brain.

CHAPTER XVII.-HERETICS, IN FACT, DO NOT USE, BUT ONLY ABUSE, SCRIPTURE. NO COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THEM AND YOU.

Now this heresy of yours does not receive certain Scriptures; and whichever of them it
does receive, it perverts by means of additions and diminutions, for the accomplishment of
it own purpose; and such as it does receive, it receives not in their entirety; but even
when it does receive any up to a certain point as entire, it nevertheless perverts even
these by the contrivance of diverse interpretations. Truth is just as much opposed by an
adulteration of its meaning as it is by a corruption of its text. Their vain presumptions
must needs refuse to acknowledge the (writings) whereby they are refuted. They rely on
those which they have falsely put together, and which they have selected, because of their
ambiguity. Though most skilled in the Scriptures, you will make no progress, when
everything which you maintain is denied on the other side, and whatever you deny is (by
them) maintained. As for yourself, indeed, you will lose nothing but your breath, and gain
nothing but vexation from their blasphemy.

CHAPTER XVIII.-GREAT EVIL ENSUES TO THE WEAK IN FAITH, FROM ANY DISCUSSION OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES. CONVICTION NEVER COMES TO THE HERETIC FROM SUCH A PROCESS.

But with respect to the man for whose sake you enter on the discussion of the Scriptures,
with the view of strengthening him when afflicted with doubts, (let me ask) will it be to
the truth, or rather to heretical opinions that he will lean? Influenced by the very fact
that he sees you have made no progress, whilst the other side is on an equal footing (with
yourself) in denying and in defence, or at any rate on a like standing he will go away
confirmed in his uncertainty by the discussion, not knowing which side to adjudge
heretical. For, no doubt, they too are able to retort these things on us. It is indeed a
necessary consequence that they should go so far as to say that adulterations of the
Scriptures, and false expositions thereof, are rather introduced by ourselves, inasmuch as
they, no less than we maintain that truth is on their side.

CHAPTER XIX. APPEAL, IN DISCUSSION OF HERESY, LIES NOT TO THE SCRIPTURES. THE SCRIPTURES BELONG ONLY TO THOSE WHO HAVE THE RULE OF FAITH.

Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be
admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not
certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a
way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that
this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss:
"With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through
whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become
Christians? "For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith
shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the
Christian traditions.

CHAPTER XX.-CHRIST FIRST DELIVERED THE FAITH. THE APOSTLES SPREAD IT; THEY FOUNDED CHURCHES AS THE DEPOSITORIES THEREOF. THAT FAITH, THEREFORE, IS APOSTOLIC, WHICH DESCENDED FROM THE APOSTLES, THROUGH APOSTOLIC CHURCHES.

1 Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a moment in thus expressing myself!),
whosoever He is, of what God soever He is the Son, of what substance soever He is man and
God, of what faith soever He is the, teacher, of what reward soever He is the Promiser,
did, whilst He lived on earth, Himself declare what He was, what He had been, what the
Father's will was which He was administering, what the duty of man was which He was
prescribing; (and this declaration He made, ) either openly to the people, or privately to
His disciples, of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, and whom He
destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been
struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to "go and
teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the
Holy Ghost. Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates
as "the sent. Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David,
chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised
power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance;

2 and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judµa, and
rounding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same
doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner rounded churches in
every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of
the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may
become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem
themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing
must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches,
although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (rounded)
by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are
apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful
communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,-privileges which no other
rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.

CHAPTER XXI.-ALL DOCTRINE TRUE WHICH COMES THROUGH THE CHURCH FROM THE APOSTLES, WHO WERE TAUGHT BY GOD THROUGH CHRIST. ALL OPINION WHICH HAS NO SUCH DIVINE ORIGIN AND APOSTOLIC TRADITION TO SHOW, IS IPSO FACTO FALSE.

From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the
apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than
those whom Christ appointed; for "no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any
other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach-that, of course, which He revealed
to them. Now, what that was which they preached-in other words, what it was which Christ
revealed to them-can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other
way than by those very churches which the apostles rounded in person, by declaring the
gospel to them directly themselves, both vivG voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by
their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all
doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches-those moulds and original sources of the
faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches
received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all
doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the
churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether
this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the
tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from
falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no
respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.

CHAPTER XXII.-ATTEMPT TO INVALIDATE THIS RULE OF FAITH REBUTTED. THE APOSTLES SAFE TRANSMITTERS OF THE TRUTH. SUFFICIENTLY TAUGHT AT FIRST, AND FAITHFUL IN THE TRANSMISSION.

1 But inasmuch as the proof is so near at hand, that if it were at once produced there
would be nothing left to be dealt with, let us give way for a while to the opposite side,
if they think that they can find some means of invalidating this rule, just as if no proof
were forthcoming from us. They usually tell us that the apostles did not know all things:
(but herein) they are impelled by the same madness, whereby they turn round to the very
opposite point, and declare that the apostles certainly knew all things, but did not
deliver all things to all persons,-in either case exposing Christ to blame for having sent
forth apostles who had either too much ignorance, or too little simplicity. What man,
then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the
Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from
Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, "when they
were alone, He used to expound" all things which were obscure, telling them that "to them
it was given to know those mysteries," which it was not permitted the people to
understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called "the rock on
which the church should be built," who also obtained "the keys of the kingdom of heaven,"
with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?

2 " Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord's most beloved disciple, who used
to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He
commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? Of what could He have meant those to be
ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father's
voice moreover, from heaven? Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because
"by three witnesses must every word be established. After the same fashion, too, (I
suppose, ) were they ignorant to whom, after His resurrection also, He vouchsafed, as they
were journeying together, "to expound all the Scriptures. No doubt He had once said, "I
have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now; "but even then He
added, "When He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all truth. He
(thus) shows that there was nothing of which they were ignorant, to whom He had promised
the future attainment of all truth by help of the Spirit of truth. And assuredly He
fulfilled His promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles that the Holy Ghost
did come down.

3 Now they who reject that Scripture can neither belong to the Holy Spirit, seeing that
they cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can
they presume to claim to be a church themselves who positively have no means of proving
when, and with what swaddling-clothes this body was established. Of so much importance is
it to them not to have any proofs for the things which they maintain, lest along with them
there be introduced damaging exposures of those things which they mendaciously devise.

CHAPTER XXIII.-THE APOSTLES NOT IGNORANT. THE HERETICAL PRETENCE OF ST. PETER'S IMPERFECTION BECAUSE HE WAS REBUKED BY ST. PAUL. ST. PETER NOT REBUKED FOR ERROR IN TEACHING.

1 Now, with the view of branding the apostles with some mark of ignorance, they put forth
the case of Peter and them that were with him having been rebuked by Paul. "Something
therefore," they say, "was wanting in them. (This they allege, ) in order that they may
from this construct that other position of theirs, that a fuller knowledge may possibly
have afterwards come over (the apostles, ) such as fell to the share of Paul when he
rebuked those who preceded him. I may here say to those who reject The Acts of the
Apostles: "It is first necessary that you shows us who this Paul was,-both what he was
before he was an apostle, and how he became an apostle,"-so very great is the use which
they make of him in respect of other questions also. It is true that he tells us himself
that he was a persecutor before he became an apostle, still this is not enough for any man
who examines before he believes, since even the Lord Himself did not bear witness of
Himself. But let them believe without the Scriptures, if their object is to believe
contrary to the Scriptures. Still they should show, from the circumstance which they
allege of Peter's being rebuked by Paul, that Paul added yet another form of the gospel
besides that which Peter and the rest had previously set forth.

2 But the fact is, having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced
as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren-to them, indeed, by men who had put on
faith from the apostles' hands. Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he "went up to
Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter," because of his office, no doubt, and by right
of a common belief and preaching. Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his
having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something
contrary; nor, moreover, would they have "glorified the Lord," because Paul had presented
himself as an adversary to Him They accordingly even gave him "the right hand of
fellowship," as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged amongst themselves a
distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel, so that they should severally preach
not a different gospel, but (the same), to different persons, Peter to the circumcision,
Paul to the Gentiles. Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived
with the Gentiles, he proceeded to separate himself from their company out of respect for
persons, the fault surely was one of conversation, not of preaching. For it does not
appear from this, that any other God than the Creator, or any other Christ than (the son)
of Mary, or any other hope than the resurrection, was (by him) announced.

3 Chapter XXIV.-St. Peter's Further Vindication. St. Paul Not Superior to St. Peter in
Teaching. Nothing Imparted to the Former in the Third Heaven Enabled Him to Add to the
Faith. Heretics Boast as If Favoured with Some of the Secrets Imparted to Him. 4 I have
not the good fortune, or, as I must rather say, I have not the unenviable task, of setting
apostles by the ears. But, inasmuch as our very perverse cavillers obtrude the rebuke in
question for the set purpose of bringing the earlier doctrine into suspicion, I will put
in a defence, as it were, for Peter, to the effect that even Paul said that he was "made
all things to all men-to the Jews a Jew," to those who were not Jews as one who was not a
Jew-"that he might gain all." Therefore it was according to times and persons and causes
that they used to censure certain practices, which they would not hesitate themselves to
pursue, in like conformity to times and persons and causes. Just (e.g.) as if Peter too
had censured Paul, because, whilst for-bidding circumcision, he actually circumcised
Timothy himself. Never mind those who pass sentence on apostles! It is a happy fact that
Peter is on the same level with Paul in the very glory of martyrdom. Now, although Paul
was carried away even to the third heaven, and was caught up to paradise, and heard
certain revelations there, yet these cannot possibly seem to have qualified him for
(teaching) another doctrine, seeing that their very nature was such as to render them
communicable to no human being. If, however, that unspeakable mystery did leak out, and
become known to any man, and if any heresy affirms that it does itself follow the same,
(then) either Paul must be charged with having betrayed the secret, or some other man must
actually be shown to have been afterwards "caught up into paradise," who had permission to
speak out plainly what Paul was not allowed (even) to mutter.

CHAPTER XXV.-THE APOSTLES DID NOT KEEP BACK ANY OF THE DEPOSIT OF DOCTRINE WHICH CHRIST HAD ENTRUSTED TO THEM. ST. PAUL OPENLY COMMITTED HIS WHOLE DOCTRINE TO TIMOTHY.

1 But here is, as we have said, the same madness, in their allowing indeed that the
apostles were ignorant of nothing, and preached not any (doctrines) which contradicted one
another, but at the same time insisting that they did not reveal all to all men, for that
they proclaimed some openly and to all the world, whilst they disclosed others (only) in
secret and to a few, because Paul addressed even this expression to Timothy: "O Timothy,
guard that which is entrusted to thee; " and again: "That good thing which was committed
unto thee keep. What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize a
new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, "This charge I commit unto
thee, son Timothy? " and also of that precept of which he says, "I charge thee in the
sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good
confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment? " Now, what is (this)
commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it
will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression
about (some) far-fetched doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving
any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it
publicly: "Before many witnesses" is his phrase.

2 Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these "many witnesses," it
matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced "before many
witnesses. Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to "commit these
things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also," be construed into a
proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says "these things," he refers to
the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult
subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to
one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself.

CHAPTER XXVI.-THE APOSTLES DID IN ALL CASES TEACH THE WHOLE TRUTH TO THE WHOLE CHURCH. NO RESERVATION, NOR PARTIAL COMMUNICATION TO FAVOURITE FRIENDS.

1 Besides which, it must have followed, that, for the man to whom he committed the
ministration of the gospel, he would add the injunction that it be not ministered in all
places, and without respect to persons, in accordance with the Lord's saying, "Not to cast
one's pearls before swine, nor that which is holy unto dogs. Openly did the Lord speak,
without any intimation of a hidden mystery. He had Himself commanded that, "whatsoever
they had heard in darkness" and in secret, they should "declare in the light and on the
house-tops. He had Himself fore-shown, by means of a parable, that they should not keep
back in secret, fruitless of interest, a single pound, that is, one word of His. He used
Himself to tell them that a candle was not usually "pushed away under a bushel, but placed
on a candlestick," in order to "give light to all who are in the house. These things the
apostles either neglected, or failed to understand, if they fulfilled them not, by
concealing any portion of the light, that is, of the word of God and the mystery of
Christ. Of no man, I am quite sure, were they afraid,-neither of Jews nor of Gentiles in
their violence; with all the greater freedom, then, would they certainly preach in the
church, who held not their tongue in synagogues and public places. Indeed they would have
found it impossible either to convert Jews or to bring in Gentiles, unless they "set forth
in order" that which they would have them believe.

2 Much less, when churches were advanced in the faith, would they have withdrawn from them
anything for the purpose of committing it separately to some few others. Although, even
supposing that among intimate friends, so to speak, they did hold certain discussions, yet
it is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith,
differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the Catholic
churches, -as if they spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described
one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the
resurrection before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in
their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that
there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church, seeing that they, whether Paul
or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they remembered the words): "Let your
communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil; " so
that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment.

CHAPTER XXVII.-GRANTED THAT THE APOSTLES TRANSMITTED THE WHOLE DOCTRINE OF TRUTH, MAY NOT THE CHURCHES HAVE BEEN UNFAITHFUL IN HANDING IT ON? INCONCEIVABLE THAT THIS CAN HAVE BEEN THE CASE.

Since, therefore, it is incredible that the apostles were either ignorant of the whole
scope of the message which they had to declare, or failed to make known to all men the
entire rule of faith, let us see whether, while the apostles proclaimed it, perhaps,
simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault, set it forth otherwise than the
apostles had done. All these suggestions of distrust you may find put forward by the
heretics. They bear in mind how the churches were rebuked by the apostle: "O foolish
Galatians, who hath bewitched you? " and, "Ye did run so well; who hath hindered you? "
and how the epistle actually begins: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him, who
hath called you as His own in grace, to another gospel." That they likewise (remember),
what was written to the Corinthians, that they "were yet carnal," who "required to be fed
with milk," being as yet "unable to bear strong meat; " who also "thought that they knew
somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know." When they raise the
objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected;
let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and
conversation the apostle "rejoices and gives thanks to God," which nevertheless even at
this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same
institution.

CHAPTER XXVIII.-THE ONE TRADITION OF THE FAITH, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY ALIKE IN THE CHURCHES EVERYWHERE, A GOOD PROOF THAT THE TRANSMISSION HAS BEEN TRUE AND HONEST IN THE MAIN.

Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony;
that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth,
although sent with this view by Christ, and for this asked of the Father that He might be
the teacher of truth; grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ,
neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and)
to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,-is it likely that
so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith?
No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of
doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however,
that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result
of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in
error who handed on the tradition?

CHAPTER XXIX.-THE TRUTH NOT INDEBTED TO THE CARE OF THE HERETICS; IT HAD FREE COURSE BEFORE THEY APPEARED. PRIORITY OF THE CHURCH'S DOCTRINE A MARK OF ITS TRUTH.

In whatever manner error came, it reigned of course only as long as there was an absence
of heresies? Truth had to wait for certain Marcionites and Valentinians to set it free.
During the interval the gospel was wrongly preached; men wrongly believed; so many
thousands were wrongly baptized; so many works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many
miraculous gifts, so many spiritual endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many
priestly functions, so many ministries, were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole,
so many martyrs wrongly received their crowns! Else, if not wrongly done, and to no
purpose, how comes it to pass that the things of God were on their course before it was
known to what God they belonged? that there were Christians before Christ was found? that
there were heresies before true doctrine? Not so; for in all cases truth precedes its
copy, the likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd enough, however, is it, that heresy should
be deemed to have preceded its own prior doctrine, even on this account, because it is
that (doctrine) itself which foretold that there should be heresies against which men
would have to guard! To a church which possessed this doctrine, it was written-yea, the
doctrine itself writes to its own church-"Though an angel from heaven preach any other
gospel than that which we have preached, let him be accursed."

CHAPTER XXX.-COMPARATIVE LATENESS OF HERESIES. MARCION'S HERESY. SOME PERSONAL FACTS ABOUT HIM. THE HERESY OF APELLES. CHARACTER OF THIS MAN; PHILUMENE; VALENTINUS; NIGIDIUS, AND HERMOGENES.

1 Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism?
Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men
lived not so long ago,-in the reign of Antoninus for the most part, -and that they at
first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under
the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless
curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.
Marcion, indeed, [went] with the two hundred sesterces which which he had brought into the
church, and, when banished at last to a permanent excommunication, they scattered abroad
the poisons of their doctrines. Afterwards, it is true, Marcion professed repentance, and
agreed to the conditions granted to him-that he should receive reconciliation if he
restored to the church all the others whom he had been training for perdition: he was
prevented, however, by death. It was indeed necessary that there should be heresies; and
yet it does not follow from that necessity, that heresies are a good thing. As if it has
not been necessary also that there should be evil! It was even necessary that the Lord
should be betrayed; but woe to the traitor! So that no man may from this defend heresies.
If we must likewise touch the descent of Apelles, he is far from being" one of the old
school," like his instructor and moulder, Marcion;

2 he rather forsook the continence of Marcion, by resorting to the company of a woman, and
withdrew to Alexandria, out of sight of his most abstemious master. Returning therefrom,
after some years, unimproved, except that he was no longer a Marcionite, he clave to
another woman, the maiden Philumene (whom we have already mentioned), who herself
afterwards became an enormous prostitute. Having been imposed on by her vigorous spirit,
he committed to writing the revelations which he had learned of her. Persons are still
living who remember them,-their own actual disciples and successors,-who cannot therefore
deny the lateness of their date. But, in fact, by their own works they are convicted, even
as the Lord said. For since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he is
(necessarily) subsequent to that which he separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power
to separate what was (previously) united. Having then been united previous to its
separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the subsequence also of the man
who effected the separation. In like manner Valentinus, by his different expositions and
acknowledged emendations, makes these changes on the express ground of previous
faultiness, and therefore demonstrates the difference of the documents. These corrupters
of the truth we mention as being more notorious and more public than others. There is,
however, a certain man named Nigidius, and Hermogenes, and several others, who still
pursue the course of perverting the ways of the Lord. Let them show me by what authority
they come!

3 If it be some other God they preach, how comes it that they employ the things and he
writings and the names of that God against whom they preach? If it be the same God, why
treat Him in some other way? Let them prove themselves to be new apostles! Let them
maintain that Christ has come down a second time, taught in person a second time, has been
twice crucified, twice dead, twice raised! For thus has the apostle described (the order
of events in the life of Christ); for thus, too, is He accustomed to make His apostles-to
give them, (that is), power besides of working the same miracles which He worked Himself.
I would therefore have their mighty deeds also brought forward; except that I allow their
mightiest deed to be that by which they perversely vie with the apostles. For whilst they
used to raise men to life from the dead, these consign men to death from their living
state.

CHAPTER XXXI.-TRUTH FIRST, FALSEHOOD AFTERWARDS, AS ITS PERVERSION. CHRIST'S PARABLE PUTS THE SOWING OF THE GOOD SEED BEFORE THE USELESS TARES.

Let me return, however, from this digression to discuss the priority of truth, and the
comparative lateness of falsehood, deriving support for my argument even from that parable
which puts in the first place the sowing by the Lord of the good seed of the wheat, but
introduces at a later stage the adulteration of the crop by its enemy the devil with the
useless weed of the wild oats. For herein is figuratively described the difference of
doctrines, since in other passages also the word of God is likened unto seed. From the
actual order, therefore, it becomes clear, that that which was first delivered is of the
Lord and is true, whilst that is strange and false which was afterwards introduced. This
sentence will keep its ground in opposition to all later heresies, which have no
consistent quality of kindred knowledge inherent in them-to claim the truth as on their
side.

CHAPTER XXXII.-NONE OF THE HERETICS CLAIM SUCCESSION FROM THE APOSTLES. NEW CHURCHES STILL APOSTOLIC, BECAUSE THEIR FAITH IS THAT WHICH THE APOSTLES TAUGHT AND HANDED DOWN. THE HERETICS CHALLENGED TO SHOW ANY APOSTOLIC CREDENTIALS.

1 But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of
the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles,
because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the
original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running
down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of
theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the
apostles or of apostolic men,-a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles.
For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the
church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the
church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In
exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom,
as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as
transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind.
For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But
should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very
doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity
and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man;

2 because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory,
so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles,
unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a
contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those
churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as
being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree
in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in
doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic
church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they
neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are
they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way
connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of
their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.

CHAPTER XXXIII.-PRESENT HERESIES (SEEDLINGS OF THE TARES NOTED BY THE SACRED WRITERS) ALREADY CONDEMNED IN SCRIPTURE. THIS DESCENT OF LATER HERESY FROM THE EARLIER TRACED IN SEVERAL INSTANCES.

1 Besides all this, I add a review of the doctrines themselves, which, existing as they
did in the days of the apostles, were both exposed and denounced by the said apostles. For
by this method they will be more easily reprobated, when they are detected to have been
even then in existence, or at any rate to have been seedlings of the (tares) which then
were. Paul, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, sets his mark on certain who denied
and doubted the resurrection. This opinion was the especial property of the Sadducees. A
part of it, however, is maintained by Marcion and Apelles and Valentinus, and all other
impugners of the resurrection. Writing also to the Galatians, he inveighs against such men
as observed and defend circumcision and the (Mosaic) law. Thus runs Hebion's heresy. Such
also as "forbid to marry" he reproaches in his instructions to Timothy. Now, this is the
teaching of Marcion and his follower Apelles. (The apostle) directs a similar blow against
those who said that "the resurrection was past already. Such an opinion did the
Valentinians assert of themselves. When again he mentions "endless genealogies," one also
recognises Valentinus, in whose system a certain ¦on, whosoever he be, of a new name, and
that not one only, generates of his own grace Sense and Truth; and these in like manner
produce of themselves Word and Life, while these again afterwards beget Man and the
Church.

2 From these primary eight ten other ¦ons after them spring, and then the twelve others
arise with their wonderful names, to complete the mere story of the thirty ¦ons. The same
apostle, when disapproving of those who are "in bondage to elements," points us to some
dogma of Hermogenes, who introduces matter as having no beginning, and then compares it
with God, who has no beginning. By thus making the mother of the elements a goddess, he
has it in his power "to be in bondage" to a being which he puts on a par with God. John,
however, in the Apocalypse is charged to chastise those "who eat things sacrificed to
idols," and "who commit fornication. There are even now another sort of Nicolaitans.Theirs
is called the Gaian heresy. But in his epistle he especially designates those as
"Antichrists" who "denied that Christ was come in the flesh," and who refused to think
that Jesus was the Son of God. The one dogma Marcion maintained; the other, Hebion. The
doctrine, however, of Simon's sorcery, which inculcated the worship of angels, was itself
actually reckoned amongst idolatries and condemned by the Apostle Peter in Simon's own
person.

CHAPTER XXXIV.-NO EARLY CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE DIVINE CREATOR; NO SECOND GOD INTRODUCED AT FIRST. HERESIES CONDEMNED ALIKE BY THE SENTENCE AND THE SILENCE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.

1 These are, as I suppose, the different kinds of spurious doctrines, which (as we are
informed by the apostles themselves) existed in their own day. And yet we find amongst so
many various perversions of truth, not one school which raised any controversy concerning
God as the Creator of all things. No man was bold enough to surmise a second god. More
readily was doubt felt about the Son than about the Father, until Marcion introduced, in
addition to the Creator, another god of goodness only. Apelles made the Creator of some
nondescript glorious angel, who belonged to the superior God, the god (according to him, )
of the law and of Israel, affirming that he was fire. Valentinus disseminated his ¦ons,
and traced the sin of one ¦on to the production of God the Creator. To none, forsooth,
except these, nor prior to these, was revealed the truth of the Divine Nature; and they
obtained this especial honour and fuller favour from the devil, we cannot doubt, because
he wished even in this respect to rival God, that he might succeed, by the poison of his
doctrines, in doing himself what the Lord said could not be done-making "the disciples
above their Master. Let the entire mass of heresies choose, therefore, for themselves the
times when they should appear, provided that the when be an unimportant point;

2 allowing, too, that they be not of the truth, and (as a matter of course ) that such as
had no existence in the time of the apostles could not possibly have had any connection
with the apostles. If indeed they had then existed, their names would be extant, with a
view to their own repression likewise. Those (heresies) indeed which did exist in the days
of the apostles, are condemned in their very mention. If it be true, then, that those
heresies, which in the apostolic times were in a rude form, are now found to be the same,
only in a much more polished shape, they derive their condemnation from this very
circumstance Or if they were not the same, but arose afterwards in a different form, and
merely assumed from them certain tenets, then, by sharing with them an agreement in their
teaching, they must needs partake in their condemnation, by reason of the above-mentioned
definition, of lateness of date, which meets us on the very threshold. Even if they were
free from any participation in condemned doctrine, they would stand already judged on the
mere ground of time, being all the more spurious because they were not even named by the
apostles. Whence we have the firmer assurance, that these were (the heresies) which even
then, were announced as about to arise.

CHAPTER XXXV.-LET HERETICS MAINTAIN THEIR CLAIMS BY A DEFINITE AND INTELLIGIBLE EVIDENCE. THIS THE ONLY METHOD OF SOLVING THEIR QUESTIONS. CATHOLICS APPEAL ALWAYS TO EVIDENCE TRACEABLE TO APOSTOLIC SOURCES.

Challenged and refuted by us, according to these definitions, let all the heresies boldly
on their part also advance similar rules to these against our doctrine, whether they be
later than the apostles or contemporary with the apostles, provided they be different from
them; provided also they were, by either a general or a specific censure, precondemned by
them. For since they deny the truth of (our doctrine), they ought to prove that it also is
heresy, refutable by the same rule as that by which they are themselves refuted; and at
the same time to show us where we must seek the truth, which it is by this time evident
has no existence amongst them. Our system is not behind any in date; on the contrary, it
is earlier than all; and this fact will be the evidence of that truth which everywhere
occupies the first place. The apostles, again, nowhere condemn it; they rather defend
it,-a fact which will show that it comes from themselves. For that doctrine which they
refrain from condemning, when they have condemned every strange opinion, they show to be
their own, and on that ground too they defend it.

CHAPTER XXXVI.-THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES THE VOICE OF THE APOSTLES. LET THE HERETICS EXAMINE THEIR APOSTOLIC CLAIMS, IN EACH CASE, INDISPUTABLE. THE CHURCH OF ROME DOUBLY APOSTOLIC; ITS EARLY EMINENCE AND EXCELLENCE. HERESY, AS PERVERTING THE TRUTH, IS CONNECTED THEREWITH.

1 Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the
business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of
the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings
are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia
is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you
have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to
Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from
which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How
happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their
blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death
like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence
remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has
had with even (our) churches in Africa! One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of
the universe, and Christ Jesus (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and
the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the
writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith.

2 This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the
Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline thus (maintained) she
admits no gainsayer. This is the discipline which I no longer say foretold that heresies
should come, but from which they proceeded. However, they were not of her, because they
were opposed to her. Even the rough wild-olive arises from the germ of the fruitful, rich,
and genuine olive; also from the seed of the mellowest and sweetest fig there springs the
empty and useless wild-fig. In the same way heresies, too, come from our plant, although
not of our kind; (they come) from the grain of truth, but, owing to their falsehood, they
have only wild leaves to show.

CHAPTER XXXVII.-HERETICS NOT BEING CHRISTIANS, BUT RATHER PERVERTERS OF CHRIST'S TEACHING, MAY NOT CLAIM THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES. THESE ARE A DEPOSIT, COMMITTED TO AND CAREFULLY KEPT BY THE CHURCH.

1 Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, "as
many as walk according to the rule," which the church has handed down from the apostles,
the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when
it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the
Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the
Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not
from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the
pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have
acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them,
"Who are you? When and whence did you come? As you are none of mine, what have you to do
with that which is mine? Indeed, Marcion, by what right do you hew my wood? By whose
permission, Valentinus, are you diverting the streams of my fountain? By what power,
Apelles, are you removing my landmarks? This is my property. Why are you, the rest, sowing
and feeding here at your own pleasure? This (I say) is my property. I have long possessed
it; I possessed it before you. I hold sure title-deeds from the original owners
themselves, to whom the estate belonged. I am the heir of the apostles.

2 Just as they carefully prepared their will and testament, and committed it to a trust,
and adjured (the trustees to be faithful to their charge), even so do I hold it. As for
you, they have, it is certain, always held you as disinherited, and rejected you as
strangers-as enemies. But on what ground are heretics strangers and enemies to the
apostles, if it be not from the difference of their teaching, which each individual of his
own mere will has either advanced or received in opposition to the apostles? "

CHAPTER XXXVIII.-HARMONY OF THE CHURCH AND THE SCRIPTURES. HERETICS HAVE TAMPERED WITH THE SCRIPTURES, AND MUTILATED, AND ALTERED THEM. CATHOLICS NEVER CHANGE THE SCRIPTURES, WHICH ALWAYS TESTIFY FOR THEM.

1 Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the corruption both of the
Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing. On those whose purpose it
was to teach differently, lay the necessity of differently arranging the instruments of
doctrine. They could not possibly have effected their diversity of teaching in any other
way than by having a difference in the means whereby they taught. As in their case,
corruption in doctrine could not possibly have succeeded without a corruption also of its
instruments, so to ourselves also integrity of doctrine could not have accrued, without
integrity in those means by which doctrine is managed. Now, what is there in our
Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we introduced, that we should
have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in order to restore to its
natural soundness anything which is contrary to it, and contained in the Scriptures? What
we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures are (and have been) from the beginning. Of them
we have our being, before there was any other way, before they were interpolated by you.

2 Now, inasmuch as all interpolation must be believed to be a later process, for the
express reason that it proceeds from rivalry which is never in any case previous to nor
home-born with that which it emulates, it is as incredible to every man of sense that we
should seem to have introduced any corrupt text into the Scriptures, existing, as we have
been, from the very first, and being the first, as it is that they have not in fact
introduced it who are both later in date and opposed (to the Scriptures). One man perverts
the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although
Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has none the less laid violent hands on the
truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly
used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited
his own subject-matter. Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision, because he did
not invent Scriptures to square with his own subject-matter, but adapted his matter to the
Scriptures; and yet he took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning of
every particular word, and adding fantastic arrangements of things which have no real
existence.

3 Chapter XXXIX.-What St. Paul Calls Spiritual Wickednesses Displayed by Pagan Authors,
and by Heretics, in No Dissimilar Manner. Holy Scripture Especially Liable to Heretical
Manipulation. Affords Material for Heresies, Just as Virgil Has Been the Groundwork of
Literary Plagiarisms, Different in Purport from the Original. These were the ingenious
arts of "spiritual wickednesses," wherewith we also, my brethren, may fairly expect to
have "to wrestle," as necessary for faith, that the elect may be made manifest, (and) that
the reprobate may be discovered. And therefore they possess influence, and a facility in
thinking out and fabricating errors, which ought not to be wondered at as if it were a
difficult and inexplicable process, seeing that in profane writings also an example comes
ready to hand of a similar facility. You see in our own day, composed out of Virgil, a
story of a wholly different character, the subject-matter being arranged according to the
verse, and the verse according to the subject-matter. In short, Hosidius Geta has most
completely pilfered his tragedy of Medea from Virgil. A near relative of my own, among
some leisure productions of his pen, has composed out of the same poet The Table of Cebes.
On the same principle, those poetasters are commonly called Homerocentones, "collectors of
Homeric odds and ends," who stitch into one piece, patchwork fashion, works of their own
from the lines of Homer, out of many scraps put together from this passage and from that
(in miscellaneous confusion). Now, unquestionably, the Divine Scriptures are more fruitful
in resources of all kinds for this sort of facility. Nor do I risk contradiction in saying
that the very Scriptures were even arranged by the will of God in such a manner as to
furnish materials for heretics, inasmuch as I read that "there must be heresies, which
there cannot be without the Scriptures.

CHAPTER XL.-NO DIFFERENCE IN THE SPIRIT OF IDOLATRY AND OF HERESY. IN THE RITES OF IDOLATRY, SATAN IMITATED AND DISTORTED THE DIVINE INSTITUTIONS OF THE OLDER SCRIPTURES. THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES CORRUPTED BY HIM IN THE PERVERSIONS OF THE VARIOUS HERETICS.

1 The question will arise, By whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages which
make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which pervert the
truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the essential portions of
the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes some-that is, his own believers and faithful
followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer (of his own); and if my memory
still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of Satan, ) sets his marks on the foreheads
of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation of bread, and introduces an image of a
resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a crown. What also must we say to (Satan's)
limiting his chief priest to a single marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his
proficients in continence. Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa
Pompilius, and consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial
services, too, and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the
curious rites of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated
the well-known moroseness of the Jewish law?

2 Since, therefore he has Shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the
concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of
Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same
genius, both set his heart upon, and succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed
the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints -his interpretation from
their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables. For
this reason, then, no one ought to doubt, either that "spiritual wickednesses," from which
also heresies come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any real
difference between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they appertain both to the same
author and the same work that idolatry does. They either pretend that there is another god
in opposition to the Creator, or, even if they acknowledge that the Creator is the one
only God, they treat of Him as a different being from what He is in truth. The consequence
is, that every lie which they speak of God is in a certain sense a sort of idolatry

CHAPTER XLI.-THE CONDUCT OF HERETICS: ITS FRIVOLITY, WORLDLINESS, AND IRREGULARITY. THE NOTORIOUS WANTONNESS OF THEIR WOMEN.

I must not omit an account of the conduct also of the heretics-how frivolous it is, how
worldly, how merely human, without seriousness, without authority, without discipline, as
suits their creed. To begin with, it is doubtful who is a catechumen, and who a believer;
they have all access alike, they hear alike, they pray alike-even heathens, if any such
happen to come among them. "That which is holy they will cast to the dogs, and their
pearls," although (to be sure) they are not real ones, "they will fling to the swine."
Simplicity they will have to consist in the overthrow of discipline, attention to which on
our part they call brotherly. Peace also they huddle up anyhow with all comers; for it
matters not to them, however different be their treatment of subjects, provided only they
can conspire together to storm the citadel of the one only Truth. All are puffed up, all
offer you knowledge. Their catechumens are perfect before they are full-taught. The very
women of these heretics, how wanton they are! For they are bold enough to teach, to
dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures-it may be even to baptize. Their
ordinations, are carelessly. administered, capricious, changeable. At one time they put
novices in office; at another time, men who are bound to some secular employment; at
another, persons who have apostatized from us, to bind them by vainglory, since they
cannot by the truth. Nowhere is promotion easier than in the camp of rebels, where the
mere fact of being there is a foremost service. And so it comes to pass that to-day one
man is their bishop, to-morrow another; to-day he is a deacon who to-morrow is a reader;
to-day he is a presbyter who tomorrow is a layman. For even on laymen do they impose the
functions of priesthood.

CHAPTER XLII.-HERETICS WORK TO PULL DOWN AND TO DESTROY, NOT TO EDIFY AND ELEVATE. HERETICS DO NOT ADHERE EVEN TO THEIR OWN TRADITIONS, BUT HARBOUR DISSENT EVEN FROM THEIR OWN FOUNDERS.

1 But what shall I say concerning the ministry of the word, since they make it their
business not to convert the heathen, but to subvert our people? This is rather the glory
which they catch at, to compass the fall of those who stand, not the raising of those who
are down. Accordingly, since the very work which they purpose to themselves comes not from
the building up of their own society, but from the demolition of the truth, they undermine
our edifices, that they may erect their own. Only deprive them of the law of Moses, and
the prophets, and the divinity of the Creator, and they have not another objection to talk
about. The consequence is, that they more easily accomplish the ruin of standing houses
than the erection of fallen ruins. It is only when they have such objects in view that
they show themselves humble and bland and respectful. Otherwise they know no respect even
for their own leaders. Hence it is [supposed] that schisms seldom happen among heretics,
because, even when they exist, they are not obvious. Their very unity, however, is schism.
I am greatly in error if they do not amongst themselves swerve even from their own
regulations, forasmuch as every man, just as it suits his own temper, modifies the
traditions he has received after the same fashion as the man who handed them down did,
when he moulded them according to his own will.

2 The progress of the matter is an acknowledgment at once of its character and of the
manner of its birth. That was allowable to the Valentinians which had been allowed to
Valentinus; that was also fair for the Marcionites which had been done by Marcion-even to
innovate on the faith, as was agreeable to their own pleasure. In short, all heresies,
when thoroughly looked into, are detected harbouring dissent in many particulars even from
their own founders. The majority of them have not even churches. Motherless, houseless,
creedless, outcasts, they wander about in their own essential worthlessness.

CHAPTER XLIII.-LOOSE COMPANY PREFERRED BY HERETICS. UNGODLINESS THE EFFECT OF THEIR TEACHING THE VERY OPPOSITE OF CATHOLIC TRUTH, WHICH PROMOTES THE FEAR OF GOD, BOTH IN RELIGIOUS ORDINANCES AND PRACTICAL LIFE.

It has also been a subject of remark, how extremely frequent is the intercourse which
heretics hold with magicians, with mountebanks, with astrologers, with philosophers; and
the reason is, that they are men who devote themselves to curious questions. "Seek, and ye
shall find," is everywhere in their minds. Thus, from the very nature of their conduct,
may be estimated the quality of their faith. In their discipline we have an index of their
doctrine. They say that God is not to be feared; therefore all things are in their view
free and unchecked. Where, however is God not feared, except where He is not? Where God is
not, there truth also is not. Where there is no truth, then, naturally enough, there is
also such a discipline as theirs. But where God is, there exists "the fear of God, which
is the beginning of wisdom." Where the fear of God is, there is seriousness, an honourable
and yet thoughtful diligence, as well as an anxious carefulness and a well-considered
admission (to the sacred ministry) and a safely-guarded communion, and promotion after
good service, and a scrupulous submission (to authority), and a devout attendance, and a
modest gait, and a united church, and God in all things.

CHAPTER XLIV.-HERESY LOWERS RESPECT FOR CHRIST, AND DESTROYS ALL FEAR OF HIS GREAT JUDGMENT. THE TENDENCY OF HERETICAL TEACHING ON THIS SOLEMN ARTICLE OF THE FAITH. THE PRESENT TREATISE AN INTRODUCTION TO CERTAIN OTHER ANTI-HERETICAL WORKS OF OUR AUTHOR.

1 These evidences, then, of a stricter discipline existing among us, are an additional
proof of truth, from which no man can safely turn aside, who bears in mind that future
judgment, when "we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, to render an account
of our faith itself before all things. What, then, will they say who shall have defiled
it, even the virgin which Christ committed to them with the adultery of heretics? I
suppose they will allege that no injunction was ever addressed to them by Him or by His
apostles concerning depraved and perverse doctrines assailing them, or about their
avoiding and abhorring the same. (He and His apostles, perhaps, ) will acknowledge that
the blame rather lies with themselves and their disciples, in not having given us previous
warning and instruction! They will, besides, add a good deal respecting the high authority
of each doctor of heresy,-how that these mightily strengthened belief in their own
doctrine; how that they raised the dead, restored the sick, foretold the future, that so
they might deservedly be regarded as apostles. As if this caution were not also in the
written record: that many should come who were to work even the greatest miracles, in
defence of the deceit of their corrupt preaching. So, forsooth, they will deserve to be
forgiven!

2 If, however, any, being mindful of the writings and the denunciations of the Lord and
the apostles, shall have stood firm in the integrity of the faith, I suppose they will run
great risk of missing pardon, when the Lord answers: I plainly forewarned you that there
should be teachers of false doctrine in my name, as well as that of the prophets and
apostles also; and to my own disciples did I give a charge, that they should preach the
same things to you. But as for you, it was not, of course, to be supposed that you would
believe me! I once gave the gospel and the doctrine of the said rule (of life and faith)
to my apostles; but afterwards it was my pleasure to make considerable changes in it! I
had promised a resurrection, even of the flesh; but, on second thoughts, it struck me that
I might not be able to keep my promise! I had shown myself to have been born of a virgin;
but this seemed to me afterwards to be a discreditable thing. I had said that He was my
Father, who is the Maker of the sun and the showers; but another and better father has
adopted me! I had forbidden you to lend an ear to heretics; but in this I erred! Such
(blasphemies), it is possible, do enter the minds of those who go out of the right path,
and who do not defend the true faith from the danger which besets it.

3 On the present occasion, indeed, our treatise has rather taken up a general position
against heresies, (showing that they must) all be refuted on definite, equitable, and
necessary rules, without any comparison with the Scriptures. For the rest, if God in His
grace permit, we shall prepare answers to certain of these heresies in separate treatises.
To those who may devote their leisure in reading through these (pages), in the belief of
the truth, be peace, and the grace of our God Jesus Christ for ever.


THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION
==============================

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION Tertullian

c. AD 155–220

North African lawyer and the first great Latin theologian.

INTRODUCTION

Wherein is described the god of Marcion. He is shown to be utterly wanting in all the
attributes of the true God.

CHAPTER I.-PREFACE. REASON FOR A NEW WORK PONTUS LENDS ITS ROUGH CHARACTER TO THE HERETIC MARCION, A NATIVE. HIS HERESY CHARACTERIZED IN A BRIEF INVECTIVE.

1 Whatever in times past we have wrought in opposition to Marcion, is from the present
moment no longer to be accounted of. It is a new work which we are undertaking in lieu of
the old one. My original tract, as too hurriedly composed, I had subsequently superseded
by a fuller treatise. This latter I lost, before it was completely published, by the fraud
of a person who was then a brother, but became afterwards an apostate. He, as it happened,
had transcribed a portion of it, full of mistakes, and then published it. The necessity
thus arose for an amended work; and the occasion of the new edition induced me to make a
considerable addition to the treatise. This present text, therefore, of my work-which is
the third as superseding the second, but henceforward to be considered the first instead
of the third-renders a preface necessary to this issue of the tract itself that no reader
may be perplexed, if he should by chance fall in with the various forms of it which are
scattered about.

2 The Euxine Sea, as it is called, is self-contradictory in its nature, and deceptive in
its name. As you would not account it hospitable from its situation, so is it severed from
our more civilised waters by a certain stigma which attaches to its barbarous character.
The fiercest nations inhabit it, if indeed it can be called habitation, when life is
passed in waggons. They have no fixed abode; their life has no germ of civilization; they
indulge their libidinous desires without restraint, and for the most part naked. Moreover,
when they gratify secret lust, they hang up their quivers on their car-yokes, to warn off
the curious and rash observer. Thus without a blush do they prostitute their weapons of
war. The dead bodies of their parents they cut up with their sheep, and devour at their
feasts. They who have not died so as to become food for others, are thought to have died
an accursed death. Their women are not by their sex softened to modesty. They uncover the
breast, from which they suspend their battle-axes, and prefer warfare to marriage. In
their climate, too, there is the same rude nature. The day-time is never clear, the sun
never cheerful; the sky is uniformly cloudy; the whole year is wintry; the only wind that
blows is the angry North. Waters melt only by fires; their rivers flow not by reason of
the ice; their mountains are covered with heaps of snow. All things are torpid, all stiff
with cold.

3 Nothing there has the glow of life, but that ferocity which has given to scenic plays
their stories of the sacrifices of the Taurians, and the loves of the Colchians, and the
torments of the Caucasus. Nothing, however, in Pontus is so barbarous and sad as the fact
that Marcion was born there, fouler than any Scythian, more roving than the waggon-life of
the Sarmatian, more inhuman than the Massagete, more audacious than an Amazon, darker than
the cloud, (of Pontus) colder than its winter, more brittle than its ice, more deceitful
than the Ister, more craggy than Caucasus. Nay more, the true Prometheus, Almighty God, is
mangled by Marcion's blasphemies. Marcion is more savage than even the beasts of that
barbarous region. For what beaver was ever a greater emasculator than he who has abolished
the nuptial bond? What Pontic mouse ever had such gnawing powers as he who has gnawed the
Gospels to pieces? Verily, O Euxine, thou hast produced a monster more credible to
philosophers than to Christians. For the cynic Diogenes used to go about, lantern in hand,
at mid-day to find a man; whereas Marcion has quenched the light of his faith, and so lost
the God whom he had found. His disciples will not deny that his first faith he held along
with ourselves; a letter of his own proves this; so that for the future a heretic may from
his case be designated as one who, forsaking that which was prior, afterwards chose out
for himself that which was not in times past.

4 For in as far as what was delivered in times past and from the beginning will be held as
truth, in so far will that be accounted heresy which is brought in later. But another
brief treatise will maintain this position against heretics, who ought to be refuted even
without a consideration of their doctrines, on the ground that they are heretical by
reason of the novelty of their opinions. Now, so far as any controversy is to be admitted,
I will for the time (lest our compendious principle of novelty, being called in on all
occasions to our aid, should be imputed to want of confidence) begin with setting forth
our adversary's rule of belief, that it may escape no one what our main contention is to
be.

CHAPTER II.-MARCION, AIDED BY CERDON, TEACHES A DUALITY OF GODS; HOW HE CONSTRUCTED THIS HERESY OF AN EVIL AND A GOOD GOD.

1 The heretic of Pontus introduces two Gods, like the twin Symplegades of his own
shipwreck: One whom it was impossible to deny, i.e. our Creator; and one whom he will
never be able to prove, i.e. his own god. The unhappy man gained the first idea of his
conceit from the simple passage of our Lord's saying, which has reference to human beings
and not divine ones, wherein He disposes of those examples of a good tree and a corrupt
one; how that "the good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit, neither the corrupt tree
good fruit." Which means, that an honest mind and good faith cannot produce evil deeds,
any more than an evil disposition can produce good deeds. Now (like many other persons
now-a-days, especially those who have an heretical proclivity), while morbidly brooding
over the question of the origin of evil, his perception became blunted by the very
irregularity of his researches; and when he found the Creator declaring, "I am He that
createth evil," inasmuch as he had already concluded from other arguments, which are
satisfactory to every perverted mind, that God is the author of evil, so he now applied to
the Creator the figure of the corrupt tree bringing forth evil fruit, that is, moral evil,
and then presumed that there ought to be another god, after the analogy of the good tree
producing its good fruit. Accordingly, finding in Christ a different disposition, as it
were-one of a simple and pure benevolence -differing from the Creator, he readily argued
that in his Christ had been revealed a new and strange divinity; and then with a little
leaven he leavened the whole lump of the faith, flavouring it with the acidity of his own
heresy.

2 He had, moreover, in one Cerdon an abettor of this blasphemy,-a circumstance which made
them the more readily think that they saw most clearly their two gods, blind though they
were; for, in truth, they had not seen the one God with soundness of faith. To men of
diseased vision even one lamp looks like many. One of his gods, therefore, whom he was
obliged to acknowledge, he destroyed by defaming his attributes in the matter of evil; the
other, whom he laboured so hard to devise, he constructed, laying his foundation in the
principle of good. In what articles he arranged these natures, we show by our own
refutations of them.

CHAPTER III.-THE UNITY OF GOD. HE IS THE SUPREME BEING, AND THERE CANNOT BE A SECOND SUPREME.

1 The principal, and indeed the whole, contention lies in the point of number: whether two
Gods may be admitted, by poetic licence (if they must be), or pictorial fancy, or by the
third process, as we must now add, of heretical pravity. But the Christian verity has
distinctly declared this principle, "God is not, if He is not one; "because we more
properly believe that that has no existence which is not as it ought to be. In order,
however, that you may know that God is one, ask what God is, and you will find Him to be
not otherwise than one. So far as a human being can form a definition of God, I adduce one
which the conscience of all men will also acknowledge,-that God is the great Supreme
existing in eternity, unbegotten, unmade without beginning, without end. For such a
condition as this must needs be ascribed to that eternity which makes God to be the great
Supreme, because for such a purpose as this is this very attribute in God; and so on as to
the other qualities: so that God is the great Supreme in form and in reason, and in might
and in power. Now, since all are agreed on.

2 this point (because nobody will deny that God is in some sense the great Supreme, except
the man who shall be able to pronounce the opposite opinion, that God is but some inferior
being, in order that he may deny God by robbing Him of an attribute of God), what must be
the condition of the great Supreme Himself? Surely it must be that nothing is equal to
Him, i.e. that there is no other great supreme; because, if there were, He would have an
equal; and if He had an equal, He would be no longer the great Supreme, now that the
condition and (so to say) our law, which permits nothing to be equal to the great Supreme,
is subverted. That Being, then, which is the great Supreme, must needs be unique, by
having no equal, and so not ceasing to be the great Supreme. Therefore He will not
otherwise exist than by the condition whereby He has His being; that is, by His absolute
uniqueness. Since, then, God is the great Supreme, our Christian verity has rightly
declared, "God is not, if He is not one. Not as if we doubted His being God, by saying, He
is not, if He is not one; but because we define Him, in whose being we thoroughly believe,
to be that without which He is not God; that is to say, the great Supreme. But then ` the
great Supreme must needs be unique. This Unique Being, therefore, will be God-not
otherwise God than as the great Supreme;

3 and not otherwise the great Supreme than as having no equal; and not otherwise having no
equal than as being Unique. Whatever other god, then, you may introduce, you will at least
be unable to maintain his divinity under any other guise, than by ascribing to him too the
property of Godhead-both eternity and supremacy over all. How, therefore, can two great
Supremes co-exist, when this is the attribute of the Supreme Being, to have no equal,-an
attribute which belongs to One alone, and can by no means exist in two?

CHAPTER IV.-DEFENCE OF THE DIVINE UNITY AGAINST OBJECTION. NO ANALOGY BETWEEN HUMAN POWERS AND GOD'S SOVEREIGNTY. THE OBJECTION OTHERWISE UNTENABLE, FOR WHY STOP AT TWO GODS?

1 But some one may contend that two great Supremes may exist, distinct and separate in
their own departments; and may even adduce, as an example, the kingdoms of the world,
which, though they are so many in number, are yet supreme in their several regions. Such a
man will suppose that human circumstances are always comparable with divine ones. Now, if
this mode of reasoning be at all tolerable, what is to prevent our introducing, I will not
say a third god or a fourth, but as many as there are kings of the earth? Now it is God
that is in question, whose main property it is to admit of no comparison with Himself.
Nature itself, therefore, if not an Isaiah, or rather God speaking by Isaiah, will
deprecatingly ask, "To whom will ye liken me? " Human circumstances may perhaps be
compared with divine ones, but they may not be with God. God is one thing, and what
belongs to God is another thing. Once more: you who apply the example of a king, as a
great supreme, take care that you can use it properly. For although a king is supreme on
his throne next to God, he is still inferior to God; and when he is compared with God, he
will be dislodged from that great supremacy which is transferred to God. Now, this being
the case, how will you employ in a comparison with God an object as your example, which
fails in all the purposes which belong to a comparison?

2 Why, when supreme power among kings cannot evidently be multifarious, but only unique
and singular, is an exception made in the case of Him (of all others) who is King of
kings, and (from the exceeding greatness of His power, and the subjection of all other
ranks to Him) the very summit, as it were, of dominion? But even in the case of rulers of
that other form of government, where they one by one preside in a union of authority, if
with their petty prerogatives of royalty, so to say, they be brought on all points into
such a comparison with one another as shall make it clear which of them is superior in the
essential features and powers of royalty, it must needs follow that the supreme majesty
will redound to one alone,-all the others being gradually, by the issue of the comparison,
removed and excluded from the supreme authority. Thus, although, when spread out in
several hands, supreme authority seems to be multifarious, yet in its own powers, nature,
and condition, it is unique. It follows, then, that if two gods are compared, as two kings
and two supreme authorities, the concentration of authority must necessarily, according to
the meaning of the comparison, be conceded to one of the two; because it is clear from his
own superiority that he is the supreme, his rival being now vanquished, and proved to be
not the greater, however great.

3 Now, from this failure of his rival, the other is unique in power, possessing a certain
solitude, as it were, in his singular pre-eminence. The inevitable conclusion at which we
arrive, then, on this point is this: either we must deny that God is the great Supreme,
which no wise man will allow himself to do; or say that God has no one else with whom to
share His power.

CHAPTER V.-THE DUAL PRINCIPLE FALLS TO THE GROUND; PLURALITY OF GODS, OF WHATEVER NUMBER, MORE CONSISTENT. ABSURDITY AND INJURY TO PIETY RESULTING FROM MARCION'S DUALITY.

1 But on what principle did Marcion confine his supreme powers to two? I would first ask,
If there be two, why not more? Because if number be compatible with the substance of
Deity, the richer you make it in number the better. Valentinus was more consistent and
more liberal; for he, having once imagined two deities, Bythos and Sige, poured forth a
swarm of divine essences, a brood of no less than thirty ¦ons, like the sow of ¦neas. Now,
whatever principle refuses to admit several supreme begins, the same must reject even two,
for there is plurality in the very lowest number after one. After unity, number commences.
So, again, the same principle which could admit two could admit more. After two, multitude
begins, now that one is exceeded. In short, we feel that reason herself expressly forbids
the belief in more gods than one, because the self-same rule lays down one God and not
two, which declares that God must be a Being to which, as the great Supreme, nothing is
equal; and that Being to which nothing is equal must, moreover, be unique. But further,
what can be the use or advantage in supposing two supreme beings, two co-ordinate powers?
What numerical difference could there be when two equals differ not from one? For that
thing which is the same in two is one. Even if there were several equals, all would be
just as much one, because, as equals, they would not differ one from another.

2 So, if of two beings neither differs from the other, since both of them are on the
supposition supreme, both being gods, neither of them is more excellent than the other;
and so, having no pre-eminence, their numerical distinction has no reason in it. Number,
moreover, in the Deity ought to be consistent with the highest reason, or else His worship
would be brought into doubt. For consider now, if, when I saw two Gods before me (who,
being both Supreme Beings, were equal to each other), I were to worship them both, what
should I be doing? I should be much afraid that the abundance of my homage would be deemed
superstition rather than piety. Because, as both of them are so equal and are both
included in either of the two, I might serve them both acceptably in only one; and by this
very means I should attest their equality and unity, provided that I worshipped them
mutually the one in the other, because in the one both are present to me. If I were to
worship one of the two, I should be equally conscious of seeming to pour contempt on the
uselessness of a numerical distinction, which was superfluous, because it indicated no
difference; in other words, I should think it the safer course to worship neither of these
two Gods than one of them with some scruple of conscience, or both of them to none effect.

CHAPTER VI.-MARCION UNTRUE TO HIS THEORY. HE PRETENDS THAT HIS GODS ARE EQUAL, BUT HE REALLY MAKES THEM DIVERSE. THEN, ALLOWING THEIR DIVINITY, DENIES THIS DIVERSITY.

1 Thus far our discussion seems to imply that Marcion makes his two gods equal. For while
we have been maintaining that God ought to be believed as the one only great Supreme
Being, excluding from Him every possibility of equality, we have treated of these topics
on the assumption of two equal Gods; but nevertheless, by teaching that no equals can
exist according to the law of the Supreme Being, we have sufficiently affirmed the
impossibility that two equals should exist. For the rest, however, we know full well that
Marcion makes his gods unequal: one judicial, harsh, mighty in war; the other mild,
placid, and simply good and excellent. Let us with similar care consider also this aspect
of the question, whether diversity (in the Godhead) can at any rate contain two, since
equality therein failed to do so. Here again the same rule about the great Supreme will
protect us, inasmuch as it settles the entire condition of the Godhead. Now, challenging,
and in a certain sense arresting the meaning of our adversary, who does not deny that the
Creator is God, I most fairly object against him that he has no room for any diversity in
his gods, because, having once confessed that they are on a par, he cannot now pronounce
them different; not indeed that human beings may not be very different under the same
designation, be because the Divine Being can be neither said nor believed to be God,
except as the great Supreme.

2 Since, therefore, he is obliged to acknowledge that the God whom he does not deny is the
great Supreme, it is inadmissible that he should predicate of the Supreme Being such a
diminution as should subject Him to another Supreme Being. For He ceases (to be Supreme),
if He becomes subject to any. Besides, it is not the characteristic of God to cease from
any attribute of His divinity-say, from His supremacy. For at this rate the supremacy
would be endangered even in Marcion's more powerful god, if it were capable of
depreciation in the Creator. When, therefore, two gods are pronounced to be two great
Supremes, it must needs follow that neither of them is greater or less than the other,
neither of them loftier or lowlier than the other. If you deny him to be God whom you call
inferior, you deny the supremacy of this inferior being. But when you confessed both gods
to be divine, you confessed then both to be supreme. Nothing will you be able to take away
from either of them; nothing will you be able to add. By allowing their divinity, you have
denied their diversity.

CHAPTER VII.-OTHER BEINGS BESIDES GOD ARE IN SCRIPTURE CALLED GOD. THIS OBJECTION FRIVOLOUS, FOR IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF NAMES. THE DIVINE ESSENCE IS THE THING AT ISSUE. HERESY, IN ITS GENERAL TERMS, THUS FAR TREATED.

1 But this argument you will try to shake with an objection from the name of God, by
alleging that that name is a vague one, and applied to other beings also; as it is
written, "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; He judgeth among the gods. And
again, "I have said, Ye are gods. As therefore the attribute of supremacy would be
inappropriate to these, although they are called gods, so is it to the Creator. This is a
foolish objection; and my answer to it is, that its author fails to consider that quite as
strong an objection might be urged against the (superior) god of Marcion: he too is called
god, but is not on that account proved to be divine, as neither are angels nor men, the
Creator's handwork. If an identity of names affords a presumption in support of equality
of condition, how often do worthless menials strut insolently in the names of kings-your
Alexanders, Caesars, and Pompeys! This fact, however, does not detract from the real
attributes of the royal persons, Nay more, the very idols of the Gentiles are called gods.
Yet not one of them is divine because he is called a god. It is not, therefore, for the
name of god, for its sound or its written form, that I am claiming the supremacy in the
Creator, but for the essence to which the name belongs;

2 and when I find that essence alone is unbegotten and unmade-alone eternal, and the maker
of all things-it is not to its name, but its state, not to its designation, but its
condition, that I ascribe and appropriate the attribute of the supremacy. And so, because
the essence to which I ascribe it has come to be called god, you suppose that I ascribe it
to the name, because I must needs use a name to express the essence, of which indeed that
Being consists who is called God, and who is accounted the great Supreme because of His
essence, not from His name. In short, Marcion himself, when he imputes this character to
his god, imputes it to the nature, not to the word. That supremacy, then, which we ascribe
to God in consideration of His essence, and not because of His name, ought, as we
maintain, to be equal in both the beings who consist of that substance for which the name
of God is given; because, in as far as they are called gods (i.e. supreme beings, on the
strength, of course, of their unbegotten and eternal, and therefore great and supreme
essence), in so far the attribute of being the great Supreme cannot be regarded as less or
worse in one than in another great Supreme. If the happiness, and sublimity, and
perfection of the Supreme Being shall hold good of Marcion's god, it will equally so of
ours; and if not of ours, it will equally not hold of Marcion's.

3 Therefore two supreme beings will be neither equal nor unequal: not equal, because the
principle which we have just expounded, that the Surpeme Being admits of no comparison
with Himself, forbids it; not unequal, because another principle meets us respecting the
Supreme Being, that He is capable of no diminution. So, Marcion, you are caught in the
midst of your own Pontic tide. The waves of truth overwhelm you on every side. You can
neither set up equal gods nor unequal ones. For there are not two; so far as the question
of number is properly concerned. Although the whole matter of the two gods is at issue, we
have yet confined our discussion to certain bounds, within which we shall now have to
contend about separate peculiarities.

CHAPTER VIII.-SPECIFIC POINTS. THE NOVELTY OF MARCION'S GOD FATAL TO HIS PRETENSIONS. GOD IS FROM EVERLASTING, HE CANNOT BE IN ANY WISE NEW.

In the first place, how arrogantly do the Marcionites build up their stupid system,
bringing forward a new god, as if we were ashamed of the old one! So schoolboys are proud
of their new shoes, but their old master beats their strutting vanity out of them. Now
when I hear of a new god, who, in the old world and in the old time and under the old god
was unknown and unheard of; whom, (accounted as no one through such long centuries back,
and ancient in men's very ignorance of him), a certain "Jesus Christ," and none else
revealed; whom Christ revealed, they say-Christ himself new, according to them, even, in
ancient names-I feel grateful for this conceit of theirs. For by its help I shall at once
be able to prove the heresy of their tenet of a new deity. It will turn out to be such a
novelty as has made gods even for the heathen by some new and yet again and ever new title
for each several deification. What new god is there, except a false one? Not even Saturn
will be proved to be a god by all his ancient fame, because it was a novel pretence which
some time or other produced even him, when it first gave him godship. On the contrary,
living and perfect Deity has its origin neither in novelty nor in antiquity, but in its
own true nature. Eternity has no time. It is itself all time. It acts; it cannot then
suffer. It cannot be born, therefore it lacks age. God, if old, forfeits the eternity that
is to come; if new, the eternity which is past. The newness bears witness to a beginning;
the oldness threatens an end. God, moreover, is as independent of beginning and end as He
is of time, which is only the arbiter and measurer of a beginning and an end.

CHAPTER IX.-MARCION'S GNOSTIC PRETENSIONS VAIN, FOR THE TRUE GOD IS NEITHER UNKNOWN NOR UNCERTAIN. THE CREATOR, WHOM HE OWNS TO BE GOD, ALONE SUPPLIES AN INDUCTION, BY WHICH TO JUDGE OF THE TRUE GOD.

1 Now I know full well by what perceptive faculty they boast of their new god; even their
knowledge. It is, however, this very discovery of a novel thing-so striking to common
minds-as well as the natural gratification which is inherent in novelty, that I wanted to
refute, and thence further to challenge a proof of this unknown god. For him whom by their
knowledge they present to us as new, they prove to have been unknown previous to that
knowledge. Let us keep, within the strict limits and measure of our argument. Convince me
there could have been an unknown god. I find, no doubt, that altars have been lavished on
unknown gods; that, however, is the idolatry of Athens. And on uncertain gods; but that,
too, is only Roman superstition. Furthermore, uncertain gods are not well known, because
no certainty about them exists; and because of this uncertainty they are therefore
unknown. Now, which of these two titles shall we carve for Marcion's god? Both, I suppose,
as for a being who is still uncertain, and was formerly unknown. For inasmuch as the
Creator, being a known God, caused him to be unknown; so, as being a certain God, he made
him to be uncertain. But I will not go so far out of my way, as to say:

2 If God was unknown and concealed, He was overshadowed in such a region of darkness, as
must have been itself new and unknown, and be even now likewise uncertain-some immense
region indeed, one undoubtedly greater than the God whom it concealed. But I will briefly
state my subject, and afterwards most fully pursue it, promising that God neither could
have been, nor ought to have been, unknown. Could not have been, because of His greatness;
ought not to have been, because of His goodness, especially as He is (supposed, by
Marcion) more excellent in both these attributes than our Creator. Since, however, I
observe that in some points the proof of every new and heretofore unknown god ought, for
its test, to be compared to the form of the Creator, it will be my duty first of all to
show that this very course is adopted by me in a settled plan, such as I might with
greater confidence use in support of my argument. Before every other consideration, (let
me ask) how it happens that you, who acknowledge the Creator to be God, and from your
knowledge confess Him to be prior in existence, do not know that the other god should be
examined by you in exactly the same course of investigation which has taught you how to
find out a god in the first case? Every prior thing has furnished the rule for the latter.
In the present question two gods are propounded, the unknown and the known. Concerning the
known there is no question.

3 It is plain that He exists, else He would not be known. The dispute is concerning the
unknown god. Possibly he has no existence; because, if he had, he would have been known.
Now that which, so long as it is unknown, is an object to be questioned, is an uncertainty
so long as it remains thus questionable; and all the while it is in this state of
uncertainty, it possibly has no existence at all. You have a god who is so far certain, as
he is known; and uncertain, as unknown. This being the case, does it appear to you to be
justly defensible, that uncertain-ties should be submitted for proof to the rule, and
form, and standard of certainties? Now, if to the subject before us, which is in itself
full of uncertainty thus far, there be applied also arguments derived from uncertainties,
we shall be involved in such a series of questions arising out of our treatment of these
same uncertain arguments, as shall by reason of their uncertainty be dangerous to the
faith, and we shall drift into those insoluble questions which the apostle has no
affection for.

4 If, again, in things wherein there is found a diversity of condition, they shall
prejudge, as no doubt they will, uncertain, doubtful, and intricate points, by the
certain, undoubted, and clear sides of their rule, it will probably happen that (those
points) will not be submitted to the standard of certainties for determination, as being
freed by the diversity of their essential condition from the application of such a
standard in all other respects. As, therefore, it is two gods which are the subject of our
proposition, their essential condition must be the same in both. For, as concerns their
divinity, they are both unbegotten, unmade, eternal. This will be their essential
condition. All other points Marcion himself seems to have made, light of, for he has
placed them in a different category. They are subsequent in the order of treatment;
indeed, they will not have to be brought into the discussion, since on the essential
condition there is no dispute. Now there is this absence of our dispute, because they are
both of them gods. Those things, therefore, whose community of condition is evident, will,
when brought to a test on the ground of that common condition, have to be submitted,
although they are uncertain, to the standard of those certainties with which they are
classed in the community of their essential condition, so as on this account to share also
in their manner of proof. I shall therefore contend with the greatest confidence that he
is not God who is to-day uncertain, because he has been hitherto unknown;

5 for of whomsoever it is evident that he is God, from this very fact it is (equally)
evident, that he never has been unknown, and therefore never uncertain.

CHAPTER X.-THE CREATOR WAS KNOWN AS THE TRUE GOD FROM THE FIRST BY HIS CREATION. ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE SOUL AND CONSCIENCE OF MAN BEFORE HE WAS REVEALED BY MOSES.

1 For indeed, as the Creator of all things, He was from the beginning discovered equally
with them, they having been themselves manifested that He might become known as God. For
although Moses, some long while afterwards, seems to have been the first to introduce the
knowledge of the God of the universe in the temple of his writings, yet the birthday of
that knowledge must not on that account be reckoned from the Pentateuch. For the volume of
Moses does not at all initiate the knowledge of the Creator, but from the first gives out
that it is to be traced from Paradise and Adam, not from Egypt and Moses. The greater
part, therefore, of the human race, although they knew not even the name of Moses, much
less his writings, yet knew the God of Moses; and even when idolatry overshadowed the
world with its extreme prevalence, men still spoke of Him separately by His own name as
God, and the God of gods, and said, "If God grant," and, "As God pleases," and, "I commend
you to God. Reflect, then, whether they knew Him, of whom they testify that He can do all
things. To none of the writings of Moses do they owe this. The soul was before prophecy.
From the beginning the knowledge of God is the dowry of the soul, one and the same amongst
the Egyptians, and the Syrians, and the tribes of Pontus. For their souls call the God of
the Jews their God.

2 Do not, O barbarian heretic, put Abraham before the world. Even if the Creator had been
the God of one family, He was yet not later than your god; even in Pontus was He known
before him. Take then your standard from Him who came first: from the Certain (must be
judged) the uncertain; from the Known the unknown. Never shall God be hidden, never shall
God be wanting. Always shall He be understood, always be heard, nay even seen, in
whatsoever way He shall wish. God has for His witnesses this whole being of ours, and this
universe wherein we dwell. He is thus, because not unknown, proved to be both God and the
only One, although another still tries hard to make out his claim. 3 Chapter XI.-The
Evidence for God External to Him; But the External Creation Which Yields This Evidence is
Really Not Extraneous, for All Things are God's. Marcion's God, Having Nothing to Show for
Himself, No God at All. Marcion's Scheme Absurdly Defective, Not Furnishing Evidence for
His New God's Existence, Which Should at Least Be Able to Compete with the Full Evidence
of the Creator.

4 And justly so, they say. For who is there that is less well known by his own (inherent)
qualities than by strange ones? No one. Well, I keep to this statement. How could anything
be strange. to God, to whom, if He were personally existent, nothing would be strange? For
this is the attribute of God, that all things are His, and all things belong to Him; or
else this question would not so readily be heard from us: What has He to do with things
strange to Him?-a point which will be more fully noticed in its proper place. It is now
sufficient to observe, that no one is proved to exist to whom nothing is proved to belong.
For as the Creator is shown to be God, God without any doubt, from the fact that all
things are His, and nothing is strange to Him; so the rival god is seen to be no god, from
the circumstance that nothing is his, and all things are therefore strange to him. Since,
then, the universe belongs to the Creator, I see no room for any other god. All things are
full of their Author, and occupied by Him. If in created beings there be any portion of
space anywhere void of Deity, the void will be of a false deity clearly. By falsehood the
truth is made clear. Why cannot the vast crowd of false gods somewhere find room for
Marcion's god?

5 This, therefore, I insist upon, from the character of the Creator, that God must have
been known from the works of some world peculiarly His own, both in its human
constituents, and the rest of its organic life; when even the error of the world has
presumed to call gods those men whom it sometimes acknowledges, on the ground that in
every such case something is. seen which provides for the uses and advantages of life.
Accordingly, this also was believed from the character of God to be a divine function;
namely, to teach or pointout what is convenient and needful in human concerns. So
completely has the authority which has given influence to a false divinity been borrowed
from that source, whence it had previously flowed forth to the true one. One stray
vegetable at least Marcion's god ought to have produced as his own; so might he be
preached up as a new Triptolemus. Or else state some reason which shall be worthy of a
God, why he, supposing him to exist, created nothing; because he must, on supposition of
his existence, have been a creator, on that very principle on which it is clear to us thai
our God is no otherwise existent, than as having been the Creator of this universe of
ours.

6 For, once for all, the rule will hold good, that they cannot both acknowledge the
Creator to be God, and also prove him divine whom they wish to be equally believed in as
God, except they adjust him to the standard of Him whom they and all men hold to be God;
which is this, that whereas no one doubts the Creator to be God on the express ground of
His having made the universe, so, on the selfsame ground, no one ought to believe that he
also is God who has made nothing-except, indeed, some good reason be forthcoming. And this
must needs be limited to one of two: he was either unwilling to create, or else unable.
There is no third reason. Now, that he was unable, is a reason unworthy of God. Whether to
have been unwilling to be a worthy one, I want to inquire. Tell me, Marcion, did your god
wish himself to be recognised at any time or not? With what other purpose did he come down
from heaven, and preach, and having suffered rise again from the dead, if it were not that
he might be acknowledged? And, doubtless, since he was acknowledged, he willed it. For no
circumstance could have happened to him, if he had been unwilling. What indeed tended so
greatly to the knowledge of himself, as his appearing in the humiliation of the flesh,-a
degradation all the lower indeed if the flesh were only illusory?

7 For it was all the more shameful if he, who brought on himself the Creator's curse by
hanging on a tree, only pretended the assumption of a bodily substance. A far nobler
foundation might he have laid for the knowledge of himself in some evidences of a creation
of his own, especially when he had to become known in opposition to Him in whose territory
he had remained unknown by any works from the beginning. For how happens it that the
Creator, although unaware, as the Marcionites aver, of any god being above Himself, and
who used to declare even with an oath that He existed alone, should have guarded by such
mighty works the knowledge of Himself, about which, on the assumption of His being alone
without a rival, He might have spared Himself all care; while the Superior God, knowing
all the while how well furnished in power His inferior rival was, should have made no
provision at all towards getting Himself acknowledged? Whereas He ought to have produced
works more illustrious and exalted still, in order that He might, after the Creator's
standard, both be acknowledged as God from His works, and even by nobler deeds show
Himself to be more potent and more gracious than the Creator.

CHAPTER XII.-IMPOSSIBILITY OF ACKNOWLEDGING GOD WITHOUT THIS EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF HIS EXISTENCE. MARCION'S REJECTION OF SUCH EVIDENCE FOR HIS GOD SAVOURS OF IMPUDENCE AND MALIGNITY.

1 But even if we were able to allow that he exists, we should yet be bound to argue that
he is without a cause. For he who had nothing (to show for himself as proof of his
existence), would be without a cause, since (such) proof is the whole cause that there
exists some person to whom the proof belongs. Now, in as far as nothing ought to be
without a cause, that is, without a proof (because if it be without a cause, it is all one
as if it be not, not having the very proof which is the cause of a thing), in so far shall
I more worthily believe that God does not exist, than that He exists without a cause. For
he is without a cause who has not a cause by reason of not having a proof. God, however,
ought not to be without a cause, that is to say, without a proof. Thus, as often as I show
that He exists without a cause, although (I allow that) He exists, I do really determine
this, that He does not exist; because, if He had existed, He could not have existed
altogether without a cause. So, too, even in regard to faith itself, I say that he seeks
to obtain it with out cause from man, who is otherwise accustomed to believe in God from
the idea he gets of Him from the testimony of His works:

2 (without cause, I repeat, ) because he has provided no such proof as that whereby man
has acquired the knowledge of God. For although most persons believe in Him, they do not
believe at once by unaided reason, without having some token of Deity in works worthy of
God. And so upon this ground of inactivity and lack of works he is guilty both of
impudence and malignity: of impudence, in aspiring after a belief which is not due to him,
and for which he has provided no foundation; of malignity, in having brought many persons
under the charge of unbelief by furnishing to them no groundwork for their faith.

CHAPTER XIII.-THE MARCIONITES DEPRECIATE THE CREATION, WHICH, HOWEVER, IS A WORTHY WITNESS OF GOD. THIS WORTHINESS ILLUSTRATED BY REFERENCES TO THE HEATHEN PHILOSOPHERS, WHO WERE APT TO INVEST THE SEVERAL PARTS OF CREATION WITH DIVINE ATTRIBUTES.

1 While we are expelling from this rank (of Deity) a god who has no evidence to show for
himself which is so proper and God-worthy as the testimony of the Creator, Marcion's most
shameless followers with haughty impertinence fall upon the Creator's works to destroy
them. To be sure, say they, the world is a grand work, worthy of a God. Then is the
Creator not at all a God? By all means He is God. Therefore the world is not unworthy of
God, for God has made nothing unworthy of Himself; although it was for man, and not for
Himself, that He made the world, (and) although every work is less than its maker. And
yet, if to have been the author of our creation, such as it is, be unworthy of God, how
much more unworthy of Him is it to have created absolutely nothing at all!-not even a
production which, although unworthy, might yet have encouraged the hope of some better
attempt. To say somewhat, then, concerning the alleged unworthiness of this world's
fabric, to which among the Greeks also is assigned a name of ornament and grace, not of
sordidness, those very professors of wisdom, from whose genius every heresy derives its
spirit, called the said unworthy elements divine; as Thales did water, Heraclitus fire,
Anaximenes air, Anaximander all the heavenly bodies, Strato the sky and earth, Zeno the
air and ether, and Plato the stars, which he calls a fiery kind of gods;

2 whilst concerning the world, when they considered indeed its magnitude, and strength,
and power, and honour, and glory,-the abundance, too, the regularity, and law of those
individual elements which contribute to the production, the nourishment, the ripening, and
the reproduction of all things,-the majority of the philosophers hesitated to assign a
beginning and an end to the said world, lest its constituent elements, great as they
undoubtedly are, should fail to be regarded as divine, which are objects of worship with
the Persian magi, the Egyptian hierophants, and the Indian gymnosophists. The very
superstition of the crowd, inspired by the common idolatry, when ashamed of the names and
fables of their ancient dead borne by their idols, has recourse to the interpretation of
natural objects, and so with much ingenuity cloaks its own disgrace, figuratively reducing
Jupiter to a heated substance, and Juno to an aërial one (according to the literal sense
of the Greek words); Vesta, in like manner, to fire, and the Muses to waters, and the
Great Mother to the earth, mowed as to its crops, ploughed up with lusty arms, and watered
with baths. Thus Osiris also, whenever he is buried, and looked for to come to life again,
and with joy recovered, is an emblem of the regularity wherewith the fruits of the ground
return, and the elements recover life, and the year comes round; as also the lions of
Mithras are philosophical sacraments of arid and scorched nature.

3 It is, indeed, enough for me that natural elements, foremost in site and state, should
have been more readily regarded as divine than as unworthy of God. I will, however, come
down to humbler objects. A single floweret from the hedgerow, I say not from the meadows;
a single little shellfish from any sea, I say not from the Red Sea; a single stray wing of
a moorfowl, I say nothing of the peacock,-will, I presume, prove to you that the Creator
was but a sorry artificer!

CHAPTER XIV.-ALL PORTIONS OF CREATION ATTEST THE EXCELLENCE OF THE CREATOR, WHOM MARCION VILIFIES. HIS INCONSISTENCY HEREIN EXPOSED. MARCION'S OWN GOD DID NOT HESITATE TO USE THE CREATOR'S WORKS IN INSTITUTING HIS OWN RELIGION.

1 Now, when you make merry with those minuter animals, which their glorious Maker has
purposely endued with a profusion. of instincts and resources, -thereby teaching us that
greatness has its proofs in lowliness, just as (according to the apostle)there is power
even in infirmity -imitate, if you can, the cells of the bee, the hills of the ant, the
webs of the spider, and the threads of the silkworm; endure, too, if you know how, those
very creatures which infest your couch and house, the poisonous ejections of the blister-
beetle, the spikes of the fly, and the gnat's Sheath and sting. What of the greater
animals, when the small ones so affect you with pleasure or pain, that you cannot even in
their case despise their Creator? Finally, take a circuit round your own self; survey man
within and without. Even this handiwork of our God will be pleasing to you, inasmuch as
your own lord, that better god, loved it so well, and for your sake was at the pains of
descending from the third heaven to these poverty-stricken elements, and for the same
reason was actually crucified in this sorry apartment of the Creator. Indeed, up to the
present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes
his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk
wherewithal he gives them the nourishment of children;

2 nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very
sacraments the "beggarly elements" of the Creator. You, however, are a disciple above his
master, and a servant above his lord; you have a higher reach of discernment than his; you
destroy what he requires. I wish to examine whether you are at least honest in this, so as
to have no longing for those things which you destroy. You are an enemy to the sky, and
yet you are glad to catch its freshness in your houses. You disparage the earth, although
the elemental parent of your own flesh, as if it were your undoubted enemy, and yet you
extract from it all its fatness for your food. The sea, too, you reprobate, but are
continually using its produce, which you account the more sacred diet. If I should offer
you a rose, you will not disdain its Maker. You hypocrite, however much of abstinence you
use to show yourself a Marcionite, that is, a repudiator of your Maker (for if the world
displeased you, such abstinence ought to have been affected by you as a martyrdom), you
will have to associate yourself with the Creator's material production, into what element
soever you shall be dissolved. How hard is this obstinacy of yours! You vilify the things
in which you both live and die.

CHAPTER XV.-THE LATENESS OF THE REVELATION OF MARCION'S GOD. THE QUESTION OF THE PLACE OCCUPIED BY THE RIVAL DEITIES. INSTEAD OF TWO GODS, MARCION REALLY (ALTHOUGH, AS IT WOULD SEEM, UNCONSCIOUSLY) HAD NINE GODS IN HIS SYSTEM.

1 After all, or, if you like, before all, since you have said that he has a creation of
his own, and his own world, and his own sky; we shall see, indeed, about that third
heaven, when we come to discuss even your own apostle. Meanwhile, whatever is the
(created) substance, it ought at any rate to have made its appearance in company with its
own god. But now, how happens it that the Lord has been revealed since the twelfth year of
Tiberius Caesar, while no creation of His at all has been discovered up to the fifteenth
of the Emperor Severus; although, as being more excellent than the paltry works of the
Creator, it should certainly have ceased to conceal itself, when its lord and author no
longer lies hid? I ask, therefore, if it was unable to manifest itself in this world, how
did its Lord appear in this world? If this world received its Lord, why was it not able to
receive the created substance, unless perchance it was greater than its Lord? But now
there arises a question about place, having reference both to the world above and to the
God thereof. For, behold, if he has his own world beneath him, above the Creator, he has
certainly fixed it in a position, the space of which was empty between his own feet and
the Creator's head. Therefore God both Himself occupied local space, and caused the world
to occupy local space;

2 and this local space, too, will be greater than God and the world together. For in no
case is that which contains not greater than that which is contained. And indeed we must
look well to it that no small patches be left here and there vacant, in which some third
god also may be able with a world of his own to foist himself in. Now, begin to reckon up
your gods. There will be local space for a god, not only as being greater than God, but as
being also unbegotten and unmade, and therefore eternal, and equal to God, in which God
has ever been. Then, inasmuch as He too has fabricated a world out of some underlying
material which is unbegotten, and unmade, and contemporaneous with God, just as Marcion
holds of the Creator, you reduce this likewise to the dignity of that local space which
has enclosed two gods, both God and matter. For matter also is a god according to the rule
of Deity, being (to be sure) unbegotten, and unmade, and eternal. If, however, it was out
of nothing that he made his world, this also (our heretic) will be obliged to predicate of
the Creator, to whom he subordinates matter in the substance of the world. But it will be
only right that he too should have made his world out of matter, because the same process
occurred to him as God which lay before the Creator as equally God.

3 And thus you may, if you please, reckon up so far, three gods as Marcion's,-the Maker,
local space, and matter. Furthermore, he in like manner makes the Creator a god in local
space, which is itself to be appraised on a precisely identical scale of dignity; and to
Him as its lord he subordinates matter, which is notwithstanding unbegotten, and unmade,
and by reason hereof eternal. With this matter he further associates evil, an unbegotten
principle with an unbegotten object, an unmade with an unmade, and an eternal with an
eternal; so here he makes a fourth God. Accordingly you have three substances of Deity in
the higher instances, and in the lower ones four. When to these are added their Christs-
the one which appeared in the time of Tiberius, the other which is promised by the
Creator-Marcion suffers a manifest wrong from those persons who assume that he holds two
gods, whereas he implies no less than nine. though he knows it not.

CHAPTER XVI.-MARCION ASSUMES THE EXISTENCE OF TWO GODS FROM THE ANTITHESIS BETWEEN THINGS VISIBLE AND THINGS INVISIBLE. THIS ANTITHETICAL PRINCIPLE IN FACT CHARACTERISTIC OF THE WORKS OF THE CREATOR, THE ONE GOD-MAKER OF ALL THINGS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE.

1 Since, then, that other world does not appear, nor its god either, the only resource
left to them is to divide things into the two classes of visible and invisible, with two
gods for their authors, and so to claim the invisible for their own, (the supreme) God.
But who, except an heretical spirit, could ever bring his mind to believe that the
invisible part of creation belongs to him who had previously displayed no visible thing,
rather than to Him who, by His operation on the visible world, produced a belief in the
invisible also, since it is far more reasonable to give one's assent after some samples
(of a work) than after none? We shall see to what author even (your favourite) apostle
attributes the invisible creation, when we come to examine him. At present (we withhold
his testimony), for we are for the most part engaged in preparing the way, by means of
common sense and fair arguments, for a belief in the future support of the Scriptures
also. We affirm, then, that this diversity of things visible and invisible must on this
ground be attributed to the Creator, even because the whole of His work consists of
diversities-of things corporeal and incorporeal; of animate and inanimate; of vocal and
mute of moveable and stationary; of productive and sterile; of arid and moist; of hot and
cold. Man, too, is himself similarly tempered with diversity, both in his body and in his
sensation. Some of his members are strong, others weak; some comely, others uncomely;

2 some twofold, others unique; some like, others unlike. In like manner there is diversity
also in his sensation: now joy, then anxiety; now love, then hatred; now anger, then
calmness. Since this is the case, inasmuch as the whole of this creation of ours has been
fashioned with a reciprocal rivalry amongst its several parts, the invisible ones are due
to the visible, and not to be ascribed to any other author than Him to whom their
counterparts are imputed, marking as they do diversity in the Creator Himself, who orders
what He forbade, and forbids what He ordered; who also strikes and heals. Why do they take
Him to be uniform in one class of things alone, as the Creator of visible things, and only
them; whereas He ought to be believed to have created both the visible and the invisible,
in just the same way as life and death, or as evil things and peace? And verily, if the
invisible creatures are greater than the visible, which are in their own sphere great, so
also is it fitting that the greater should be His to whom the great belong; because
neither the great, nor indeed the greater, can be suitable property for one who seems to
possess not even the smallest things.

CHAPTER XVII.-NOT ENOUGH, AS THE MARCIONITES PRETEND, THAT THE SUPREME GOD SHOULD RESCUE MAN; HE MUST ALSO HAVE CREATED HIM. THE EXISTENCE OF GOD PROVED BY HIS CREATION, A PRIOR CONSIDERATION TO HIS CHARACTER.

1 Pressed by these arguments, they exclaim: One work is sufficient for our god; he has
delivered man by his supreme and most excellent goodness, which is preferable to (the
creation of) all the locusts. What superior god is this, of whom it has not been possible
to find any work so great as the man of the lesser god! Now without doubt the first thing
you have to do is to prove that he exists, after the same manner that the existence of God
must ordinarily be proved-by his works; and only after that by his good deeds. For the
first question is, Whether he exists? and then, What is his character? The former is to be
tested by his works, the other by the beneficence of them. It does not simply follow that
he exists, because he is said to have wrought deliverance for man; but only after it shall
have been settled that he exists, will there be room for saying that he has affected this
liberation. And even this point also must have its own evidence, because it may be quite
possible both that he has existence, and yet has not wrought the alleged deliverance. Now
in that section of our work which concerned the question of the unknown god, two points
were made clear enough-both that he had created nothing: and that he ought to have been a
creator, in order to be known by his works; because, if he had existed, he ought to have
been known, and that too from the beginning of things;

2 for it was not fit that God should have lain hid. It will be necessary that I should
revert to the very trunk of that question of the unknown god, that I may strike off into
some of its other branches also. For it will be first of all proper to inquire, Why he,
who afterwards brought himself into notice, did so-so late, and not at the very first?
From creatures, with which as God he was indeed so closely connected (and the closer this
connection was, the greater was his goodness), he ought never to have been hidden. For it
cannot be pretended that there was not either any means of arriving at the knowledge of
God, or a good reason for it, when from the beginning man was in the world, for whom the
deliverance is now come; as was also that malevolence of the Creator, in opposition to
which the good God has wrought the deliverance. He was therefore either ignorant of the
good reason for and means of his own necessary manifestation, or doubted them; or else was
either unable or unwilling to encounter them. All these alternatives are unworthy of God,
especially the supreme and best. This topic, however, we shall afterwards more fully
treat, with a condemnation of the tardy manifestation; we at present simply point it out.

CHAPTER XVIII.-NOTWITHSTANDING THEIR CONCEITS, THE GOD OF THE MARCIONITES FAILS IN THE VOUCHERS BOTH OF CREATED EVIDENCE AND OF ADEQUATE REVELATION.

1 Well, then, he has now advanced into notice, just when he willed, when he could, when
the destined hour arrived. For perhaps he was hindered hitherto by his leading star, or
some weird malignants, or Saturn in quadrature, or Mars at the trine. The Marcionites are
very strongly addicted to astrology; nor do they blush to get their livelihood by help of
the very stars which were made by the Creator (whom they depreciate). We must here also
treat of the quality of the (new) revelation; whether Marcion's supreme god has become
known in a way worthy of him, so as to secure the proof of his existence: and in the way
of truth, so that he may be believed to be the very being who had been already proved to
have been revealed in a manner worthy of his character. For things which are worthy of God
will prove the existence of God. We maintain that God must first be known from nature, and
afterwards authenticated by instruction: from nature by His works; by instruction, through
His revealed announcements. Now, in a case where nature is excluded, no natural means (of
knowledge) are furnished. He ought, therefore, to have carefully supplied a revelation of
himself, even by announcements, especially as he had to be revealed in opposition to One
who, after so many and so great works, both of creation and revealed announcement, had
with difficulty succeeded in satisfying men's faith. In what manner, therefore, has the
revelation been made?

2 If by man's conjectural guesses, do not say that God can possibly become known in any
other way than by Himself, and appeal not only to the standard of the Creator, but to the
conditions both of God's greatness and man's littleness; so that man seem not by any
possibility to be greater than God, by having somehow drawn Him out into public
recognition, when He was Himself unwilling to become known by His own energies, although
man's littleness has been able, according to experiments all over the world, more easily
to fashion for itself gods, than to follow the true God whom men now understand by nature.
As for the rest, if man shall be thus able to devise a god,-as Romulus did Consus, and
Tatius Cloacina, and Hostilius Fear, and Metellus Alburnus, and a certain authority some
time since Antinous,-the same accomplishment may be allowed to others. As for us, we have
found our pilot in Marcion, although not a king nor an emperor.

3 Chapter XIX.-Jesus Christ, the Revealer of the Creator, Could Not Be the Same as
Marcion's God, Who Was Only Made Known by the Heretic Some CXV. Years After Christ, and
That, Too, on a Principle Utterly Unsuited to the Teaching of Jesus Christ, I.e., the
Opposition Between the Law and the Gospels. 4 Well, but our god, say the Marcionites,
although he did not manifest himself from the beginning and by means of the creation, has
yet revealed himself in Christ Jesus. A book will be devoted to Christ, treating of His
entire state; for it is desirable that these subject-matters should be distinguished one
from another, in order that they may receive a fuller and more methodical treatment.
Meanwhile it will be sufficient if, at this stage of the question, I show-and that but
briefly-that Christ Jesus is the revealer of none other god but the Creator. In the
fifteenth year of Tiberius, Christ Jesus vouchsafed to come down from heaven, as the
spirit of saving health. I cared not to inquire, indeed, in what particular year of the
elder Antoninus. He who had so gracious a purpose did rather, like a pestilential sirocco,
exhale this health or salvation, which Marcion teaches from his Pontus. Of this teacher
there is no doubt that he is a heretic of the Antonine period, impious under the pious.
Now, from Tiberius to Antoninus Pius, there are about 115 years and 6 1/2 months. Just
such an interval do they place between Christ and Marcion. Inasmuch, then, as Marcion, as
we have shown, first introduced this god to notice in the time of Antoninus, the matter
becomes at once clear, if you are a shrewd observer. The dates already decide the case,
that he who came to light for the first time in the reign of Antoninus, did not appear in
that of Tiberius;

5 in other words, that the God of the Antonine period was not the God of the Tiberian; and
consequently, that he whom Marcion has plainly preached for the first time, was not
revealed by Christ (who announced His revelation as early as the reign of Tiberius). Now,
to prove clearly what remains of the argument, I shall draw materials from my very
adversaries. Marcion's special and principal work is the separation of the law and the
gospel; and his disciples will not deny that in this point they have their very best
pretext for initiating and confirming themselves in his heresy. These are Marcion's
Antitheses, or contradictory propositions, which aim at committing the gospel to a
variance with the law, in order that from the diversity of the two documents which contain
them, they may contend for a diversity of gods also. Since, therefore, it is this very
opposition between the law and the gospel which has suggested that the God of the gospel
is different from the God of the law, it is clear that, before the said separation, that
god could not have been known who became known from the argument of the separation itself.
He therefore could not have been revealed by Christ, who came before the separation, but
must have been devised by Marcion, the author of the breach of peace between the gospel
and the law.

6 Now this peace, which had remained unhurt and unshaken from Christ's appearance to the
time of Marcion's audacious doctrine, was no doubt maintained by that way of thinking,
which firmly held that the God of both law and gospel was none other than the Creator,
against whom after so long a time a separation has been introduced by the heretic of
Pontus. 7 Chapter XX.-Marcion, Justifying His Antithesis Between the Law and the Gospel by
the Contention of St. Paul with St. Peter, Shown to Have Mistaken St. Paul's Position and
Argument. Marcion's Doctrine Confuted Out of St. Paul's Teaching, Which Agrees Wholly with
the Creator's Decrees. 8 This most patent conclusion requires to be defended by us against
the clamours of the opposite side. For they allege that Marcion did not so much innovate
on the rule (of faith) by his separation of the law and the gospel, as restore it after it
had been previously adulterated. O Christ, most enduring Lord, who didst bear so many
years with this interference with Thy revelation, until Marcion forsooth came to Thy
rescue! Now they adduce the case of Peter himself, and the others, who were pillars of the
apostolate, as having been blamed by Paul for not walking uprightly, according to the
truth of the gospel-that very Paul indeed, who, being yet in the mere rudiments of grace,
and trembling, in short, lest he should have run or were still running in vain, then for
the first time held intercourse with those who were apostles before himself. Therefore
because, in the eagerness of his zeal against Judaism as a neophyte, he thought that there
was something to be blamed in their conduct-even the promiscuousness of their conversation
-but afterwards was himself to become in his practice all things to all men, that he might
gain all,-to the Jews, as a Jew, and to them that were under the law, as under the
law,-you would have his censure, which was merely directed against conduct destined to
become acceptable even to their accuser, suspected of prevarication against God on a point
of public doctrine.

9 Touching their public doctrine, however, they had, as we have already said, joined hands
in perfect concord, and had agreed also in the division of their labour in their
fellowship of the gospel, as they had indeed in all other respects: "Whether it were I or
they, so we preach. When, again, he mentioned "certain false brethren as having crept in
unawares," who wished to remove the Galatians into another gospel, he himself shows that
that adulteration of the gospel was not meant to transfer them to the faith of another god
and christ, but rather to perpetuate the teaching of the law; because he blames them for
maintaining circumcision, and observing times, and days, and months, and years, according
to those Jewish ceremonies which they ought to have known were now abrogated, according to
the new dispensation purposed by the Creator Himself, who of old foretold this very thing
by His prophets. Thus He says by Isaiah: Old things have passed away. "Behold, I will do a
new thing. And in another passage: "I will make a new covenant, not according to the
covenant that I made with their fathers, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt. In
like manner by Jeremiah: Make to yourselves a new covenant, "circumcise yourselves to the
Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart. It is this circumcision, therefore, and
this renewal, which the apostle insisted on, when he forbade those ancient ceremonies
concerning which their very founder announced that they were one day to cease; thus by
Hosea:

10 "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast-days, her new moons, and her
Sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts. So likewise by Isaiah: "The new moons, and Sabbaths,
the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; your holy days, and fasts, and feast-days,
my soul hateth. Now, if even the Creator had so long before discarded all these things,
and the apostle was now proclaiming them to be worthy of renunciation, the very agreement
of the apostle's meaning with the decrees of the Creator proves that none other God was
preached by the apostle than He whose purposes he now wished to have recognised, branding
as false both apostles and brethren, for the express reason that they were pushing back
the gospel of Christ the Creator from the new condition which the Creator had foretold, to
the old one which He had discarded.

CHAPTER XXI.-ST. PAUL PREACHED NO NEW GOD, WHEN HE ANNOUNCED THE REPEAL OF SOME OF GOD'S ANCIENT ORDINANCES. NEVER ANY HESITATION ABOUT BELIEF IN THE CREATOR, AS THE GOD WHOM CHRIST REVEALED, UNTIL MARCION'S HERESY.

1 Now if it was with the view of preaching a new god that he was eager to abrogate the law
of the old God, how is it that he prescribes no rule about the new god, but solely about
the old law, if it be not because faith in the Creator was still to continue, and His law
alone was to come to an end? -just as the Psalmist had declared: "Let us break their bands
asunder, and cast away their cords from us. Why do the heathen rage, and the people
imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel
together against the Lord, and against His Anointed. And, indeed, if another god were
preached by Paul, there could be no doubt about the law, whether it were to be kept or
not, because of course it would not belong to the new lord, the enemy of the law. The very
newness and difference of the god would take away not only all question about the old and
alien law, but even all mention of it. But the whole question, as it then stood, was this,
that although the God of the law was the same as was preached in Christ, yet there was a
disparagement of His law. Permanent still, therefore, stood faith in the Creator and in
His Christ; manner of life and discipline alone fluctuated.

2 Some disputed about eating idol sacrifices, others about the veiled dress of women,
others again about marriage and divorce, and some even about the hope of the resurrection;
but about God no one disputed. Now, if this question also had entered into dispute, surely
it would be found in the apostle, and that too as a great and vital point. No doubt, after
the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but
it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teaching on this great
article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the fight of being
received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of
apostolic foundation. You will, however, find no church of apostolic origin but such as
reposes its Christian faith in the Creator. But if the churches shall prove to have been
corrupt from the beginning, where shall the pure ones be found? Will it be amongst the
adversaries of the Creator? Show us, then, one of your churches, tracing its descent from
an apostle, and you will have gained the day. Forasmuch then as it is on all accounts
evident that there was from Christ down to Marcion's time no other God in the rule of
sacred truth than the Creator, the proof of our argument is sufficiently established, in
which we have shown that the god of our heretic first became known by his separation of
the gospel and the law.

3 Our previous position is accordingly made good, that no god is to be believed whom any
man has devised out of his own conceits; except indeed the man be a prophet, and then his
own conceits would not be concerned in the matter. If Marcion, however, shall be able to
lay claim to this inspired character, it will be necessary for it to be shown. There must
be no doubt or paltering. For all heresy is thrust out by this wedge of the truth, that
Christ is proved to be the revealer of no God else but the Creator.

CHAPTER XXII.-GOD'S ATTRIBUTE OF GOODNESS CONSIDERED AS NATURAL; THE GOD OF MARCION FOUND WANTING HEREIN. IT CAME NOT TO MAN'S RESCUE WHEN FIRST WANTED.

1 But how shall (this) Antichrist be fully overthrown unless we relax our defence by mere
prescription, and give ourselves scope for rebutting all his other attacks? Let us
therefore next take the very person of God Himself, or rather His shadow or phantom, as we
have it in Christ, and let Him be examined by that condition which makes Him superior to
the Creator. And undoubtedly there will come to hand unmistakeable rules for examining
God's goodness. My first point, however, iS to discover and apprehend the attribute, and
then to draw it out into rules. Now, when I survey the subject in its aspects of time, I
nowhere descry it from the beginning of material existences, or at the commencement of
those causes, with which it ought to have been found, proceeding thence to do whatever had
to be done. For there was death already, and Sin the sting of death, and that malignity
too of the Creator, against which the goodness of the other god should have been ready to
bring relief; falling in with this as the primary rule of the divine goodness (if it were
to prove itself a natural agency), at once coming as a succour when the cause for it
began. For in God all things should be natural and inbred, just like His own condition
indeed, in order that they may be eternal, and so not be accounted casual and extraneous,
and thereby temporary and wanting in eternity.

2 In God, therefore, goodness is required to be both perpetual and unbroken, such as,
being stored up and kept ready in the treasures of His natural properties, might precede
its own causes and material developments; and if thus preceding, might underlie every
first material cause, instead of looking at it from a distance, and standing aloof from
it. In short, here too I must inquire, Why his goodness did not operate from the
beginning? no less pointedly than when we inquired concerning himself, Why he was not
revealed from the very first? Why, then, did it not? since he had to be revealed by his
goodness if he had any existence. That God should at all fail in power must not be
thought, much less that He should not discharge all His natural functions; for if these
were restrained from running their course, they would cease to be natural. Moreover, the
nature of God Him self knows nothing of inactivity. Hence (His goodness) is reckoned as
having a beginning, if it acts. It will thus be evident that He had no unwillingness to
exercise His goodness at any time on account of His nature. Indeed, it is impossible that
He should be unwilling because of His nature, since that so directs itself that it would
no longer exist if it ceased to act. In Marcion's god, however, goodness ceased from
operation at some time or other. A goodness, therefore, which could thus at any time have
ceased its action was not natural, because with natural properties such cessation is
incompatible.

3 And if it shall not prove to be natural, it must no longer be believed to be eternal nor
competent to Deity; because it cannot be eternal so long as, failing to be natural, it
neither provides from the past nor guarantees for the future any means of perpetuating
itself. Now as a fact it existed not from the beginning, and, doubtless, will not endure
to the end. For it is possible for it to fail in existence some future time or other, as
it has failed in some past period. Forasmuch, then, as the goodness of Marcion's god
failed in the beginning (for he did not from the first deliver man), this failure must
have been the effect of will rather than of infirmity. Now a wilful suppression of
goodness will be found to have a malignant end in view. For what malignity is so great as
to be unwilling to do good when one can, or to thwart what is useful, or to permit injury?
The whole description, therefore, of Marcion's Creator will have to be transferred to his
new god, who helped on the ruthless proceedings of the former by the retardation of his
own goodness. For whosoever has it in his power to prevent the happening of a thing, is
accounted responsible for it if it should occur. Man is condemned to death for tasting the
fruit of one poor tree, and thence proceed sins with their penalties; and now all are
perishing who yet never saw a single sod of Paradise.

4 And all this your better god either is ignorant of, or else brooks. Is it that he might
on this account be deemed the better, and the Creator be regarded as all that the worse?
Even if this were his purpose he would be malicious enough, for both wishing to aggravate
his rival's obloquy by permitting His (evil) works to be done, and by keeping the world
harrassed by the wrong. What would you think of a physician who should encourage a disease
by withholding the remedy, and prolong the danger by delaying his prescription, in order
that his cure might be more costly and more renowned? Such must be the sentence to be
pronounced against Marcion's god: tolerant of evil, encouraging wrong, wheedling about his
grace, prevaricating in his goodness, which he did not exhibit simply on its own account,
but which he must mean to exhibit purely, if he is good by nature and not by acquisition,
if he is supremely good in attribute and not by discipline, if he is God from eternity and
not from Tiberius, nay (to speak more truly), from Cerdon only and Marcion. As the case
now stands, however, such a god as we are considering would have been more fit for
Tiberius, that the goodness of the Divine Being might be inaugurated in the world under
his imperial sway!

CHAPTER XXIII.-GOD'S ATTRIBUTE OF GOODNESS CONSIDERED AS RATIONAL. MARCION'S GOD DEFECTIVE HERE ALSO; HIS GOODNESS IRRATIONAL AND MISAPPLIED.

1 Here is another rule for him. All the properties of God ought to be as rational as they
are natural. I require reason in His goodness, because nothing else can properly be
accounted good than that which is rationally good; much less can goodness itself be
detected in any irrationality. More easily will an evil thing which has something rational
belonging to it be accounted good, than that a good thing bereft of all reasonable quality
should escape being regarded as evil. Now I deny that the goodness of Marcion's god is
rational, on this account first, because it proceeded to the salvation of a human creature
which was alien to him. I am aware of the plea which they will adduce, that that is rather
a primary and perfect goodness which is shed voluntarily and freely upon strangers without
any obligation of friendship, on the principle that we are bidden to love even our
enemies, such as are also on that very account strangers to us. Now, inasmuch as from the
first he had no regard for man, a stranger to him from the first, he settled beforehand,
by this neglect of his, that he had nothing to do with an alien creature. Besides, the
rule of loving a stranger or enemy is preceded by the precept of your loving your
neighbour as yourself; and this precept, although coming from the Creator's law, even you
ought to receive, because, so far from being abrogated by Christ, it has rather been
confirmed by Him.

2 For you are bidden to love your enemy and the stranger, in order that you may love your
neighbour the better. The requirement of the undue is an augmentation of the due
benevolence. But the due precedes the undue, as the principal quality, and more worthy of
the other, for its attendant and companion. Since, therefore, the first step in the
reasonableness of the divine goodness is that it displays itself on its proper object in
righteousness, and only at its second stage on an alien object by a redundant
righteousness over and above that of scribes and Pharisees, how comes it to pass that the
second is attributed to him who fails in the first, not having man for his proper object,
and who makes his goodness on this very account defective? Moreover, how could a defective
benevolence, which had no proper object whereon to expend itself, overflow on an alien
one? Clear up the first step, and then vindicate the next. Nothing can be claimed as
rational without order, much less can reason itself dispense with order in any one.
Suppose now the divine goodness begin at the second stage of its rational operation, that
is to say, on the stranger, this second stage will not be consistent in rationality if it
be impaired in any way else. For only then will even the second stage of goodness, that
which is displayed towards the stranger, be accounted rational, when it operates without
wrong to him who has the first claim.

3 It is righteousness which before everything else makes all goodness rational. It will
thus be rational in its principal stage, when manifested on its proper object, if it be
righteous. And thus, in like manner, it will be able to appear rational, when displayed
towards the stranger, if it be not unrighteous. But what sort of goodness is that which is
manifested in wrong, and that in behalf of an alien creature? For peradventure a
benevolence, even when operating injuriously, might be deemed to some extent rational, if
exerted for one of our own house and home. By what rule, however, can an unjust
benevolence, displayed on behalf of a stranger, to whom not even an honest one is
legitimately due, be defended as a rational one? For what is more unrighteous, more
unjust, more dishonest, than so to benefit an alien slave as to take him away from his
master, claim him as the property of another, and suborn him against his master's life;
and all this, to make the matter more iniquitous still whilst he is yet living in his
master's house and on his master's garner, and still trembling beneath his stripes? Such a
deliverer, I had almost said kidnapper, would even meet with condemnation in the world.

4 Now, no other than this is the character of Marcion's god, swooping upon an alien world,
snatching away man from his God, the son from his father, the pupil from his tutor, the
servant from his master-to make him impious to his God, undutiful to his father,
ungrateful to his tutor, worthless to his master. If, now, the rational benevolence makes
man such, what sort of being prithee would the irrational make of him? None I should think
more shameless than him who is baptized to his god in water which belongs to another, who
stretches out his hands to his god towards a heaven which is another's, who kneels to his
god on ground which is another's, offers his thanksgivings to his god over bread which
belongs to another, and distributes by way of alms and charity, for the sake of his god,
gifts which belong to another God. Who, then, is that so good a god of theirs, that man
through him becomes evil; so propitious, too, as to incense against man that other God who
is, indeed, his own proper Lord?

CHAPTER XXIV.-THE GOODNESS OF MARCION'S GOD ONLY IMPERFECTLY MANIFESTED; IT SAVES BUT FEW, AND THE SOULS MERELY OF THESE. MARCION'S CONTEMPT OF THE BODY ABSURD.

1 But as God is eternal and rational, so, I think, He is perfect in all things. "Be ye
perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Prove, then, that the goodness
of your god also is a perfect one. That it is indeed imperfect has been already
sufficiently shown, since it is found to be neither natural nor rational. The same
conclusion, however, shall now be made clear by another method; it is not simply
imperfect, but actually feeble, weak, and exhausted, failing to embrace the full number of
its material objects, and not manifesting itself in them all. For all are not put into a
state of salvation by it; but the Creator's subjects, both Jew and Christian, are all
excepted. Now, when the greater part thus perish, how can that goodness be defended as a
perfect one which is inoperative in most cases, is somewhat only in few, naught in many,
succumbs to perdition, and is a partner with destruction? And if so many shall miss
salvation, it will not be with goodness, but with malignity, that the greater perfection
will lie. For as it is the operation of goodness which brings salvation, so is it
malevolence which thwarts it. Since, however, this goodness) saves but few, and so rather
leans to the alternative of not saving, it will show itself to greater perfection by not
interposing help than by helping. Now, you will not be able to attribute goodness (to your
god) in reference to the Creator, (if accompanied with) failure towards all.

2 For whomsoever you call in to judge the question, it is as a dispenser of goodness, if
so be such a title can be made out, and not as a squanderer thereof, as you claim your god
to be, that you must submit the divine character for determination. So long, then, as you
prefer your god to the Creator on the simple ground of his goodness, and since he
professes to have this attribute as solely and wholly his own, he ought not to have been
wanting in it to any one. However, I do not now wish to prove that Marcion's god is
imperfect in goodness because of the perdition of the greater number. I am content to
illustrate this imperfection by the fact that even those whom he saves are found to
possess but an imperfect salvation-that is, they are saved only so far as the soul is
concerned, but lost in their body, which, according to him, does not rise again. Now,
whence comes this halving of salvation, if not from a failure of goodness? What could have
been a better proof of a perfect goodness, than the recovery of the whole man to
salvation? Totally damned by the Creator, he should have been totally restored by the most
merciful god. I rather think that by Marcion's rule the body is baptized, is deprived of
marriage, is cruelly tortured in confession. But although sins are attributed to the body,
yet they are preceded by the guilty concupiscence of the soul;

3 nay, the first motion of sin must be ascribed to the soul, to which the flesh acts in
the capacity of a servant. By and by, when freed from the soul, the flesh sins no more. So
that in this matter goodness is unjust, and likewise imperfect, in that it leaves to
destruction the more harmless substance, which sins rather by compliance than in will.
Now, although Christ put not on the verity of the flesh, as your heresy is pleased to
assume, He still vouchsafed to take upon Him the semblance thereof. Surely, therefore,
some regard was due to it from Him, because of this His reigned assumption of it. Besides,
what else is man than flesh, since no doubt it was the corporeal rather than the spiritual
element from which the Author of man's nature gave him his designation? "And the Lord God
made man of the dust of the ground," not of spiritual essence; this afterwards came from
the divine afflatus: "and man became a living soul. What, then, is man? Made, no doubt of
it, of the dust; and God placed him in paradise, because He moulded him, not breathed him,
into being-a fabric of flesh, not of spirit. Now, this being the case, with what face will
you contend for the perfect character of that goodness which did not fail in some one
particular only of man's deliverance, but in its general capacity?

4 If that is a plenary grace and a substantial mercy which brings salvation to the soul
alone, this were the better life which we now enjoy whole and entire; whereas to rise
again but in part will be a chastisement, not a liberation. The proof of the perfect
goodness is, that man, after his rescue, should be delivered from the domicile and power
of the malignant deity unto the protection of the most good and merciful God. Poor dupe of
Marcion, fever is hard upon you; and your painful flesh produces a crop of all sorts of
briers and thorns. Nor is it only to the Creator's thunderbolts that you lie exposed, or
to wars, and pestilences, and His other heavier strokes, but even to His creeping insects.
In what respect do you suppose yourself liberated from His kingdom when His flies are
still creeping upon your face? If your deliverance lies in the future, why not also in the
present, that it may be perfectly wrought? Far different is our condition in the sight of
Him who is the Author, the Judge, the injured Head of our race! You display Him as a
merely good God; but you are unable to prove that He is perfectly good, because you are
not by Him perfectly delivered.

CHAPTER XXV.-GOD IS NOT A BEING OF SIMPLE GOODNESS; OTHER ATTRIBUTES BELONG TO HIM. MARCION SHOWS INCONSISTENCY IN THE PORTRAITURE OF HIS SIMPLY GOOD AND EMOTIONLESS GOD.

1 As touching this question of goodness, we have in these outlines of our argument shown
it to be in no way compatible with Deity,-as being neither natural, nor rational, nor
perfect, but wrong, and unjust, and unworthy of the very name of goodness,-because, as far
as the congruity of the divine character is concerned, it cannot indeed be fitting that
that Being should be regarded as God who is alleged to have such a goodness, and that not
in a modified way, but simply and solely. For it is, furthermore, at this point quite open
to discussion, whether God ought to be regarded as a Being of simple goodness, to the
exclusion of all those other attributes, sensations, and affections, which the Marcionites
indeed transfer from their god to the Creator, and which we acknowledge to be worthy
characteristics of the Creator too, but only because we consider Him to be God. Well,
then, on this ground we shall deny him to be God in whom all things are not to be found
which befit the Divine Being.

2 If (Marcion) chose to take any one of the school of Epicurus, and entitle him God in the
name of Christ, on the ground that what is happy and incorruptible can bring no trouble
either on itself or anything else (for Marcion, while poring over this opinion of the
divine indifference, has removed from him all the severity and energy of the judicial
character), it was his duty to have developed his conceptions into some imperturbable and
listless god (and then what could he have had in common with Christ, who occasioned
trouble both to the Jews by what He taught, and to Himself by what He felt? ), or else to
have admitted that he was possessed of the same emotions as others (and in such case what
would he have had to do with Epicurus, who was no friend to either him or Christians? ).
For that a being who in ages past was in a quiescent state, not caring to communicate any
knowledge of himself by any work all the while, should come after so long a time to
entertain a concern for man's salvation, of course by his own will,-did he not by this
very fact become susceptible of the impulse of a new volition, so as palpably to be open
to all other emotions? But what volition is unaccompanied with the spur of desire? Who
wishes for what he desires not? Moreover, care will be another companion of the will.

3 For who will wish for any object and desire to have it, without also caring to obtain
it? When, therefore, (Marcion's god) felt both a will and a desire for man's salvation, he
certainly occasioned some concern and trouble both to himself and others. This Marcion's
theory suggests, though Epicurus demurs. For he raised up an adversary against himself in
that very thing against which his will and desire, and care were directed,-whether it were
sin or death,-and more especially in their Tyrant and Lord, the Creator of man. Again,
nothing will ever run its course without hostile rivalry, which shall not (itself) be
without a hostile aspect. In fact, when willing, desiring, and caring to deliver man,
(Marcion's god) already in the very act encounters a rival, both in Him from whom He
effects the deliverance (for of course he means the liberation to be an opposition to
Him), and also in those things from which the deliverance is wrought (the intended
liberation being to the advantage of some other things). For it must needs be, that upon
rivalry its own ancillary passions will be in attendance, against whatever objects its
emulation is directed: anger, discord, hatred, disdain, indignation, spleen, loathing,
displeasure. Now, since all these emotions are present to rivalry; since, moreover, the
rivalry which arises in liberating man excites them;

4 and since, again, this deliverance of man is an operation of goodness, it follows that
this goodness avails nothing without its endowments, that is to say, without those
sensations and affections whereby it carries out its purpose against the Creator; so that
it cannot even in this be ruled to be irrational, as if it were wanting in proper
sensations and affections. These points we shall have to insist on much more fully, when
we come to plead the cause of the Creator, where they will also incur our condemnation.


THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION
==============================

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION continued

CHAPTER XXVI.-IN THE ATTRIBUTE OF JUSTICE, MARCION'S GOD IS HOPELESSLY WEAK AND UNGODLIKE. HE DISLIKES EVIL, BUT DOES NOT PUNISH ITS PERPETRATION.

1 But it is here sufficient that the extreme perversity of their god is proved from the
mere exposition of his lonely goodness, in which they refuse to ascribe to him such
emotions of mind as they censure in the Creator. Now, if he is susceptible of no feeling
of rivalry, or anger, or damage, or injury, as one who refrains from exercising judicial
power, I cannot tell how any system of discipline-and that, too, a plenary one-can be
consistent in him. For how is it possible that he should issue commands, if he does not
mean to execute them; or forbid sins, if he intends not to punish them, but rather to
decline the functions of the judge, as being a stranger to all notions of severity and
judicial chastisement? For why does he forbid the commission of that which he punishes not
when perpetrated? It would have been far more right, if he had not forbidden what he meant
not to punish, than that he should punish what he had not forbidden. Nay, it was his duty
even to have permitted what he was about to prohibit in so unreasonable a way, as to annex
no penalty to the offence. For even now that is tacitly permitted which is forbidden
without any infliction of vengeance. Besides, he only forbids the commission of that which
he does not like to have done. Most listless, therefore, is he, since he takes no offence
at the doing of what he dislikes to be done, although displeasure ought to be the
companion of his violated will. Now, if he is offended, he ought to be angry; if angry, he
ought to inflict punishment. For such infliction is the just fruit of anger, and anger is
the debt of displeasure, and displeasure (as I have said) is the companion of a violated
will. However, he inflicts no punishment; therefore he takes no offence.

2 He takes no offence, therefore his will is not wronged, although that is done which he
was unwilling to have done; and the transgression is now committed with the acquiescence
of his will, because whatever offends not the will is not committed against the will. Now,
if this is to be the principle of the divine virtue or goodness, to be unwilling indeed
that a thing be done and to prohibit it, and yet not be moved by its commission, we then
allege that he has been moved already when he declared his unwillingness; and that it is
vain for him not to be moved by the accomplishment of a thing after being moved at the
possibility thereof, when he willed it not to be done. For he prohibited it by his not
willing it. Did he not therefore do a judicial act, when he declared his unwillingness,
and consequent prohibition of it? For he judged that it ought not to be done, and he
deliberately declared that it should be forbidden. Consequently by this time even he
performs the part of a judge. If it is unbecoming for God to discharge a judicial
function, or at least only so far becoming that He may merely declare His unwillingness,
and pronounce His prohibition, then He may not even punish for an offence when it is
committed. Now, nothing is so unworthy of the Divine Being as not to execute retribution
on what He has disliked and forbidden.

3 First, He owes the infliction of chastisement to whatever sentence or law He promulges,
for the vindication of His authority and the maintenance of submission to it; secondly,
because hostile opposition is inevitable to what He has disliked to be done, and by that
dislike forbidden. Moreover, it would be a more unworthy course for God to spare the evil-
doer than to punish him, especially in the most good and holy God, who is not otherwise
fully good than as the enemy of evil, and that to such a degree as to display His love of
good by the hatred of evil, and to fulfil His defence of the former by the extirpation of
the latter.

CHAPTER XXVII.-DANGEROUS EFFECTS TO RELIGION AND MORALITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF SO WEAK A GOD.

1 Again, he plainly judges evil by not willing it, and condemns it by prohibiting it;
while, on the other hand, he acquits it by not avenging it, and lets it go free by not
punishing it. What a prevaricator of truth is such a god! What a dissembler with his own
decision! Afraid to condemn what he really condemns, afraid to hate what he does not love,
permitting that to be done which he does not allow, choosing to indicate what he dislikes
rather than deeply examine it! This will turn out an imaginary goodness, a phantom of
discipline, perfunctory in duty, careless in sin. Listen, ye sinners; and ye who have not
yet come to this, hear, that you may attain to such a pass! A better god has been
discovered, who never takes offence, is never angry, never inflicts punishment, who has
prepared no fire in hell, no gnashing of teeth in the outer darkness! He is purely and
simply good. He indeed forbids all delinquency, but only in word. He is in you, if you are
willing to pay him homage, for the sake of appearances, that you may seem to honour God;
for your fear he does not want. And so satisfied are the Marcionites with such pretences,
that they have no fear of their god at all. They say it is only a bad man who will be
feared, a good man will be loved.

2 Foolish man, do you say that he whom you call Lord ought not to be feared, whilst the
very title you give him indicates a power which must itself be feared? But how are you
going to love, without some fear that you do not love? Surely (such a god) is neither your
Father, towards whom your love for duty's sake should be consistent with fear because of
His power; nor your proper Lord, whom you should love for His humanity and fear as your
teacher. Kidnappers indeed are loved after this fashion, but they are not feared. For
power will not be feared, except it be just and regular, although it may possibly be loved
even when corrupt: for it is by allurement that it stands, not by authority; by flattery,
not by proper influence. And what can be more direct flattery than not to punish sins?
Come, then, if you do not fear God as being good, why do you not boil over into every kind
of lust, and so realize that which is, I believe, the main enjoyment of life to all who
fear not God? Why do you not frequent the customary pleasures of the maddening circus, the
bloodthirsty arena, and the lascivious theatre? Why in persecutions also do you not, when
the censer is presented, at once redeem your life by the denial of your faith? God forbid,
you say with redoubted emphasis. So you do fear sin, and by your fear prove that He is an
object of fear Who forbids the sin.

3 This is quite a different matter from that obsequious homage you pay to the god whom you
do not fear, which is identical in perversity indeed to is own conduct, in prohibiting a
thing without annexing the sanction of punishment. Still more vainly do they act, who when
asked, What is to become of every sinner in that great day? reply, that he is to be cast
away out of sight. Is not even this a question of judicial determination? He is adjudged
to deserve rejection, and that by a sentence of condemnation; unless the sinner is cast
away forsooth for his salvation, that even a leniency like this may fall in consistently
with the character of your most good and excellent god! And what will it be to be cast
away, but to lose that which a man was in the way of obtaining, were it not for his
rejection-that is, his salvation? Therefore his being cast away will involve the
forfeiture of salvation; and this sentence cannot possibly be passed upon him, except by
an angry and offended authority, who is also the punisher of sin-that is, by a judge.

CHAPTER XXVIII.-THIS PERVERSE DOCTRINE DEPRIVES BAPTISM OF ALL ITS GRACE. IF MARCION BE RIGHT, THE SACRAMENT WOULD CONFER NO REMISSION OF SINS, NO REGENERATION, NO GIFT OF THE SPIRIT.

1 And what will happen to him after he is cast away? He will, they say, be thrown into the
Creator's fire. Then has no remedial provision been made (by their god) for the purpose of
banishing those that sin against him, without resorting to the cruel measure of delivering
them over to the Creator? And what will the Creator then do? I suppose He will prepare for
them a hell doubly charged with brimstone, as for blasphemers against Himself; except
indeed their god in his zeal, as perhaps might happen, should show clemency to his rival's
revolted subjects. Oh, what a god is this! everywhere perverse; nowhere rational; in all
cases vain; and therefore a nonentity! -in whose state, and condition, and nature, and
every appointment, I see no coherence and consistency; no, not even in the very sacrament
of his faith! For what end does baptism serve, according to him? If the remission of sins,
how will he make it evident that he remits sins, when he affords no evidence that he
retains them? Because he would retain them, if he performed the functions of a judge. If
deliverance from death, how could he deliver from death, who has not delivered to death?
For he must have delivered the sinner to death, if he had from the beginning condemned
sin. If the regeneration of man, how can he regenerate, who has never generated? For the
repetition of an act is impossible to him, by whom nothing any time has been ever done.

2 If the bestowal of the Holy Ghost, how will he bestow the Spirit, who did not at first
impart the life? For the life is in a sense the supplement of the Spirit. He therefore
seals man, who had never been unsealed in respect of him; washes man, who had never been
defiled so far as he was concerned; and into this sacrament of salvation wholly plunges
that flesh which is beyond the pale of salvation! No farmer will irrigate ground that will
yield him no fruit in return, except he be as stupid as Marcion's god. Why then impose
sanctity upon our most infirm and most unworthy flesh, either as a burden or as a glory?
What shall I say, too, of the uselessness of a discipline which sanctifies what is already
sanctified? Why burden the infirm, or glorify the unworthy? Why not remunerate with
salvation what it burdens or else glorifies? Why keep back from a work its due reward, by
not recompensing the flesh with salvation? Why even permit the honour of sanctity in it to
die?

CHAPTER XXIX.-MARCION FORBIDS MARRIAGE. TERTULLIAN ELOQUENTLY DEFENDS IT AS HOLY, AND CAREFULLY DISCRIMINATES BETWEEN MARCION'S DOCTRINE AND HIS OWN MONTANISM.

1 The flesh is not, according to Marcion, immersed in the water of the sacrament, unless
it be in virginity, widowhood, or celibacy, or has purchased by divorce a title to
baptism, as if even generative impotents did not all receive their flesh from nuptial
union. Now, such a scheme as this must no doubt involve the proscription of marriage. Let
us see, then, whether it be a just one: not as if we aimed at destroying the happiness of
sanctity, as do certain Nicolaitans in their maintenance of lust and luxury, but as those
who have come to the knowledge of sanctity, and pursue it and prefer it, without
detriment, however, to marriage; not as if we superseded a bad thing by a good, but only a
good thing by a better. For we do not reject marriage, but simply refrain from it. Nor do
we prescribe sanctity as the rule, but only recommend it, observing it as a good, yea,
even the better state, if each man uses it carefully according to his ability; but at the
same time earnestly vindicating marriage, whenever hostile attacks are made against it is
a polluted thing, to the disparagement of the Creator. For He bestowed His blessing on
matrimony also, as on an honourable estate, for the increase of the human race; as He did
indeed on the whole of His creation, for wholesome and good uses. Meats and drinks are not
on this account to be condemned, because, when served up with too exquisite a daintiness,
they conduce to gluttony;

2 nor is raiment to be blamed, because, when too costlily adorned, it becomes inflated
with vanity and pride. So, on the same principle, the estate of matrimony is not to be
refused, because, when enjoyed without moderation, it is fanned into a voluptuous flame.
There is a great difference between a cause and a fault, between a state and its excess.
Consequently it is not an institution of this nature that is to be blamed, but the
extravagant use of it; according to the judgment of its founder Himself, who not only
said, "Be fruitful, and multiply," but also, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and, "Thou
shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife; " and who threatened with death the unchaste,
sacrilegious, and monstrous abomination both of adultery and unnatural sin with man and
beast. Now, if any limitation is set to marrying-such as the spiritual rule, which
prescribes but one marriage under the Christian obedience, maintained by the authority of
the Paraclete, -it will be His prerogative to fix the limit Who had once been diffuse in
His permission; His to gather, Who once scattered; His to cut down the tree, Who planted
it; His to reap the harvest, Who sowed the seed; His to declare, "It remaineth that they
who have wives be as though they had none," Who once said, "Be fruitful, and multiply;
"His the end to Whom belonged the beginning. Nevertheless, the tree is not cut down as if
it deserved blame;

3 nor is the corn reaped, as if it were to be condemned,-but simply because their time is
come. So likewise the state of matrimony does not require the hook and scythe of sanctity,
as if it were evil; but as being ripe for its discharge, and in readiness for that
sanctity which will in the long run bring it a plenteous crop by its reaping. For this
leads me to remark of Marcion's god, that in reproaching marriage as an evil and unchaste
thing, he is really prejudicing the cause of that very sanctity which he seems to serve.
For he destroys the material on which it subsists; if there is to be no marriage, there is
no sanctity. All proof of abstinence is lost when excess is impossible; for sundry things
have thus their evidence in their contraries. Just as "strength is made perfect in
weakness," so likewise is continence made manifest by the permission to marry. Who indeed
will be called continent, if that be taken away which gives him the opportunity of
pursuing a life of continence? What room for temperance in appetite does famine give? What
repudiation of ambitious projects does poverty afford? What bridling of lust can the
eunuch merit? To put a complete stop, however, to the sowing of the human race, may, for
aught I know, be quite consistent for Marcion's most good and excellent god. For how could
he desire the salvation of man, whom he forbids to be born, when he takes away that
institution from which his birth arises?

4 How will he find any one on whom to set the mark of his goodness, when he suffers him
not to come into existence? How is it possible to love him whose origin he hates? Perhaps
he is afraid of a redundant population, lest he should be weary in liberating so many;
lest he should have to make many heretics; lest Marcionite parents should produce too many
noble disciples of Marcion. The cruelty of Pharaoh, which slew its victims at their birth,
will not prove to be more inhuman in comparison. For while he destroyed lives, our
heretic's god refuses to give them: the one removes from life, the other admits none to
it. There is no difference in either as to their homicide-man is slain by both of them; by
the former just after birth, by the latter as yet unborn. Thanks should we owe thee, thou
god of our heretic, hadst thou only checked the dispensation of the Creator in uniting
male and female; for from such a union indeed has thy Marcion been born! Enough; however,
of Marcion's god, who is shown to have absolutely no existence at all, both by our
definitions of the one only Godhead, and the condition of his attributes. The whole
course, however, of this little work aims directly at this conclusion. If, therefore, we
seem to anybody to have achieved but little result as yet, let him reserve his
expectations, until we examine the very Scripture which Marcion quotes.

INTRODUCTION

Wherein Tertullian shows that the creator, or demiurge, whom Marcion calumniated, is the
true and good God.

CHAPTER I.-THE METHODS OF MARCION'S ARGUMENT INCORRECT AND ABSURD. THE PROPER COURSE OF THE ARGUMENT.

The Occasion of reproducing this little work, the fortunes of which we noticed in the
preface of our first book, has furnished us with the opportunity of distinguishing, in our
treatment of the subject of two Gods in opposition to Marcion, each of them with a
description and section of his own, according to the division of the subject-matter,
defining one of the gods to have no existence at all, and maintaining of the Other that He
is rightly God; thus far keeping pace with the heretic of Pontus, who has been pleased to
admit one unto, and exclude the other. For he could not build up his mendacious scheme
without pulling down the system of truth. He found it necessary to demolish some other
thing, in order to build up the theory which he wished. This process, however, is like
constructing a house without preparing suitable materials. The discussion ought to have
been directed to this point alone, that he is no god who supersedes the Creator. Then,
when the false god had been excluded by certain rules which prescriptively settle what is
the character of the One only perfect Divinity, there could have remained no longer any
question as to the true God. The proof of His existence would have been clear, and that,
too, amid the failure of all evidence in support of any other god; and still clearer would
have seemed the point as to the honour in which He ought without controversy to be held:
that He ought to be worshipped rather than judged; served reverentially rather than
handled critically, or even dreaded for His severity. For what was more fully needed by
man than a careful estimate of the true God, on whom, so to speak, he had alighted,
because there was no other god?

CHAPTER II.-THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF GOD THE CREATOR. THE HERETICS PRETENDED TO A KNOWLEDGE OF THE DIVINE BEING, OPPOSED TO AND SUBVERSIVE OF REVELATION. GOD'S NATURE AND WAYS PAST HUMAN DISCOVERY. ADAM'S HERESY.

1 We have now, then, cleared our way to the contemplation of the Almighty God, the Lord
and Maker of the universe. His greatness, as I think, is shown in this, that from the
beginning He made Himself known: He never hid Himself, but always shone out brightly, even
before the time of Romulus, to say nothing of that of Tiberius; with the exception indeed
that the heretics, and they alone, know Him not, although they take such pains about Him.
They on this account suppose that another god must be assumed to exist, because they are
more able to censure than deny Him whose existence is so evident, deriving all their
thoughts about God from the deductions of sense; just as if some blind man, or a man of
imperfect vision, chose to assume some other sun of milder and healthier ray, because he
sees not that which is the object of sight. There is, O man, but one sun which rules this
world and even when you think otherwise of him, he is best and useful; and although to you
he may seem too fierce and baneful, or else, it may be, too sordid and corrupt, he yet is
true to the laws of his own existence. Unable as you are to see through those laws, you
would be equally impotent to bear the rays of any other sun, were there one, however great
and good. Now, you whose sight is defective in respect of the inferior god, what is your
view of the sublimer One?

2 Really you are too lenient to your weakness; and set not yourself to the proof of
things, holding God to be certainly, undoubtedly, and therefore sufficiently known, the
very moment you have discovered Him to exist, though you know Him not except on the side
where He has willed His proofs to lie. But you do not even deny God intelligently, you
treat of Him ignorantly; nay, you accuse Him with a semblance of intelligence, whom if you
did but know Him, you would never accuse, nay, never treat of. You give Him His name
indeed, but you deny the essential truth of that name, that is, the greatness which is
called God; not acknowledging it to be such as, were it possible for it to have been known
to man in every respect, would not be greatness. Isaiah even so early, with the clearness
of an apostle, foreseeing the thoughts of heretical hearts, asked, "Who hath known the
mind of the Lord? For who hath been His counsellor? With whom took He counsel? ... or who
taught Him knowledge, and showed to Him the way of understanding? " With whom the apostle
agreeing exclaims, "Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! "His judgments
unsearchable," as being those of God the Judge;

3 and "His ways past finding out," as comprising an understanding and knowledge which no
man has ever shown to Him, except it may be those critics of the Divine Being, who say,
God ought not to have been this, and He ought rather to have been that; as if any one knew
what is in God, except the Spirit of God. Moreover, having the spirit of the world, and
"in the wisdom of God by wisdom knowing not God," they seem to themselves to be wiser than
God; because, as the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God, so also the wisdom of
God is folly in the world's esteem. We, however, know that "the foolishness of God is
wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. Accordingly, God is then
especially great, when He is small to man; then especially good, when not good in man's
judgment; then especially unique, when He seems to man to be two or more. Now, if from the
very first "the natural man, not receiving the things of the Spirit of God," has deemed
God's law to be foolishness, and has therefore neglected to observe it;

4 and as a further consequence, by his not having faith, "even that which he seemeth to
have hath been taken from him" -such as the grace of paradise and the friendship of God,
by means of which he might have known all things of God, if he had continued in his
obedience-what wonder is it, if he, reduced to his material nature, and banished to the
toil of tilling the ground, has in his very labour, downcast and earth-gravitating as it
was, handed on that earth-derived spirit of the world to his entire race, wholly natural
and heretical as it is, and not receiving the things which belong to God? Or who will
hesitate to declare the great sin of Adam to have been heresy, when he committed it by the
choice of his own will rather than of God's? Except that Adam never said to his fig-tree,
Why hast thou made me thus? He confessed that he was led astray; and he did not conceal
the seducer. He was a very rude heretic. He was disobedient; but yet he did not blaspheme
his Creator, nor blame that Author of his being, Whom from the beginning of his life he
had found to be so good and excellent, and Whom he had perhaps made his own judge from the
very first.

CHAPTER III.-GOD KNOWN BY HIS WORKS. HIS GOODNESS SHOWN IN HIS CREATIVE ENERGY; BUT EVERLASTING IN ITS NATURE; INHERENT IN GOD, PREVIOUS TO ALL EXHIBITION OF IT. THE FIRST STAGE OF THIS GOODNESS PRIOR TO MAN.

1 It will therefore be right for us, as we enter on the examination of the known God, when
the question arises, in what condition He is known to us, to begin with His works, which
are prior to man; so that His goodness, being discovered immediately along with Himself,
and then constituted and prescriptively settled, may suggest to us some sense whereby we
may understand how the subsequent order of things came about. The disciples of Marcion,
moreover, may possibly be able, while recognising the goodness of our God, to learn how
worthy it is likewise of the Divine Being, on those very grounds whereby we have proved it
to be unworthy in the case of their god. Now this very point, which is a material one in
their scheme, Marcion did not find in any other god, but eliminated it for himself out of
his own god. The first goodness, then, was that of the Creator, whereby God was unwilling
to remain hidden for ever; in other words, (unwilling) that there should not be a
something by which God should become known. For what, indeed, is so good as the knowledge
and fruition of God? Now, although it did not transpires that this was good, because as
yet there existed nothing to which it could transpire, yet God foreknew what good would
eventually transpire, and therefore He set Himself about developing His own perfect
goodness, for the accomplishment of the good which was to transpire;

2 not, indeed, a sudden goodness issuing in some accidental boon or in some excited
impulse, such as must be dated simply from the moment when it began to operate. For if it
did itself produce its own beginning when it began to operate, it had not, in fact, a
beginning itself when it acted. When, however, an initial act had been once done by it,
the scheme of temporal seasons began, for distinguishing and noting which, the stars and
luminaries of heaven were arranged in their order. "Let them be," says God, "for seasons,
and for days, and years. Previous, then, to this temporal course, (the goodness) which
created time had not time; nor before that beginning which the same goodness originated,
had it a beginning. Being therefore without aIl order of a beginning, and all mode of
time, it will be reckoned to possess an age, measureless in extent and endless in
duration; nor will it be possible to regard it as a sudden or adventitious or impulsive
emotion, because it has nothing to occasion such an estimate of itself; in other words, no
sort of temporal sequence. It must therefore be accounted an eternal attribute, inbred in
God, and everlasting, and on this account worthy of the Divine Being, putting to shame for
ever the benevolence of Marcion's god, subsequent as he is to (I will not say) all
beginnings and times, but to the very malignity of the Creator, if indeed malignity could
possibly have been found in goodness.

CHAPTER IV.-THE NEXT STAGE OCCURS IN THE CREATION OF MAN BY THE ETERNAL WORD. SPIRITUAL AS WELL AS PHYSICAL GIFTS TO MAN. THE BLESSINGS OF MAN'S FREE-WILL.

1 The goodness of God having, therefore, provided man for the pursuit of the knowledge of
Himself, added this to its original notification, that it first prepared a habitation for
him, the vast fabric (of the world) to begin with, and then afterwards the vaster one (of
a higher world, ) that he might on a great as well as on a smaller stage practise and
advance in his probation, and so be promoted from the good which God had given him, that
is, from his high position, to God's best; that is, to some higher abode. In this good
work God employs a most excellent minister, even His own Word. "My heart" He says, "hath
emitted my most excellent Word. Let Marcion take hence his first lesson on the noble fruit
of this truly most excellent tree. But, like a most clumsy clown, he has grafted a good
branch on a bad stock. The sapling, however, of his blasphemy shall be never strong: it
shall wither with its planter, and thus shall be manifested the nature of the good tree.
Look at the total result: how fruitful was the Word! God issued His fiat, and it was done:
God also saw that it was good; not as if He were ignorant of the good until He saw it; but
because it was good, He therefore saw it, and honoured it, and set His seal upon it; and
consummated the goodness of His works by His vouchsafing to them that contemplation.

2 Thus God blessed what He made good, in order that He might commend Himself to you as
whole and perfect, good both in word and act. As yet the Word knew no malediction, because
He was a stranger to malefaction. We shall see what reasons required this also of God.
Meanwhile the world consisted of all things good, plainly foreshowing how much good was
preparing for him for whom all this was provided. Who indeed was so worthy of dwelling
amongst the works of God, as he who was His own image and likeness? That image was wrought
out by a goodness even more operative than its wont, with no imperious word, but with
friendly hand preceded by an almost affable utterance: "Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness. Goodness spake the word; Goodness formed man of the dust of the ground
into so great a substance of the flesh, built up out of one material with so many
qualities; Goodness breathed into him a soul, not dead but living. Goodness gave him
dominion over all things, which he was to enjoy and rule over, and even give names to. In
addition to this, Goodness annexed pleasures to man so that, while master of the whole
world, he might tarry among higher delights, being translated into paradise, out of the
world into the Church. The self-same Goodness provided also a help meet for him, that
there might be nothing in his lot that was not good. For, said He, that the man be alone
is not good.

3 He knew full well what a blessing to him would be the sex of Mary, and also of the
Church. The law, however, which you find fault with, and wrest into a subject of
contention, was imposed on man by Goodness, aiming at his happiness, that he might cleave
to God, and so not show himself an abject creature rather than a free one, nor reduce
himself to the level of the other animals, his subjects, which were free from God, and
exempt from all tedious subjection; but might, as the sole human being, boast that he
alone was worthy of receiving laws from God; and as a rational being, capable of
intelligence and knowledge, be restrained within the bounds of rational liberty, subject
to Him who had subjected all things unto him. To secure the observance of this law,
Goodness likewise took counsel by help of this sanction: "In the day that thou eatest
thereof, thou shall surely die. For it was a most benignant act of His thus to point out
the issues of transgression, lest ignorance of the danger should encourage a neglect of
obedience. Now, since it was given as a reason previous to the imposition of the law, it
also amounted to a motive for subsequently observing it, that a penalty was annexed to its
transgression; a penalty, indeed, which He who proposed it was still unwilling that it
should be incurred. Learn then the goodness of our God amidst these things and up to this
point;

4 learn it from His excellent works, from His kindly blessings, from His indulgent
bounties, from His gracious providences, from His laws and warnings, so good and merciful.

CHAPTER V.-MARCION'S CAVILS CONSIDERED. HIS OBJECTION REFUTED, I.E., MAN'S FALL SHOWED FAILURE IN GOD. THE PERFECTION OF MAN'S BEING LAY IN HIS LIBERTY, WHICH GOD PURPOSELY BESTOWED ON HIM. THE FALL IMPUTABLE TO MAN'S OWN CHOICE.

1 Now then, ye dogs, whom the apostle puts outside, and who yelp at the God of truth, let
us come to your various questions. These are the bones of contention, which you are
perpetually gnawing! If God is good, and prescient of the future, and able to avert evil,
why did He permit man, the very image and likeness of Himself, and, by the origin of his
soul, His own substance too, to be deceived by the devil, and fall from obedience of the
law into death? For if He had been good, and so unwilling that such a catastrophe should
happen, and prescient, so as not to be ignorant of what was to come to pass, and powerful
enough to hinder its occurrence, that issue would never have come about, which should be
impossible under these three conditions of the divine greatness. Since, however, it has
occurred, the contrary proposition is most certainly true, that God must be deemed neither
good, nor prescient, nor powerful. For as no such issue could have happened had God been
such as He is reputed-good, and prescient, and mighty-so has this issue actually happened,
because He is not such a God. In reply, we must first vindicate those attributes in the
Creator which are called in question-namely, His goodness and foreknowledge, and power.
But I shall not linger long over this point for Christ's own definition comes to our aid
at once. From works must proofs be obtained.

2 The Creator's works testify at once to His goodness, since they are good, as we have
shown, and to His power, since they are mighty, and spring indeed out of nothing. And even
if they were made out of some (previous) matter, as some will have it, they are even thus
out of nothing, because they were not what they are. In short, both they are great because
they are good; and God is likewise mighty, because all things are His own, whence He is
almighty. But what shall I say of His prescience, which has for its witnesses as many
prophets as it inspired? After all, what title to prescience do we look for in the Author
of the universe, since it was by this very attribute that He foreknew all things when He
appointed them their places, and appointed them their places when He fore knew them? There
is sin itself. If He had not foreknown this, He would not have proclaimed a caution
against it under the penalty of death. Now if there were in God such attributes as must
have rendered it both impossible and improper for any evil to have happened to man, and
yet evil did occur, let us consider man's condition also-whether it were not, in fact,
rather the cause why that came to pass which could not have happened through God. I find,
then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power;

3 indicating the presence of God's image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this
constitution of his nature. For it was not by his face, and by the lineaments of his body,
though they were so varied in his human nature, that he expressed his likeness to the form
of God; but he showed his stamp in that essence which he derived from God Himself (that
is, the spiritual, which answered to the form of God), and in the freedom and power of his
will. This his state was confirmed even by the very law which God then imposed upon him.
For a law would not be imposed upon one who had it not in his power to render that
obedience which is due to law; nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against
sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will. So in the
Creator's subsequent laws also you will find, when He sets before man good and evil, life
and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by God's calling
men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and this on no other ground than that
man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.

CHAPTER VI.-THIS LIBERTY VINDICATED IN RESPECT OF ITS ORIGINAL CREATION; SUITABLE ALSO FOR EXHIBITING THE GOODNESS AND THE PURPOSE OF GOD. REWARD AND PUNISHMENT IMPOSSIBLE IF MAN WERE GOOD OR EVIL THROUGH NECESSITY AND NOT CHOICE.

1 But although we shall be understood, from our argument, to be only so affirming man's
unshackled power over his will, that what happens to him should be laid to his own charge,
and not to God's, yet that you may not object, even now, that he ought not to have been so
constituted, since his liberty and power of will might turn out to be injurious, I will
first of all maintain that he was rightly so constituted, that I may with the greater
confidence commend both his actual constitution, and the additional fact of its being
worthy of the Divine Being; the cause which led to man's being created with such a
constitution being shown to be the better one. Moreover, man thus constituted will be
protected by both the goodness of God and by His purpose, both of which are always found
in concert in our God. For His purpose is no purpose without goodness; nor is His goodness
goodness without a purpose, except forsooth in the case of Marcion's god, who is
purposelessly good, as we have shown. Well, then, it was proper that God should be known;
it was no doubt a good and reasonable thing. Proper also was it that there should be
something worthy of knowing God. What could be found so worthy as the image and likeness
of God? This also was undoubtedly good and reasonable. Therefore it was proper that (he
who is) the image and likeness of God should be formed with a free will and a mastery of
himself;

2 so that this very thing-namely, freedom of will and self-command-might be reckoned as
the image and likeness of God in him. For this purpose such an essence was adapted to man
as suited this character, even the afflatus of the Deity, Himself free and uncontrolled.
But if you will take some other view of the case, how came it to pass that man, when in
possession of the whole world, did not above all things reign in self-possession -a master
over others, a slave to himself? The goodness of God, then, you can learn from His
gracious gift to man, and His purpose from His disposal of all things. At present, let
God's goodness alone occupy our attention, that which gave so large a gift to man, even
the liberty of his will. God's purpose claims some other opportunity of treatment,
offering as it does instruction of like import. Now, God alone is good by nature. For He,
who has that which is without beginning, has it not by creation, but by nature. Man,
however, who exists entirely by creation, having a beginning, along with that beginning
obtained the form in which he exists; and thus he is not by nature disposed to good, but
by creation, not having it as his own attribute to be good, because, (as we have said, )
it is not by nature, but by creation, that he is disposed to good, according to the
appointment of his good Creator, even the Author of all good.

3 In order, therefore, that man might have a goodness of his own, bestowed on him by God,
and there might be henceforth in man a property, and in a certain sense a natural
attribute of goodness, there was assigned to him in the constitution of his nature, as a
formal witness of the goodness which God bestowed upon him, freedom and power of the will,
such as should cause good to be performed spontaneously by man, as a property of his own,
on the ground that no less than this would be required in the matter of a goodness which
was to be voluntarily exercised by him, that is to say, by the liberty of his will,
without either favour or servility to the constitution of his nature, so that man should
be good just up to this point, if he should display his goodness in accordance with his
natural constitution indeed, but still as the result of his will, as a property of his
nature; and, by a similar exercise of volition, should show himself to be too strong in
defence against evil also (for even this God, of course, foresaw), being free, and master
of himself; because, if he were wanting in this prerogative of self-mastery, so as to
perform even good by necessity and not will, he would, in the helplessness of his
servitude, become subject to the usurpation of evil, a slave as much to evil as to good.
Entire freedom of will, therefore, was conferred upon him in both tendencies;

4 so that, as master of himself, he might constantly encounter good by spontaneous
observance of it, and evil by its spontaneous avoidance; because, were man even otherwise
circumstanced, it was yet his bounden duty, in the judgment of God, to do justice
according to the motions of his will regarded, of course, as free. But the reward neither
of good nor of evil could be paid to the man who should be found to have been either good
or evil through necessity and not choice. In this really lay the law which did not
exclude, but rather prove, human liberty by a spontaneous rendering of obedience, or a
spontaneous commission of iniquity; so patent was the liberty of man's will for either
issue. Since, therefore, both the goodness and purpose of God are discovered in the gift
to man of freedom in his will, it is not right, after ignoring the original definition of
goodness and purpose which it was necessary to determine previous to any discussion of the
subject, on subsequent facts to presume to say that God ought not in such a way to have
formed man, because the issue was other than what was assumed to be proper for God. We
ought rather, after duly considering that it behoved God so to create man, to leave this
consideration unimpaired, and to survey the other aspects of the case.

5 It is, no doubt, an easy process for persons who take offence at the fall of man, before
they have looked into the facts of his creation, to impute the blame of what happened to
the Creator, without any examination of His purpose. To conclude: the goodness of God,
then fully considered from the beginning of His works, will be enough to convince us that
nothing evil could possibly have come forth from God; and the liberty of man will, after a
second thought, show us that it alone is chargeable with the fault which itself committed.

CHAPTER VII.-IF GOD HAD ANYHOW CHECKED MAN'S LIBERTY, MARCION WOULD HAVE BEEN READY WITH ANOTHER AND OPPOSITE CAVIL. MAN'S FALL FORESEEN BY GOD. PROVISION MADE FOR IT REMEDIALLY AND CONSISTENTLY WITH HIS TRUTH AND GOODNESS.

1 By such a conclusion all is reserved unimpaired to God; both His natural goodness, and
the purposes of His governance and foreknowledge, and the abundance of His power. You
ought, however, to deduct from God's attributes both His supreme earnestness of purpose
and most excellent truth in His whole creation, if you would cease to inquire whether
anything could have happened against the will of God. For, while holding this earnestness
and truth of the good God, which are indeed capable of proof from the rational creation,
you will not wonder at the fact that God did not interfere to prevent the occurrence of
what He wished not to happen, in order that He might keep from harm what He wished. For,
since He had once for all allowed (and, as we have shown, worthily allowed) to man freedom
of will and mastery of himself, surely He from His very authority in creation permitted
these gifts to be enjoyed: to be enjoyed, too, so far as lay in Himself, according to His
own character as God, that is, for good (for who would permit anything hostile to himself?
); and, so far as lay in man, according to the impulses of his liberty (for who does not,
when giving anything to any one to enjoy, accompany the gift with a permission to enjoy it
with all his heart and will? ).

2 The necessary consequence, therefore, was, that God must separate from the liberty which
He had once for all bestowed upon man (in other words, keep within Himself), both His
foreknowledge and power, through which He might have prevented man's falling into danger
when attempting wrongly to enjoy his liberty. Now, if He had interposed, He would have
rescinded the liberty of man's will, which He had permitted with set purpose, and in
goodness. But, suppose God had interposed; suppose Him to have abrogated man's liberty, by
warning him from the tree, and keeping off the subtle serpent from his interview with the
woman; would not Marcion then exclaim, What a frivolous, unstable, and faithless Lord,
cancelling the gifts He had bestowed! Why did He allow any liberty of will, if He
afterwards withdrew it? Why withdraw it after allowing it? Let Him choose where to brand
Himself with error, either in His original constitution of man, or in His subsequent
abrogation thereof! If He had checked (man's freedom), would He not then seem to have been
rather deceived, through want of foresight into the future? But in giving it full scope,
who would not say that He did so in ignorance of the issue of things? God, however, did
fore-know that man would make a bad use of his created constitution; and yet what can be
so worthy of God as His earnestness of purpose, and the truth of His created works, be
they what they may?

3 Man must see, if he failed to make the most of the good gift he had received, how that
he was himself guilty in respect of the law which he did not choose to keep, and not that
the Lawgiver was committing a fraud against His own law, by not permitting its injunctions
to be fulfilled. Whenever you are inclined to indulge in such censure (and it is the most
becoming for you) against the Creator, recall gently to your mind in His behalf His
earnestness, and endurance, and truth, in having given completeness to His creatures both
as rational and good.

CHAPTER VIII.-MAN, ENDUED WITH LIBERTY, SUPERIOR TO THE ANGELS. OVERCOMES EVEN THE ANGEL WHICH LURED HIM TO HIS FALL, WHEN REPENTANT AND RESUMING OBEDIENCE TO GOD.

1 For it was not merely that he might live the natural life that God had produced man, but
that he should live virtuously, that is, in relation to God and to His law. Accordingly,
God gave him to live when he was formed into a living soul; but He charged him to live
virtuously when he was required to obey a law. So also God shows that man was not
constituted for death, by now wishing that he should be restored to life, preferring the
sinner's repentance to his death. As, therefore, God designed for man a condition of life,
so man brought on himself a state of death; and this, too, neither through infirmity nor
through ignorance, so that no blame can be imputed to the Creator. No doubt it was an
angel who was the seducer; but then the victim of that seduction was free, and master of
himself; and as being the image and likeness of God, was stronger than any angel; and as
being, too, the afflatus of the Divine Being, was nobler than that material spirit of
which angels were made. Who maketh, says he, His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame
of fire. He would not have made all things subject to man, if he had been too weak for the
dominion, and inferior to the angels, to whom He assigned no such subjects; nor would He
have put the burden of law upon him, if he had been incapable of sustaining so great a
weight;

2 nor, again, would He have threatened with the penalty of death a creature whom He knew
to be guiltless on the score of his helplessness: in short, if He had made him infirm, it
would not have been by liberty and independence of will, but rather by the withholding
from him these endowments. And thus it comes to pass, that even now also, the same human
being, the same substance of his soul, the same condition as Adam's, is made conqueror
over the same devil by the self-same liberty and power of his will, when it moves in
obedience to the laws of God. 3 Chapter IX.-Another Cavil Answered, I.e., the Fall
Imputable to God, Because Man's Soul is a Portion of the Spiritual Essence of the Creator.
The Divine Afflatus Not in Fault in the Sin of Man, But the Human Will Which Was
Additional to It. 4 But, you say, in what way soever the substance of the Creator is found
to be susceptible of fault, when the afflatus of God, that is to say, the soul, offends in
man, it cannot but be that that fault of the portion is refferible to the original whole.
Now, to meet this objection, we must explain the nature of the soul. We must at the outset
hold fast the meaning of the Greek scripture, which has afflatus, not spirit. Some
interpreters of the Greek, without reflecting on the difference of the words, and careless
about their exact meaning, put spirit for afflatus; they thus afford to heretics an
opportunity of tarnishing the Spirit of God, that is to say, God Himself, with default.
And now comes the question. Afflatus, observe then, is less than spirit, although it comes
from spirit; it is the spirit's gentle breeze, but it is not the spirit. Now a breeze is
rarer than the wind; and although it proceeds from wind, yet a breeze is not the wind. One
may call a breeze the image of the spirit. In the same manner, man is the image of God,
that is, of spirit; for God is spirit. Afflatus is therefore the image of the spirit. Now
the image is not in any case equal to the very thing. It is one thing to be like the
reality, and another thing to be the reality itself.

5 So, although the afflatus is the image of the spirit, it is yet not possible to compare
the image of God in such a way, that, because the reality-that is, the spirit, or in other
words, the Divine Being-is faultless, therefore the afflatus also, that is to say, the
image, ought not by any possibility to have done wrong. In this respect will the image be
less than the reality, and the afflatus inferior to the spirit, in that, while it
possesses beyond doubt the true lineaments of divinity, such as an immortal soul, freedom
and its own mastery over itself, foreknowledge in a great degree, reasonableness, capacity
of understanding and knowledge, it is even in these respects an image still, and never
amounts to the actual power of Deity, nor to absolute exemption from fault,-a property
which is only conceded to God, that is, to the reality, and which is simply incompatible
with an image. An image, although it may express all the lineaments of the reality, is yet
wanting in its intrinsic power; it is destitute of motion. In like manner, the soul, the
image of the spirit, is unable to express the simple power thereof, that is to say, its
happy exemption from sinning. Were it otherwise, it would not be soul, but spirit; not
man, who received a soul, but God.

6 Besides, to take another view of the matter, not everything which pertains to God will
be regarded as God, so that you would not maintain that His afflatus was God, that is,
exempt from fault, because it is the breath of God. And in an act of your own, such as
blowing into a flute, you would not thereby make the flute human, although it was your own
human breath which you breathed into it, precisely as God breathed of His own Spirit, In
fact, the Scripture, by expressly saying that God breathed into man's nostrils the breath
of life, and that man became thereby a living soul, not a life-giving spirit, has
distinguished that soul from the condition of the Creator. The work must necessarily be
distinct from the workman, and it is inferior to him. The pitcher will not be the potter,
although made by the potter; nor in like manner, will the afflatus, because made by the
spirit, be on that account the spirit. The soul has often been called by the same name as
the breath. You should also take care that no descent be made from the breath to a still
lower quality. So you have granted (you say) the infirmity of the soul, which you denied
before! Undoubtedly, when you demand for it an equality with God, that is, a freedom from
fault, I contend that it is infirm.

7 But when the comparison is challenged with an angel, I am compelled to maintain that the
head over all things is the stronger of the two, to whom the angels are ministers, who is
destined to be the judge of angels, if he shall stand fast in the law of God-an obedience
which he refused at first. Now this disobedience it was possible for the afflatus of God
to commit: it was possible, but it was not proper. The possibility lay in its slenderness
of nature, as being the breath and not the spirit; the impropriety, however, arose from
its power of will, as being free, and not a slave. It was furthermore assisted by the
warning against committing sin under the threat of incurring death, which was meant to be
a support for its slender nature, and a direction for its liberty of choice. So that the
soul can no longer appear to have sinned, because it has an affinity with God, that is to
say, through the afflatus, but rather through that which was an addition to its nature,
that is, through its free-will, which was indeed given to it by God in accordance with His
purpose and reason, but recklessly employed by man according as he chose. This, then,
being the case, the entire course of God's action is purged from all imputation to evil.
For the liberty of the will will not retort its own wrong on Him by whom it was bestowed,
but on him by whom it was improperly used.

8 What is the evil, then, which you want to impute to the Creator? If it is man's sin, it
will not be God's fault, because it is man's doing; nor is that Being to be regarded as
the author of the sin, who turns out to be its forbidder, nay, its condemner. If death is
the evil, death will not give the reproach of being its own author to Him who threatened
it, but to him who despised it. For by his contempt he introduced it, which assuredly
would not have appeared had man not despised it. 9 Chapter X.-Another Cavil Met, I.e., the
Devil Who Instigated Man to Sin Himself the Creature of God. Nay, the Primeval Cherub Only
Was God's Work. The Devilish Nature Superadded by Wilfulness. In Man's Recovery the Devil
is Vanquished in a Conflict on His Own Ground. 10 If, however, you choose to transfer the
account of evil from man to the devil as the instigator of sin, and in this way, too,
throw the blame on the Creator, inasmuch as He created the devil,-for He maketh those
spiritual beings, the angels-then it will follow that what was made, that is to say, the
angel, will belong to Him who made it; while that which was not made by God, even the
devil, or accuser, cannot but have been made by itself; and this by false detraction from
God: first, how that God had forbidden them to eat of every tree; then, with the pretence
that they should not die if they ate; thirdly, as if God grudged them the property of
divinity. Now, whence originated this malice of lying and deceit towards man, and
slandering of God? Most certainly not from God, who made the angel good after the fashion
of His good works. Indeed, before he became the devil, he stands forth the wisest of
creatures; and wisdom is no evil. if you turn to the prophecy of Ezekiel, you will at once
perceive that this angel was both by creation good and by choice corrupt. For in the
person of the prince of Tyre it is said in reference to the devil: "Moreover, the word of
the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus,
and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God:

11 Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, perfect in beauty" (this belongs to him as the
highest of the angels, the archangel, the wisest of all); "amidst the delights of the
paradise of thy God wast thou born" (for it was there, where God had made the angels in a
shape which resembled the figure of animals). "Every precious stone was thy covering, the
sardius, the topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire,
the emerald, and the carbuncle; and with gold hast thou filled thy barns and thy
treasuries. From the day when thou wast created, when I set thee, a cherub, upon the holy
mountain of God, thou wast in the midst of stones of fire, thou wast irreproachable in thy
days, from the day of thy creation, until thine iniquities were discovered. By the
abundance of thy merchandise thou hast filled thy storehouses, and thou hast sinned," etc.
This description, it is manifest, properly belongs to the transgression of the angel, and
not to the prince's: for none among human beings was either born in the paradise of God,
not even Adam himself, who was rather translated thither; nor placed with a cherub upon
God's holy mountain, that is to say, in the heights of heaven, from which the Lord
testifies that Satan fell; nor detained amongst the stones of fire, and the flashing rays
of burning conStellations, whence Satan was cast down like lightning.

12 No, it is none else than the very author of sin who was denoted in the person of a
sinful man: he was once irreproachable, at the time of his creation, formed for good by
God, as by the good Creator of irreproachable creatures, and adorned with every angelic
glory, and associated with God, good with the Good; but afterwards of his own accord
removed to evil. From the day when thine iniquities, says he, were discovered,-attributing
to him those injuries wherewith he injured man when he was expelled from his allegiance to
God,-even from that time did he sin, when he propagated his sin, and thereby plied "the
abundance of his merchandise," that is, of his Wickedness, even the tale of his
transgressions, because he was himself as a spirit no less (than man) created, with the
faculty of free-will. For God would in nothing fail to endow a being who was to be next to
Himself with a liberty of this kind. Nevertheless, by precondemning him, God testified
that he had departed from the condition of his created nature, through his own lusting
after the wickedness which was spontaneously conceived within him; and at the same time,
by conceding a permission for the operation of his designs, He acted consistently with the
purpose of His own goodness, deferring the devil's destruction for the self-same reason as
He postponed the restitution of man.

13 For He afforded room for a conflict, wherein man might crush his enemy with the same
freedom of his will as had made him succumb to him (proving that the fault was all his
own, not God's), and so worthily recover his salvation by a victory; wherein also the
devil might receive a more bitter punishment, through being vanquished by him whom he had
previously injured; and wherein God might be discovered to be so much the more good, as
waiting for man to return from his present life to a more glorious paradise, with a right
to pluck of the tree of life.

CHAPTER XI.-IF, AFTER MAN'S SIN, GOD EXERCISED HIS ATTRIBUTE OF JUSTICE AND JUDGMENT, THIS WAS COMPATIBLE WITH HIS GOODNESS, AND ENHANCES THE TRUE IDEA OF THE PERFECTION OF GOD'S CHARACTER.

1 Up to the fall of man, therefore, from the beginning God was simply good; after that He
became a judge both severe and, as the Marcionites will have it, cruel. Woman is at once
condemned to bring forth in sorrow, and to serve her husband, although before she had
heard without pain the increase of her race proclaimed with the blessing, Increase and
multiply, and although she had been destined to be a help and not a slave to her male
partner. Immediately the earth is also cursed, which before was blessed. Immediately
spring up briers and thorns, where once had grown grass, and herbs, and fruitful trees.
Immediately arise sweat and labour for bread, where previously on every tree was yielded
spontaneous food and untilled nourishment. Thenceforth it is "man to the ground," and not
as before, "from the ground; to death thenceforth, but before, to life; thenceforth with
coats of skins, but before, nakedness without a blush. Thus God's prior goodness was from
nature, His subsequent severity from a cause. The one was innate, the other accidental;
the one His own, the other adapted; the one issuing from Him, the other admitted by Him.
But then nature could not have rightly permitted His goodness to have gone on inoperative,
nor the cause have allowed His severity to have escaped in disguise or concealment. God
provided the one for Himself, the other for the occasion.

2 You should now set about showing also that the position of a judge is allied with evil,
who have been dreaming of another god as a purely good one-solely because you cannot
understand the Deity to be a judge; although we have proved God to be also a judge. Or if
not a judge, at any rate a perverse and useless originator of a discipline which is not to
be vindicated-in other words, not to be judged. You do not, however, disprove God's being
a judge, who have no proof to show that He is a judge. You will undoubtedly have to accuse
justice herself, which provides the judge, or else to reckon her among the species of
evil, that is, to add injustice to the titles of goodness. But then justice is an evil, if
injustice is a good. And yet you are forced to declare injustice to be one of the worst of
things, and by the same rule are constrained to class justice amongst the most excellent.
Since there is nothing hostile to evil which is not good, and no enemy of good which is
not evil. It follows, then, that as injustice is an evil, so in the same degree is justice
a good. Nor should it be regarded as simply a species of goodness, but as the practical
observance of it, because goodness (unless justice be so controlled as to be just) will
not be goodness, if it be unjust. For nothing is good which is unjust;

3 while everything, on the other hand, which is just is good.

CHAPTER XII.-THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOODNESS AND JUSTICE SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED. THEY ARE COMPATIBLE IN THE TRUE GOD. THE FUNCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE DIVINE BEING DESCRIBED.

Since, therefore, there is this union and agreement between goodness and justice, you
cannot prescribe their separation. With what face will you determine the separation of
your two Gods, regarding in their separate condition one as distinctively the good God,
and the other as distinctively the just God? Where the just is, there also exists the
good. in short, from the very first the Creator was both good and also just. And both His
attributes advanced together. His goodness created, His justice arranged, the world; and
in this process it even then decreed that the world should be formed of good materials,
because it took counsel with goodness. The work of justice is apparent, in the separation
which was pronounced between light and darkness, between day and night, between heaven and
earth, between the water above and the water beneath, between the gathering together of
the sea and the mass of the dry land, between the greater lights and the lesser, between
the luminaries of the day and those of the night, between male and female, between the
tree of knowledge of death and of life, between the world and paradise, between the
aqueous and the earth-born animals. As goodness conceived all things, so did justice
discriminate them. With the determination of the latter, everything was arranged and set
in order. Every site and quality of the elements, their effect, motion, and state, the
rise and setting of each, are the judicial determinations of the Creator. Do not suppose
that His function as a judge must be defined as beginning I when evil began, and so
tarnish His justice i with the cause of evil. By such considerations, then, do we show
that this attribute advanced in company with goodness, the author of all things,-worthy of
being herself, too, deemed innate and natural, and not as accidentally accruing to God,
inasmuch as she was found to be in Him, her Lord, the arbiter of His works.

CHAPTER XIII.-FURTHER DESCRIPTION OF THE DIVINE JUSTICE; SINCE THE FALL OF MAN IT HAS REGULATED THE DIVINE GOODNESS, GOD'S CLAIMS ON OUR LOVE AND OUR FEAR RECONCILED.

1 But yet, when evil afterwards broke out, and the goodness of God began now to have an
adversary to contend against, God's justice also acquired another function, even that of
directing His goodness according to men's application for it. And this is the result: the
divine goodness, being interrupted in that free course whereby God was spontaneously good,
is now dispensed according to the deserts of every man; it is offered to the worthy,
denied to the unworthy, taken away from the unthankful, and also avenged on all its
enemies. Thus the entire office of justice in this respect becomes an agency for goodness:
whatever it condemns by its judgment, whatever it chastises by its condemnation, whatever
(to use your phrase) it ruthlessly pursues, it, in fact, benefits with good instead of
injuring. Indeed, the fear of judgment contributes to good, not to evil. For good, now
contending with an enemy, was not strong enough to recommend itself by itself alone. At
all events, if it could do so much, it could not keep its ground; for it had lost its
impregnability through the foe, unless some power of fear supervened, such as might compel
the very unwilling to seek after good, and take care of it. But who, when so many
incentives to evil were assailing him, would desire that good, which he could despise with
impunity? Who, again, would take care of what he could lose without danger? You read bow
broad is the road to evil, how thronged in comparison with the opposite:

2 would not all glide down that road were there nothing in it to fear? We dread the
Creator's tremendous threats, and yet scarcely turn away from evil. What, if He threatened
not? Will you call this justice an evil, when it is all unfavourable to evil? Will you
deny it to be a good, when it has its eye towards good? What sort of being ought you to
wish God to be? Would it be right to prefer that He should be such, that sins might
flourish under Him, and the devil make mock at Him? Would you suppose Him to be a good
God, who should be able to make a man worse by security in sin? Who is the author of good,
but He who also requires it? In like manner who is a stranger to evil, except Him who is
its enemy? Who its enemy, besides Him who is its conqueror? Who else its conqueror, than
He who is its punisher? Thus God is wholly good, because in all things He is on the side
of good. In fact, He is omnipotent, because able both to help and to hurt. Merely to
profit is a comparatively small matter, because it can do nothing else than a good turn.
From such a conduct with what confidence can I hope for good, if this is its only ability?
How can I follow after the reward of innocence, if I have no regard to the requital of
wrong-doing?

3 I must needs have my doubts whether he might not fail in recompensing one or other
alternative, who was unequal in his resources to meet both. Thus far, then, justice is the
very fulness of the Deity Himself, manifesting God as both a perfect father and a perfect
master: a father in His mercy, a master in His discipline; a father in the mildness of His
power, a master in its severity; a father who must be loved with dutiful affection, a
master who must needs be feared; be loved, because He prefers mercy to sacrifice; be
feared because He dislikes sin; be loved, because He prefers the sinner, s repentance to
his death; be feared, because He dislikes the sinners who do not repent. Accordingly, the
divine law enjoins duties in respect of both these attributes: Thou shalt love God, and,
Thou shalt fear God. It proposed one for the obedient man, the other for the transgressor.

CHAPTER XIV.-EVIL OF TWO KINDS, PENAL AND CRIMINAL. IT IS NOT OF THE LATTER SORT THAT GOD IS THE AUTHOR, BUT ONLY OF THE FORMER, WHICH ARE PENAL, AND INCLUDED IN HIS JUSTICE.

1 On all occasions does God meet you: it is He who smites, but also heals; who kills, but
also makes alive; who humbles, and yet exalts; who "creates evil," but also "makes peace;
" -so that from these very (contrasts Of His providence) I may get an answer to the
heretics. Behold, they say, how He acknowledges Himself to be the creator of evil in the
passage, "It is I who create evil. They take a word whose one form reduces to confusion
and ambiguity two kinds of evils (because both sins and punishments are called evils), and
will have Him in every passage to be understood as the creator of all evil things, in
order that He may be designated the author of evil. We, on the contrary, distinguish
between the two meanings of the word in question, and, by separating evils of sin from
penal evils, mala culpµ from mala p£nµ, confine to each of the two classes its own
author,-the devil as the author of the sinful evils (culpµ), and God as the creator of
penal evils (p£nµ); so that the one class shall be accounted as morally bad, and the other
be classed as the operations of justice passing penal sentences against the evils of sin.
Of the latter class of evils which are compatible with justice, God is therefore avowedly
the creator. They are, no doubt, evil to those by whom they are endured, but still on
their own account good, as being just and defensive of good and hostile to sin.

2 In this respect they are, moreover, worthy of God. Else prove them to be unjust, in
order to show them deserving of a place in the sinful class, that is to say, evils of
injustice; because if they turn out to belong to justice, they will be no longer evil
things, but good-evil only to the bad, by whom even directly good things are condemned as
evil. In this case, you must decide that man, although the wilful contemner of the divine
law, unjustly bore the doom which he would like to have escaped; that the wickedness of
those days was unjustly smitten by the deluge, afterwards by the fire (of Sodom); that
Egypt, although most depraved and superstitious, and, worse still, the harasser of its
guest-population, was unjustly stricken with the chastisement of its ten plagues. God
hardens the heart of Pharaoh. He deserved, however, to be influenced to his destruction,
who had already denied God, already in his pride so often rejected His ambassadors,
accumulated heavy burdens on His people, and (to sum up all) as an Egyptian, had long been
guilty before God of Gentile idolatry, worshipping the ibis and the crocodile in
preference to the living God. Even His own people did God visit in their ingratitude.
Against young lads, too, did He send forth bears, for their irreverence to the prophet.

CHAPTER XV.-THE SEVERITY OF GOD COMPATIBLE WITH REASON AND JUSTICE. WHEN INFLICTED, NOT MEANT TO BE ARBITRARY, BUT REMEDIAL.

1 Consider well, then, before all things the justice of the Judge; and if its purpose be
clear, then the severity thereof, and the operations of the severity in its course, will
appear compatible with reason and justice. Now, that we may not linger too long on the
point, (I would challenge you to) assert the other reasons also, that you may condemn the
Judge's sentences; extenuate the delinquencies of the sinner, that you may blame his
judicial conviction. Never mind censuring the Judge; rather prove Him to be an unjust one.
Well, then, even though He required the sins of the fathers at the hands of the children,
the hardness of the people made such remedial measures necessary for them, in order that,
having their posterity in view, they might obey the divine law. For who is there that
feels not a greater care for his children than for himself? Again, if the blessing of the
fathers was destined likewise for their offspring, previous to any merit on the part of
these, why might not the guilt of the fathers also redound to their children? As was the
grace, so was the offence; so that the grace and the offence equally ran down through the
whole race, with the reservation, indeed, of that subsequent ordinance by which it became
possible to refrain from saying, that "the fathers had eaten a sour grape, and the
children's teeth were set on edge:

2 " in other words, that the father should not bear the iniquity of the son, nor the son
the iniquity of the father, but that every man should be chargeable with his own sin; so
that the harshness of the law having been reduced after the hardness of the people,
justice was no longer to judge the race, but individuals. If, however, you accept the
gospel of truth, you will discover on whom recoils the sentence of the Judge, when
requiting on sons the sins of their fathers, even on those who had been (hardened enough)
to imprecate spontaneously on themselves this condemnation: "His blood be on us, and on
our children. This, therefore, the providence of God has ordered throughout its course,
even as it had heard it.

CHAPTER XVI.-TO THE SEVERITY OF GOD THERE BELONG ACCESSORY QUALITIES, COMPATIBLE WITH JUSTICE. IF HUMAN PASSIONS ARE PREDICATED OF GOD, THEY MUST NOT BE MEASURED ON THE SCALE OF HUMAN IMPERFECTION.

1 Even His severity then is good, because just: when the judge is good, that is just.
Other. qualities likewise are good, by means of which the good work of a good severity
runs out its course, whether wrath, or jealousy, or sternness. For all these are as
indispensable to severity as severity is to justice. The shamelessness of an age, which
ought to have been reverent, had to be avenged. Accordingly, qualities which pertain to
the judge, when they are actually free from blame, as the judge himself is, will never be
able to be charged upon him as a fault. What would be said, if, when you thought the
doctor necessary, you were to find fault with his instruments, because they cut, or
cauterize, or amputate, or tighten; whereas there could be no doctor of any value without
his professional tools? Censure, if you please, the practitioner who cuts badly, amputates
clumsily, is rash in his cautery; and even blame his implements as rough tools of his art.
Your conduct is equally unreasonable, when you allow indeed that God is a judge, but at
the same time destroy those operations and dispositions by which He discharges His
judicial functions. We are taught God by the prophets, and by Christ, not by the
philosophers nor by Epicurus. We who believe that God really lived on earth, and took upon
Him the low estate of human form, for the purpose of man's salvation, are very far from
thinking as those do who refuse to believe that God cares for anything.

2 Whence has found its way to the heretics an argument of this kind: If God is angry, and
jealous, and roused, and grieved, He must therefore be corrupted, and must therefore die.
Fortunately, however, it is a part of the creed of Christians even to believe that God did
die, and yet that He is alive for evermore. Superlative is their folly, who prejudge
divine things from human; so that, because in man's corrupt condition there are found
passions of this description, therefore there must be deemed to exist in God also
sensations of the same kind. Discriminate between the natures, and assign to them their
respective senses, which are as diverse as their natures require, although they seem to
have a community of designations. We read, indeed, of God's right hand, and eyes, and
feet: these must not, however, be compared with those of human beings, because they are
associated in one and the same name. Now, as great as shall be the difference between the
divine and the human body, although their members pass under identical names, so great
will also be the diversity between the divine and the human soul, notwithstanding that
their sensations are designated by the same names. These sensations in the human being are
rendered just as corrupt by the corruptibility of man's substance, as in God they are
rendered incorruptible by the incorruption of the divine essence. Do you really believe
the Creator to be God? By all means, is your reply.

3 How then do you suppose that in God there is anything human, and not that all is divine?
Him whom you do not deny to be God, you confess to be not human; because, when you confess
Him to be God, you have, in fact, already determined that He is undoubtedly diverse from
every sort of human conditions. Furthermore, although you allow, with others, that man was
inbreathed by God into a living soul, not God by man, it is yet palpably absurd of you to
be placing human characteristics in God rather than divine ones in man, and clothing God
in the likeness of man, instead of man in the image of God. And this, therefore, is to be
deemed the likeness of God in man, that the human soul have the same emotions and
sensations as God, although they are not of the same kind; differing as they do both in
their conditions and their issues according to their nature. Then, again, with respect to
the opposite sensations,-I mean meekness, patience, mercy, and the very parent of them
all, goodness,-why do you form your opinion of the divine displays of these (from the
human qualities)? For we indeed do not possess them in perfection, because it is God alone
who is perfect. So also in regard to those others,-namely, anger and irritation. we are
not affected by them in so happy a manner, because God alone is truly happy, by reason of
His property of incorruptibility. Angry He will possibly be, but not irritated, nor
dangerously tempted;

4 He will be moved, but not subverted. All appliances He must needs use, because of all
contingencies; as many sensations as there are causes: anger because of the wicked, and
indignation because of the ungrateful, and jealousy because of the proud, and whatsoever
else is a hinderance to the evil. So, again, mercy on account of the erring, and patience
on account of the impenitent, and pre-eminent resources on account of the meritorious, and
whatsoever is necessary to the good. All these affections He is moved by in that peculiar
manner of His own, in which it is profoundly fit that He should be affected; and it is
owing to Him that man is also similarly affected in a way which is equally his own.

CHAPTER XVII.-TRACE GOD'S GOVERNMENT IN HISTORY AND IN HIS PRECEPTS, AND YOU WILL FIND IT FULL OF HIS GOODNESS.

1 These considerations show that the entire order of God as Judge is an operative one, and
(that I may express myself in worthier words) protective of His Catholic and supreme
goodness, which, removed as it is from judiciary emotions, and pure in its own condition,
the Marcionites refuse to acknowledge to be in one and the same Deity, "raining on the
just and on the unjust, and making His sun to rise on the evil and on the good," -a bounty
which no other god at all exercises. It is true that Marcion has been bold enough to erase
from the gospel this testimony of Christ to the Creator; but yet the world itself is
inscribed with the goodness of its Maker, and the inscription is read by each man's
conscience. Nay, this very long-suffering of the Creator will tend to the condemnation of
Marcion; that patience, (I mean, ) which waits for the sinner's repentance rather than his
death, which prefers mercy to sacrifice, averting from the Ninevites the ruin which had
been already denounced against them, and vouchsafing to Hezekiah's tears an extension of
his life, and restoring his kingly state to the monarch of Babylon after his complete
repentance; that mercy, too, which conceded to the devotion of the people the son of Saul
when about to die, and gave free forgiveness to David on his confessing his sins against
the house of Uriah; which also restored the house of Israel as often as it condemned it,
and addressed to it consolation no less frequently than reproof.

2 Do not therefore look at God simply as Judge, but turn your attention also to examples
of His conduct as the Most Good. Noting Him, as you do, when He takes vengeance, consider
Him likewise When He shows mercy. In the scale, against His severity place His gentleness.
When you shall have discovered both qualities to co-exist in the Creator, you will find in
Him that very circumstance which induces you to think there is another God. Lastly, come
and examine into His doctrine, discipline, precepts, and counsels. You will perhaps say
that there are equally good prescriptions in human laws. But Moses and God existed before
all your Lycurguses and Solons. There is not one after-age which does not take from
primitive sources. At any rate, my Creator did not learn from your God to issue such
commandments as: Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not
steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt not covet what is thy neighbour's;
honour thy father and thy mother; and, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. To these
prime counsels of innocence, chastity, and justice, and piety, are also added
prescriptions of humanity, as when every seventh year slaves are released for liberty;
when at the same period the land is spared from tillage; a place is also granted to the
needy;

3 and from the treading ox's mouth the muzzle is removed, for the enjoyment of the fruit
of his labour before him, in order that kindness first shown in the case of animals might
be raised from such rudiments to the refreshment of men.

CHAPTER XVIII.-SOME OF GOD'S LAWS DEFENDED AS GOOD, WHICH THE MARCIONITES IMPEACHED, SUCH AS THE LEX TALIONIS. USEFUL PURPOSES IN A SOCIAL AND MORAL POINT OF VIEW OF THIS, AND SUNDRY OTHER ENACTMENTS.

1 But what parts of the law can I defend as good with a greater confidence than those
which heresy has shown such a longing for?-as the statute of retaliation, requiring eye
for eye, tooth for tooth, and stripe for stripe. Now there is not here any smack of a
permission to mutual injury; but rather, on the whole, a provision for restraining
violence. To a people which was very obdurate, and wanting in faith towards God, it might
seem tedious, and even incredible, to expect from God that vengeance which was
subsequently to be declared by the prophet: "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the
Lord. Therefore, in the meanwhile, the commission of wrong was to be checked by the fear
of a retribution immediately to happen; and so the permission of this retribution was to
be the prohibition of provocation, that a stop might thus be put to all hot-blooded
injury, whilst by the permission of the second the first is prevented by fear, and by this
deterring of the first the second fails to be committed. By the same law another result is
also obtained, even the more ready kindling of the fear of retaliation by reason of the
very savour of passion which is in it. There is no more bitter thing, than to endure the
very suffering which you have inflicted upon others.

2 When, again, the law took somewhat away from men's food, by pronouncing unclean certain
animals which were once blessed, you should understand this to be a measure for
encouraging continence, and recognise in it a bridle imposed on that appetite which, while
eating angels' food, craved after the cucumbers and melons of the Egyptians. Recognise
also therein a precaution against those companions of the appetite, even lust and luxury,
which are usually chilled by the chastening of the appetite. For "the people sat down to
eat and to drink, and rose up to play. Furthermore, that an eager wish for money might be
restrained, so far as it is caused by the need of food, the desire for costly meat and
drink was taken out of their power. Lastly, in order that man might be more readily
educated by God for fasting, he was accustomed to such articles of food as were neither
plentiful nor sumptuous, and not likely to pamper the appetite of the luxurious. Of course
the Creator deserved all the greater blame, because it was from His own people that He
took away food, rather than from the more ungrateful Marcionites. As for the burdensome
sacrifices also, and the troublesome scrupulousness of their ceremonies and oblations, no
one should blame them, as if God specially required them for Himself: for He plainly asks,
"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? "and, "Who hath required
them at your hand?

3 " But he should see herein a careful provision on God's part, which showed His wish to
bind to His own religion a people who were prone to idolatry and transgression by that
kind of services wherein consisted the superstition of that period; that He might call
them away therefrom, while requesting it to be performed to Himself, as if He desired that
no sin should be committed in making idols.

CHAPTER XIX.-THE MINUTE PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE LAW MEANT TO KEEP THE PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON GOD. THE PROPHETS SENT BY GOD IN PURSUANCE OF HIS GOODNESS. MANY BEAUTIFUL PASSAGES FROM THEM QUOTED IN ILLUSTRATION OF THIS ATTRIBUTE.

1 But even in the common transactions of life, and of human intercourse at home and in
public, even to the care of the smallest vessels, He in every possible manner made
distinct arrangement; in order that, when they everywhere encountered these legal
instructions, they might not be at any moment out of the sight of God. For what could
better tend to make a man happy, than having "his delight in the law of the Lord? ""In
that law would he meditate day and night. It was not in severity that its Author
promulgated this law, but in the interest of the highest benevolence, which rather aimed
at subduing the nation's hardness of heart, and by laborious services hewing out a fealty
which was (as yet) untried in obedience: for I purposely abstain from touching on the
mysterious senses of the law, considered in its spiritual and prophetic relation, and as
abounding in types of almost every variety and sort. It is enough at present, that it
simply bound a man to God, so that no one ought to find fault with it, except him who does
not choose to serve God. To help forward this beneficent, not onerous, purpose of the law,
the prophets were also ordained by the self-same goodness of God, teaching precepts worthy
of God, how that men should "cease to do evil, learn to do well, seek judgment, judge the
fatherless, and plead for the widow: " be fond of the divine expostulations: avoid contact
with the wicked: "let the oppressed go free:

2 " dismiss the unjust sentence. "deal their bread to the hungry; bring the outcast into
their house; cover the naked, when they see him; nor hide themselves from their own flesh
and kin: " "keep their tongue from evil, and their lips from speaking guile: depart from
evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it: " be angry, and sin not; that is, not
persevere in anger, or be enraged: "walk not in the counsel of the ungodly; nor stand in
the way of sinners; nor sit in the seat of the scornful. Where then? "Behold, how good and
how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity; " meditating (as they do) day
and night in the law of the Lord, because "it is better to trust in the Lord than to put
confidence in man; better to hope in the Lord than in man. For what recompense shall man
receive from God? "He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth
forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither, and whatsoever he doeth
shall prosper. "He that hath clean hands and a pure heart, who hath not taken God's name
in vain, nor sworn deceitfully to his neighbour, he shall receive blessing from the Lord,
and mercy from the God of his salvation.

3 "For the eyes of the Lord are upon them that fear Him, upon them that hope in His mercy,
to deliver their souls from death," even eternal death, "and to nourish them in their
hunger," that is, after eternal life. "Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the
Lord delivereth them out of them all. "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of
His saints. "The Lord keepeth all their bones; not one of them shall be broken. The Lord
will redeem the souls of His servants. We have adduced these few quotations from a mass of
the Creator's Scriptures; and no more, I suppose, are wanted to prove Him to be a most
good God, for they sufficiently indicate both the precepts of His goodness and the first-
fruits thereof.

CHAPTER XX.-THE MARCIONITES CHARGED GOD WITH HAVING INSTIGATED THE HEBREWS TO SPOIL THE EGYPTIANS. DEFENCE OF THE DIVINE DISPENSATION IN THAT MATTER.

1 But these "saucy cuttles" (of heretics) under the figure of whom the law about things to
be eaten prohibited this very kind of piscatory aliment, as soon as they find themselves
confuted, eject the black venom of their blasphemy, and so spread about in all directions
the object which (as is now plain) they severally have in view, when they put forth such
assertions and protestations as shall obscure and tarnish the rekindled light of the
Creator's bounty. We will, however, follow their wicked design, even through these black
clouds, and drag to light their tricks of dark calumny, laying to the Creator's charge
with especial emphasis the fraud and theft of gold and silver which the Hebrews were
commanded by Him to practise against the Egyptians. Come, unhappy heretic, I cite even you
as a witness; first look at the case of the two nations, and then you will form a judgment
of the Author of the command. The Egyptians put in a claim on the Hebrews for these gold
and silver vessels. The Hebrews assert a counter claim, alleging that by the bond of their
respective fathers, attested by the written engagement of both parties, there were due to
them the arrears of that laborious slavery of theirs, for the bricks they had so painfully
made, and the cities and palaces which they had built. What shall be your verdict, you
discoverer of the most good God? That the Hebrews must admit the fraud, or the Egyptians
the compensation?

2 For they maintain that thus has the question been settled by the advocates on both
sides, of the Egyptians demanding their vessels, and the Hebrews claiming the requital of
their labours. But for all they say, the Egyptians justly renounced their restitution-
claim then and there; while the Hebrews to this day, in spite of the Marcionites, re-
assert their demand for even greater damages, insisting that, however large was their loan
of the gold and silver, it would not be compensation enough, even if the labour of six
hundred thousand men should be valued at only "a farthing" a day a piece. Which, however,
were the more in number-those who claimed the vessel, or those who dwelt in the palaces
and cities? Which, too, the greater-the grievance of the Egyptians against the Hebrews, or
"the favour" which they displayed towards them? Were free men reduced to servile labour,
in order that the Hebrews might simply proceed against the Egyptians by action at law for
injuries; or in order that their officers might on their benches sit and exhibit their
backs and shoulders shamefully mangled by the fierce application of the scourge? It was
not by a few plates and cup-in all cases the property, no doubt, of still fewer rich men-
that any one would pronounce that compensation should have been awarded to the Hebrews,
but both by all the resources of these and by the contributions of all the people. If,
therefore, the case of the Hebrews be a good one, the Creator's case must likewise be a
good one;

3 that is to say, his command, when He both made the Egyptians unconsciously grateful, and
also gave His own people their discharge in full at the time of their migration by the
scanty comfort of a tacit requital of their long servitude. It was plainly less than their
due which He commanded to be exacted. The Egyptians ought to have given back their men-
children also to the Hebrews.

CHAPTER XXI.-THE LAW OF THE SABBATH-DAY EXPLAINED. THE EIGHT DAYS' PROCESSION AROUND JERICHO. THE GATHERING OF STICKS A VIOLATION.

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


THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION
==============================

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION continued

CHAPTER XXII.-THE BRAZEN SERPENT AND THE GOLDEN CHERUBIM WERE NOT VIOLATIONS OF THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. THEIR MEANING.

1 Likewise, when forbidding the similitude to be made of all things which are in heaven,
and in earth, and in the waters, He declared also the reasons, as being prohibitory of all
material exhibition of a latent idolatry. For He adds: "Thou shalt not bow down to them,
nor serve them. The form, however, of the brazen serpent which the Lord afterwards
commanded Moses to make, afforded no pretext for idolatry, but was meant for the cure of
those who were plagued with the fiery serpents. I say nothing of what was figured by this
cure. Thus, too, the golden Cherubim and Seraphim were purely an ornament in the figured
fashion of the ark; adapted to ornamentation for reasons totally remote from all condition
of idolatry, on account of which the making a likeness is prohibited; and they are
evidently not at variance with this law of prohibition, because they are not found in that
form of similitude, in reference to which the prohibition is given. We have spoken of the
rational institution of the sacrifices, as calling off their homage from idols to God; and
if He afterwards rejected this homage, saying, "To what purpose is the multitude of your
sacrifices unto me? " -He meant nothing else than this to be understood, that He had never
really required such homage for Himself. For He says, "I will not eat the flesh of bulls;
" and in another passage: "The everlasting God shall neither hunger nor thirst.

2 Although He had respect to the offerings of Abel, and smelled a sweet savour from the
holocaust of Noah, yet what pleasure could He receive from the flesh of sheep, or the
odour of burning victims? And yet the simple and God-fearing mind of those who offered
what they were receiving from God, both in the way of food and of a sweet smell, was
favourably accepted before God, in the sense of respectful homage to God, who did not so
much want what was offered, as that which prompted the offering. Suppose now, that some
dependant were to offer to a rich man or a king, who was in want of nothing, some very
insignificant gift, will the amount and quality of the gift bring dishonour to the rich
man and the king; or will the consideration of the homage give them pleasure? Were,
however, the dependant, either of his own accord or even in compliance with a command, to
present to him gifts suitably to his rank, and were he to observe the solemnities due to a
king, only without faith and purity of heart, and without any readiness for other acts of
obedience, will not that king or rich man consequently exclaim: "To what purpose is the
multitude of your sacrifices unto me? I am full of your solemnities, your feast-days, and
your Sabbaths.

3 By calling them yours, as having been performed after the giver's own will, and not
according to the religion of God (since he displayed them as his own, and not as God's),
the Almighty in this passage, demonstrated how suitable to the conditions of the case, and
how reasonable, was His rejection of those very offerings which He had commanded to be
made to Him.

CHAPTER XXIII.-GOD'S PURPOSES IN ELECTION AND REJECTION OF THE SAME MEN, SUCH AS KING SAUL, EXPLAINED, IN ANSWER TO THE MARCIONITE CAVIL.

1 Now, although you will have it that He is inconstant in respect of persons, sometimes
disapproving where approbation is deserved; or else wanting in foresight, bestowing
approbation on men who ought rather to be reprobated, as if He either censured His own
past judgments, or could not forecast His future ones; yet nothing is so consistent for
even a good judge as both to reject and to choose on the merits of the present moment.
Saul is chosen, but he is not yet the despiser of the prophet Samuel. Solomon is rejected;
but he is now become a prey to foreign women, and a slave to the idols of Moab and Sidon.
What must the Creator do, in order to escape the censure of the Marcionites? Must He
prematurely condemn men, who are thus far correct in their conduct, because of future
delinquencies? But it is not the mark of a good God to condemn beforehand persons who have
not yet deserved condemnation. Must He then refuse to eject sinners, on account of their
previous good deeds? But it is not the characteristic of a just judge to forgive sins in
consideration of former virtues which are no longer practised. Now, who is so faultless
among men, that God could always have him in His choice, and never be able to reject him?
Or who, on the other hand, is so void of any good work, that God could reject him for
ever, and never be able to choose him?

2 Show me, then, the man who is always good, and he will not be rejected; show me, too,
him who is always evil, and he will never be chosen. Should, however, the same man, being
found on different occasions in the pursuit of both (good and evil) be recompensed in both
directions by God, who is both a good and judicial Being, He does not change His judgments
through inconstancy or want of foresight, but dispenses reward according to the deserts of
each case with a most unwavering and provident decision.

CHAPTER XXIV.-INSTANCES OF GOD'S REPENTANCE, AND NOTABLY IN THE CASE OF THE NINEVITES, ACCOUNTED FOR AND VINDICATED.

1 Furthermore, with respect to the repentance which occurs in His conduct? you interpret
it with similar perverseness just as if it were with fickleness and improvidence that He
repented, or on the recollection of some wrong-doing; because He actually said, "It
repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king, "very much as if He meant that His
repentance savoured of an acknowledgment of some evil work or error. Well, this is not
always implied. For there occurs even in good works a confession of repentance, as a
reproach and condemnation of the man who has proved himself unthankful for a benefit. For
instance, in this case of Saul, the Creator, who had made no mistake in selecting him for
the kingdom, and endowing him with His Holy Spirit, makes a statement respecting the
goodliness of his person, how that He had most fitly chosen him as being at that moment
the choicest man, so that (as He says) there was not his fellow among the children of
Israel. Neither was He ignorant how he would afterwards turn out. For no one would bear
you out in imputing lack of foresight to that God whom, since you do not deny Him to be
divine, you allow to be also foreseeing; for this proper attribute of divinity exists in
Him. However, He did, as I have said, burden the guilt of Saul with the confession of His
own repentance;

2 but as there is an absence of all error and wrong in His choice of Saul, it follows that
this repentance is to be understood as upbraiding another rather than as self-
incriminating. Look here then, say you: I discover a self-incriminating case in the matter
of the Ninevites, when the book of Jonah declares, "And God repented of the evil that He
had said that He would do unto them; and He did it not. In accordance with which Jonah
himself says unto the Lord, "Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish; for I knew that Thou
art a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest Thee
of the evil. It is well, therefore, that he premised the attribute of the most good God as
most patient over the wicked, and most abundant in mercy and kindness over such as
acknowledged and bewailed their sins, as the Ninevites were then doing. For if He who has
this attribute is the Most Good, you will have first to relinquish that position of yours,
that the very contact with evil is incompatible with such a Being, that is, with the most
good God. And because Marcion, too, maintains that a good tree ought not to produce bad
fruit; but yet he has mentioned "evil" (in the passage under discussion), which the most
good God is incapable of, is there forthcoming any explanation of these "evils," which may
render them compatible with even the most Good?

3 There is, We say, in short, that evil in the present case means, not what may be
attributed to the Creator's nature as an evil being, but what may be attributed to His
power as a judge. In accordance with which He declared, "I create evil," and, "I frame
evil against you; " meaning not to sinful evils, but avenging ones. What sort of stigma
pertains to these, congruous as they are with God's judicial character, we have
sufficiently explained. Now although these are called "evils," they are yet not
reprehensible in a judge; nor because of this their name do they show that the judge is
evil: so in like manner will this particular evil be understood to be one of this class of
judiciary evils, and along with them to be compatible with (God as) a judge. The Greeks
also sometimes use the word "evils" for troubles and injuries (not malignant ones), as in
this passage of yours is also meant. Therefore, if the Creator repented of such evil as
this, as showing that the creature deserve decondemnation, and ought to be punished for
his sin, then, in the present instance no fault of a criminating nature will be imputed to
the Creator, for having deservedly and worthily decreed the destruction of a city so full
of iniquity. What therefore He had justly decreed, having no evil purpose in His decree,
He decreed from the principle of justice, not from malevolence.

4 Yet He gave it the name of "evil," because of the evil and desert involved in the very
suffering itself. Then, you will say, if you excuse the evil under name of justice, on the
ground that He had justly determined destruction against the people of Nineveh, He must
even on this argument be blameworthy, for having repented of an act of justice, which
surely should not be repented of. Certainly not, my reply is; God will never repent of an
act of justice. And it now remains that we should understand what God's repentance means.
For although man repents most frequently on the recollection of a sin, and occasionally
even from the unpleasantness of some good action, this is never the case with God. For,
inasmuch as God neither commits sin nor condemns a good action, in so far is there no room
in Him for repentance of either a good or an evil deed. Now this point is determined for
you even in the scripture which we have quoted. Samuel says to Saul, "The Lord hath rent
the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine that
is better than thou; " and into two parts shall Israel be divided: "for He will not turn
Himself, nor repent; for He does not repent as a man does.

5 According, therefore, to this definition, the divine repentance takes in all cases a
different form from that of man, in that it is never regarded as the result of
improvidence or of fickleness, or of any condemnation of a good or an evil work. What,
then, will be the mode of God's repentance? It is already quite clear, if you avoid
referring it to human conditions. For it will have no other meaning than a simple change
of a prior purpose; and this is admissible without any blame even in a man, much more in
God, whose every purpose is faultless. Now in Greek the word for repentance (meta/noia) is
formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind, which in God we have
shown to be regulated by the occurrence of varying circumstances.

CHAPTER XXV.-GOD'S DEALINGS WITH ADAM AT THE FALL, AND WITH CAIN AFTER HIS CRIME, ADMIRABLY EXPLAINED AND DEFENDED.

1 It is now high time that I should, in order to meet all objections of this kind, proceed
to the explanation and clearing up of the other trifles, weak points, and inconsistencies,
as you deemed them. God calls out to Adam, Where art thou? as if ignorant where he was;
and when he alleged that the shame of his nakedness was the cause (of his hiding himself),
He inquired whether he had eaten of the tree, as if He were in doubt. By no means; God was
neither uncertain about the commission of the sin, nor ignorant of Adam's whereabouts. It
was certainly proper to summon the offender, who was concealing himself from the
consciousness of his sin, and to bring him forth into the presence of his Lord, not merely
by the calling out of his name, but with a home-thrust blow at the sin which he had at
that moment committed. For the question ought not to be read in a merely interrogative
tone, Where art thou, Adam? but with an impressive and earnest voice, and with an air of
imputation, Oh, Adam, where art thou?-as much as to intimate: thou art no longer here,
thou art in perdition-so that the voice is the utterance of One who is at once rebuking
and sorrowing. But of course some part of paradise had escaped the eye of Him who holds
the universe in His hand as if it were a bird's nest, and to whom heaven is a throne and
earth a footstool;

2 so that He could not see, before He summoned him forth, where Adam was, both while
lurking and when eating of the forbidden fruit! The wolf or the paltry thief escapes not
the notice of the keeper of your vineyard or your garden! And God, I suppose, with His
keener vision, from on high was unable to miss the sight of aught which lay beneath Him!
Foolish heretic, who treat with scorn so fine an argument of God's greatness and man's
instruction! God put the question with an appearance of uncertainty, in order that even
here He might prove man to be the subject of a free will in the alternative of either a
denial or a confession, and give to him the opportunity of freely acknowledging his
transgression, and, so far, of lightening it. In like manner He inquires of Cain where his
brother was, just as if He had not yet heard the blood of Abel crying from the ground, in
order that he too might have the opportunity from the same power of the will of
spontaneously denying, and to this degree aggravating, his crime; and that thus there
might be supplied to us examples of confessing sins rather than of denying them: so that
even then was initiated the evangelic doctrine, "By thy words thou shall be justified, and
by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

3 Now, although Adam was by reason of his condition under law subject to death, yet was
hope preserved to him by the Lord's saying, "Behold, Adam is become as one of us; " that
is, in consequence of the future taking of the man into the divine nature. Then what
follows? "And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, (and
eat), and live for ever. Inserting thus the particle of present time, "And now," He shows
that He had made for a time, and at present, a prolongation of man's life. Therefore He
did not actually curse Adam and Eve, for they were candidates for restoration, and they
had been relieved by confession. Cain, however, He not only cursed; but when he wished to
atone for his sin by death, He even prohibited his dying, so that he had to bear the load
of this prohibition in addition to his crime. This, then, will prove to be the ignorance
of our God, which was simulated on this account, that delinquent man should not be unaware
of what he ought to do. Coming down to the case of Sodom and Gomorrha, he says: "I will go
down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is
come unto me; and if not, I will know. Well, was He in this instance also uncertain
through ignorance, and desiring to know?

4 Or was this a necessary tone of utterance, as expressive of a minatory and not a dubious
sense, under the colour of an inquiry? If you make merry at God's "going down," as if He
could not except by the descent have accomplished His judgment, take care that you do not
strike your own God with as hard a blow. For He also came down to accomplish what He
wished.

CHAPTER XXVI.-THE OATH OF GOD: ITS MEANING. MOSES, WHEN DEPRECATING GOD'S WRATH AGAINST ISRAEL, A TYPE OF CHRIST.

1 But God also swears. Well, is it, I wonder, by the God of Marcion? No, no, he says; a
much vainer oath-by Himself! What was He to do, when He knew of no other God; especially
when He was swearing to this very point, that besides himself there was absolutely no God?
Is it then of swearing falsely that you convict Him, or of swearing a vain oath? But it is
not possible for him to appear to have sworn falsely, when he was ignorant, as you say he
was, that there was another God. For when he swore by that which he knew, he really
committed no perjury. But it was not a vain oath for him to swear that there was no other
God. It would indeed be a vain oath, if there had been no persons who believed that there
were other Gods, like the worshippers of idols then, and the heretics of the present day.
Therefore He swears by Himself, in order that you may believe God, even when He swears
that there is besides Himself no other God at all. But you have yourself, O Marcion,
compelled God to do this. For even so early as then were you foreseen. Hence, if He swears
both in His promises and His threatenings, and thus extorts faith which at first was
difficult, nothing is unworthy of God which causes men to believe in God.

2 But (you say) God was even then mean enough in His very fierceness, when, in His wrath
against the people for their consecration of the calf, He makes this request of His
servant Moses: "Let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may
consume them; and I will make of thee a great nation. Accordingly, you maintain that Moses
is better than his God, as the deprecator, nay the averter, of His anger. "For," said he,
"Thou shall not do this; or else destroy me along with them. Pitiable are ye also, as well
as the people, since you know not Christ, prefigured in the person of Moses as the
deprecator of the Father, and the offerer of His own life for the salvation of the people.
It is enough, however, that the nation was at the instant really given to Moses. That
which he, as a servant, was able to ask of the Lord, the Lord required of Himself. For
this purpose did He say to His servant, "Let me alone, that I may consume them," in order
that by his entreaty, and by offering himself, he might hinder (the threatened judgment),
and that you might by such an Instance learn how much privilege is vouchsafed with God to
a faithful man and a prophet.

CHAPTER XXVII.-OTHER OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. GOD'S CONDESCENSION IN THE INCARNATION NOTHING DEROGATORY TO THE DIVINE BEING IN THIS ECONOMY. THE DIVINE MAJESTY WORTHILY SUSTAINED BY THE ALMIGHTY FATHER, NEVER VISIBLE TO MAN. PERVERSENESS OF THE MARCIONITE CAVILS.

1 And now, that I may briefly pass in review the other points which you have thus far been
engaged in collecting, as mean, weak, and unworthy, for demolishing the Creator, I will
propound them in a simple and definite statement: that God would have been unable to hold
any intercourse with men, if He had not taken on Himself the emotions and affections of
man, by means of which He could temper the strength of His majesty, which would no doubt
have been incapable of endurance to the moderate capacity of man, by such a humiliation as
was indeed degrading to Himself, but necessary for man, and such as on this very account
became worthy of God, because nothing is so worthy of God as the salvation of man. If I
were arguing with heathens, I should dwell more at length on this point; although with
heretics too the discussion does not stand on very different grounds. Inasmuch as ye
yourselves have now come to the belief that God moved about in the form and all other
circumstances of man's nature, you will of course no longer require to be convinced that
God conformed Himself to humanity, but feel yourselves bound by your own faith.

2 For if the God (in whom ye believe, ) even from His higher condition, prostrated the
supreme dignity of His majesty to such a lowliness as to undergo death, even the death of
the cross, why can you not suppose that some humiliations are becoming to our God also,
only more tolerable than Jewish contumelies, and crosses, and sepulchres? Are these the
humiliations which henceforth are to raise a prejudice against Christ (the subject as He
is of human passions ) being a partaker of that Godhead against which you make the
participation in human qualities a reproach? Now we believe that Christ did ever act in
the name of God the Father; that He actually from the beginning held intercourse with
(men); actually communed with patriarchs and prophets; was the Son of the Creator; was His
Word; whom God made His Son by emitting Him from His own self, and thenceforth set Him
over every dispensation and (administration of) His will, making Him a little lower than
the angels, as is written in David. In which lowering of His condition He received from
the Father a dispensation in those very respects which you blame as human; from the very
beginning learning, even then, (that state of a) man which He was destined in the end to
become. It is He who descends, He who interrogates, He who demands, He who swears. With
regard, however, to the Father, the very gospel which is common to us will testify that He
was never visible, according to the word of Christ:

3 "No man knoweth the Father, save the Son. For even in the Old Testament He had declared,
"No man shall see me, and live. He means that the Father is invisible, in whose authority
and in whose name was He God who appeared as the Son of God. But with us Christ is
received in the person of Christ, because even in this manner is He our God. Whatever
attributes therefore you require as worthy of God, must be found in the Father, who is
invisible and unapproachable, and placid, and (so to speak) the God of the philosophers;
whereas those qualities which you censure as unworthy must be supposed to be in the Son,
who has been seen, and heard, and encountered, the Witness and Servant of the Father,
uniting in Himself man and God, God in mighty deeds, in weak ones man, in order that He
may give to man as much as He takes from God. What in your esteem is the entire disgrace
of my God, Is in fact the sacrament of man's salvation God held converse with man, that
man might learn to act as God. God dealt on equal terms with man, that man might be able
to deal on equal terms with God. God was found little, that man might become very great.
You who disdain such a God, I hardly know whether you ex fide believe that God was
crucified. How great, then, is your perversity in respect of the two characters of the
Creator!

4 You designate Him as Judge, and reprobate as Cruelty that severity of the Judge which
only acts in accord with the merits of cases. You require God to be very good, and yet
despise as meanness that gentleness of His which accorded with His kindness, (and) held
lowly converse in proportion to the mediocrity of man's estate. He pleases you not,
whether great or little, neither as your judge nor as your friend! What if the same
features should be discovered in your God? That He too is a judge, we have already shown
in the proper section: that from being a judge He must needs be severe; and from being
severe He must also be cruel, if indeed cruel.

CHAPTER XXVIII.-THE TABLES TURNED UPON MARCION, BY CONTRASTS, IN FAVOUR OF THE TRUE GOD.

1 Now, touching the weaknesses and malignities, and the other (alleged), notes (of the
Creator), I too shall advance antitheses in rivalry to Marcion's. If my God knew not of
any other superior to Himself, your god also was utterly unaware that there was any
beneath himself. It is just what Heraclitus "the obscure" said; whether it be up or down,
it comes to the same thing. If, indeed, he was not ignorant (of his position), it must
have occurred to Him from the beginning. Sin and death, and the author of sin too-the
devil-and all the evil which my God permitted to be, this also, did your god permit; for
he allowed Him to permit it. Our God changed His purposes; in like manner yours did also.
For he who cast his look so late in the human race, changed that purpose, which for so
long a period had refused to cast that look. Our God repented Him of the evil in a given
case; so also did yours. For by the fact that he at last had regard to the salvation of
man, he showed such a repentance of his previous disregard as was due for a wrong deed.
But neglect of man's salvation will be accounted a wrong deed, simply because it has been
remedied by his repentance in the conduct of your god. Our God you say commanded a
fraudulent act, but in a matter of gold and silver.

2 Now, inasmuch as man is more precious than gold and silver, in so far is your god more
fraudulent still, because he robs man of his Lord and Creator. Eye for eye does our God
require; but your god does even a greater injury, (in your ideas, ) when he prevents an
act of retaliation. For what man will not return a blow, without waiting to be struck a
second time. Our God (you say) knows not whom He ought to choose. Nor does your god, for
if he had foreknown the issue, he would not have chosen the traitor Judas. If you allege
that the Creator practised deception in any instance, there was a far greater mendacity in
your Christ, whose very body was unreal. Many were consumed by the severity of my God.
Those also who were not saved by your god are verily disposed by him to ruin. My God
ordered a man to be slain. Your god willed himself to be put to death; not less a homicide
against himself than in respect of him by whom he meant to be slain. I will moreover prove
to Marcion that they were many who were slain by his god; for he made every one a
homicide: in other words, he doomed him to perish, except when people failed in no duty
towards Christ. But the straightforward virtue of truth is contented with few resources.
Many things will be necessary for falsehood.

CHAPTER XXIX.-MARCION'S OWN ANTITHESES, IF ONLY THE TITLE AND OBJECT OF THE WORK BE EXCEPTED, AFFORD PROOFS OF THE CONSISTENT ATTRIBUTES OF THE TRUE GOD.

1 But I would have attacked Marcion's own Antitheses in closer and fuller combat, if a
more elaborate demolition of them were required in maintaining for the Creator the
character of a good God and a Judge, after the examples of both points, which we have
shown to be so worthy of God. Since, however, these two attributes of goodness and justice
do together make up the proper fulness of the Divine Being as omnipotent, I am able to
content myself with having now compendiously refuted his Antitheses, which aim at drawing
distinctions out of the qualities of the (Creator's) artifices, or of His laws, or of His
great works; and thus sundering Christ from the Creator, as the most Good from the Judge,
as One who is merciful from Him who is ruthless, and One who brings salvation from Him who
causes ruin. The truth is, they rather unite the two Beings whom they arrange in those
diversities (of attribute), which yet are compatible in God. For only take away the title
of Marcion's book, and the intention and purpose of the work itself, and you could get no
better demonstration that the self-same God was both very good and a Judge, inasmuch as
these two characters are only competently found in God. Indeed, the very effort which is
made in the selected examples to oppose Christ to the Creator, conduces all the more to
their union.

2 For so entirely one and the same was the nature of the Divine Beings, the good and the
severe, as shown both by the same examples and in similar proofs, that It willed to
display Its goodness to those on whom It had first inflicted Its severity. The difference
in time was no matter of surprise, when the same God was afterwards merciful in presence
of evils which had been subdued, who had once been so austere whilst they were as yet
unsubdued. Thus, by help of the Antitheses, the dispensation of the Creator can be more
readily shown to have been reformed by Christ, rather than destroyed; restored, rather
than abolished; especially as you sever your own god from everything like acrimonious
conduct, even from all rivalry whatsoever with the Creator. Now, since this is the case,
how comes it to pass that the Antitheses demonstrate Him to have been the Creator's rival
in every disputed cause? Well, even here, too, I will allow that in these causes my God
has been a jealous God, who has in His own right taken especial care that all things done
by Him should be in their beginning of a robuster growth; and this in the way of a good,
because rational emulation, which tends to maturity. In this sense the world itself will
acknowledge His "antitheses," from the contrariety of its own elements, although it has
been regulated with the very highest reason.

3 Wherefore, most thoughtless Marcion, it was your duty to have shown that one (of the two
Gods you teach) was a God of light, and the other a God of darkness; and then you would
have found it an easier task to persuade us that one was a God of goodness, the other a
God of severity. How ever, the "antithesis" (or variety of administration) will rightly be
His property, to whom it actually belongs in (the government of) the world.

INTRODUCTION

Wherein Christ is shown to be the son of God, who created the world; to have been
predicted by the prophets; to have taken human flesh like our own, by a real incarnation.

CHAPTER I.-INTRODUCTORY; A BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE PRECEDING ARGUMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUBJECT OF THIS BOOK.

Following the track of my original treatise, the loss of which we are steadily proceeding
to restore, we come now, in the order of our subject, to treat of Christ, although this be
a work of supererogation, after the proof which we have gone through that there is but one
only God. For no doubt it has been already ruled with sufficient clearness, that Christ
must be regarded as pertaining to no other God than the Creator, when it has been
determined that no other God but the Creator should be the object of our faith. Him did
Christ so expressly preach, whilst the apostles one after the other also so clearly
affirmed that Christ belonged to no other God than Him whom He Himself preached-that is,
the Creator-that no mention of a second God (nor, accordingly, of a second Christ) was
ever agitated previous to Marcion's scandal. This is most easily proved by an examination
of both the apostolic and the heretical churches, from which we are forced to declare that
there is undoubtedly a subversion of the rule (of faith), where any opinion is found of
later date, -a point which I have inserted in my first book. A discussion of it would
unquestionably be of value even now, when we are about to make a separate examination into
(the subject of) Christ; because, whilst proving Christ to be the Creator's Son, we are
effectually shutting out the God of Marcion. Truth should employ all her available
resources, and in no limping way. In our compendious rules of faith, however, she has it
all her own way. But I have resolved, like an earnest man, to meet my adversary every way
and everywhere in the madness of his heresy, which is so great, that he has found it
easier to assume that that Christ has come who was never heard of, than He who has always
been predicted.

CHAPTER II.-WHY CHRIST'S COMING SHOULD BE PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED.

1 Coming then at once to the point, I have to encounter the question, Whether Christ ought
to have come so suddenly? (I answer, No. First, because He was the Son of God His Father.
For this was a point of order, that the Father should announce the Son before the Son
should the Father, and that the Father should testify of the Son before the Son should
testify of the Father. Secondly, because, in addition to the title of Son, He was the
Sent. The authority, therefore, of the Sender must needs have first appeared in a
testimony of the Sent; because none who comes in the authority of another does himself set
it forth for himself on his own assertion, but rather looks out for protection from it,
for first comes the support of him who gives him his authority. Now (Christ) will neither
be acknowledged as Son if the Father never named Him, nor be believed in as the Sent One
if no Sender gave Him a commission: the Father, if any, purposely naming Him; and the
Sender, if any, purposely commissioning Him. Everything will be open to suspicion which
transgresses a rule. Now the primary order of all things will not allow that the Father
should come after the Son in recognition, or the Sender after the Sent, or God after
Christ. Nothing can take precedence of its own original in being acknowledged, nor in like
manner can it in its ordering. Suddenly a Son, suddenly Sent, and suddenly Christ!

2 On the contrary, I should suppose that from God nothing comes suddenly, because there is
nothing which is not ordered and arranged by God. And if ordered, why not also foretold,
that it may be proved to have been ordered by the prediction, and by the ordering to be
divine? And indeed so great a work, which (we may be sure) required preparation, as being
for the salvation of man, could not have been on that very account a sudden thing, because
it was through faith that it was to be of avail. Inasmuch, then, as it had to be believed
in order to be of use, so far did it require, for the securing of this faith, a
preparation built upon the foundations of pro-arrangement and fore-announcement. Faith,
when informed by such a process, might justly be required of man by God, and by man be
reposed in God; it being a duty, after that knowledge has made it a possibility, to
believe those things which a man had learned indeed to believe from the fore-announcement.

CHAPTER III.-MIRACLES ALONE, WITHOUT PROPHECY, AN INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF CHRIST'S MISSION.

1 A procedure of this kind, you say, was not necessary, because He was forthwith to prove
Himself the Son and the Sent One, and the Christ of God in very deed, by means of the
evidence of His wonderful works. On my side, however, I have to deny that evidence simply
of this sort was sufficient as a testimony to Him. He Himself afterwards deprived it of
its authority, because when He declared that many would come and "show great signs and
wonders," so as to turn aside the very elect, and yet for all that were not to be
received, He showed how rash was belief in signs and wonders, which were so very easy of
accomplishment by even false christs. Else how happens it, if He meant Himself to be
approved and understood, and received on a certain evidence-I mean that of miracles-that
He forbade the recognition of those others who had the very same sort of proof to show,
and whose coming was to be quite as sudden and unannounced by any authority?

2 If, because He came before them, and was beforehand with them in displaying the signs of
His mighty deeds, He therefore seized the first right to men's faith,-just as the
firstcomers do the first place in the baths,-and so forestalled all who came after Him in
that right, take care that He, too, be not caught in the condition of the later comers, if
He be found to be behindhand with the Creator, who had already been made known, and had
already worked miracles like Him, and like Him had forewarned men not to believe in
others, even such as should come after Him. If, therefore, to have been the first to come
and utter this warning, is to bar and limit faith, He will Himself have to be condemned,
because He was later in being acknowledged; and authority to prescribe such a rule about
later comers will belong to the Creator alone, who could have been posterior to none.

3 And now, when I am about to prove that the Creator sometimes displayed by His servants
of old, and in other cases reserved for His Christ to display, the self-same miracles
which you claim as solely due to faith in your Christ, I may fairly even from this
maintain that there was so much the greater reason wherefore Christ should not be believed
in simply on account of His miracles, inasmuch as these would have shown Him to belong to
none other (God) than the Creator, because answering to the mighty deeds of the Creator,
both as performed by His servants and reserved for His Christ; although, even if some
other proofs should be found in your Christ-new ones, to wit-we should more readily
believe that they, too, belong to the same God as do the old ones, rather than to him who
has no other than new proofs, such as are wanting in the evidences of that antiquity which
wins the assent of faith, so that even on this ground he ought to have come announced as
much by prophecies of his own building up faith in him, as by miracles, especially in
opposition to the Creator's Christ who was to come fortified by signs and prophets of His
own, in order that he might shine forth as the rival of Christ by help of evidence of
different kinds. But how was his Christ to be foretold by a god who was himself never
predicted?

4 This, therefore, is the unavoidable inference, that neither your god nor your Christ is
an object of faith, because God ought not to have been unknown, and Christ ought to have
been made known through God.

CHAPTER IV.-MARCION'S CHRIST NOT THE SUBJECT OF PROPHECY. THE ABSURD CONSEQUENCES OF THIS THEORY OF THE HERETIC.

1 He disdained, I suppose, to imitate the order of our God, as one who was displeasing to
him, and was by all means to be vanquished. He wished to come, as a new being in a new
way-a son previous to his father's announcement, a sent one before the authority of the
sender; so that he might in person propagate a most monstrous faith, whereby it should
come to be believed that Christ was come before it should be known that He had an
existence. It is here convenient to me to treat that other point: Why he came not after
Christ? For when I observe that, during so long a period, his lord bore with the greatest
patience the very ruthless Creator who was all the while announcing His Christ to men, I
say, that whatever reason impelled him to do so, postponing thereby his own revelation and
interposition, the self-same reason imposed on him the duty of bearing with the Creator
(who had also in His Christ dispensations of His own to carry out); so that, after the
completion and accomplishment of the entire plan of the rival God and the rival Christ, he
might then superinduce his own proper dispensation. But he grew weary of so long an
endurance, and so failed to wait till the end of the Creator's course. It was of no use,
his enduring that his Christ should be predicted, when he refused to permit him to be
manifested.

2 Either it was without just cause that he interrupted the full course of his rival's
time, or without just cause did he so long refrain from interrupting it. What held him
back at first? Or what disturbed him at last? As the case now stands, however, he has
committed himself in respect of both, having revealed himself so tardily after the
Creator, so hurriedly before His Christ; whereas he ought long ago to have encountered the
one with a confutation, the other to have forborne encountering as yet-not to have borne
with the one so long in His ruthless hostility, nor to have disquieted the other, who was
as yet quiescent! In the case of both, while depriving them of their title to be
considered the most good God, he showed himself at least capricious and uncertain;
lukewarm (in his resentment) towards the Creator, but fervid against His Christ, and
powerless in respect of them both! For he no more restrained the Creator than he resisted
His Christ. The Creator still remains such as He really is. His Christ also will come,
just as it is written of Him. Why did he come after the Creator, since he was unable to
correct Him by punishment? Why did he reveal himself before Christ, whom he could not
hinder from appearing? If, on the contrary, he did chastise the Creator, he revealed
himself, (I suppose, ) after Him in order that things which require correction might come
first.

3 On which account also, (of course, ) he ought to have waited for Christ to appear first,
whom he was going to chastise in like manner; then he would be His punisher coming after
Him, just as he had been in the case of the Creator. There is another consideration: since
he will at his second advent come after Him, that as he at His first coming took hostile
proceed-rags against the Creator, destroying the law and the prophets, which were His, so
he may, to be sure, at his second coming proceed in opposition to Christ, upsetting His
kingdom. Then, no doubt, he would terminate his course, and then (if ever) be worthy of
belief; for else, if his work has been already perfected, it would be in vain for him to
come, for there would indeed be nothing that he could further accomplish.

CHAPTER V.-SUNDRY FEATURES OF THE PROPHETIC STYLE: PRINCIPLES OF ITS INTERPRETATION.

1 These preliminary remarks I have ventured to make at this first step of the discussion
and while the conflict is, as it were, from a distance. But inasmuch as I shall now from
this point have to grapple with my opponent on a distinct issue and in close combat, I
perceive that I must advance even here some lines, at which the battle will have to be
delivered; they are the Scriptures of the Creator. For as I shall have to prove that
Christ was from the Creator, according to these (Scriptures), which were afterwards
accomplished in the Creator's Christ, I find it necessary to set forth the form and, so to
speak, the nature of the Scriptures themselves, that they may not distract the reader's
attention by being called into controversy at the moment of their application to subjects
of discussion, and by their proof being confounded with the proof of the subjects
themselves. Now there are two conditions of prophetic announcement which I adduce, as
requiring the assent of our adversaries in the future stages of the discussion. One, that
future events are sometimes announced as if they were already passed. For it is consistent
with Deity to regard as accomplished facts whatever It has determined on, because there is
no difference of time with that Being in whom eternity itself directs a uniform condition
of seasons. It is indeed more natural to the prophetic divination to represent as seen and
already brought to pass, even while forseeing it, that which it foresees;

2 in other words, that which is by all means future. As for instance, in Isaiah: "I gave
my back to the smiters, and my cheeks (I exposed) to their hands. I hid not my face from
shame and spitting. For whether it was Christ even then, as we hold, or the prophet, as
the Jews say, who pronounced these words concerning himself, in either case, that which as
yet had not happened sounded as if it had been already accomplished. Another
characteristic will be, that very many events are figuratively predicted by means of
enigmas and allegories and parables, and that they must be understood in a sense different
from the literal description. For we both read Of "the mountains dropping down new wine,"
but not as if one might expect "must" from the stones, or its decoction from the rocks;
and also hear of "a land flowing with milk and honey," but not as if you were to suppose
that you would ever gather Samian cakes from the ground; nor does God, forsooth, offer His
services as a water-bailiff or a farmer when He says, "I will open rivers in a land; I
will plant in the wilderness the cedar and the box-tree. In like manner, when, foretelling
the conversion of the Gentiles, He says, "The beasts of the field shall honour me, the
dragons and the owls," He surely never meant to derive His fortunate omens from the young
of birds and foxes, and from the songsters of marvel and fable. But why enlarge on such a
subject?

3 When the very apostle whom our heretics adopt, interprets the law which allows an
unmuzzled mouth to the oxen that tread out the corn, not of cattle, but of ourselves; and
also alleges that the rock which followed (the Israelites) and supplied them with drink
was Christ; teaching the Galatians, moreover, that the two narratives of the sons of
Abraham had an allegorical meaning in their course; and to the Ephesians giving an
intimation that, when it was declared in the beginning that a man should leave his father
and mother and become one flesh with his wife, he applied this to Christ and the church.

CHAPTER VI.-COMMUNITY IN CERTAIN POINTS OF MARCIONITE AND JEWISH ERROR. PROPHECIES OF CHRIST'S REJECTION EXAMINED.

1 Since, therefore, there clearly exist these two characteristics in the Jewish prophetic
literature, let the reader remember, whenever we adduce any evidence therefrom, that, by
mutual consent, the point of discussion is not the form of the scripture, but the subject
it is called in to prove. When, therefore, our heretics in their phrenzy presumed to say
that that Christ was come who had never been fore-announced, it followed that, on their
assumption, that Christ had not yet appeared who had always been predicted; and thus they
are obliged to make common cause with Jewish error, and construct their arguments with its
assistance, on the pretence that the Jews were themselves quite certain that it was some
other who came: so they not only rejected Him as a stranger, but slew Him as an enemy,
although they would without doubt have acknowledged Him, and with all religious devotion
followed Him, if He had only been one of themselves: Our shipmaster of course got his
craft-wisdom not from the Rhodian law, but from the Pontic, which cautioned him against
believing that the Jews had no right to sin against their Christ; whereas (even if nothing
like their conduct had been predicted against them) human nature alone, liable to error as
it is, might well have induced him to suppose that it was quite possible for the Jews to
have committed such a sin, considered as men, without assuming any unfair prejudice
regarding their feelings, whose sin was antecedently so credible.

2 Since, however, it was actually foretold that they would not acknowledge Christ, and
therefore would even put Him to death, it will therefore follow that He was both ignored
and slain by them, who were beforehand pointed out as being about to commit such offences
against Him. If you require a proof of this, instead of turning out those passages of
Scripture which, while they declare Christ to be capable of suffering death, do thereby
also affirm the possibility of His being rejected (for if He had not been rejected, He
could not really suffer anything), but rather reserving them for the subject of His
sufferings, I shall content myself at the present moment with adducing those which simply
show that there was a probability of Christ's rejection. This is quickly done, since the
passages indicate that the entire power of understanding was by the Creator taken from the
people. "I will take away," says He, "the wisdom of their wise men; and the understanding
of their prudent men will I hide; " and again: "With your ear ye shall hear, and not
understand; and with your eyes ye shall see, but not perceive: for the heart of this
people hath growth fat, and with their ears they hear heavily, and their eyes have they
shut; lest they hear with their ears, and see with their eyes, and understand with the
heart, and be converted, and I heal them.

3 Now this blunting of their sound senses they had brought on themselves, loving God with
their lips, but keeping far away from Him in their heart. Since, then, Christ was
announced by the Creator, "who formeth the lightning, and createth the wind, and declareth
unto man His Christ," as the prophet Joel says, since the entire hope of the Jews, not to
say of the Gentiles too, was fixed on the manifestation of Christ,-it was demonstrated
that they, by their being deprived of those powers of knowledge and understanding-wisdom
and prudence, would fail to know and understand that which was predicted, even Christ;
when the chief of their wise men should be in error respecting Him-that is to say, their
scribes and prudent ones, or Pharisees; and when the people, like them, should hear with
their ears and not understand Christ while teaching them, and see with their eyes and not
perceive Christ, although giving them signs. Similarly it is said elsewhere: "Who is
blind, but my servant? or deaf, but he who ruleth over them? " Also when He upbraids them
by the same Isaiah: "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled
against me. The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not
know; my people doth not consider. We indeed, who know for certain that Christ always
spoke in the prophets, as the Spirit of the Creator (for so says the prophet:

4 "The person of our Spirit, Christ the Lord," who from the beginning was both heard and
seen as the Father's vicegerent in the name of God), are well aware that His words, when
actually upbraiding Israel, were the same as those which it was foretold that He should
denounce against him: "Ye have forsaken the Lord, and have provoked the Holy One of Israel
to anger. If, however, you would rather refer to God Himself, instead of to Christ, the
whole imputation of Jewish ignorance from the first, through an unwillingness to allow
that even anciently the Creator's word and Spirit-that is to say, His Christ-was despised
and not acknowledged by them, you will even in this subterfuge be defeated. For when you
do not deny that the Creator's Son and Spirit and Substance is also His Christ, you must
needs allow that those who have not acknowledged the Father have failed likewise to
acknowledge the Son through the identity of their natural substance; for if in Its fulness
It has baffled man's understanding, much more has a portion of It, especially when
partaking of the fulness Now, when these things are carefully considered, it becomes
evident how the Jews both rejected Christ and slew Him; not because they regarded Him as a
strange Christ, but because they did not acknowledge Him, although their own. For how
could they have understood the strange One, concerning whom nothing had ever been
announced, when they failed to understand Him about whom there had been a perpetual course
of prophecy?

5 That admits of being understood or being not understood, which, by possessing a
substantial basis for prophecy, will also have a subject-matter for either knowledge or
error; whilst that which lacks such matter admits not the issue of wisdom. So that it was
not as if He belonged to another god that they conceived an aversion for Christ, and
persecuted Him, but simply as a man whom they regarded as a wonder-working juggler, and an
enemy in His doctrines. They brought Him therefore to trial as a mere man, and one of
themselves too-that is, a Jew (only a renegade and a destroyer of Judaism)-and punished
Him according to their law. If He had been a stranger, indeed, they would not have sat in
judgment over Him. So far are they from appearing to have understood Him to be a strange
Christ, that they did not even judge Him to be a stranger to their own human nature.

CHAPTER VII.-PROPHECY SETS FORTH TWO DIFFERENT CONDITIONS OF CHRIST, ONE LOWLY, THE OTHER MAJESTIC. THIS FACT POINTS TO TWO ADVENTS OF CHRIST.

1 Our heretic will now have the fullest opportunity of learning the clue of his errors
along with the Jew himself, from whom he has borrowed his guidance in this discussion.
Since, however, the blind leads the blind, they fall into the ditch together. We affirm
that, as there are two conditions demonstrated by the prophets to belong to Christ, so
these presignified the same number of advents; one, and that the first, was to be in
lowliness, when He had to be led as a sheep to be slain as a victim, and to be as a lamb
dumb before the shearer, not opening His mouth, and not fair to look upon. For, says (the
prophet), we have announced concerning Him: "He is like a tender plant, like a root out of
a thirsty ground; He hath no form nor comeliness; and we beheld Him, and He was without
beauty: His form was disfigured; " "marred more than the sons of men; a man stricken with
sorrows, and knowing how to bear our infirmity; " "placed by the Father as a stone of
stumbling and a rock of offence; " "made by Him a little lower than the angels; "
declaring Himself to be "a worm and not a man, a reproach of men, and despised of the
people.

2 Now these signs of degradation quite suit His first coming, just as the tokens of His
majesty do His second advent, when He shall no longer remain "a stone of stumbling and a
rock of offence," but after His rejection become "the chief corner-stone," accepted and
elevated to the top place of the temple, even His church, being that very stone in Daniel,
cut out of the mountain, which was to smite and crush the image of the secular kingdom. Of
this advent the same prophet says: "Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds
of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days; and they brought Him before Him, and there was
given Him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages
should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away; and
His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Then indeed He shall have both a glorious
form, and an unsullied beauty above the sons of men. "Thou art fairer," says (the
Psalmist), "than the children of men; grace is poured into Thy lips; therefore God hath
blessed Thee for ever. Gird Thy sword upon Thy thigh, O most mighty, with Thy glory and
Thy majesty. For the Father, after making Him a little lower than the angels, "will crown
Him with glory and honour, and put all things under His feet. "Then shall they look on Him
whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, tribe after tribe;

3 " because, no doubt, they once refused to acknowledge Him in the lowliness of His human
condition. He is even a man says Jeremiah, and who shall recognise Him Therefore, asks
Isaiah, "who shall declare His generation? " So also in Zechariah, Christ Jesus, the true
High Priest of the Father, in the person of Joshua, nay, in the very mystery of His name,
is portrayed in a twofold dress with reference to both His advents. At first He is clad in
sordid garments, that is to say, in the lowliness of suffering and mortal flesh: then the
devil resisted Him, as the instigator of the traitor Judas, not to mention his tempting
Him after His baptism: afterwards He was stripped of His first filthy raiment, and adorned
with the priestly robe and mitre, and a pure diadem; in other words, with the glory and
honour of His second advent. If I may offer, moreover, an interpretation of the two goats
which were presented on "the great day of atonement," do they not also figure the two
natures of Christ? They were of like size, and very similar in appearance, owing to the
Lord's identity of aspect; because He is not to come in any other form, having to be
recognised by those by whom He was also wounded and pierced.

4 One of these goats was bound with scarlet, and driven by the people out of the camp into
the wilderness, amid cursing, and spitting, and pulling, and piercing, being thus marked
with all the signs of the Lord's own passion; while the other, by being offered up for
sins, and given to the priests of the temple for meat, afforded proofs of His second
appearance, when (after all sins have been expiated) the priests of the spiritual temple,
that is, the church, are to enjoy the flesh, as it were, of the Lord's own grace, whilst
the residue go away from salvation without tasting it. Since, therefore, the first advent
was prophetically declared both as most obscure in its types, and as deformed with every
kind of indignity, but the second as glorious and altogether worthy of God, they would on
this very account, while confining their regards to that which they were easily able both
to understand and to believe, even the second advent, be not undeservedly deceived
respecting the more obscure, and, at any rate, the more lowly first coming. Accordingly,
to this day they deny that their Christ has come, because He has not appeared in majesty,
while they ignore the fact that He was to come also in lowliness.

CHAPTER VIII.-ABSURDITY OF MARCION'S DOCETIC OPINIONS; REALITY OF CHRIST'S INCARNATION.

1 Our heretic must now cease to borrow poison from the Jew-"the asp," as the adage runs,
"from the viper" -and henceforth vomit forth the virulence of his own disposition, as when
he alleges Christ to be a phantom. Except, indeed, that this opinion of his will be sure
to have others to maintain it in his precocious and somewhat abortive Marcionites, whom
the Apostle John designated as antichrists, when they denied that Christ was come in the
flesh; not that they did this with the view of establishing the right of the other god
(for on this point also they had been branded by the same apostle), but because they had
started with assuming the incredibility of an incarnate God. Now, the more firmly the
antichrist Marcion had seized this assumption, the more prepared was he, of course, to
reject the bodily substance of Christ, since he had introduced his very god to our notice
as neither the author nor the restorer of the flesh; and for this very reason, to be sure,
as pre-eminently good, and most remote from the deceits and fallacies of the Creator. His
Christ, therefore, in order to avoid all such deceits and fallacies, and the imputation,
if possible, of belonging to the Creator, was not what he appeared to be, and reigned
himself to be what he was not-incarnate without being flesh, human without being man, and
likewise a divine Christ without being God! But why should he not have propagated also the
phantom of God?

2 Can I believe him on the subject of the internal nature, who was all wrong touching the
external substance? How will it be possible to believe him true on a mystery, when he has
been found so false on a plain fact? How, moreover, when he confounds the truth of the
spirit with the error of the flesh, could he combine within himself that communion of
light and darkness, or truth and error, which the apostle says cannot co-exist? Since
however, Christ's being flesh is now discovered to be a lie, it follows that all things
which were done by the flesh of Christ were done untruly, -every act of intercourse, of
contact, of eating or drinking, yea, His very miracles. If with a touch, or by being
touched, He freed any one of a disease, whatever was done by any corporeal act cannot be
believed to have been truly done in the absence of all reality in His body itself. Nothing
substantial can be allowed to have been effected by an unsubstantial thing; nothing full
by a vacuity. If the habit were putative, the action was putative; if the worker were
imaginary the works were imaginary. On this principle, too, the sufferings of Christ will
be found not to warrant faith in Him. For He suffered nothing who did not truly suffer;
and a phantom could not truly suffer. God's entire work, therefore, is subverted.

3 Christ's death, wherein lies the whole weight and fruit of the Christian name, is denied
although the apostle asserts it so expressly as undoubtedly real, making it the very
foundation of the gospel, of our salvation and of his own preaching. "I have delivered
unto you before all things," says he, "how that Christ died for our sins, and that he was
buried, and that He rose again the third day. Besides, if His flesh is denied, how is His
death to be asserted; for death is the proper suffering of the flesh, which returns
through death back to the earth out of which it was taken, according to the law of its
Maker? Now, if His death be denied, because of the denial of His flesh, there will be no
certainty of His resurrection. For He rose not, for the very same reason that He died not,
even because He possessed not the reality of the flesh, to which as death accrues, so does
resurrection likewise. Similarly, if Christ's resurrection be nullified, ours also is
destroyed. If Christ's resurrection be not realized, neither shall that be for which
Christ came. For just as they, who said that there is no resurrection of the dead, are
refuted by the apostle from the resurrection of Christ, so, if the resurrection of Christ
falls to the ground, the resurrection of the dead is also swept away. And so our faith is
vain, and vain also is the preaching of the apostles.

4 Moreover, they even show themselves to be false witnesses of God, because they testified
that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise. And we remain in our sins still. And
those who have slept in Christ have perished; destined, forsooth, to rise again, but
peradventure in a phantom state, just like Christ.

CHAPTER IX.-REFUTATION OF MARCION'S OBJECTIONS DERIVED FROM THE CASES OF THE ANGELS, AND THE PRE-INCARNATE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE SON OF GOD.

1 Now, in this discussion of yours, when you suppose that we are to be met with the case
of the Creator's angels, as if they held intercourse with Abraham and Lot in a phantom
state, that of merely putative flesh, and yet did truly converse, and eat, and work, as
they had been commissioned to do, you will not, to begin with, be permitted to use as
examples the acts of that God whom you are destroying. For by how much you make your god a
better and more perfect being, by just so much will all examples be unsuitable to him of
that God from whom he totally differs, and without which difference he would not be at all
better or more perfect. But then, secondly, you must know that it will not be conceded to
you, that in the angels there was only a putative flesh, but one of a true and solid human
substance. For if (on your terms) it was no difficulty to him to manifest true sensations
and actions in a putative flesh, it was much more easy for him still to have assigned the
true substance of flesh to these true sensations and actions, as the proper maker and
former thereof. But your god, perhaps on the ground of his having produced no flesh at
all, was quite right in introducing the mere phantom of that of which he had been unable
to produce the reality.

2 My God, however, who formed that which He had taken out of the dust of the ground in the
true quality of flesh, although not issuing as yet from conjugal seed, was equally able to
apply to angels too a flesh of any material whatsoever, who built even the world out of
nothing, into so many and so various bodies, and that at a word! And, really, if your god
promises to men some time or other the true nature of angels (for he says, "They shall be
like the angels"), why should not my God also have fitted on to angels the true substance
of men, from whatever source derived? For not even you will tell me, in reply, whence is
obtained that angelic nature on your side; so that it is enough for me to define this as
being fit and proper to God, even the verity of that thing which was objective to three
senses-sight, touch, and hearing. It is more difficult for God to practise deception than
to produce real flesh from any material whatever, even without the means of birth. But for
other heretics, also, who maintain that the flesh in the angels ought to have been born of
flesh, if it had been really human, we have an answer on a sure principle, to the effect
that it was truly human flesh, and yet not born.

3 It was truly human, because of the truthfulness of God, who can neither lie nor deceive,
and because (angelic beings) cannot be dealt with by men in a human way except in human
substance: it was withal unborn, because none but Christ could become incarnate by being
born of the flesh in order that by His own nativity He might regenerate our birth, and
might further by His death also dissolve our death, by rising again in that flesh in
which, that He might even die, He was born. Therefore on that occasion He did Himself
appear with the angels to Abraham in the verity of the flesh, which had not as yet
undergone birth, because it was not yet going to die, although it was even now learning to
hold intercourse amongst men. Still greater was the propriety in angels, who never
received a dispensation to die for us, not having assumed even a brief experience of flesh
by being born, because they were not destined to lay it down again by dying; but, from
whatever quarter they obtained it, and by what means soever they afterwards entirely
divested themselves of it, they yet never pretended it to be unreal flesh. Since the
Creator "maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire"-as truly spirits as
also fire-so has He truly made them flesh likewise;

4 wherefore we can now recall to our own minds, and remind the heretics also, that He has
promised that He will one day form men into angels, who once formed angels into men.

CHAPTER X.-THE TRULY INCARNATE STATE MORE WORTHY OF GOD THAN MARCION'S FANTASTIC FLESH.

1 Therefore, since you are not permitted to resort to any instances of the Creator, as
alien from the subject, and possessing special causes of their own, I should like you to
state yourself the design of your god, in exhibiting his Christ not in the reality of
flesh. If he despised it as earthly, and (as you express it) full of dung, why did he not
on that account include the likeness of it also in his contempt? For no honour is to be
attributed to the image of anything which is itself unworthy of honour. As the natural
state is, so will the likeness be. But how could he hold converse with men except in the
image of human substance? Why, then, not rather in the reality thereof, that his
intercourse might be real, since he was under the necessity of holding it? And to how much
better account would this necessity have been turned by ministering to faith rather than
to a fraud! The god whom you make is miserable enough, for this very reason that he was
unable to display his Christ except in the effigy of an unworthy, and indeed an alien,
thing. In some instances, it will be convenient to use even unworthy things, if they be
only our own, as it will also be quite improper to use things, be they ever so worthy, if
they be not our own.

2 Why, then, did he not come in some other worthier substance, and especially his own,
that he might not seem as if he could not have done without an unworthy and an alien one?
Now, since my Creator held intercourse with man by means of even a bush and fire, and
again afterwards by means of a cloud and column, and in representations of Himself used
bodies composed of the elements, these examples of divine power afford sufficient proof
that God did not require the instrumentality of false or even of real flesh. But yet, if
we look steadily into the subject, there is really no substance which is worthy of
becoming a vestment for God. Whatsoever He is pleased to clothe Himself withal, He makes
worthy of Himself-only without untruth. Therefore how comes it to pass that he should have
thought the verity of the flesh, rather than its unreality, a disgrace? Well, but he
honoured it by his fiction of it. How great, then, is that flesh, the very phantasy of
which was a necessity to the superior God!

CHAPTER XI.-CHRIST WAS TRULY BORN; MARCION'S ABSURD CAVIL IN DEFENCE OF A PUTATIVE NATIVITY.

1 All these illusions of an imaginary corporeity in (his) Christ, Marcion adopted with
this view, that his nativity also might not be furnished with any evidence from his human
substance, and that thus the Christ of the Creator might be free to have assigned to Him
all predictions which treated of Him as one capable of human birth, and therefore fleshly.
But most foolishly did our Pontic heresiarch act in this too. As if it would not be more
readily believed that flesh in the Divine Being should rather be unborn than untrue, this
belief having in fact had the way mainly prepared for it by the Creator's angels when they
conversed in flesh which was real, although unborn. For indeed the notorious Philumena
persuaded Apelles and the other seceders from Marcion rather to believe that Christ did
really carry about a body of flesh; not derived to Him, however, from birth, but one which
He borrowed from the elements. Now, as Marcion was apprehensive that a belief of the
fleshly body would also involve a belief of birth, undoubtedly He who seemed to be man was
believed to be verily and indeed born. For a certain woman had exclaimed, "Blessed is the
womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked! And how else could they have
said that His mother and His brethren were standing without? But we shall see more of this
in the proper place.

2 Surely, when He also proclaimed Himself as the Son of man, He, without doubt, confessed
that He had been born. Now I would rather refer all these points to an examination of the
gospel; but still, as I have already stated, if he, who seemed to be man, had by all means
to pass as having been born, it was vain for him to suppose that faith in his nativity was
to be perfected by the device of an imaginary flesh. For what advantage was there in that
being not true which was held to be true, whether it were his flesh or his birth? Or if
you should say, let human opinion go for nothing; you are then honouring your god under
the shelter of a deception, since he knew himself to be something different from what he
had made men to think of him. In that case you might possibly have assigned to him a
putative nativity even, and so not have hung the question on this point. For silly women
fancy themselves pregnant sometimes, when they are corpulent either from their natural
flux or from some other malady. And, no doubt, it had become his duty, since he had put on
the mere mask of his substance, to act out from its earliest scene the play of his
phantasy, lest he should have failed in his part at the beginning of the flesh. You have,
of course, rejected the sham of a nativity, and have produced true flesh itself.

3 And, no doubt, even the real nativity of a God is a most mean thing. Come then, wind up
your cavils against the most sacred and reverend works of nature; inveigh against all that
you are; destroy the origin of flesh and life; call the womb a sewer of the illustrious
animal-in other words, the manufactory for the production of man; dilate on the impure and
shameful tortures of parturition, and then on the filthy, troublesome, contemptible issues
of the puerperal labour itself! But yet, after you have pulled all these things down to
infamy, that you may affirm them to be unworthy of God, birth will not be worse for Him
than death, infancy than the cross, punishment than nature, condemnation than the flesh.
If Christ truly suffered all this, to be born was a less thing for Him. If Christ suffered
evasively, as a phantom; evasively, too, might He have been born. Such are Marcion's chief
arguments by which he makes out another Christ; and I think that we show plainly enough
that they are utterly irrelevant, when we teach how much more truly consistent with God is
the reality rather than the falsehood of that condition in which He manifested His Christ.
Since He was "the truth," He was flesh; since He was flesh, He was born. For the points
which this heresy assaults are confirmed, when the means of the assault are destroyed.
Therefore if He is to be considered in the flesh, because He was born;

4 and born, because He is in the flesh, and because He is no phantom,-it follows that He
must be acknowledged as Himself the very Christ of the Creator, who was by the Creator's
prophets foretold as about to come in the flesh, and by the process of human birth.

CHAPTER XII.-ISAIAH'S PROPHECY OF EMMANUEL. CHRIST ENTITLED TO THAT NAME.

1 And challenge us first, as is your wont, to consider Isaiah's description of Christ,
while you contend that in no point does it suit. For, to begin with, you say that Isaiah's
Christ will have to be called Emmanuel; then, that He takes the riches of Damascus and the
spoils of Samaria against the king of Assyria. But yet He who is come was neither born
under such a name, nor ever engaged in any warlike enterprise. I must, however, remind you
that you ought to look into the contexts of the two passages. For there is immediately
added the interpretation of Emmanuel, "God with us; "so that you have to consider not
merely the name as it is uttered, but also its meaning. The utterance is Hebrew, Emmanuel,
of the prophet's own nation; but the meaning of the word, God with us, is by the
interpretation made common property. Inquire, then, whether this name, God-with-us, which
is Emmanuel, be not often used for the name of Christ, from the fact that Christ has
enlightened the world. And I suppose you will not deny it, inasmuch as you do yourself
admit that He is called God-with-us, that is, Emmanuel.

2 Else if you are so foolish, that, because with you He gets the designation God-with-us,
not Emmanuel, you therefore are unwilling to grant that He is come whose property it is to
be called Emmanuel, as if this were not the same name as God-with-us, you will find among
the Hebrew Christians, and amongst Marcionites too, that they name Him Emmanuel when they
mean Him to be called God-with-us; just indeed as every nation, by whatever word they
would express God-with-us, has called Him Emmanuel, completing the sound in its sense. Now
since Emmanuel is God-with-us, and God-with-us is Christ, who is in us (for "as many of
you as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" ), Christ is as properly implied in
the meaning of the name, which is God-with-us, as He is in the pronunciation of the name,
which is Emmanuel. And thus it is evident that He is now come who was foretold as
Emmanuel, because what Emmanuel signifies is come, that is to say, God-with-us.

CHAPTER XIII.-ISAIAH'S PROPHECIES CONSIDERED. THE VIRGINITY OF CHRIST'S MOTHER A SIGN. OTHER PROPHECIES ALSO SIGNS. METAPHORICAL SENSE OF PROPER NAMES IN SUNDRY PASSAGES OF THE PROPHETS.

1 You are equally led away by the sound of names, when you so understand the riches of
Damascus, and the spoils of Samaria, and the king of Assyria, as if they portended that
the Creator's Christ was a warrior, not attending to the promise contained in the passage,
"For before the Child shall have knowledge to cry, My father and My mother, He shall take
away the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria before the king of Assyria. You
should first examine the point of age, whether it can be taken to represent Christ as even
yet a man, much less a warrior. Although, to be sure, He might be about to call to arms by
His cry as an infant; might be about to sound the alarm of war not with a trumpet, but
with a little rattle; might he about to seek His foe, not on horseback, or in chariot, or
from parapet, but from nurse's neck or nursemaid's back, and so be destined to subjugate
Damascus and Samaria from His mother's breasts! It is a different matter, of course, when
the babes of your barbarian Pontus spring forth to the fight. They are, I ween, taught to
lance before they lacerate; swathed at first in sunshine and ointment, afterwards armed
with the satchel, and rationed on bread and butter!

2 Now, since nature, certainly, nowhere grants to man to learn warfare before life, to
pillage the wealth of a Damascus before he knows his father and mother's name, it follows
that the passage in question must be deemed to be a figurative one. Well, but nature, says
he, does not permit "a virgin to conceive," and still the prophet is believed. And indeed
very properly; for he has paved the way for the incredible thing being believed, by giving
a reason for its occurrence, in that it was to be for a sign. "Therefore," says he, "the
Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son. Now a
sign from God would not have been a sign, unless it had been some novel and prodigious
thing. Then, again, Jewish cavillers, in order to disconcert us, boldly pretend that
Scripture does not hold that a virgin, but only a young woman, is to conceive and bring
forth. They are, however, refuted by this consideration, that nothing of the nature of a
sign can possibly come out of what is a daily occurrence, the pregnancy and child-bearing
of a young woman. A virgin mother is justly deemed to be proposed by God as a sign, but a
warlike infant has no like claim to the distinction; for even in such a case there does
not occur the character of a sign.

3 But after the sign of the strange and novel birth has been asserted, there is
immediately afterwards declared as a sign the subsequent course of the Infant, who was to
eat butter and honey. Not that this indeed is of the nature of a sign, nor is His
"refusing the evil; "for this, too, is only a characteristic of infancy. But His destined
capture of the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria before the king of Assyria is
no doubt a wonderful sign. Keep to the measure of His age, and seek the purport of the
prophecy, and give back also to the truth of the gospel what you have taken away from it
in the lateness of your heresy, and the prophecy at once becomes intelligible and declares
its own accomplishment. Let those eastern magi wait on the new-born Christ, presenting to
Him, (although) in His infancy, their gifts of gold and frankincense; and surely an Infant
will have received the riches of Damascus without a battle, and unarmed.

4 For besides the generally known fact, that the riches of the East, that is to say, its
strength and resources, usually consist of gold and spices, it is certainly true of the
Creator, that He makes gold the riches of the other nations also. Thus He says by
Zechariah: "And Judah shall also fight at Jerusalem and shall gather together all the
wealth of the nations round about, gold and silver. Moreover, respecting that gift of
gold, David also says: "And there shall be given to Him of the gold of Arabia; " and
again: "The kings of Arabia and Saba shall offer to Him gifts. For the East generally
regarded the magi as kings; and Damascus was anciently deemed to belong to Arabia, before
it was transferred to Syrophoenicia on the division of the Syrias (by Rome). Its riches
Christ then received, when He received the tokens thereof in the gold and spices; while
the spoils of Samaria were the magi themselves. These having discovered Him and honoured
Him with their gifts, and on beaded knee adored Him as their God and King, through the
witness of the star which led their way and guided them, became the spoils of Samaria,
that is to say, of idolatry, because, as it is easy enough to see, they believed in
Christ. He designated idolatry under the name of Samaria, as that city was shameful for
its idolatry, through which it had then revolted from God from the days of king Jeroboam.

5 Nor is this an unusual manner for the Creator, (in His Scriptures ) figuratively to
employ names of places as a metaphor derived from the analogy of their sins. Thus He calls
the Chief men of the Jews "rulers of Sodom," and the nation itself "people of Gomorrah.
And in another passage He also says: "Thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an
Hittite," by reason of their kindred iniquity; although He had actually called them His
sons: "I have nourished and brought up children. So likewise by Egypt is sometimes
understood, in His sense, the whole world as being marked out by superstition and a curse
By a similar usage Babylon also in our (St. John is a figure of the city of Rome, as being
like (Babylon) great and proud in royal power, and warring down the saints of God. Now it
was in accordance with this style that He called the magi by the name of Samaritans,
because (as we have said) they had practised idolatry as did the Samaritans. Moreover, by
the phrase "before or against the king of Assyria," understand "against Herod; "against
whom the magi then opposed themselves, when they refrained from carrying him back word
concerning Christ, whom he was seeking to destroy.

CHAPTER XIV.-FIGURATIVE STYLE OF CERTAIN MESSIANIC PROPHECIES IN THE PSALMS. MILITARY METAPHORS APPLIED TO CHRIST.

1 This interpretation of ours will derive confirmation, when, on your supposing that
Christ is in any passage called a warrior, from the mention of certain arms and
expressions of that sort, you weigh well the analogy of their other meanings, and draw
your conclusions accordingly. "Gird on Thy sword," says David, "upon Thy thigh. But what
do you read about Christ just before? "Thou art fairer than the children of men; grace is
poured forth upon Thy lips. It amuses me to imagine that blandishments of fair beauty and
graceful lips are ascribed to one who had to gird on His sword for war! So likewise, when
it is added, "Ride on prosperously in Thy majesty," the reason is subjoined: "Because of
truth, and meekness, and righteousness. But who shall produce these results with the
sword, and not their opposites rather-deceit, and harshness, and injury-which, it must be
confessed, are the proper business of battles? Let us see, therefore, whether that is not
some other sword, which has so different an action. Now the Apostle John, in the
Apocalypse, describes a sword which proceeded from the mouth of God as "a doubly sharp,
two-edged one. This may be understood to be the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the
two testaments of the law and the gospel-sharpened with wisdom, hostile to the devil,
arming us against the spiritual enemies of all wickedness and concupiscence, and cutting
us off from the dearest objects for the sake of God's holy name.

2 If, however, you will not acknowledge John, you have our common master Paul, who "girds
our loins about with truth, and puts on us the breastplate of righteousness, and shoes us
with the preparation of the gospel of peace, not of war; who bids us take the shield of
faith, wherewith we may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the devil, and the helmet
of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which (he says) is the word of God. This sword
the Lord Himself came to send on earth, and not peace. If he is your Christ, then even he
is a warrior. If he is not a warrior, and the sword he brandishes is an allegorical one,
then the Creator's Christ in the psalm too may have been girded with the figurative sword
of the Word, without any martial gear. The above-mentioned "fairness" of His beauty and
"grace of His lips" would quite suit such a sword, girt as it even then was upon His thigh
in the passage of David, and sent as it would one day be by Him on earth. For this is what
He says: "Ride on prosperously in Thy majesty "-advancing His word into every land, so as
to call all nations: destined to prosper in the success of that faith which received Him,
and reigning, from the fact that He conquered death by His resurrection. "Thy right hand,"
says He, "shall wonderfully lead Thee forth," even the might of Thy spiritual grace,
whereby the knowledge of Christ is spread.

3 "Thine arrows are sharp; " everywhere Thy precepts fly about, Thy threatenings also, and
convictions of heart, pricking and piercing each conscience. "The people shall fall under
Thee," that is, in adoration. Thus is the Creator's Christ mighty in war, and a bearer of
arms; thus also does He now take the spoils, not of Samaria alone, but of all nations.
Acknowledge, then, that His spoils are figurative, since you have learned that His arms
are allegorical. Since, therefore, both the Lord speaks and His apostle writes such things
in a figurative style, we are not rash in using His interpretations, the records of which
even our adversaries admit; and thus in so far will it be Isaiah's Christ who has come, in
as far as He was not a warrior, because it is not of such a character that He is described
by Isaiah.

CHAPTER XV.-THE TITLE CHRIST SUITABLE AS A NAME OF THE CREATOR'S SON, BUT UNSUITED TO MARCION'S CHRIST.

1 Touching then the discussion of His flesh, and (through that) of His nativity, and
incidentally of His name Emmanuel, let this suffice. Concerning His other names, however,
and especially that of Christ, what has the other side to say in reply? If the name of
Christ is as common with you as is the name of God-so that as the Son of both Gods may be
fitly called Christ, so each of the Fathers may be called Lord-reason will certainly be
opposed to this argument. For the name of God, as being the natural designation of Deity,
may be ascribed to all those beings for whom a divine nature is claimed,-as, for instance,
even to idols. The apostle says: "For there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or
in earth. The name of Christ, however, does not arise from nature, but from dispensation;
and so becomes the proper name of Him to whom it accrues in consequence of the
dispensation. Nor is it subject to be shared in by any other God, especially a rival, and
one that has a dispensation of His own, to whom it will be also necessary that He should
possess names apart from all others. For how happens it that, after they have devised
different dispensations for two Gods they admit into this diversity of dispensation a
community of names; whereas no proof could be more useful of two Gods being rival ones,
than if there should be found coincident with their (diverse) dispensations a diversity
also of names?

2 For that is not a state of diverse qualities, which is not distinctly indicated in the
specific meanings of their designations. Whenever these are wanting, there occurs what the
Greeks call the katachresis of a term, by its improper application to what does not belong
to it. In God, however, there ought, I suppose, to be no defect, no setting up of His
dispensations by katachrestic abuse of words. Who is this god, that claims for his son
names from the Creator? I say not names which do not belong to him, but ancient and well-
known names, which even in this view of them would be unsuitable for a novel and unknown
god. How is it, again, that he tells us that "a piece of new cloth is not sewed on to an
old garment," or that "new wine is not trusted to old bottles," when he is himself patched
and clad in an old suit of names? How is it he has rent off the gospel from the law, when
he is wholly invested with the law,-in the name, forsooth, of Christ? What hindered his
calling himself by some other name, seeing that he preached another (gospel), came from
another source, and refused to take on him a real body, for the very purpose that he might
not be supposed to be the Creator's Christ? Vain, however, was his unwillingness to seem
to be He whose name he was willing to assume;

3 since, even if he had been truly corporeal, he would more certainly escape being taken
for the Christ of the Creator, if he had not taken on him His name. But, as it is, he
rejects the substantial verity of Him whose name he has assumed, even though he should
give a proof of that verity by his name. For Christ means anointed, and to be anointed is
certainly an affair of the body. He who had not a body, could not by any possibility have
been anointed; he who could not by any possibility have been anointed, could not in any
wise have been called Christ. It is a different thing (quite), if he only assumed the
phantom of a name too. But how, he asks, was he to insinuate himself into being believed
by the Jews, except through a name which was usual and familiar amongst them? Then 'tis a
fickle and tricksty God whom you describe! To promote any plan bydeception, is the
resource of either distrust or of maliciousness. Much more frank and simple was the
conduct of the false prophets against the Creator, when they came in His name as their own
God. But I do not find that any good came of this proceeding, since they were more apt to
suppose either that Christ was their own, or rather was some deceiver, than that He was
the Christ of the other god; and this the gospel will show.


THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION
==============================

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION continued

CHAPTER XVI.-THE SACRED NAME JESUS MOST SUITED TO THE CHRIST OF THE CREATOR. JOSHUA A TYPE OF HIM.

1 Now if he caught at the name Christ, just as the pickpocket clutches the dole-basket,
why did he wish to be called Jesus too, by a name which was not so much looked for by the
Jews? For although we, who have by God's grace attained to the understanding of His
mysteries, acknowledge that this name also was destined for Christ, yet, for all that, the
fact was not known to the Jews, from whom wisdom was taken away. To this day, in short, it
is Christ that they are looking for, not Jesus; and they interpret Elias to be Christ
rather than Jesus. He, therefore, who came also in a name in which Christ was not
expected, might have come only in that name which was solely anticipated for Him. But
since he has mixed up the two, the expected one and the unexpected, his twofold project is
defeated. For if he be Christ for the very purpose of insinuating himself as the
Creator's, then Jesus opposes him, because Jesus was not looked for in the Christ of the
Creator; or if he be Jesus, in order that he might pass as belonging to the other (God),
then Christ hinders him, because Christ was not expected to belong to any other than the
Creator. I know not which one of these names may be able to hold its ground. In the Christ
of the Creator, however, both will keep their place, for in Him a Jesus too is found. Do
you ask, how?

2 Learn it then here, with the Jews also who are partakers of your heresy. When Oshea the
son of Nun was destined to be the successor of Moses, is not his old name then changed,
and for the first time he is called Joshua? It is true, you say. This, then, we first
observe, was a figure of Him who was to come. For inasmuch as Jesus Christ was to
introduce a new generation (because we are born in the wilderness of this world) into the
promised land which flows with milk and honey, that is, into the possession of eternal
life, than which nothing can be sweeter; inasmuch, too, as this was to be brought about
not by Moses, that is to say, not by the discipline of the law, but by Joshua, by the
grace of the gospel, our circumcision being effected by a knife of stone, that is, (by the
circumcision) of Christ, for Christ is a rock (or stone), therefore that great man, who
was ordained as a type of this mystery, was actually consecrated with the figure of the
Lord's own name, being called Joshua. This name Christ Himself even then testified to be
His own, when He talked with Moses. For who was it that talked with him, but the Spirit of
the Creator, which is Christ? When He therefore spake this commandment to the people,
"Behold, I send my angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into
the land which I have prepared for thee;

3 attend to him, and obey his voice and do not provoke him; for he has not shunned you,
since my name is upon him," He called him an angel indeed, because of the greatness of the
powers which he was to exercise, and because of his prophetic office, while announcing the
will of God; but Joshua also (Jesus), because it was a type of His own future name. Often
did He confirm that name of His which He had thus conferred upon (His servant); because it
was not the name of angel, nor Oshea, but Joshua (Jesus), which He had commanded him to
bear as his usual appellation for the time to come. Since, therefore, both these names are
suitable to the Christ of the Creator, they are proportionately unsuitable to the non-
Creator's Christ; and so indeed is all the rest of (our Christ's) destined course. In
short, there must now for the future be made between us that certain and equitable rule,
necessary to both sides, which shall determine that there ought to be absolutely nothing
at all in common between the Christ of the other god and the Creator's Christ.

4 For you will have as great a necessity to maintain their diversity as we have to resist
it, inasmuch as you will be as unable to show that the Christ of the other god has come,
until you have proved him to be a far different being from the Creator's Christ, as we, to
claim Him (who has come) as the Creator's, until we have shown Him to be such a one as the
Creator has appointed. Now respecting their names, such is our conclusion against
(Marcion). I claim for myself Christ; I maintain for myself Jesus.

CHAPTER XVII.-PROPHECIES IN ISAIAH AND THE PSALMS RESPECTING CHRIST'S HUMILIATION.

1 Let us compare with Scripture the rest of His dispensation. Whatever that poor despised
body may be, because it was an object of touch and sight, it shall be my Christ, be He
inglorious, be He ignoble, be He dishonoured; for such was it announced that He should be,
both in bodily condition and aspect. Isaiah comes to our help again: "We have announced
(His way) before Him," says he; "He is like a servant, like a root in a dry ground; He
hath no form nor comeliness; we saw Him, and He had neither form nor beauty; but His form
was despised, marred above all men. Similarly the Father addressed the Son just before:
"Inasmuch as many will be astonished at Thee, so also will Thy beauty be without glory
from men," For although, in David's words, He is fairer than the children of men," yet it
is in that figurative state of spiritual grace, when He is girded with the sword of the
Spirit, which is verily His form, and beauty, and glory. According to the same prophet,
however, He is in bodily condition "a very worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and an
outcast of the people. But no internal quality of such a kind does He announce as
belonging to Him. In Him dwelt the fulness of the Spirit; therefore I acknowledge Him to
be "the rod of the stem of Jesse.

2 His blooming flower shall be my Christ, upon whom hath rested, according to Isaiah, "the
spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of
knowledge and of piety, and of the fear of the Lord. Now to no man, except Christ, would
the diversity of spiritual proofs suitably apply. He is indeed like a flower for the
Spirit's grace, reckoned indeed of the stem of Jesse, but thence to derive His descent
through Mary. Now I purposely demand of you, whether you grant to Him the destination of
all this humiliation, and suffering, and tranquillity, from which He will be the Christ of
Isaiah,-a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, who was led as a sheep to the
slaughter, and who, like a lamb before the shearer, opened not His mouth; who did not
struggle nor cry, nor was His voice heard in the street who broke not the bruised reed-
that is, the shattered faith of the Jews-nor quenched the smoking flax-that is, the
freshly-kindled ardour of the Gentiles. He can be none other than the Man who was
foretold. It is right that His conduct be investigated according to the rule of Scripture,
distinguishable as it is unless I am mistaken, by the twofold operation of preaching and
of miracle. But the treatment of both these topics I shall so arrange as to postpone, to
the chapter wherein I have determined to discuss the actual gospel of Marcion, the
consideration of His wonderful doctrines and miracles-with a view, however, to our present
purpose.

3 Let us here, then, in general terms complete the subject which we had entered upon, by
indicating, as we pass on, how Christ was fore-announced by Isaiah as a preacher: "For who
is there among you," says he, "that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of His Son? "
And likewise as a healer: "For," says he, "He hath taken away our infirmities, and carried
our sorrows."

CHAPTER XVIII. -TYPES OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. ISAAC; JOSEPH; JACOB AGAINST SIMEON AND LEVI; MOSES PRAYING AGAINST AMALEK; THE BRAZEN SERPENT.

1 On the subject of His death, I suppose, you endeavour to introduce a diversity of
opinion, simply because you deny that the suffering of the cross was predicted of the
Christ of the Creator, and because you contend, moreover, that it is not to be believed
that the Creator would expose His Son to that kind of death on which He had Himself
pronounced a curse. "Cursed," says He, "is every one who hangeth on a tree. But what is
meant by this curse, worthy as it is of the simple prediction of the cross, of which we
are now mainly inquiring, I defer to consider, because in another passage we have given
the reason of the thing preceded by proof. First, I shall offer a full explanation of the
types. And no doubt it was proper that this mystery should be prophetically set forth by
types, and indeed chiefly by that method: for in proportion to its incredibility would it
be a stumbling-block, if it were set forth in bare prophecy; and in proportion too, to its
grandeur, was the need of obscuring it in shadow, that the difficulty of understanding it
might lead to prayer for the grace of God. First, then, Isaac, when he was given up by his
father as an offering, himself carried the wood for his own death. By this act he even
then was setting forth the death of Christ, who was destined by His Father as a sacrifice,
and carried the cross whereon He suffered.

2 Joseph likewise was a type of Christ, not indeed on this ground (that I may not delay my
course ), that he suffered persecution for the cause of God from his brethren, as Christ
did from His brethren after the flesh, the Jews; but when he is blessed by his father in
these words: "His glory is that of a bullock; his horns are the horns of a unicorn; with
them shall he push the nations to the very ends of the earth," -he was not, of course,
designated as a mere unicorn with its one horn, or a minotaur with two; but Christ was
indicated in him-a bullock in respect of both His characteristics: to some as severe as a
Judge, to others gentle as a Saviour, whose horns were the extremities of His cross. For
of the antenna, which is a part of a cross, the ends are called horns; while the midway
stake of the whole frame is the unicorn. By this virtue, then, of His cross, and in this
manner "horned," He is both now pushing all nations through faith, bearing them away from
earth to heaven; and will then push them through judgment, casting them down from heaven
to earth. He will also, according to another passage in the same scripture, be a bullock,
when He is spiritually interpreted to be Jacob against Simeon and Levi, which means
against the scribes and the Pharisees; for it was from them that these last derived their
origin.

3 Like Simeon and Levi, they consummated their wickedness by their heresy, with which they
persecuted Christ. "Into their counsel let not my soul enter; to their assembly let not my
heart be united: for in their anger they slew men," that is, the prophets; "and in their
self-will they hacked the sinews of a bullock," that is, of Christ. For against Him did
they wreak their fury after they had slain His prophets, even by affixing Him with nails
to the cross. Otherwise, it is an idle thing when, after slaying men, he inveighs against
them for the torture of a bullock! Again, in the case of Moses, wherefore did he at that
moment particularly, when Joshua was fighting Amalek, pray in a sitting posture with
outstretched hands, when in such a conflict it would surely have been more seemly to have
bent the knee, and smitten the breast, and to have fallen on the face to the ground, and
in such prostration to have offered prayer? Wherefore, but because in a battle fought in
the name of that Lord who was one day to fight against the devil, the shape was necessary
of that very cross through which Jesus was to win the victory? Why, once more, did the
same Moses, after prohibiting the likeness of everything, set up the golden serpent on the
pole; and as it hung there, propose it as an object to be looked at for a cure?

4 Did he not here also intend to show the power of our Lord's cross, whereby that old
serpent the devil was vanquished,-whereby also to every man who was bitten by spiritual
serpents, but who yet turned with an eye of faith to it, was proclaimed a cure from the
bite of sin, and health for evermore?

CHAPTER XIX.-PROPHECIES OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.

1 Come now, when you read in the words of David, how that "the Lord reigneth from the
tree," I want to know what you understand by it. Perhaps you think some wooden king of the
Jews is meant!-and not Christ, who overcame death by His suffering on the cross, and
thence reigned! Now, although death reigned from Adam even to Christ, why may not Christ
be said to have reigned from the tree, from His having shut up the kingdom of death by
dying upon the tree of His cross? Likewise Isaiah also says: "For unto us a child is born.
But what is there unusual in this, unless he speaks of the Son of God? "To us is given He
whose government is upon His shoulder. Now, what king is there who bears the ensign of his
dominion upon his shoulder, and not rather upon his head as a diadem, or in his hand as a
sceptre, or else as a mark in some royal apparel? But the one new King of the new ages,
Jesus Christ, carried on His shoulder both the power and the excellence of His new glory,
even His cross; so that, according to our former prophecy, He might thenceforth reign from
the tree as Lord. This tree it is which Jeremiah likewise gives you intimation of, when he
prophesies to the Jews, who should say, "Come, let us destroy the tree with the fruit,
(the bread) thereof," that is, His body.

2 For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread;
so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure
of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself
designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery. If you require still further
prediction of the Lord's cross, the twenty-first Psalm is sufficiently able to afford it
to you, containing as it does the entire passion of Christ, who was even then
prophetically declaring His glory. "They pierced," says He, "my hands and my feet," which
is the special cruelty of the cross. And again, when He implores His Father's help, He
says, "Save me from the lion's mouth," that is, the jaws of death, "and my humiliation
from the horns of the unicorns; "in other words, from the extremities of the cross, as we
have shown above. Now, David himself did not suffer this cross, nor did any other king of
the Jews; so that you cannot suppose that this is the prophecy of any other's passion than
His who alone was so notably crucified by the nation. Now should the heretics, in their
obstinacy, reject and despise all these interpretations, I will grant to them that the
Creator has given us no signs of the cross of His Christ;

3 but they will not prove from this concession that He who was crucified was another
(Christ), unless they could somehow show that this death was predicted as His by their own
god, so that from the diversity of predictions there might be maintained to be a diversity
of sufferers, and thereby also a diversity of persons. But since there is no prophecy of
even Marcion's Christ, much less of his cross, it is enough for my Christ that there is a
prophecy merely of death. For, from the fact that the kind of death is not declared, it
was possible for the death of the cross to have been still intended, which would then have
to be assigned to another (Christ), if the prophecy had had reference to another. Besides,
if he should be unwilling to allow that the death of my Christ was predicted, his
confusion must be the greater if he announces that his own Christ indeed died, whom he
denies to have had a nativity, whilst denying that my Christ is mortal, though he allows
Him to be capable of birth. However, I will show him the death, and burial, and
resurrection of my Christ all indicated in a single sentence of Isaiah, who says, "His
sepulture was removed from the midst of them. Now there could have been no sepulture
without death, and no removal of sepulture except by resurrection. Then, finally, he
added:

4 "Therefore He shall have many for his inheritance, and He shall divide the spoil of the
many, because He poured out His soul unto death. For there is here set forth the cause of
this favour to Him, even that it was to recompense Him for His suffering of death. It was
equally shown that He was to obtain this recompense for His death, was certainly to obtain
it after His death by means of the resurrection.

CHAPTER XX. -THE SUBSEQUENT INFLUENCE OF CHRIST'S DEATH IN THE WORLD PREDICTED. THE SURE MERCIES OF DAVID. WHAT THESE ARE.

1 It is sufficient for my purpose to have traced thus far the course of Christ's
dispensation in these particulars. This has proved Him to be such a one as prophecy
announced He should be, so that He ought not to be regarded in any other character than
that which prediction assigned to Him; and the result of this agreement between the facts
of His course and the Scriptures of the Creator should be the restoration of belief in
them from that prejudice which has, by contributing to diversity of opinion, either thrown
doubt upon, or led to a denial of, a considerable part of them And now we go further and
build up the superstructure of those kindred events out of the Scriptures of the Creator
which were predicted and destined to happen after Christ. For the dispensation would not
be found complete, if He had not come after whom it had to run on its course. Look at all
nations from the vortex of human error emerging out of it up to the Divine Creator, the
Divine Christ, and deny Him to be the object of prophecy, if you dare. At once there will
occur to you the Father's promise in the Psalms: "Thou art my Son, this day have I
begotten Thee. Ask of me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the
uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession. You will not be able to put in a claim
for some son of David being here meant, rather than Christ;

2 or for the ends of the earth being promised to David, whose kingdom was confined to the
Jewish nation simply, rather than to Christ, who now embraces the whole world in the faith
of His gospel. So again He says by Isaiah: "I have given Thee for a dispensation of the
people, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind," that is, those that
be in error, "to bring out the prisoners from the prison," that is, to free them from sin,
"and from the prison-house," that is, of death, "those that sit in darkness"-even that of
ignorance. If these things are accomplished through Christ, they would not have been
designed in prophecy for any other than Him through whom they have their accomplishment.
In another passage He also says: "Behold, I have set Him as a testimony to the nations, a
prince and commander to the nations; nations which know Thee not shall invoke Thee, and
peoples shall run together unto Thee. You will not interpret these words of David, because
He previously said, "I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies
of David. Indeed, you will be obliged from these words all the more to understand that
Christ is reckoned to spring from David by carnal descent, by reason of His birth of the
Virgin Mary. Touching this promise of Him, there is the oath to David in the psalm, "Of
the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. What body is meant? David's own?

3 Certainly not. For David was not to give birth to a son. Nor his wife's either. For
instead of saying, "Of the fruit of thy body," he would then have rather said, "Of the
fruit of thy wife's body. But by mentioning his body, it follows that He pointed to some
one of his race of whose body the flesh of Christ was to be the fruit, which bloomed forth
from Mary's womb. He named the fruit of the body (womb) alone, because it was peculiarly
fruit of the womb, of the womb only in fact, and not of the husband also; and he refers
the womb (body) to David, as to the chief of the race and father of the family. Because it
could not consist with a virgin's condition to consort her with a husband, He therefore
attributed the body (womb) to the father. That new dispensation, then, which is found in
Christ now, will prove to be what the Creator then promised under the appellation of "the
sure mercies of David," which were Christ's, inasmuch as Christ sprang from David, or
rather His very flesh itself was David's "sure mercies," consecrated by religion, and
"sure" after its resurrection. Accordingly the prophet Nathan, in the first of Kings,
makes a promise to David for his seed, "which shall proceed," says he, "out of thy bowels.
Now, if you explain this simply of Solomon, you will send me into a fit of laughter. For
David will evidently have brought forth Solomon!

4 But is not Christ here designated the seed of David, as of that womb which was derived
from David, that is, Mary's? Now, because Christ rather than any other was to build the
temple of God, that is to say, a holy manhood, wherein God's Spirit might dwell as in a
better temple, Christ rather than David's son Solomon was to be looked for as the Son of
God. Then, again, the throne for ever with the kingdom for ever is more suited to Christ
than to Solomon, a mere temporal king. From Christ, too, God's mercy did not depart,
whereas on Solomon even God's anger alighted, after his luxury and idolatry. For Satan
stirred up an Edomite as an enemy against him. Since, therefore, nothing of these things
is compatible with Solomon, but only with Christ, the method of our interpretations will
certainly be true; and the very issue of the facts shows that they were clearly predicted
of Christ. And so in Him we shall have "the sure mercies of David. Him, not David, has God
appointed for a testimony to the nations; Him, for a prince and commander to the nations,
not David, who ruled over Israel alone. It is Christ whom all nations now invoke, which
knew Him not; Christ to whom all races now betake themselves, whom they were ignorant of
before. It is impossible that that should be said to be future, which you see (daily)
coming to pass.

CHAPTER XXI.-THE CALL OF THE GENTILES UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THE GOSPEL FORETOLD.

1 So you cannot get out of this notion of yours a basis for your difference between the
two Christs, as if the Jewish Christ were ordained by the Creator for the restoration of
the people alone from its dispersion, whilst yours was appointed by the supremely good God
for the liberation of the whole human race. Because, after all, the earliest Christians
are found on the side of the Creator, not of Marcion, all nations being called to His
kingdom, from the fact that God set up that kingdom from the tree (of the cross), when no
Cerdon was yet born, much less a Marcion. However, when you are refuted on the call of the
nations, you betake yourself to proselytes. You ask, who among the nations can turn to the
Creator, when those whom the prophet names are proselytes of individually different and
private condition? "Behold," says Isaiah, "the proselytes shall come unto me through-
Thee," showing that they were even proselytes who were to find their way to God through
Christ. But nations (Gentiles) also, like ourselves, had likewise their mention (by the
prophet) as trusting in Christ. "And in His name," says he, "shall the Gentiles trust.
Besides, the proselytes whom you substitute for the nations in prophecy, are not in the
habit of trusting in Christ's name, but in the dispensation of Moses, from whom comes
their instruction. But it was in the last days that the choice of the nations had its
commencement. In these very words Isaiah says:

2 "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord," that is,
God's eminence, "and the house of God," that is, Christ, the Catholic temple of God, in
which God is worshipped, "shall be established upon the mountains," over all the eminences
of virtues and powers; "and all nations shall come unto it; and many people shall go and
say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of
Jacob; and He will teach us His way, and we will walk in it: for out of Sion shall go
forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. The gospel will be this "way," of
the new law and the new word in Christ, no longer in Moses. "And He shall judge among the
nations," even concerning their error. "And these shall rebuke a large nation," that of
the Jews themselves and their proselytes. "And they shall beat their swords into
ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; " in other words, they shall change
into pursuits of moderation and peace the dispositions of injurious minds, and hostile
tongues, and all kinds of evil, and blasphemy. "Nation shall not lift up sword against
nation,"shall not stir up discord. "Neither shall they learn war any more," that is, the
provocation of hostilities; so that you here learn that Christ is promised not as powerful
in war, but pursuing peace.

3 Now you must deny either that these things were predicted, although they are plainly
seen, or that they have been accomplished, although you read of them; else, if you cannot
deny either one fact or the other, they must have been accomplished in Him of whom they
were predicted. For look at the entire course of His call up to the present time from its
beginning, how it is addressed to the nations (Gentiles) who are in these last days
approaching to God the Creator, and not to proselytes, whose election was rather an event
of the earliest days. Verily the apostles have annulled that belief of yours.

CHAPTER XXII.-THE SUCCESS OF THE APOSTLES, AND THEIR SUFFERINGS IN THE CAUSE OF THE GOSPEL, FORETOLD.

1 You have the work of the apostles also predicted: "How beautiful are the feet of them
which preach the gospel of peace, which bring good tidings of good," not of war nor evil
tidings. In response to which is the psalm, "Their sound is gone through all the earth,
and their words to the ends of the world; " that is, the words of them who carry round
about the law that proceeded from Sion and the Lord's word from Jerusalem, in order that
that might come to pass which was written: "They who were far from my righteousness, have
come near to my righteousness and truth. When the apostles girded their loins for this
business, they renounced the elders and rulers and priests of the Jews. Well, says he, but
was it not above all things that they might preach the other god? Rather (that they might
preach) that very self-same God, whose scripture they were with all their might
fulfilling! "Depart ye, depart ye," exclaims Isaiah; "go ye out from thence, and touch not
the unclean thing," that is blasphemy against Christ; "Go ye out of the midst of her,"
even of the synagogue" Be ye separate who bear the vessels of the Lord.

2 For already had the Lord, according to the preceding words (of the prophet), revealed
His Holy One with His arm, that is to say, Christ by His mighty power, in the eyes of the
nations, so that all the nations and the utmost parts of the earth have seen the
salvation, which was from God. By thus departing from Judaism itself, when they exchanged
the obligations and burdens of the law for the liberty of the gospel, they were fulfilling
the psalm, "Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast away their yoke from us; "and this
indeed (they did) after that "the heathen raged, and the people imagined vain devices;
"after that "the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers took their counsel
together against the Lord, and against His Christ. What did the apostles thereupon suffer?
You answer: Every sort of iniquitous persecutions, from men that belonged indeed to that
Creator who was the adversary of Him whom they were preaching. Then why does the Creator,
if an adversary of Christ, not only predict that the apostles should incur this suffering,
but even express His displeasure thereat? For He ought neither to predict the course of
the other god, whom, as you contend, He knew not, nor to have expressed displeasure at
that which He had taken care to bring about. "See how the righteous perisheth, and no man
layeth it to heart; and how merciful men are taken away, and no man considereth. For the
righteous man has been removed from the evil person.

3 Who is this but Christ? "Come, say they, let us take away the righteous, because He is
not for our turn, (and He is clean contrary to our doings). Premising, therefore, and
likewise subjoining the fact that Christ suffered, He foretold that His just ones should
suffer equally with Him-both the apostles and all the faithful in succession; and He
signed them with that very seal of which Ezekiel spake: "The Lord said unto me, Go through
the gate, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set the mark <i>tau upon the foreheads of
the men. Now the Greek letter <i>tau and our own letter T is the very form of the cross,
which He predicted would be the sign on our foreheads in the true Catholic Jerusalem, in
which, according to the twenty-first Psalm, the brethren of Christ or children of God
would ascribe glory to God the Father, in the person of Christ Himself addressing His
Father; "I will declare Thy name unto my brethren; in the midst of the congregation will I
sing praise unto Thee. For that which had to come to pass in our day in His name, and by
His Spirit, He rightly foretold would be of Him. And a little afterwards He says: "My
praise shall be of Thee in the great congregation. In the sixty-seventh Psalm He says
again: "In the congregations bless ye the Lord God. So that with this agrees also the
prophecy of Malachi: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; neither will I accept
your offerings:

4 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 sacrifice shall be offered unto my name, and
a pure offering" -such as the ascription of glory, and blessing, and praise, and hymns.
Now, inasmuch as all these things are also found amongst you, and the sign upon the
forehead, and the sacraments of the church, and the offerings of the pure sacrifice, you
ought now to burst forth, and declare that the Spirit of the Creator prophesied of your
Christ.

CHAPTER XXIII.-THE DISPERSION OF THE JEWS, AND THEIR DESOLATE CONDITION FOR REJECTING CHRIST, FORETOLD.

1 Now, since you join the Jews in denying that their Christ has come, recollect also what
is that end which they were predicted as about to bring on themselves after the time of
Christ, for the impiety wherewith they both rejected and slew Him. For it began to come to
pass from that day, when, according to Isaiah, "a man threw away his idols of gold and of
silver, which they made into useless and hurtful objects of worship; " in other words,
from the time when he threw away his idols after the truth had been made clear by Christ.
Consider whether what follows in the prophet has not received its fulfilment: "The Lord of
hosts hath taken away from Judah and from Jerusalem, amongst other things, both the
prophet and the wise artificer; " that is, His Holy Spirit, who builds the church, which
is indeed the temple, and household and city of God. For thenceforth God's grace failed
amongst them; and "the clouds were commanded to rain no rain upon the vineyard" of Sorech;
to withhold, that is, the graces of heaven, that they shed no blessing upon "the house of
Israel," which had but produced "the thorns" wherewith it had crowned the Lord, and
"instead of righteousness, the cry" wherewith it had hurried Him away to the cross. And so
in this manner the law and the prophets were until John, but the clews of divine grace
were withdrawn from the nation.

2 After his time their madness still continued, and the name of the Lord was blasphemed by
them, as saith the Scripture: "Because of you my name is continually blasphemed amongst
the nations" (for from them did the blasphemy originate); neither in the interval from
Tiberius to Vespasian did they learn repentance. Therefore "has their land become
desolate, their cities are burnt with fire, their country strangers are devouring before
their own eyes; the daughter of Sion has been deserted like a cottage in a vineyard, or a
lodge in a garden of cucumbers," ever since the time when "Israel acknowledged not the
Lord, and the people understood Him not, but forsook Him, and provoked the Holy One of
Israel unto anger. So likewise that conditional threat of the sword, "If ye refuse and
hear me not, the sword shall devour you," has proved that it was Christ, for rebellion
against whom they have perished. In the fifty-eighth Psalm He demands of the Father their
dispersion: "Scatter them in Thy power. By Isaiah He also says, as He finishes a prophecy
of their consumption by fire: "Because of me has this happened to you; ye shall lie down
in sorrow. But all this would be unmeaning enough, if they suffered this retribution not
on account of Him, who had in prophecy assigned their suffering to His own cause, but for
the sake of the Christ of the other god.

3 Well, then, although you affirm that it is the Christ of the other god who was driven to
the cross by the powers and authorities of the Creator, as it were by hostile beings,
still I have to say, See how manifestly He was defended by the Creator: there were given
to Him both "the wicked for His burial," even those who had strenuously maintained that
His corpse had been stolen, "and the rich for His death," even those who had redeemed Him
from the treachery of Judas, as well as from the lying report of the soldiers that His
body had been taken away. Therefore these things either did not happen to the Jews on His
account, in which case you will be refuted by the sense of the Scriptures tallying with
the issue of the facts and the order of the times, or else they did happen on His account,
and then the Creator could not have inflicted the vengeance except for His own Christ;
nay, He must have rather had a reward for Judas, if it had been his master's enemy whom
they put to death. At all events, if the Creator's Christ has not come yet, on whose
account the prophecy dooms them to such sufferings, they will have to endure the
sufferings when He shall have come. Then where will there be a daughter of Sion to be
reduced to desolation, for there is none now to be found? Where will there be cities to be
burnt with fire, for they are now in heaps?

4 Where a nation to be dispersed, which is already in banishment? Restore to Judµa its
former state, that the Creator's Christ may find it, and then you may contend that another
Christ has come. But then, again, how is it that He can have permitted to range through
His own heaven one whom He was some day to put to death on His own earth, after the more
noble and glorious region of His kingdom had been violated, and His own very palace and
sublimest height had been trodden by him? Or was it only in appearance rather that he did
this? God is no doubt a jealous God! Yet he gained the victory. You should blush with
shame, who put your faith in a vanquished god! What have you to hope for from him, who was
not strong enough to protect himself? For it was either through his infirmity that he was
crushed by the powers and human agents of the Creator, or else through maliciousness, in
order that he might fasten so great a stigma on them by his endurance of their wickedness.

CHAPTER XXV.-CHRIST'S MILLENNIAL AND HEAVENLY GLORY IN COMPANY WITH HIS SAINTS.

1 Yes, certainly, you say, I do hope from Him that which amounts in itself to a proof of
the diversity (of Christs), God's kingdom in an everlasting and heavenly possession.
Besides, your Christ promises to the Jews their primitive condition, with the recovery of
their country; and after this life's course is over, repose in Hades in Abraham's bosom.
Oh, most excellent God, when He restores in amnesty what He took away in wrath! Oh, what a
God is yours, who both wounds and heals, creates evil and makes peace! Oh, what a God,
that is merciful even down to Hades! I shall have something to say about Abraham's bosom
in the proper place. As for the restoration of Judµa, however, which even the Jews
themselves, induced by the names of places and countries, hope for just as it is
described, it would be tedious to state at length how the figurative interpretation is
spiritually applicable to Christ and His church, and to the character and fruits thereof;
besides, the subject has been regularly treated in another work, which we entitle De Spe
Fidelium. At present, too, it would be superfluous for this reason, that our inquiry
relates to what is promised in heaven, not on earth. But we do confess that a kingdom is
promised to us upon the earth, although before heaven, only in another state of existence;

2 inasmuch as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand years in the divinely-built
city of Jerusalem, "let down from heaven," which the apostle also calls "our mother from
above; " and, while declaring that our poli/teuma, or citizenship, is in heaven, he
predicates of it that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of
and the Apostle John beheld. And the word of the new prophecy which is a part of our
belief, attests how it foretold that there would be for a sign a picture of this very city
exhibited. to view previous to its manifestation. This prophecy, indeed, has been very
lately fulfilled in an expedition to the East. For it is evident from the testimony of
even heathen witnesses, that in Judµa there was suspended in the sky a city early every
morning for forty days. As the day advanced, the entire figure of its walls would wane
gradually, and sometimes it would vanish instantly. We say that this city has been
provided by God for receiving the saints on their resurrection, and refreshing them with
the abundance of all really spiritual blessings, as a recompense for those which in the
world we have either despised or lost; since it is both just and God-worthy that His
servants should have their joy in the place where they have also suffered affliction for
His name's sake. Of the heavenly kingdom this is the process.

3 After its thousand years are over, within which period is completed the resurrection of
the saints, who rise sooner or later according to their deserts there will ensue the
destruction of the world and the conflagration of all things at the judgment: we shall
then be changed in a moment into the substance of angels, even by the investiture of an
incorruptible nature, and so be removed to that kingdom in heaven of which we have now
been treating, just as if it had not been predicted by the Creator, and as if it were
proving Christ to belong to the other god and as if he were the first and sole revealer of
it. But now learn that it has been, in fact, predicted by the Creator, and that even
without prediction it has a claim upon our faith in respect of the Creator. What appears
to be probable to you, when Abraham's seed, after the primal promise of being like the
sand of the sea for multitude, is destined likewise. to an equality with the stars of
heaven-are not these the indications both of an earthly and a heavenly dispensation? When
Isaac, in blessing his son Jacob, says, "God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the
fatness of the earth," are there not in his words examples of both kinds of blessing?
Indeed, the very form of the blessing is in this instance worthy of notice.

4 For in relation to Jacob, who is the type of the later and more excellent people, that
is to say ourselves, first comes the promise of the heavenly dew, and afterwards that
about the fatness of the earth. So are we first invited to heavenly blessings when we are
separated from the world, and afterwards we thus find ourselves in the way of obtaining
also earthly blessings. And your own gospel likewise has it in this wise: "Seek ye first
the kingdom of God, and these things shall be added unto you. But to Esau the blessing
promised is an earthly one, which he supplements with a heavenly, after the fatness of the
earth, saying, "Thy dwelling shall be also of the dew of heaven. For the dispensation of
the Jews (who were in Esau, the prior of the sons in birth, but the later in affection )
at first was imbued with earthly blessings through the law, and afterwards brought round
to heavenly ones through the gospel by faith. When Jacob sees in his dream the steps of a
ladder set upon the earth, and reaching to heaven, with angels ascending and descending
thereon, and the Lord standing above, we shall without hesitation venture to suppose, that
by this ladder the Lord has in judgment appointed that the way to heaven is shown to men,
whereby some may attain to it, and others fall therefrom.

5 For why, as soon as he awoke out of his sleep, and shook through a dread of the spot,
does he fall to an interpretation of his dream? He exclaims, "How terrible is this place!
And then adds, "This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven! For
he had seen Christ the Lord, the temple of God, and also the gate by whom heaven is
entered. Now surely he would not have mentioned the gate of heaven, if heaven is not
entered in the dispensation of the Creator. But there is now a gate provided by Christ,
which admits and conducts to glory. Of this Amos says: "He buildeth His ascensions into
heaven; " certainly not for Himself alone, but for His people also, who will be with Him.
"And Thou shall bind them about Thee," says he, "like the adornment of a bride.
Accordingly the Spirit, admiring such as soar up to the celestial realms by these
ascensions, says, "They fly, as if they were kites; they fly as clouds, and as young
doves, unto me" -that is, simply like a dove.

6 For we shall, according to the apostle, be caught up into the clouds to meet the Lord
(even the Son of man, who shall come in the clouds, according to Daniel ) and so shall we
ever be with the Lord, so long as He remains both on the earth and in heaven, who, against
such as are thankless for both one promise and the other, calls the elements themselves to
witness: "Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth. Now, for my own part indeed, even though
Scripture held out no hand of heavenly hope to me (as, in fact, it so often does), I
should still possess a sufficient presumption of even this promise, in my present
enjoyment of the earthly gift; and I should look out for something also of the heavenly,
from Him who is the God of heaven as well as of earth. I should thus believe that the
Christ who promises the higher blessings is (the Son) of Him who had also promised the
lower ones; who had, moreover, afforded proofs of greater gifts by smaller ones; who had
reserved for His Christ alone this revelation of a (perhaps ) unheard of kingdom, so that,
while the earthly glory was announced by His servants, the heavenly might have God Himself
for its messenger. You, however, argue for another Christ, from the very circumstance that
He proclaims a new kingdom.

7 You ought first to bring forward some example of His beneficence, that I may have no
good reason for doubting the credibility of the great promise, which you say ought to be
hoped for; nay, it is before all things necessary that you should prove that a heaven
belongs to Him, whom you declare to be a promiser of heavenly things. As it is, you invite
us to dinner, but do not point out your house; you assert a kingdom, but show us no royal
state. Can it be that your Christ promises a kingdom of heaven, without having a heaven;
as He displayed Himself man, without having flesh? O what a phantom from first to last! O
hollow pretence of a mighty promise!

INTRODUCTION

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. Chapter 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.
2 Every opinion and the whole scheme of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now bring
to the test 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 devised for it a sort of dower,
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 as it is more
usual to call it; that by such means he might also patronize 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.

3 Although it is so easy to meet them at once with a peremptory demurrer, 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 I do allow that one order did run its course in the
old dispensation under the Creator, 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 did Isaiah declare that "out of Sion should go forth the law, and the word of the
Lord from Jerusalem" -some other law, that is, and another word. In short, says he, "He
shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; " 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.

4 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; " 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;
" 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" 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. Because the New Testament is compendiously short, and freed from the
minute and perplexing 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. So by Jeremiah: "Break up for yourselves new pastures, and sow not among
thorns, and circumcise yourselves in the foreskin of your heart. And in another passage:

5 "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. 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," 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, He declared in a figurative way even by the rod which
was to proceed out of the stem of Jesse. 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;

6 and in every place a sacrifice is offered unto my name, even a pure offering" -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. 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" -even the same "who createth evil and maketh peace; " 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?

7 You have not been able, unless I am misinformed, to recognise the fact, that the world,
at all events, even amongst your people of Pontus, is made up of a diversity of elements
which are hostile to one another. 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 of my mind from manifest proofs, that, as His works and plans exist in
the way of Antitheses, so also by the same rule exist the mysteries of His religion.

CHAPTER 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.

1 You have now our answer to the Antitheses compendiously indicated by us. I pass on to
give a proof of the Gospel -not, to be sure, of Jewry, but of Pontus-having become
meanwhile adulterated; and this shall indicate the order by which we proceed. We lay it
down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors,
to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since,
however, there are apostolic men also, 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 the authority of the masters, which
means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters. Of the
apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; whilst of apostolic men,
Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith,
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 the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur
some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the
essential matter of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion.

2 Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, 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 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 on every point; nor shall we leave unnoticed what
may fairly be understood to be on our side. Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion
seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process. 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 him as the apostle whom he followed (and that, no
doubt, was Paul ) 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, 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.

3 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; " 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.

CHAPTER III. -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.

1 In the scheme of Marcion, on the contrary, the mystery 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 its own authentic materials, 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 Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians
(wherein he rebukes even apostles ) for "not walking uprightly according to the truth of
the gospel," as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of
Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character of those Gospels which are published
as genuine 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 from respect of persons. And yet as Paul himself "became all
things to all men," 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.

2 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, but
false apostles interpolated their true record; and if our own copies have been made from
these, where will that genuine text 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, is, also adulterated in its title),
then it is the work of apostles.

3 Our Gospel, therefore, which is in agreement with it, is equally the work of apostles,
but also adulterated in its title.

CHAPTER 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.

1 We must follow, then, the clue 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 of time, which rules that the authority lies
with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an elemental truth, that
corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of comparative
lateness in its origin. For, inasmuch as error is falsification of truth, it must needs be
that truth therefore precede error. A thing must exist prior to its suffering any
casualty; and an object 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; 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 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.

2 With regard, then, to the pending question, of Luke's Gospel (so far as its being the
common property of ourselves and Marcion enables it to be decisive of the truth, ) that
portion of it which we alone receive 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, 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 of them. Proof out of these is enough for me. For if the Gospel, said to
be Luke's which is current amongst us (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, when he knows not whether they will come to pass. Emendation never
precedes the fault.

3 To be sure, an amender of that Gospel, which had been all topsy-turvy 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, 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; " if Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, "Whether it be I or they, so we
preach; " if Marcion be a prophet, even "the spirits of the prophets will be subject to
the prophets," 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," 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.

CHAPTER 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.

1 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
apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit 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 (to the apostles), to whom Peter and
Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. We have also St.
John's foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order 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 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 ) 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 condemned.

2 It too, of course, has its churches, but specially its own-as late as they are spurious;
and should you want to know their original, you will more easily discover apostasy in it
than apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or some one of Marcion's swarm.
Even wasps make combs; so also these Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the
apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess
equally through their means, 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 whose interpreter
Mark was. For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. And it may well
seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion
ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having
omitted them, and insisted in preference 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 existed from the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they
were prior, and coeval in origin with 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?

3 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 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 that all was free from corruption which he did not think required
amendment. In short, 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
have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke's, which is received amongst us, 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.

4 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
either way-when once he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again
subverts it by shameless tampering. Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we
take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining both that order of
periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of
churches 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.

CHAPTER 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.

1 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 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 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; 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 the drift and form
of my little treatise; subject, of course, to whatever condition may have become requisite
on both sides of the question.

2 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 a great and absolute
difference-as great as lies between what is just and what is good; 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, by which we determine 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, if He has administered His
dispensations, fulfilled His prophecies, promoted His laws, given reality to His promises,
revived His mighty power, remoulded His determinations 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.

CHAPTER VII.-MARCION REJECTED THE PRECEDING PORTION 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.

1 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he
"came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum," of course meaning from the heaven of the
Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own. What then had been his Course,
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 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 whether it is
supposed that he was seen in any place. To come into view indicates a sudden unexpected
glance, which for a moment fixed 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.

2 Moreover, it takes account of fact, and thus obliges one to examine in what condition
with what preparation, 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 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 that region was destined (for
His Christ) when about to enter on His ministry? 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. 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;

3 only, if it must needs be, 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 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; for Marcion has erased the passage as an
interpolation. 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; " and, "It is not meet to take the children'sbread, and to
cast it to dogs," -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.
Observe, He does not yet impart it to others; surely He passes them by as "dogs.

4 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, 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 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 -not because He taught in opposition to the law and
the prophets. No doubt, His divine discourse 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;

5 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 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, 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. 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. Elsewhere there has been already given a full consideration of His titles.

6 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 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 of "the Holy One"
of God, and how that God's name of "Jesus" was in the son of Nun. These facts he had also
received 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; " and, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus.
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?

7 "-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, and not of him who was
simply good, and knew not how to destroy or how to punish! Now for what purpose have we
adduced his passage first? 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. Why else 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;

8 if it was because he was partially wrong-for having supposed him to be, rightly enough,
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 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.

CHAPTER 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.

1 The Christ of the Creator had to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy; whence the
Jews also designate us, on that very account, Nazerenes after Him. For we are they of whom
it is written, "Her Nazarites were whiter than snow; " 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, 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 Judµa which had not been by the prophets
thus assigned 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, whilst in another verse He is said to have
been rejected by reason of a simple proverb. 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, 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 because the crowd (as usually
happens) gave way, or was even broken through; but not because it was eluded as by an
impalpable disguise, which, if there had been such, would not at all have submitted to any
touch.

2 "Tangere enim et tangi, nisi corpus, nulla potest res," 3 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, 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. "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. 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," -of what God, is clear
enough from the case itself. But they were rebuked, and ordered not to speak; precisely
because 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 to refuse the proclamation of an unclean spirit, at whose command there was
an abundance of saints. He, however, who had never been foretold (if, indeed, he wished to
be acknowledged;

4 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, 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: only that Marcion says 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 of fear-anger, severity, judgments, vengeance, condemnation.
But it was from fear, undoubtedly, that the evil spirits were cowed. 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 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 of having to conduct himself contrary to his nature, whereas he might in his
simple goodness have at once treated them with leniency.

5 He fell, too, into another false position -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. This was, indeed, the Creator's customary region. It was proper that the
Word should there appear in body, where He had aforetime, wrought in a cloud. To the
gospel also was suitable that condition of place which had once been determined on for the
law. "Let the wilderness and the solitary place, therefore, be glad and rejoice; "so had
Isaiah promised. When "stayed" by the crowds, He said," I must preach the kingdom of God
to other cities also. 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.


THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION
==============================

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION continued

CHAPTER 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.

1 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 ),
saying to Peter, when he trembled at the very large draught of the fishes, "Fear not; from
henceforth thou shalt catch men? " 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," 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.

2 Since, however, he quotes with especial care, as a proof in his domain, a certain
companion in misery (suntalai/pwron), and associate in hatred (summisou/menon), with
himself, for the cure of leprosy, 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, 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 -and thus 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.

3 Now, if it was as an enemy 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 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 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, to the exclusion of so many lepers in Israel,
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 was significant
throughout the nations of the world of their own cleansing in Christ their light, steeped
as they were in the stains of the seven deadly sins: idolatry, blasphemy, murder,
adultery, fornication, false-witness, and fraud. 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;

4 and because the virtue and fulness of the one baptism was thus solemnly imputed to
Christ, alone, who was one day to establish on earth not only a revelation, but also a
baptism, endued with compendious efficacy. Even Marcion finds here an antithesis: 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
the cure. And surely I might venture to claim 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, 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?

5 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! 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. For the figurative
signs of the law in its types He still would have observed, because of their prophetic
import. These types signified that a man, once a sinner, but afterwards purified 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. 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;

6 whereby, too, He would testify that it was He Himself who was foretold as about to
undertake 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, 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;

7 but even worse still, if he has appeared 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, because he knew their
disposition, he ought the more earnestly to have prevented their neglect of the law, 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 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, 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, or as
patient, or as inconstant-provided, Marcion, I drive you from your position. Observe, 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: "I came not to destroy the law, but
to fulfil it. What business, therefore, had you to erase out of the Gospel that which was
quite consistent in it?

8 For you have confessed that, in his goodness, he did in act what you deny that he did in
word. 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) have
inserted it.

CHAPTER 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.

1 The sick of the palsy is healed, 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. What
glory, and what excellency? "Be strong, ye weak hands, and ye feeble knees: " this refers
to the palsy. "Be strong; fear not. 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 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. 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. 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?

2 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. 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 -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 thy sin, and thou shalt not die; " 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; and how Jonathan the son of Saul blotted out by his
deprecation the guilt of a violated fast. 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. You will
first have to deny that the Creator ever forgave sins;

3 then you must in reason show that He never ordained any such prerogative for His Christ;
and so you will prove how novel is that boasted benevolence of the, of course, novel
Christ when you shall have proved that it is neither compatible with 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, when we preferred to drop
suggestions rather than treat them anew. Concerning the Son of man our rule 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.

4 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. 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) 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, 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, 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, then He is not the son of any man, and He must have been guilty of a lie for having
declared Himself to be what He was not.

5 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 with his ¦on; or else
to deny that the Virgin was human, which even Valentinus did not do. What now, if Christ
be described 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 it
can be regarded as a simple identity of names; and yet we have maintained 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, in so far there is a difficulty in its occurrence along with a casual identity
of names. For it is of pure accident, especially when the same cause does not appear
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.

6 Therefore, since the appellation is the sole right of Him in whom it has a suitable
reason, if it be claimed for another in whom there is an identity of name, but not of
appellation, 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. 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. 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.

7 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 about man, answer
them, that He 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 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 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, 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 what it amounts to.

8 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 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. You may, I assure you, 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.

CHAPTER 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.

1 The publican who was chosen by the Lord, he adduces for a proof that he was chosen as a
stranger to the law and uninitiated in 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. 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.
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 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?

2 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, 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! After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system. They have
their own special and plenary course in the Creator's dispensation. Of John, however, what
else I have to say will be found in another passage. To the several points which now come
before us an answer must be given. This, then, I will take care to do -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;

3 if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself 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 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, having a prior difference about the authorities 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.

4 But as it is, while modestly 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," 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 it, referring it to the
time of John, although destining it for His own time. Otherwise His purpose would have
been to reject it, 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. 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. To Himself likewise He appropriates
the church, concerning which the same Spirit says to Him: "Thou shall clothe Thee with
them all, as with a bridal ornament. This spouse Christ invites home to Himself also by
Solomon from the call of the Gentiles, because you read:

5 "Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse. He elegantly makes mention of Lebanon (the
mountain, of course) because it stands for the name of frankincense with the Greeks; 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 cµlebs
or a eunuch; until death or divorce does he reserve baptism. 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. When by Jeremiah He gave
this precept, "Break up for yourselves new pastures," 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," does He not advert to a new state of
things?

6 We have generally been of opinion 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 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 of the gospel from the old
state of the law, He proved that that from which He was separating His own ought not to
have been branded as a separation of things which were alien to each other; for nobody
ever unites his own things with things that are alien to them, 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, by progress;

7 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 from the law-a different
thing 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). 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. 8 Chapter 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.

9 Concerning the Sabbath also I have this to premise, that this question could not have
arisen, if Christ did not publicly proclaim the Lord of the Sabbath. Nor could there be
any discussion about His annulling the Sabbath, if He had a right 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 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 god should first be
expounded, and his discipline be introduced afterwards;

10 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 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 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 by Joshua, 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 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. 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.

11 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. For from the
Creator's Scripture, and from the purpose of Christ, there is derived a colourable
precedent -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. 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);

12 good reason, too, for expressing the Creator's will, when He bestowed the privilege of
not fasting on the Sabbath-day. In short, He would have then and there 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 of the Scripture and of the Creator's will. But
because He did not directly defend 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; 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 the Creator's indulgence: 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, 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 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.

13 For when it says of the Sabbath-day, "In it thou shalt not do any work of thine," by
the word thine 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," except what is to be done for any soul, that is to say, in the
matter of delivering the soul; 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. 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? " In order that He might, whilst
allowing that amount of work which He was about to perform for a soul, 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, He was called "Lord of the
Sabbath," because He maintained the Sabbath as His own institution.

14 Now, even if He had annulled the Sabbath, He would have had the right to do so, 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 by the Creator, even at the time when the ark was carried around Jericho. For that
was really 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, 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," 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, 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;

15 in each case intimating by facts, "I came not to destroy, the law, but to fulfil it,"
although Marcion has gagged His mouth by this word. 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 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, -a course which 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, you see,
O Pharisee, and you too, O Marcion, how that it was proper employment for the Creator's
Sabbaths of old to do good, to save life, not to destroy it; how that Christ introduced
nothing new, which was not after the example, the gentleness, the mercy, and the
prediction also of the Creator. For in this very example He fulfils the prophetic
announcement of a specific healing: "The weak hands are strengthened," as were also "the
feeble knees" in the sick of the palsy.

16 Chapter 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. 17 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, and He is indeed heard by the Father. Accordingly turn over the
prophets, and learn therefrom His entire course. "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. "They were mightily astonished at His doctrine; for He
was teaching as one who had power. 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. 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. So one of the twelve (minor prophets),
Nahum: "For behold upon the mountain the swift feet of Him that bringeth glad tidings of
peace. 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. 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.

18 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, and not some other number? In truth, I might from this very
point conclude 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 in the twelve springs of Elfin; in the twelve gems of Aaron's
priestly vestment; 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" ); 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?

19 It is impossible that anything can be shown to have been done by him unconnectedly,
which cannot be shown to have been done by my Christ in connection (with preceding types).
To him will appertain the event in whom is discovered the preparation for the same. Again,
He changes the name of Simon to peter, 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. I omit the rest of the passage. Therefore He would fain 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. 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;

20 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. So says
Isaiah too: "Behold, these come from far; and these from the north and from the west; and
these from the land of the Persians. Concerning whom He says again: "Lift up thine eyes
round about, and behold, all these have gathered themselves together. 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? " 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.

CHAPTER 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.

1 I now come to those ordinary precepts of His, by means of which He adapts the
peculiarity of His doctrine to what I may call His official proclamation as the Christ.
"Blessed are the needy" (for no less than this is required for interpreting the word in
the Greek, "because theirs is the kingdom of heaven." 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." 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 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.

2 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. Similarly
in the seventy-first Psalm: "In righteousness shall He judge the needy amongst the people,
and shall save the children of the poor. And in the following words he says of Christ:
"All nations shall serve Him. 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. 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. 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," that is, in His
own kingdom.

3 And likewise earlier, in the book of Kings, 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). 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? "
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. These righteous judgments He requires for the fatherless also,
and the widows, as well as for consolation to the very needy themselves. "Do justice to
the fatherless, and deal justly with the widow; and come, let us be reconciled, saith the
Lord. 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, those to
whom the promise is made.

4 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. 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. 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: " 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.

5 As for these oppositions, we shall see whether they are not premonitors of Christ.
Meanwhile the promise of fulness to the hungry is a provision of God the Creator. "Blessed
are they that weep, for they shall laugh. 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. 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. 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 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.
"Blessed are the needy, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven. "He hath sent me to bind
up the broken-hearted. "Blessed are they that hunger, for they shall be filled. "To
comfort all that mourn.

6 "Blessed are they that weep, for they shall laugh. "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. Now since Christ, as soon as He entered on His course,
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 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. 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. 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; " and in another passage:

7 "Lay the penalty on Him who surrenders His own life, who is held in contempt by the
Gentiles, whether servants or magistrates. 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. But He has both
suffered the penalty 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.

CHAPTER 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.

1 "In the like manner," says He, "did their fathers unto the prophets. What a turncoat 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 their persecutors. But, 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, no sin ought to have been
charged against the Jews: they were rather deserving of praise and approbation when they
maltreated those whom the absolutely good god of Marcion, after so long a time, bestirred
himself to destroy. I suppose, however, that by this time he bad ceased to be the
absolutely good god; he had now sojourned a considerable while even with the Creator, and
was no longer (like) the god of Epicurus purely and simply. For see how he condescends to
curse, and proves himself capable of taking offence and feeling anger!

2 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 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 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 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. He had already said of old, "Behold, I have set before you
blessing and cursing.

3 Which statement was really a presage of this temper of the gospel. Besides, what sort of
being is that who, to insinuate a belief in his own goodness, invidiously contrasted 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. 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. 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 the incentives of
the rich -I mean, their pride, their pomp, 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 God 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;

4 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, 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 exclamation; and since it is by Christ uttered against the rich, I shall have to
show that the Creator is also a despiser of the rich, as I have shown Him to be the
defender 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. 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 which accompany riches; and
it is because of these that woes are denounced on the rich, even in the Gospel.

5 "Ye have received," says He, "your consolation; " 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. 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, (the Creator) breaks forth 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. 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. Similarly against the daughters of Sion does He inveigh by Isaiah,
when they were haughty through their pomp and the abundance of their riches, 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 shall be humbled,"
even he that exalts himself with riches;

6 "and the mighty man shall be dishonoured," even he who is mighty from his wealth.
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. 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
Psalms 48 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. So also in Psalms 61: "Do not desire
riches; and if they do yield you their lustre, do not set your heart upon them. 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.

7 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.
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" -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," 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,
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.

8 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. 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. Whereas in Psalms 117 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.
Thus everything which is caught at by men is adjured by the Creator, down to their good
words. 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 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.

9 Chapter 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. 10 "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" ), "Love your enemies, and bless those which hate you,
and pray for them which calumniate you. These commands the Creator included in one precept
by His prophet Isaiah: "Say, Ye are our brethren, to those who hate you. 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, when He actually prohibits the reprisals which the
Creator permitted in requiring "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," 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. 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, Whether the discipline of patience be
enjoined by the Creator? When by Zechariah He commanded, "Let none of you imagine evil
against his brother," He did not expressly include his neighbour;

11 but then in another passage He says, "Let none of you imagine evil in your hearts
against his neighbour. 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," He thereby teaches that patience calmly waits for the infliction
of vengeance. Therefore, inasmuch as it is incredible 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; 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.

12 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.
This purpose 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, 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 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 of the Creator. If, therefore, one looks carefully into the
very grounds for which patience is enjoined (and that 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, -if so vast
a weight of patience-which is to refrain from giving blow for blow; which is to offer the
other cheek;

13 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, 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; 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, it will get the mastery-it will put out (a man's) both eyes; it
will knock out 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" -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. "There shall
not be in thine hand an indigent man;

14 so that the Lord thy God shall bless thee with blessings," -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; by which
command, too, He all the more strongly by inference requires 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," Loans are
not usually given, except to such as ask for them. On this subject of lending, however,
more hereafter. 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. 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.

15 For although that is a greater charity, which is shown to strangers, it is yet not
preferable to that which was previously due to one's neighbours. For what man will be able
to bestow the love (which proceeds from knowledge of character, upon strangers? Since,
however, the second step 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. Accordingly, the Creator, when
following the course of nature, taught in the first instance kindness to neighbours,
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 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" -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.

16 "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. 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 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 according to the law of my own will, and have it in my
power not to render to another what I would like to have rendered to myself-love,
obedience, consolation, protection, and such like blessings;

17 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. For
although good and evil are severally known by nature, yet life is not thereby spent under
the discipline of God, which alone at last teaches men the proper liberty of their will
and action in faith, asin 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, and obscure, and dark, and
admitting of no ready interpretation, except according to my own arbitrary thought,
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. 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. That
teaching was even then a sufficient inducement to me to do to others what I would that
they should do unto me.

18 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, 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."

CHAPTER 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.

1 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? " 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" -meaning the redundance of interest, which is usury. The
first step was to eradicate the fruit of the money lent, 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, by gradual stages, for the
perfect light of the Christian discipline, through the best precepts of which it was
capable, inculcating a benevolence which as yet expressed itself but falteringly. For in
the passage of Ezekiel quoted above He says, "And thou shalt restore the pledge of the
loan " -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. Clearer still is a former passage:

2 "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. 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. 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? 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, 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 before Paradise, before the
fall, before the expulsion, before the two became one.

3 I became His son a second time, as soon as He fashioned me 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. "Because," says He, "He is kind unto the unthankful and to
the evil. Well done, 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 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 of the
Lord are sweeter than honey and honeycombs. He then has taunted 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.

4 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; " also
with, "Judge the fatherless, plead with the widow. I recognise here that ancient doctrine
of Him who "prefers mercy to sacrifice. 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. 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 He has placed a retribution which will be acceptable or
terrible according as every man shall have judged or condemned, acquitted or dealt with,
his neighbour; if from (Marcion's god) himself, he will then exercise a judicial function
which Marcion denies.

5 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. Some persons believe Marcion. But "the disciple is not above his master. Apelles
ought to have remembered this-a corrector of Marcion, although his disciple. The heretic
ought to take the beam out of his own eye, and then he may convict 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. 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. 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. But even robbers have their
qualms now and then.

6 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 that said, "Why callest thou me Lord, Lord? " Will it be he who had
as yet never been called on, because never yet revealed; 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 to teach them? Or He who from the beginning had addressed to them
His messages 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. 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!


THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION
==============================

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION continued

CHAPTER 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.

1 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. to whom Israel's
faith was in no way interesting! But not from the fact (here stated by Christ) 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 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, 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 it, only as one who
would enforce and Uphold it. If, indeed, He had been its antagonist, He would have
preferred finding it to be such faith, having come to weaken and destroy it rather than to
approve of it. He raised also the widow's son from death. This was not a strange miracle.
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.

2 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 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 when he hears of the miracles of Christ, as of an alien god. Well, I
on my side will first explain the reason of his offence, that I may the more easily
explode the scandal of our heretic. Now, that the very Lord Himself of all might, the Word
and Spirit of the Father, was operating and preaching on earth, it was necessary that the
portion of the Holy Spirit which, in the form of the prophetic gift, had been through John
preparing the ways of the Lord, should now depart from John, and return back again of
course to the Lord, as to its all-embracing original.

3 Therefore John, being now an ordinary person, and only one of the many, 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. 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. Whatever doubt he felt was evidently rather entertained about Him
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? " -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, as all men then thought, from the similarity of the miraculous
evidences, 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. And
there lay John's difficulty. He was in doubt whether He was actually come whom all men
were looking for;

4 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.
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, he yet bestows on
John his testimony, affirming him to be a prophet, nay more, his messenger, applying to
him the Scripture, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy
way before thee. He graciously 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 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;

5 " but for all that, He who was least in the kingdom of God was not subject to him; 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? " )-the Creator has equal
right 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, because he would not have been offended at Christ, an infirmity which then
lessened the greatness of John.We have already spoken of the forgiveness 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, produced an evidence that what she handled was not an empty phantom, 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.

6 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."

CHAPTER 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.

1 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" -that He might prove 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 was with equal distinctness promised by the Creator. But
there is that direct mode of His speaking to the people"Ye shall hear with the ear, but ye
shall not understand" -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. 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.

2 Therefore it is that He adds by His Christ, "Take heed how ye hear," 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 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, 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. 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," who
had hidden himself-a greater and more needful light-during so long a time;

3 and when he promises that "everything shall be brought out of its secrecy and made
manifest," 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? " 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, 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;

4 " again, when inquiring about tribute, the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him ), 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 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,
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 with her sons in every case? Have all
sons brothers born for them?

5 May a man rather not have fathers and sisters (living), or even no relatives at all? But
there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judµa by
Sentius Saturninus, 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 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. 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 them. And therefore, when to the previous
question, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? 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.

6 If, therefore, He made them "His mother and His brethren" who were not so, how could He
deny them these relationships 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, that "whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was
not a disciple worthy of Him. Besides, 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 did not possess. 7 Chapter 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.

8 But "what manner of man is this? for He commandeth even the winds and water! 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 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 Judµa. How the sea yawns from its very depths, then fixes itself in two
solidified masses, and so, out of the interval between them, makes a way for the people to
pass dry-shod across; again does the same rod 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,
when his priests began to pass over! What will you say to this? If it be your Christ that
is meant above, 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, if a prediction of
His present passage on the sea had not preceded Christ's coming.

9 As psalm is, in fact, accomplished by this crossing over the lake. "The Lord," says the
psalmist, "is upon many waters. When He disperses its waves, Habakkuk's words are
fulfilled, where he says, "Scattering the waters in His passage. When at His rebuke the
sea is calmed, Nahum is also verified: He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry," 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, 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, 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, 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. 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 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. As therefore both the Creator and His creatures
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?

11 However, no need of this thought, for, 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 of the Creator's failings and infirmities in Christ;
for I on my side 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, 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? " Thus you have both the Creator excused in the same
way as Christ, and Christ acting similarly to 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, He desired not only that this woman should touch Him, but that He should heal her.

12 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. 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, 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: it made her believe that her God
preferred mercy even to sacrifice; she was certain that her God was working in Christ;

13 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. She therefore, not
without reason, 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
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 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 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. When Christ approved of the faith of this woman, which
simply rested in the Creator, He declared by His answer to her, 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;

14 for of course" it was a body, and not a phantom, which the garment clothed. 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. He therefore,
who, by reason of this vacuity of his substance, was incapable of contamination, how could
he possibly have desired this touch? As an adversary of the law, his conduct was
deceitful, for he was not susceptible of a real pollution. 15 Chapter 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.

16 He sends forth His disciples to preach the kingdom of God. 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
the flowers of the field? Who anciently enjoined for the treading ox an unmuzzled mouth,
that he might be at liberty to gather his fodder from his labour, on the principle that
the worker is worthy of his hire? 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,
does really threaten as a judge. Again, that it was no new god which recommended 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 prophetess. 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;

17 this, you must know was after the manner of the Old Testament. Or else, 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 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; 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 by the blessing of the
prophet throughout the period of the famine. You have the third book of the Kings. If you
also turn to the fourth book, you will discover all this conduct of Christ pursued by that
man of God, who ordered ten 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. O Christ, even in Thy novelties
Thou art old!

18 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? " 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 in His wonderful deeds. This conclusion He even Himself confirms
by thus far bearing with it, nay, even enjoining silence respecting it. 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 He was unwilling to have the conclusion
promulged which Peter had drawn. No doubt of that, 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. Now, inasmuch as these sufferings were actually
foretold for the Creator's Christ (as we shall fully show in the proper place ), so by
this application of them to His own case does He prove that it is He Himself of whom they
were predicted.

19 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. Surely it is the Son of man 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 appointing issues such as
these. He saved the lives of the three brethren, who had agreed to lose them for God's
sake; but He destroyed those of the Chaldµans, when they had preferred to save them by the
means of their idolatry. Where is that novelty, which you pretend in a doctrine which
possesses these ancient proofs? But all the predictions have been fulfilled concerning
martyrdoms 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. When does this more frequently happen
than in the persecution of His saints? This, indeed, is no ordinary matter, no common
casualty of the law of nature;

20 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. Now to none but my Christ can be assigned the occasion of such a shame as this.
His whole course was so exposed to shame as to open a way for even the taunts of heretics,
declaiming with all the bitterness in their power against the utter disgrace of His birth
and bringing-up, and the unworthiness of His very flesh. 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 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 of a
woman; was never deemed flesh before shaped in the womb; never called f£tus after such
shaping; was never delivered from a ten months' writhing in the womb;

21 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 of life with tears, and with that primal wound which severs the child
from her who bears him; never received the copious ablution, nor the meditation of salt
and honey; nor did he initiate a shroud with swaddling clothes; nor afterwards did he ever
wallow in his own uncleanness, in his mother's lap; nibbling at her breast; long an
infant; gradually a boy; by slow degrees a man. But he was revealed 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 of which he escaped, because
wanting in bodily substance. Never, therefore, could he have said, "Whosoever shall be
ashamed of me. But as for our Christ, He could do no otherwise than make such a
declaration; "made" by the Father "a little lower than the angels," "a worm and no man, a
reproach of men, and despised of the people; " seeing that it was His will that "with His
stripes we should be healed," that by His humiliation our salvation should be established.

22 And justly did He humble Himself 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? Plainly, you ought yourself to
blush with shame for having given him a fictitious existence.

CHAPTER 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.

1 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, whom he had come to
destroy. This, to be sure, was what he wished to be understood as the meaning of that
voice from heaven: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him" -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
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 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 how he demonstrates them to be aliens,
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:

2 he irradiates them with his glory! How would their own Christ act? I suppose He would
have imitated the frowardness (of heresy), 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? -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 of His people, the other afterwards the reformer
thereof; one the initiator of the Old Testament, the other the consummator 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 Elias 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 in the cause of the new prophecy, that to grace ecstasy or
rapture is incident.

3 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, because he is
overshadowed with the power of God,-a point concerning which there is a question between
us and the carnally-minded. 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, 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 because of his previous erroneous
opinion, 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;

4 and that Christ accordingly was not to be regarded as belonging to any other than the
Creator, whose entire dispensation 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.
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 on such an elevated
spot as that whereon the Old Testament had been composed; under a like covering of cloud
also, which nobody will doubt, was condensed out of the Creator's air. Unless, indeed, he
had brought down his own clouds thither, because he had himself forced his way through the
Creator's heaven; or else it was only a precarious cloud, as it were, of the Creator which
he used. On the present (as also on the former) 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. 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.

5 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
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, 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 ); "unto Him shall ye hearken, as unto me. "Every one
who will not hearken unto Him, his soul shall be cut off from amongst his people." , So
also Isaiah: "Who is there among you that feareth God? Let him hear the voice of His Son.
This voice the Father was going Himself to recommend. For, says he, He establishes the
words of His Son, when He says, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him.

6 Therefore, even if there be made a transfer of the obedient "heating" from Moses and
Elias to Christ, it is still not from 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; " for it is He Himself who is now declaring and fulfilling the law and
the prophets. The Father gave to the Son new disciples, 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 of this same vision in Habakkuk also, where the
Spirit in the person of some 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. These likewise did
Zechariah see under the figure of the two olive trees and olive branches.

7 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 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,"
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. Not loins, or calves of the legs, did he
want to behold, but the glory which was to be revealed in the latter days.

8 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. Now, although Marcion has denied 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,
not far from him, in His very glory-not to say, 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.

CHAPTER 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.

1 I take on myself the character of Israel. Let Marcion's Christ stand forth, and exclaim,
"O faithless generation! how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? " He
will immediately have to submit to this remonstrance from me: "Whoever you are, O
stranger, first tell us who you are, from whom you come, and what right you have over us.
Thus far, all you possess 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, 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 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 your patience? Like ¦sop's ass, you are just come from the well, and are
filling every place with your braying. I assume, besides, the person of the disciple,
against whom he has inveighed: "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.

2 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, pry thee 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 ¦sop'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 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 infants, and teaches how all ought to be like them, if they ever wish to be greater.
The Creator, on the contrary, let loose bears against children, in order to avenge His
prophet Elisha, who had been mocked by them.

3 This antithesis is impudent enough, since it throws together things so different as
infants and children, -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 which were in peril from Pharaoh's
command. 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. 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! The Creator, at the request of Elias,
inflicts the blow of fire from heaven in the case of that false prophet (of Baalzebub). I
recognise herein the severity of the Judge.

4 And I, on the contrary, the severe rebuke of Christ on His disciples, when they were for
inflicting a like visitation on that obscure village of the Samaritans. 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. 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, "He was not in the fire, but in the still small voice. Well, but why does this
most humane and merciful God reject the man who offers himself to Him as an inseparable
companion? 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. 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.

5 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," 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; and for
his father he shall not be defiled" ; 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. Now it was, I suppose, for the Nazarite and the priestly office that He intended
this man whom He had been inspiring 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 of the Creator. For this
(retrospection) He had been against their making, whom He had rescued out of Sodom.

CHAPTER 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.

1 He chose also seventy other missionaries besides the twelve. Now why, if the twelve
followed the number of the twelve fountains of Elim, should not the seventy correspond to
the like number of the palms of that place? 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, he is very apt to infer a
difference of powers. 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; whereas Christ commanded His disciples not to carry even a
staff 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, and you will
understand how it was one and the same power which arranged the mission of His people
according to their poverty in the one case, and their plenty in the other. He cut down
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, even
in the wilderness for the space of so many years. "No one," says He, "shall ye salute by
the way.

2 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: "Gird up thy
loins, and take my staff in thine hand, and go thy way: if thou meet any man, salute him
not; and if any salute thee, answer him not again. 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. 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. Such will be rather our Antitheses; they
compare Christ with, instead of sundering Him from, the Creator. "The labourer is worthy
of his hire. 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 a 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. Now,
who is so good to man as He who is also merciful to cattle?

3 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. 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. 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.
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. Everything which is sudden, then, first receives the
accident of time when it is announced, for it then first puts on appearance of form.
Besides it will be impossible for a thing either to have been tardy all the while it
remained unannounced, or to have approached from the time it shall begin to be announced.

4 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. 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? So, again, He commands
that the dust be shaken off against them, as a testimony,-the very particles of their
ground which might cleave to the sandal, not to mention any other sort of communication
with them. But if their churlishness 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, because, when His people came from Egypt,
they fraudulently withheld provisions from them with inhumanity and inhospitality, 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" -the Creator had also addressed to
Moses: "Not against thee have they murmured, but against me.

5 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? " 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. 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 by the
name of serpent, dragon, and every other most conspicuous beast in the power of the
Creator. 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. 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.

6 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," 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 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. 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 manifested
it forth conformably to the order of prophecy.

CHAPTER 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.

1 Who shall be invoked as the Lord of heaven, that does not first show Himself to have
been the maker thereof? For He says, "I thank thee, (O Father, )and own Thee, Lord of
heaven, because those things which had been hidden from the wise and prudent, Thou has
revealed unto babes. What things are these? And whose? And by whom hidden? And by whom
revealed? If it was by Marcion's god that they were hidden and revealed, it was an
extremely iniquitous proceeding; for nothing at all had he ever produced in which anything
could have been hidden-no prophecies, no parables, no visions, no evidences of things, or
words, or names, obscured by allegories and figures, or cloudy enigmas, but he had
concealed the greatness even of himself, which he was with all his might revealing by his
Christ. Now in what respect had the wise and prudent done wrong, that God should be hidden
from them, when their wisdom and prudence had been insufficient to come to the knowledge
of Him? No way had been provided by himself, by any declaration of his works, or any
vestiges whereby they might become wise and prudent. However, if they had even failed in
any duty towards a god whom they knew not, suppose him now at last to be known still they
ought not to have found a jealous god in him who is introduced as unlike the Creator.

2 Therefore, since he had neither provided any materials in which he could have hidden
anything, nor had any offenders from whom he could have hidden himself: since, again, even
if he had had any, he ought not to have hidden himself from them, he will not now be
himself the revealer, who was not previously the concealer; so neither will any be the
Lord of heaven nor the Father of Christ but He in whom all these attributes consistently
meet. For He conceals by His preparatory apparatus of prophetic obscurity, the
understanding of which is open to faith (for "if ye will not believe, ye shall not
understand" ); and He had offenders in those wise and prudent ones who would not seek
after God, although He was to be discovered in His so many and mighty works, or who rashly
philosophized about Him, and thereby furnished to heretics their arts; and lastly, He is a
jealous God. Accordingly, that which Christ thanks God for doing, He long ago announced by
Isaiah: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of the prudent will
I hide. So in another passage He intimates both that He has concealed, and that He will
also reveal: "I will give unto them treasures that have been hidden, and secret ones will
I discover to them. And again: "Who else shall scatter the tokens of ventriloquists, and
the devices of those who divine out of their own heart; turning wise men backward, and
making their counsels foolish?

3 " Now, if He has designated His Christ as an enlightener of the Gentiles, saying, "I
have set thee for a light of the Gentiles; " and if we understand these to be meant in the
word babes -as having been once dwarfs in knowledge and infants in prudence, and even now
also babes in their lowliness of faith-we shall of course more easily understand how He
who had once hidden "these things," and promised a revelation of them through Christ, was
the same God as He who had now revealed them unto babes. Else, if it was Marcion's god who
revealed the things which had been formerly hidden by the Creator, it follows that he did
the Creator's work by setting forth His deeds. But he did it, say you, for His
destruction, that he might refute them. Therefore he ought to have refuted them to those
from whom the Creator had hidden them, even the wise and prudent. For if he had a kind
intention in what he did, the gift of knowledge was due to those from whom the Creator had
detained it, instead of the babes, to whom the Creator had grudged no gift. But after all,
it is, I presume, the edification rather than the demolition of the law and the prophets
which we have thus far found effected in Christ. "All things," He says, "are delivered
unto me of my Father. You may believe Him, if He is the Christ of the Creator to whom all
things belong;

4 because the Creator has not delivered to a Son who is less than Himself all things,
which He created by Him, that is to say, by His Word. If, on the contrary, he is the
notorious stranger, what are the" all things" which have been delivered to him by the
Father? Are they the Creator's? Then the things which the Father delivered to the Son are
good. and the Creator is therefore good, since all His "things" are good; whereas he is no
longer good who has invaded another's good (domains) to deliver it to his son, thus
teaching robbery of another's goods. Surely he must be a most mendacious being, who had no
other means of enriching his son than by helping himself to another's property! Or else,
if nothing of the Creator's has been delivered to him by the Father, by what right does he
claim for himself (authority over) man? Or again, if man has been delivered to him, and
man alone, then man is not "all things. But Scripture clearly says that a transfer of all
things has been made to the Son. If, however, you should interpret this "all" of the whole
human race, that is, all nations, then the delivery of even these to the Son is within the
purpose of the Creator: "I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the
uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.

5 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. 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 lsrµl by familiar intercourse, and to the Gentiles by nature. Well,
how is it He Himself testifies that He was not known to lsrµl? "But Israel doth not know
me, and my people doth not consider me; " nor to the Gentiles: "For, behold," says He, "of
the nations I have no man. Therefore He reckoned them "as the drop of a bucket," while
"Sion He left as a look-out in a vineyard. See, then, whether there be not here a
confirmation of the prophet's word, when he rebukes that ignorance of man toward God which
continued to the days of the Son of man.

6 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 for the
Creator, because it is only such as are unfit for the Creator which will be able to
advance belief in His rival. If you look also into the next words, "Blessed are the eyes
which see the things which ye see, for I tell you that prophets have not seen the things
which ye see," you will find that they follow from the sense above, that no man indeed had
come to the knowledge of God as he ought to have done, since even the prophets had not
seen the things which were being seen under Christ. 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?

7 What blessedness, however, could theirs have been, who were then seeing what others were
naturally unable to see, since it was of things which they had never predicted that they
had not obtained the sight; if it were not because they might justly have seen the things
pertaining to their God, which they had even predicted, but which they at the same time
had not seen? This, however, will be the blessedness of others, even of such as were
seeing the things which others had only foretold. We shall by and by show, nay, we have
already shown, that in Christ those things were seen which had been foretold, but yet had
been hidden from the very prophets who foretold them, in order that they might be hidden
also from the wise and the prudent. In the true Gospel, a certain doctor of the law comes
to the Lord and asks, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life? "In the heretical gospel
life only is mentioned, without the attribute eternal; so that the lawyer seems to have
consulted Christ simply about the life which the Creator in the law promises to prolong,
and the Lord to have therefore answered him according to the law, "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength," since
the question was concerning the conditions of mere life.

8 But the lawyer of course knew very well in what way the life which the law meant was to
be obtained, so that his question could have had no relation to the life whose rules he
was himself in the habit of teaching. But seeing that even the dead were now raised by
Christ, and being himself excited to the hope of an eternal life by these examples of a
restored one, he would lose no more time in merely looking on (at the wonderful things
which had made him) so high in hope. He therefore consulted him about the attainment of
eternal life. Accordingly, the Lord, being Himself the same, and introducing no new
precept other than that which relates above all others to (man's) entire salvation, even
including the present and the future life, places before him the very essence of the law-
that he should in every possible way love the Lord his God. 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.

9 Therefore your disciple, Marcion, will not obtain his eternal life in consequence of
loving your God, in the same way as the man who loves the Creator will secure the
lengthened life. But how happens it that, if He is to be loved who promises the prolonged
I life, He is not much more to be loved who offers the eternal life? Therefore both one
and the other life will be at the disposal of one and the same Lord; because one and the
same discipline is to be followed for one and the other life. What the Creator teaches to
be loved, that must He necessarily maintain also by Christ, for that rule holds good here,
which prescribes that greater things ought to be believed of Him who has first lesser
proofs to show, than of him for whom no preceding smaller presumptions have secured a
claim to be believed in things of higher import. It matters not then, whether the word
eternal has been interpolated by us. It is enough for me, that the Christ who invited men
to the eternal-not the lengthened-life, when 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!

10 Chapter 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. 11 When
in a certain place he had been praying to that Father above, looking up with insolent and
audacious eyes to the heaven of the Creator, by whom in His rough and cruel nature he
might have been crushed with hail and lightning-just as it was by Him contrived that he
was (afterwards) attached to a cross at Jerusalem-one of his disciples came to him and
said, "Master, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. This he said,
forsooth, because he thought that different prayers were required for different gods! Now,
he who had advanced such a conjecture as this should first show that another god had been
proclaimed by Christ. For nobody would have wanted to know how to pray, before he had
learned whom he was to pray to. If, however, he had already learned this, prove it. If you
find nowhere any proof, let me tell you that it was to the Creator that he asked for
instruction in prayer, to whom John's disciples also used to pray. But, inasmuch as John
had introduced some new order of prayer, this disciple had not improperly presumed to
think that he ought also to ask of Christ whether they too must not (according to some
special rule of their Master) pray, not indeed to another god, but in another manner.
Christ accordingly would not have taught His disciple prayer before He had given him the
knowledge of God Himself. Therefore what He actually taught was prayer to Him whom the
disciple had already known.

12 In short, you may discover in the import of the prayer what God is addressed therein.
To whom can I say, "Father? " To him who had nothing to do with making me, from whom I do
not derive my origin? Or to Him, who, by making and fashioning me, became my parent? Of
whom can I ask for His Holy Spirit? Of him who gives not even the mundane spirit; or of
Him "who maketh His angels spirits," and whose Spirit it was which in the beginning
hovered upon the waters. Whose kingdom shall I wish to come-his, of whom I never heard as
the king of glory; or His, in whose hand are even the hearts of kings? Who shall give me
my daily bread? Shall it be he who produces for me not a grain of millet-seed; or He who
even from heaven gave to His people day by day the bread of angels? Who shall forgive me
my trespasses? He who, by refusing to judge them, does not retain them; or He who, unless
He forgives them, will retain them, even to His judgment? Who shall suffer us not to be
led into temptation? He before whom the tempter will never be able to tremble; or He who
from the beginning has beforehand condemned the angel tempter? If any one, with such a
form, invokes another god and not the Creator, he does not pray; he only blasphemes. In
like manner, from whom must I ask that I may receive?

13 Of whom seek, that I may find? To whom knock, that it may be opened to me? Who has to
give to him that asks, but He to whom all things belong, and whose am I also that am the
asker? What, however, have I lost before that other god, that I should seek of him and
find it. If it be wisdom and prudence, it is the Creator who has hidden them. Shall I
resort to him, then, in quest of them? If it be health and life, they are at the disposal
of the Creator. Nor must anything be sought and found anywhere else than there, where it
is kept in secret that it may come to light. So, again, at no other door will I knock than
at that out of which my privilege has reached me. In fine, if to receive, and to find, and
to be admitted, is the fruit of labour and earnestness to him who has asked, and sought,
and knocked, understand that these duties have been enjoined, and results promised, by the
Creator. As for that most excellent god of yours, coming as he professes gratuitously to
help man, who was not his (creature), he could not have imposed upon him any labour, or
(endowed him with) any earnestness.

14 For he would by this time cease to be the most excellent god, were he not spontaneously
to give to every one who does not ask, and permit every one who seeks not to find, and
open to every one who does not knock. The Creator, on the contrary, was able to proclaim
these duties and rewards by Christ, in order that man, who by sinning had offended his
God, might toil on (in his probation), and by his perseverance in asking might receive,
and in seeking might find, and in knocking might enter. Accordingly, the preceding
similitude represents the man who went at night and begged for the loaves, in the light of
a friend and not a stranger, and makes him knock at a friend's house and not at a
stranger's. But even if he has offended, man is more of a friend with the Creator than
with the god of Marcion. At His door, therefore, does he knock to whom he had the right of
access; whose gate he had found; whom he knew to possess bread; in bed now with His
children, whom He had willed to be born. Even though the knocking is late in the day, it
is yet the Creator's time. To Him belongs the latest hour who owns an entire age and the
end thereof. As for the new god, however, no one could have knocked at his door late, for
he has hardly yet seen the light of morning.

15 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. Importunate, however, the recent god could
not have permitted any one to be in the short time (since his appearance). Him, therefore,
whom you call the Creator recognise also as "Father. It is even He who knows what His
children require. For when they asked for bread, He gave them manna from heaven; and when
they wanted flesh, He sent them abundance of quails-not a serpent for a fish, nor for an
egg a scorpion. It will, however, appertain to Him not to give evil instead of good, who
has both one and the other in His power. Marcion's god, on the contrary, not having a
scorpion, was unable to refuse to give what he did not possess; only He (could do so),
who, having a scorpion, yet gives it not. In like manner, it is He who will give the Holy
Spirit, at whose command is also the unholy spirit. When He cast out the "demon which was
dumb" (and by a cure of this sort verified Isaiah), and having been charged with casting
out demons by Beelzebub, He said, "If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons
cast them out?

16 " 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. So that it was not by
Beelzebub that even they were casting out demons, but (as we have said) by the power of
the Creator; and that He might make this understood, He adds: "But if I with the finger of
God cast out demons, is not the kingdom of God come near unto you? " For the magicians who
stood before Pharaoh and resisted Moses called the power of the Creator"the finger of God.
It was the finger of God, because it was a sign that even a thing of weakness was yet
abundant in strength. This Christ also showed, when, recalling to notice (and not
obliterating) those ancient wonders which were really His own, He said that the power of
God must be understood to be the finger of none other God than Him, under whom it had
received this appellation. His kingdom, therefore, was come near to them, whose power was
called His "finger.

17 Well, therefore, did He connect with the parable of "the strong man armed," whom "a
stronger man still overcame," the prince of the demons, whom He had already called
Beelzebub and Satan; signifying that it was he who was overcome by the finger of God, and
not that the Creator had been subdued by another god. Besides, how could His kingdom be
still standing, with its boundaries, and laws, and functions, whom, even if the whole
world were left entire to Him, Marcion's god could possibly seem to have overcome as "the
stronger than He," if it were not in consequence of His law that even Marcionites were
constantly dying, by returning in their dissolution to the ground, and were so often
admonished by even a scorpion, that the Creator had by no means been overcome? "A
(certain) mother of the company exclaims, `Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the
paps which Thou hast sucked; 'but the Lord said, `Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear
the word of God, and keep it.'" Now He had in precisely similar terms rejected His mother
or His brethren, whilst preferring those who heard and obeyed God. His mother, however,
was not here present with Him. On that former occasion, therefore, He had not denied that
He was her son by birth.

18 On hearing this (salutation) the second time, He the second time transferred, as He had
done before, the "blessedness" to His disciples from the womb and the paps of His mother,
from whom, however, unless He had in her (a real mother) He could not have transferred it.

CHAPTER 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.

1 I prefer elsewhere refuting the faults which the Marcionites find in the Creator. It is
here enough that they are also found in Christ. Behold how unequal, inconsistent, and
capricious he is! Teaching one thing and doing another, he enjoins "giving to every one
that seeks; "and yet he himself refuses to give to those "who seek a sign. For a vast age
he hides his own light from men, and yet says that a candle must not be hidden, but
affirms that it ought to be set upon a candlestick, that it may give light to all. He
forbids cursing again, and cursing much more of course; and yet he heaps his woe upon the
Pharisees and doctors of the law. Who so closely resembles my God as: His own Christ? We
have often already laid it down for certain, that He could not have been branded as the
destroyer of the law if He had promulged another god. Therefore even the Pharisee, who
invited Him to dinner in the passage before us, expressed some surprise in His presence
that He had not washed before He sat down to meat, in accordance with the law, since it
was the God of the law that He was proclaiming. Jesus also interpreted the law to him when
He told him that they "made clean the outside of the cup and the platter, whereas their
inward part was full of ravening and wickedness.

2 This He said, to signify that by the cleansing of vessels was to be understood before
God the purification of men, inasmuch as it was about a man, and not about an unwashed
vessel, that even this Pharisee had been treating in His presence. He therefore said: "You
wash the outside of the cup," that is, the flesh, "but you do not cleanse your inside
part," that is, the soul; adding: "Did not He that made the outside," that is, the flesh,
"also make the inward part," that is to say, the soul?-by which assertion He expressly
declared that to the same God belongs the cleansing of a man's external and internal
nature, both alike being in the power of Him who prefers mercy not only to man's washing,
but even to sacrifice. For He subjoins the command: "Give what ye possess as alms, and all
things shall be clean unto you. Even if another god could have enjoined mercy, he could
not have done so previous to his becoming known. Furthermore, it is in this passage
evident that they were not reproved concerning their God, but concerning a point of His
instruction to them, when He prescribed to them figuratively the cleansing of their
vessels, but really the works of merciful dispositions. In like manner, He upbraids them
for tithing paltry herbs, but at the same time "passing over hospitality and the love of
God. The vocation and the love of what God, but Him by whose law of tithes they used to
offer their rue and mint?

3 For the whole point of the rebuke lay in this, that they cared about small matters in
His service of course, to whom they failed to exhibit their weightier duties when He
commanded them: "Thou shalt love with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy strength, the Lord thy God, who hath called thee out of Egypt. Besides, time enough
had not yet passed to admit of Christ's requiring so premature-nay, as yet so distasteful
-a love towards a new and recent, not to say a hardly i yet developed, 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, who calls ambitious persons of this character
"rulers of Sodom" who forbids us "to put confidence even in princes," and pronounces him
to be altogether wretched who places his confidence in man. But whoever aims at high
position, because he would glory in the officious attentions of other people, (in every
such case, ) inasmuch as He forbade such attentions (in the shape) of placing hope and
confidence in man, He at the same time censured all who were ambitious of high positions.
He also inveighs against the doctors of the law themselves, because they were "lading men
with burdens grievous to be borne, which they did not venture to touch with even a finger
of their own; " but not as if He made a mock of the burdens of the law with any feeling of
detestation towards it.

4 For how could He have felt aversion to the law, who used with so much earnestness to
upbraid them for passing over its weightier matters, alms-giving, hospitality, and the
love of God? Nor, indeed, was it only these great things (which He recognized), but even
the tithes of rue and the cleansing of cups. But, in truth, He would rather have deemed
them excusable for being unable to carry burdens which could not be borne. What, then, are
the burdens which He censures? None but those which they were accumulating of their own
accord, when they taught for commandments the doctrines of men; for the sake of private
advantage joining house to house, so as to deprive their neighbour of his own; cajoling
the people, loving gifts, pursuing rewards, robbing the poor of the rights of judgment,
that they might have the widow for a prey and the fatherless for a spoil. Of these Isaiah
also says, "Woe unto them that are strong in Jerusalem! and again, "They that demand you
shall rule over you. And who did this more than the lawyers? Now, if these offended
Christ, it was as belonging to Him that they offended Him. He would have aimed no blow at
the teachers of an alien law. But why is a "woe" pronounced against them for "building the
sepulchres of the prophets whom their fathers had killed? " They rather deserved praise,
because by such an act of piety they seemed to show that they did not allow the deeds of
their fathers.

5 Was it not because (Christ) was jealous of such a disposition as the Marcionites
denounce, visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the fourth generation?
What "key," indeed, was it which these lawyers had, but the interpretation of the law?
Into the perception of this they neither entered themselves, even because they did not
believe (for "unless ye believe, ye shall not understand"); nor did they permit others to
enter, because they preferred to teach them for commandments even the doctrines of men.
When, therefore, He reproached those who did not themselves enter in, and also shut the
door against others, must He be regarded as a disparager of the law, or as a supporter of
it? If a disparager, those who were hindering the law ought to have been pleased; if a
supporter, He is no longer an enemy of the law. But all these imprecations He uttered in
order to tarnish the Creator as a cruel Being, against whom such as offended were destined
to have a "woe. And who would not rather have feared to provoke a cruel Being, by
withdrawing allegiance from Him? Therefore the more He represented the Creator to be an
object of fear, the more earnestly would He teach that He ought to be served. Thus would
it behove the Creator's Christ to act.


THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION
==============================

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION continued

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

1 Justly, therefore, was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees displeasing to Him, loving God as
they did with their lips, but not with their heart. "Beware," He says to the disciples,
"of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy," not the proclamation of the Creator.
The Son hates those who refused obedience to the Father; nor does He wish His disciples to
show such a disposition towards Him-not (let it be observed) towards another god, against
whom such hypocrisy indeed might have been admissible, as that which He wished to guard
His disciples against. It is the example of the Pharisees which He forbids. It was in
respect of Him against whom the Pharisees were sinning that (Christ) now forbade His
disciples to offend. Since, then, He had censured their hypocrisy, which covered the
secrets of the heart, and obscured with superficial offices the mysteries of unbelief,
because (while holding the key of knowledge) it would neither enter in itself, nor permit
others to enter in, He therefore adds, "There is nothing covered that shall not be
revealed; neither hid, which shall not be known," in order that no one should suppose that
He was attempting the revelation and the recognition of an hitherto unknown and hidden
god. When He remarks also on their murmurs and taunts, in saying of Him, "This man casteth
out devils only through Beelzebub," He means that all these imputations would come forth
to the light of day, and be in the mouths of men in consequence of the promulgation of the
Gospel.

2 He then turns to His disciples with these words, "I say unto you, my friends, Be not
afraid of them which can only kill the body, and after that have no more power over you.
They will, however, find Isaiah had already said, "See how the just man is taken away, and
no man layeth it to heart. "But I will show you whom ye shall fear: fear Him who, after He
hath killed, hath power to cast into hell" (meaning, of course, the Creator); "yea, I say
unto you, fear Him. Now, it would here be enough for my purpose that He forbids offence
being given to Him whom He orders to be feared; and that He orders Him to be respected
whom He forbids to be offended; and that He who gives these commands belongs to that very
God for whom He procures this fear, this absence of offence, and this respect. But this
conclusion I can draw also from the following words: "For I say unto you, Whosoever shall
confess me before men, him will I also confess before God. Now they who shall confess
Christ will have to be slain before men, but they will have nothing more to suffer after
they have been put to death by them. These therefore will be they whom He forewarns above
not to be afraid of being only killed; and this forewarning He offers, in order that He
might subjoin a clause on the necessity of confessing Him:

3 "Every one that denieth me before men shall be denied before God" -by Him, of course,
who would have confessed him, if he had only confessed God. Now, He who will confess the
confessor is the very same God who will also deny the denier of Himself. Again, if it is
the confessor who will have nothing to fear after his violent death, it is the denier to
whom everything will become fearful after his natural death. Since, therefore, that which
will have to be feared after death, even the punishment of hell, belongs to the Creator,
the denier, too, belongs to the Creator. As with the denier, however, so with the
confessor: if he should deny God, he will plainly have to suffer from God, although from
men he had nothing more to suffer after they had put him to death. And so Christ is the
Creator's, because He shows that all those who deny Him ought to fear the Creator's hell.
After deterring His disciples from denial of Himself, He adds an admonition to fear
blasphemy: "Whosoever shall speak against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but
whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him. Now, if both
the remission and the retention of sin savour of a judicial God, the Holy Ghost, who is
not to be blasphemed, will belong to Him, who will not forgive the, blasphemy;

4 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. could
have come. Else, if by these sayings He throws a black cloud of censure over the severity
of Him who will not forgive blasphemy and will kill even to hell, it follows that the very
spirit of that rival god may be blasphemed with impunity, and his Christ denied; and that
there is no difference, in fact, between worshipping and despising him; but that, as there
is no punishment for the contempt, so there is no reward for the worship, which men need
expect. When "brought before magistrates," and examined, He forbids them "to take thought
how they shall answer; ""for," says He, "the Holy Ghost shall teach you in that very hour
what ye ought to say. If such an injunction as this comes from the Creator, the precept
will only be His by whom an example was previously given. The prophet Balaam, in Numbers,
when sent forth by king Balak to curse lsrµl, with whom he was commencing war, was at the
same moment filled with the Spirit. Instead of the curse which he was come to pronounce,
he uttered the blessing which the Spirit at that very hour inspired him with;

5 having previously declared to the king's messengers, and then to the king himself, that
he could only speak forth that which God should put into his mouth. The novel doctrines of
the new Christ are such as the Creator's servants initiated long before! But see how clear
a difference there is between the example of Moses and of Christ. Moses voluntarily
interferes with brothers who were quarrelling, and chides the offender: "Wherefore smitest
thou thy fellow? "He is, however, rejected by him: "Who made thee a prince or a judge over
us? " Christ, on the contrary, when requested by a certain man to compose a strife between
him and his brother about dividing an inheritance, refused His assistance, although in so
honest a cause. Well, then, my Moses is better than your Christ, aiming as he did at the
peace of brethren, and obviating their wrong. But of course the case must be different
with Christ, for he is the Christ of the simply good and non-judicial god. "Who," says he,
"made me a judge over you? " No other word of excuse was he able to find, without using
that with which the wicked, man and impious brother had rejected the defender of probity
and piety! In short, he approved of the excuse, although a bad one, by his use of it; and
of the act, although a bad one, by his refusal to make peace between brothers. Or rather,
would He not show His resentment at the rejection of Moses with such a word?

6 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. I think that we
have already, in another passage, sufficiently shown that the glory of riches is condemned
by our God, "who putteth down the mighty from their throne, and exalts the poor from the
dunghill. From Him, therefore, will proceed the parable of the rich man, who flattered
himself about the increase of his fields, and to Whom God said: "Thou fool, this night
shall they require thy soul of thee; then whose shall those things be which thou hast
provided? " It was just in the like manner that the king Hezekiah heard from Isaiah the
sad doom of his kingdom, when he gloried, before the envoys of Babylon, in his treasures
and the deposits of his precious things.

7 Chapter 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. 8 Who would be unwilling that we should
distress ourselves about sustenance for our life, or clothing for our body, but He who has
provided these things already for man; and who, therefore, while distributing them to us,
prohibits all anxiety respecting them as an outrage against his liberality?-who has
adapted the nature of "life" itself to a condition "better than meat," and has fashioned
the material of "the body," so as to make it "more than raiment; "whose "ravens, too,
neither sow nor reap, nor gather into storehouses, and are yet fed" by Himself; whose
"lilies and grass also toil not, nor spin, and yet are clothed" by Him; whose "Solomon,
moreover, was transcendent in glory, and yet was not arrayed like" the humble flower.
Besides, nothing can be more abrupt than that one God should be distributing His bounty,
while the other should bid us take no thought about (so kindly a) distribution-and that,
too, with the intention of derogating (from his liberality). Whether, indeed, it is as
depreciating the Creator that he does not wish such trifles to be thought of, concerning
which neither the crows nor the lilies labour, because, forsooth, they come spontaneously
to hand by reason of their very worthlessness, will appear a little further on. Meanwhile,
how is it that He chides them as being "of little faith? " What faith?

9 Does He mean that faith which they were as yet unable to manifest perfectly in a god who
has hardly yet revealed, and whom they were in process of learning as well as they could;
or that faith which they for this express reason owed to the Creator, because they
believed that He was of His own will supplying these wants of the human race, and
therefore took no thought about them? Now, when He adds, "For all these things do the
nations of the world seek after," even by their not believing in God as the Creator and
Giver of all things, since He was unwilling that they should be like these nations, He
therefore upbraided them as being defective of faith in the same God, in whom He remarked
that the Gentiles were quite wanting in faith. When He further adds, "But your Father
knoweth that ye have need of these things," I would first ask, what Father Christ would
have to be here understood? If He points to their own Creator, He also affirms Him to be
good, who knows what His children have need of; but if He refers to that other god, how
does he know that food and raiment are necessary to man, seeing that he has made no such
provision for him? For if he had known the want, he would have made the provision. If,
however, he knows what things man has need of, and yet has failed to supply them, he is in
the failure guilty of either malignity or weakness.

10 But when he confessed that these things are necessary to man, he really affirmed that
they are good. For nothing that is evil is necessary. So that he will not be any longer a
depreciator of the works and the indulgences of the Creator, that I may here complete the
answer which I deferred giving above. Again, if it is another god who has foreseen man's
wants, and is supplying them, how is it that Marcion's Christ himself promises them? Is he
liberal with another's property? "Seek ye," says he, "the kingdom of God, and all these
things shall be added unto you"-by himself, of course. But if by himself, what sort of
being is he, who shall bestow the things of another? If by the Creator, whose all things
are, then who is he that promises what belongs to another? If these things are "additions"
to the kingdom, they must be placed in the second rank; and the second rank belongs to Him
to whom the first also does; His are the food and raiment, whose is the kingdom. Thus to
the Creator belongs the entire promise, the full reality of its parables, the perfect
equalization of its similitudes; for these have respect to none other than Him to whom
they have a parity of relation in every point. We are servants because we have a Lord in
our God. We ought "to have our loins girded: " in other words, we are to be free from the
embarrassments of a perplexed and much occupied life;

11 "to have our lights burning," that is, our minds kindled by faith, and resplendent with
the works of truth. And thus "to wait for our Lord," that is, Christ. Whence "returning?
"If "from the wedding," He is the Christ of the Creator, for the wedding is His. If He is
not the Creator's, not even Marcion himself would have gone to the wedding, although
invited, for in his god he discovers one who hates the nuptial bed. The parable would
therefore have failed in the person of the Lord, if He were not a Being to whom a wedding
is consistent. In the next parable also he makes a flagrant mistake, when he assigns to
the person of the Creator that "thief, whose hour, if the father of the family had only
known, he would not have suffered his house to be broken through. How can the Creator wear
in any way the aspect of a thief, Lord as He is of all mankind? No one pilfers or plunders
his own property, but he rather acts the part of one who swoops down on the things of
another, and alienates man from his Lord.

12 Again, when He indicates to us that the devil is "the thief," whose hour at the very
beginning of the world, if man had known, he would never have been broken in upon by him,
He warns us "to be ready," for this reason, because "we know not the hour when the Son of
man shall come" -not as if He were Himself the thief, but rather as being the judge of
those who prepared not themselves, and used no precaution against the thief. Since, then,
He is the Son of man, I hold Him to be the Judge, and in the Judge I claim the Creator. If
then in this passage he displays the Creator's Christ under the title "Son of man," that
he may give us some presage of the thief, of the period of whose coming we are ignorant,
you still have it ruled above, that no one is the thief of his own property; besides
which, there is our principle also unimpaired -that in as far as He insists on the Creator
as an object of fear, in so far does He belong to the Creator, and does the Creator's
work. When, therefore, Peter asked whether He had spoken the parable "unto them, or even
to all," He sets forth for them, and for all who should bear rule in the churches, the
similitude of stewards. That steward who should treat his fellow-servants well in his
Lord's absence, would on his return be set as ruler over all his property;

13 but he who should act otherwise should be severed, and have his portion with the
unbelievers, when his lord should return on the day when he looked not for him, at the
hour when he was not aware -even that Son of man, the Creator's Christ, not a thief, but a
Judge. He accordingly, in this passage, either presents to us the Lord as a Judge, and
instructs us in His character, or else as the simply good god; if the latter, he now also
affirms his judicial attribute, although the heretic refuses to admit it. For an attempt
is made to modify this sense when it is applied to his god,-as if it were an act of
serenity and mildness simply to sever the man off, and to assign him a portion with the
unbelievers, under the idea that he was not summoned (before the judge), but only returned
to his own state! As if this very process did not imply a judicial act! What folly! What
will be the end of i the severed ones? Will it not be the forfeiture of salvation, since
their separation will be from those who shall attain salvation? What, again, will be the
condition of the unbelievers? Will it not be damnation? 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.

14 If, however, the accepted and the believers shall attain salvation, it must needs be
that the rejected and the unbelieving should incur the opposite issue, even the loss of
salvation. Now here is a judgment, and He who holds it out before us belongs to the
Creator. Whom else than the God of retribution can I understand by Him who shall "beat His
servants with stripes," either "few or many," and shall exact from them what He had
committed to them? Whom is it suitable for me to obey, but Him who remunerates? Your
Christ proclaims, "I am come to send fire on the earth. That most lenient being, the lord
who has no hell, not long before had restrained his disciples from demanding fire on the
churlish village. Whereas He burnt up Sodom and Gomorrah with a tempest of fire. Of Him
the psalmist sang, "A fire shall go out before Him, and burn up His enemies round about.
By Hoses He uttered the threat, "I will send a fire upon the cities of Judah; " and by
Isaiah, "A fire has been kindled in mine anger. He cannot lie. If it is not He who uttered
His voice out of even the burning bush, it can be of no importance what fire you insist
upon being understood. 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.

15 The similitude of fire must belong to Him who owns the reality thereof. But He will
Himself best explain the quality of that fire which He mentioned, when He goes on to say,
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division.
It is written "a sword," but Marcion makes an emendation of the word, just as if a
division were not the work of the sword. He, therefore, who refused to give peace,
intended also the fire of destruction. As is the combat, so is the burning. As is the
sword, so is the flame. Neither is suitable for its lord. He says at last, "The father
shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the
daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-
law, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law. Since this battle among the
relatives was sung by the prophet's trumpet in the very words, I fear that Micah must have
predicted it to Marcion's Christ! On this account He pronounced them "hypocrites," because
they could "discern the face of the sky and the earth, but could not distinguish this
time," when of course He ought to have been recognised, fulfilling (as he was) all things
which had been predicted concerning them, and teaching them so. But then who could know
the times of him of whom he had no evidence to prove his existence?

16 Justly also does He upbraid them for "not even of themselves judging what is right. Of
old does He command by Zechariah, "Execute the judgment of truth and peace; " by Jeremiah,
"Execute judgment and righteousness; " by Isaiah, "Judge the fatherless, plead for the
widow," charging it as a fault upon the vine of Sorech, that when "He looked for
righteousness therefrom, there was only a cry" (of oppression). The same God who had
taught them to act as He commanded them, was now requiring that they should act of their
own accord. He who had sown the precept, was now pressing to an abundant harvest from it.
But how absurd, that he should now be commanding them to judge righteously, who was
destroying God the righteous Judge! For the Judge, who commits to prison, and allows no
release Out of it without the payment of "the very last mite," they treat of in the person
of the Creator, with the view of disparaging Him. Which cavil, however, I deem it
necessary to meet with the same answer. For as often as the Creator's severity is paraded
before us, so often is Christ (shown to be) His, to whom He urges submission by the motive
of fear.

17 Chapter 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. 18 When the question was again raised concerning a cure performed on the
Sabbath-day, how did He discuss it: "Doth not each of you on the Sabbath loose his ass or
his ox from the stall, and lead him away to watering? " When, therefore, He did a work
according to the condition prescribed by the law, He affirmed, instead of breaking, the
law, which commanded that no work should be done, except what might be done for any living
being; and if for any one, then how much more for a human life? In the case of the
parables, it is allowed that I everywhere require a congruity. "The kingdom of God," says
He, "is like a grain of mustard-seed which a man took and cast into his garden. Who must
be understood as meant by the man? Surely Christ, because (although Marcion's) he was
called "the Son of man. He received from the Father the seed of the kingdom, that is, the
word of the gospel, and sowed it in his garden-in the world, of course -in man at the
present day, for instance. Now, whereas it is said, "in his garden," but neither the world
nor man is his property, but the Creator's, therefore He who sowed seed in His own ground
is shown to be the Creator.

19 Else, if, to evade this snare, they should choose to transfer the person of the man
from Christ to any person who receives the seed of the kingdom and sows it in the garden
of his own heart, not even this meaning would suit any other than the Creator. For how
happens it, if the kingdom belong to the most lenient god, that it is closely followed up
by a fervent judgment, the severity of which brings weeping? With regard, indeed, to the
following similitude, I have my fears lest it should somehow presage the kingdom of the
rival god! For He compared it, not to the unleavened bread which the Creator is more
familiar with, but to leaven. Now this is a capital conjecture for men who are begging for
arguments. I must, however, on my side, dispel one fond conceit by another," and contend
with even leaven is suitable for the kingdom of the Creator, because after it comes the
oven, or, if you please, the furnace of hell. How often has He already displayed Himself
as a Judge, and in the Judge the Creator? How often, indeed, has He repelled, and in the
repulse condemned? In the present passage, for instance, He says, "When once the master of
the house is risen up; " but in what sense except that in which Isaiah said, "When He
ariseth to shake terribly the earth? " "And hath shut to the door," thereby shutting out
the wicked, of course;

20 and when these knock, He will answer, "I know you not whence ye are; "and when they
recount how "they have eaten and drunk in His presence," He will further say to them,
"Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
But where? Outside, no doubt, when they shall have been excluded with the door shut on
them by Him. There will therefore be punishment inflicted by Him who excludes for
punishment, when they shall behold the righteous entering the kingdom of God, but
themselves detained without. By whom detained outside? If by the Creator, who shall be
within receiving the righteous into the kingdom? The good God. What, therefore, is the
Creator about, that He should detain outside for punishment those whom His adversary shut
out, when He ought rather to have kindly received them, if they must come into His hands,
for the greater irritation of His rival? 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.

21 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. 22 Chapter 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. 23
What kind of persons does He bid should be invited to a dinner or a supper? Precisely such
as he had pointed out by Isaiah: "Deal thy bread to the hungry man; and the beggars-even
such as have no home-bring in to thine house," because, no doubt, they are "unable to
recompense" your act of humanity. Now, since Christ forbids the recompense to be expected
now, but promises it "at the resurrection," this is the very plan of the Creator, who
dislikes those who love gifts and follow after reward. Consider also to which deity is
better suited the parable of him who issued invitations: "A certain man made a great
supper, and bade many. The preparation for the supper is no doubt a figure of the abundant
provision of eternal life. I first remark, that strangers, and persons unconnected by ties
of relationship, are not usually invited to a supper; but that members of the household
and family are more frequently the favoured guests. To the Creator, then, it belonged to
give the invitation, to whom also appertained those who were to be invited-whether
considered as men, through their descent from Adam, or as Jews, by reason of their
fathers; not to him who possessed no claim to them either by nature or prerogative. My
next remark is, if He issues the invitations who has prepared the supper, then, in this
sense the supper is the Creator's, who sent to warn the guests.

24 These had been indeed previously invited by the fathers, but were to be admonished by
the prophets. It certainly is not the feast of him who never sent a messenger to warn-who
never did a thing before towards issuing an invitation, but came down himself on a sudden-
only then beginning to be known, when already giving his invitation; only then inviting,
when already compelling to his banquet; appointing one and the same hour both for the
supper and the invitation. But when invited, they excuse themselves. And fairly enough, if
the invitation came from the other god, because it was so sudden; if, however, the excuse
was not a fair one, then the invitation was not a sudden one. Now, if the invitation was
not a sudden one, it must have been given by the Creator-even by Him of old time, whose
call they had at last refused. They first refused it when they said to Aaron, "Make us
gods, which shall go before us; " and again, afterwards, when "they heard indeed with the
ear, but did not understand" their calling of God. In a manner most germane to this
parable, He said by Jeremiah: "Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my
people; and ye shall walk in all my ways, which I have commanded you. This is the
invitation of God. "But," says He, "they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear. This is
the refusal of the people. "They departed, and walked every one in the imagination of
their evil heart.

25 "I have bought a field-and I have bought some oxen-and I have married a wife. And still
He urges them: "I have sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early even
before day-light. The Holy Spirit is here meant, the admonisher of the guests. "Yet my
people hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck. This was
reported to the Master of the family. Then He was moved (He did well to be moved; for, as
Marcion denies emotion to his god, He must be therefore my God), and commanded them to
invite out of "the streets and lanes of the city. Let us see whether this is not the same
in purport as His words by Jeremiah: "Have I been a wilderness to the house of Israel, or
a land left uncultivated? " That is to say: "Then have I none whom I may call to me; have
I no place whence I may bring them? ""Since my people have said, We will come no more unto
thee. Therefore He sent out to call others, but from the same city. My third remark is
this, that although the place abounded with people, He yet commanded that they gather men
from the highways and the hedges. In other words, we are now gathered out of the Gentile
strangers; with that jealous resentment, no doubt, which He expressed in Deuteronomy:

26 "I will hide my face from them, and I will show them what shall happen in the last days
(how that others shall possess their place); for they are a froward generation, children
in whom is no faith. They have moved me to jealousy by that which is no god, and they have
provoked me to anger with. their idols; and I will move them to jealousy with those which
are not a people: I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation" -even with us, whose
hope the Jews still entertain. But this hope the Lord says they should not realize; "Sion
being left as a cottages in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers," since the
nation rejected the latest invitation to Christ. (Now, I ask, ) after going through all
this course of the Creator's dispensation and prophecies, what there is in it which can
possibly be assigned to him who has done all his work at one hasty stroke, and possesses
neither the Creator's course nor His dispensation in harmony with the parable? Or, again
in what will consist his first invitation, and what his admonition at the second stage?
Some at first would surely decline; others afterwards must have accepted. But now he comes
to invite both parties promiscuously out of the city, out of the hedges, contrary to the
drift of the parable.

27 It is impossible for him now to condemn as scorners of his invitation those whom he has
never yet invited, and whom he is approaching with so much earnestness. If, however, he
condemns them beforehand as about to reject his call, then beforehand he also predicts the
election of the Gentiles in their stead. Certainly he means to come the second time for
the very purpose of preaching to the heathen. But even if he does mean to come again, I
imagine it will not be with the intention of any longer inviting guests, but of giving to
them their places. Meanwhile, you who interpret the call to this supper as an invitation
to a heavenly banquet of spiritual satiety and pleasure, must remember that the earthly
promises also of wine and oil and corn, and even of the city, are equally employed by the
Creator as figures of spiritual things.

CHAPTER 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.

1 Who sought after the lost sheep and the lost piece of silver? Was it not the loser? But
who was the loser? Was it not he who once possessed them? Who, then, was that? Was it not
he to whom they belonged? Since, then, man is the property of none other than the Creator,
He possessed Him who owned him; He lost him who once possessed him; He sought him who lost
him; He found him who sought him; He rejoiced who found him. Therefore the purport of
neither parable has anything whatever to do with him to whom belongs neither the sheep nor
the piece of silver, that is to say, man. For he lost him not, because he possessed him
not; and he sought him not, because he lost him not; and he found him not, because he
sought him not; and he rejoiced not, because he found him not. Therefore, to rejoice over
the sinner's repentance-that is, at the recovery of lost man-is the attribute of Him who
long ago professed that He would rather that the sinner should repent and not die.

2 Chapter 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. 3 What the two masters are who, He says, cannot be
served, on the ground that while one is pleased the other must needs be displeased, He
Himself makes clear, when He mentions God and mammon. Then, if you have no interpreter by
you, you may learn again from Himself what He would have understood by mammon. For when
advising us to provide for ourselves the help of friends in worldly affairs, after the
example of that steward who, when removed from his office, relieves his lord's debtors by
lessening their debts with a view to their recompensing him with their help, He said, "And
I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness," that is to
say, of money, even as the steward had done. Now we are all of us aware that money is the
instigator of unrighteousness, and the lord of the whole world. Therefore, when he saw the
covetousness of the Pharisees doing servile worship to it, He hurled this sentence against
them, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Then the Pharisees, who were covetous of riches,
derided Him, when they understood that by mammon He meant money. Let no one think that
under the word mammon the Creator was meant, and that Christ called them off from the
service of the Creator. What folly! Rather learn therefrom that one God was pointed out by
Christ. For they were two masters whom He named, God and mammon-the Creator and money.

4 You cannot indeed serve God-Him, of course whom they seemed to serve-and mammon to whom
they preferred to devote themselves. If, however, he was giving himself out as another
god, it would not be two masters, but three, that he had pointed out. For the Creator was
a master, and much more of a master, to be sure, than mammon, and more to be adored, as
being more truly our Master. Now, how was it likely that He who had called mammon a
master, and had associated him with God, should say nothing of Him who was really the
Master of even these, that is, the Creator? Or else, by this silence respecting Him did He
concede that service might be rendered to Him, since it was to Himself alone and to mammon
that He said service could not be (simultaneously) rendered? When, therefore, He lays down
the position that God is one, since He would have been sure to mention the Creator if He
were Himself a rival to Him, He did (virtually) name the Creator, when He refrained from
insisting" that He was Master alone, without a rival god. Accordingly, this will throw
light upon the sense in which it was said, "If ye have not been faithful in the
unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? " "In the unrighteous
mammon," that is to say, in unrighteous riches, not in the Creator; for even Marcion
allows Him to be righteous:

5 "And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who will give to you
that which is mine? " For whatever is unrighteous ought to be foreign to the servants of
God. But in what way was the Creator foreign to the Pharisees, seeing that He was the
proper God of the Jewish nation? Forasmuch then as the words, "Who will entrust to you the
truer riches? "and, "Who will give you that which is mine? "are only suitable to the
Creator and not to mammon, He could not have uttered them as alien to the Creator, and in
the interest of the rival god. He could only seem to have spoken them in this sense, if,
when remarking their unfaithfulness to the Creator and not to mammon, He had drawn some
distinctions between the Creator (in his manner of mentioning Him) and the rival god-how
that the latter would not commit his own truth to those who were unfaithful to the
Creator. How then can he possibly seem to belong to another god, if He be not set forth,
with the express intention of being separated from the very thing which is in question.
But when the Pharisees "justified themselves before men," and placed their hope of reward
in man, He censured them in the sense in which the prophet Jeremiah said, "Cursed is the
man that trust-eth in man.

6 Since the prophet went on to say, "But the Lord knoweth your hearts," he magnified the
power of that God who declared Himself to be as a lamp, "searching the reins and the
heart. When He strikes at pride in the words: "That which is highly esteemed among men is
abomination in the sight of God," He recalls Isaiah: "For the day of the Lord of hosts
shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is arrogant and
lifted up, and they shall be brought low. 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. Just as if we also did not
recognise in John a certain limit placed between the old dispensation and the new, at
which Judaism ceased and Christianity began-without, however, supposing that it was by the
power of another god that there came about a cessation of the law and the prophets and the
commencement of that gospel in which is the kingdom of God, Christ Himself.

7 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, 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.
"For," as says Isaiah: "the word of our God shall stand for ever. Since even then by
Isaiah it was Christ, the Word and Spirit of the Creator, who prophetically described John
as "the voice of one crying in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord," and as
about to come for the purpose of terminating thenceforth the course of the law and the
prophets;

8 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.

CHAPTER 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.

1 But Christ prohibits divorce, saying, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth
another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her
husband, also committeth adultery. In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to
marry a woman that has been put away. Moses, however, permitted repudiation in
Deuteronomy: "When a man hath taken a wife, and hath lived with her, and it come to pass
that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found unchastity in her; then let him
write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and send her away out of his
house. You see, therefore, that there is a difference between the law and the gospel-
between Moses and Christ? To be sure there is! But then you have rejected that other
gospel which witnesses to the same verity and the same Christ. There, while prohibiting
divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: "Moses," says
He, "because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement;
but from the beginning it was not so" -for this reason, indeed, because He who had "made
them male and female" had likewise said, "They twain shall become one flesh; what
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Now, by this answer of His
(to the Pharisees), He both sanctioned the provision of Moses, who was His own (servant),
and restored to its primitive purpose the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was.

2 Since, however, you are to be refuted out of the Scriptures which you have received, I
will meet you on your own ground, as if your Christ were mine. When, therefore, He
prohibited divorce, and yet at the same time represented the Father, even Him who united
male and female, must He not have rather exculpated than abolished the enactment of Moses?
But, observe, if this Christ be yours when he teaches contrary to Moses and the Creator,
on the same principle must He be mine if I can show that His teaching is not contrary to
them. I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition which He now made of
divorce; the case supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of
marrying another. His words are: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,
committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also
committeth adultery," -"put away," that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to
be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained. For he who marries a woman who is
unlawfully put away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is un-
divorced. Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry, therefore,
whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery. Since, therefore, His prohibition
of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely;

3 and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions, when there
is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. In very deed His teaching is not
contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially defends, I will not say confirms. If,
however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on
your side destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of
baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else, unless
they should agree together to repudiate the fruit of their marriage, and so the very
Creator Himself? Well, then, what is a husband to do in your sect, if his wife commit
adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle, you know, does not permit "the members
of Christ to be joined to a harlot. Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, has even in
Christ a defender. So that Moses for the future must be considered as being confirmed by
Him, since he prohibits divorce in the same sense as Christ does, if any unchastity should
occur in the wife. For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, "Whosoever shall put away his
wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery. He also is
deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband.

4 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. Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent,
how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! This has the sanction of
the prophet: "Thou shalt not forsake the wife of thy youth. Thus you have Christ following
spontaneously the tracks of the Creator everywhere, both in permitting divorce and in for-
bidding it. You find Him also protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to
escape. He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable; He permits divorce
when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness. You should blush when you refuse to
unite those whom even your Christ has united; and repeat the blush when you disunite them
without the good reason why your Christ would have them separated. I have now to show
whence the Lord derived this decision of His, and to what end He directed it. It will thus
become more fully evident that His object was not the abolition of the Mosaic ordinance by
any suddenly devised proposal of divorce; because it was not suddenly proposed, but had
its root in the previously mentioned John.

5 For John reproved Herod, because he had illegally married the wife of his deceased
brother, who had a daughter by her (a union which the law permitted only on the one
occasion of the brother dying childless, when it even prescribed such a marriage, in order
that by his own brother, and from his own wife, seed might be reckoned to the deceased
husband), and was in consequence cast into prison, and finally, by the same Herod, was
even put to death. The Lord having therefore made mention of John, and of course of the
occurrence of his death, hurled His censure against Herod in the form of unlawful
marriages and of adultery, pronouncing as an adulterer even the man who married a woman
that had been put away from her husband. This he said in order the more severely to load
Herod with guilt, who had taken his brother's wife, after she had been loosed from her
husband not less by death than by divorce; who had been impelled thereto by his lust, not
by the prescription of the (Levirate) law-for, as his brother had left a daughter, the
marriage with the widow could not be lawful on that very account; and who, when the
prophet asserted against him the law, had therefore put him to death. The remarks I have
advanced on this case will be also of use to me in illustrating the subsequent parable of
the rich man tormented in hell, and the poor man resting in Abraham's bosom.

6 For this passage, so far as its letter goes, comes before us abruptly; but if we regard
its sense and purport, it naturally fits in with the mention of John wickedly slain, and
of Herod, who had been condemned by him for his impious marriage. It sets forth in bold
outline the end of both of them, the "torments" of Herod and the "comfort" of John, that
even now Herod might hear that warning: "They have there Moses and the prophets, let them
hear them. Marcion, however, violently turns the passage to another end, and decides that
both the torment and the comfort are retributions of the Creator reserved in the next life
for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets; whilst he defines the heavenly bosom
and harbour to belong to Christ and his own god. Our answer to this is, that the Scripture
itself which dazzles his sight expressly distinguishes between Abraham's bosom, where the
poor man dwells, and the infernal place of torment. "Hell" (I take it) means one thing,
and "Abraham's bosom" another. "A great gulf. is said to separate those regions, and to
hinder a passage from one to the other. Besides, the rich man could not have "lifted up
his eyes," and from a distance too, except to a superior height, and from the said
distance all up through the vast immensity of height and depth.

7 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, and is appointed to
afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of all
things shall complete the resurrection of all men with the "full recompense of their
reward. This consummation will then be manifested in heavenly promises, which Marcion,
however, claims for his own god, just as if the Creator had never announced them. Amos,
however, tells us of "those stories towards heaven" which Christ "builds"-of course for
His people. There also is that everlasting abode of which Isaiah asks, "Who shall declare
unto you the eternal place, but He (that is, of course, Christ) who walketh in
righteousness, speaketh of the straight path, hateth injustice and iniquity?

8 " Now, although this everlasting abode is promised, and the ascending stories (or steps)
to heaven are built by the Creator, who further promises that the seed of Abraham shall be
even as the stars of heaven, by virtue certainly of the heavenly promise, why may it not
be possible, without any injury to that promise, that by Abraham's bosom is meant some
temporary receptacle of faithful souls, wherein is even now delineated an image of the
future, and where is given some foresight of the glory of both judgments? If so, you have
here, O heretics, during your present lifetime, a warning that Moses and the prophets
declare one only God, the Creator, and His only Christ, and how that both awards of
everlasting punishment and eternal salvation rest with Him, the one only God, who kills
and who makes alive. Well, but the admonition, says Marcion, of our God from heaven has
commanded us not to hear Moses and the prophets, but Christ; Hear Him is the command. This
is true enough. For the apostles had by that time sufficiently heard Moses and the
prophets, for they had followed Christ, being persuaded by Moses and the prophets. For
even Peter would not have been able to say, "Thou art the Christ," unless he had
beforehand heard and believed Moses and the prophets, by whom alone Christ had been
hitherto announced.

9 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. Down
in hell, however, it was said concerning them: "They have Moses and the prophets; let them
hear them!"-event hose who did not believe them or at least did not sincerely believe that
after death there were punishments for the arrogance of wealth and the glory of luxury,
announced indeed by Moses and the prophets, but decreed by that God, who deposes princes
from their thrones, and raiseth up the poor from dunghills. Since, therefore, it is quite
consistent in the Creator to pronounce different sentences in the two directions of reward
and punishment, we shall have to conclude that there is here no diversity of gods, but
only a difference in the actual matters before us.

10 Chapter 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. 11 Then, turning to His disciples, He says:
"Woe unto him through whom offences come! It were better for him if he had not been born,
or if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he
should offend one of these little ones," that is, one of His disciples. Judge, then, what
the sort of punishment is which He so severely threatens. For it is no stranger who is to
avenge the offence done to His disciples. Recognise also in Him the Judge, and one too,
who expresses Himself on the safety of His followers with the same tenderness as that
which the Creator long ago exhibited: "He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of my eye.
Such identity of care proceeds from one and the same Being. A trespassing brother He will
have rebuked. If one failed in this duty of reproof, he in fact sinned, either because out
of hatred he wished his brother to continue in sin, or else spared him from mistaken
friendship, although possessing the injunction in Leviticus: "Thou shalt not hate thy
brother in thine heart; thy neighbor thou shalt seriously rebuke, and on his account shalt
not contract sin. 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.

12 But that surely, is a small matter; for with the Creator there is a larger grace, when
He sets no limits to forgiveness, indefinitely charging you "not to bear any malice
against your brother," and to give not merely to him who asks, but even to him who does
not ask. For His will is, not that you should forgive an offence, but forget it. The law
about lepers had a profound meaning as respects the forms of the disease itself, and of
the inspection by the high priest. The interpretation of this sense it will be our task to
ascertain. Marcion's labour, however, is to object to us the strictness of the law, with
the view of maintaining that here also Christ is its enemy-forestalling its enactments
even in His cure of the ten lepers. These He simply commanded to show themselves to the
priest; "and as they went, He cleansed them" -without a touch, and without a word, by His
silent power and simple will. Well, but what necessity was there for Christ, who had been
once for all announced as the healer of our sicknesses and sins, and had proved Himself
such by His acts, to busy Himself with inquiries into the qualities and details of cures;
or for the Creator to be summoned to the scrutiny of the law in the person of Christ? If
any pan of this healing was effected by Him in a way different from the law, He yet
Himself did it to perfection;

13 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. Now, although He said
in a preceding chapter, that "there were many lepers in lsrµl in the days of Eliseus the
prophet, and none of them was cleansed saving Naaman the Syrian," yet of course the mere
number proves nothing towards a difference in the gods, as tending to the abasement of the
Creator in curing only one, and the pre-eminence of Him who healed ten. For who can doubt
that many might have been cured by Him who cured one more easily than ten by him who had
never healed one before? 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.

14 Forasmuch, then, as He was Himself the veritable High Priest of God the Father, He
inspected them according to the hidden purport of the law, which signified that Christ was
the true distinguisher and extinguisher of the defilements of mankind. However, what was
obviously required by the law He commanded should be done: "Go," said He, "show yourselves
to the priests. Yet why this, if He meant to cleanse them first? Was it as a despiser of
the law, in order to prove to them that, having been cured already on the road, the law
was now nothing to them, nor even the priests? Well, the matter must of course pass as it
best may, if anybody supposes that Christ had such views as these! But there are certainly
better interpretations to be found of the passage, and more deserving of belief: how that
they were cleansed on this account, because they were obedient, and went as the law
required, when they were commanded to go to the priests; and it is not to be believed that
persons who observed the law could have found a cure from a god that was destroying the
law. Why, however, did He not give such a command to the leper who first returned? Because
Elisha did not in the case of Naaman the Syrian, and yet was not on that account less the
Creator's agent? This is a sufficient answer.But the believer knows that there is a
profounder reason. Consider, therefore, the true motives.

15 The miracle was performed in the district of Samaria, to which country also belonged
one of the lepers. Samaria, however, had revolted from Israel, carrying with it the
disaffected nine tribes, which, having been alienated by the prophet Ahijah, Jeroboam
settled in Samaria. Besides, the Samaritans were always pleased with the mountains and the
wells of their ancestors. Thus, in the Gospel of John, the woman of Samaria, when
conversing with the Lord at the well, says, "No doubt Thou art greater," etc.; and again,
"Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; but ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where
men ought to worship. Accordingly, He who said, "Woe unto them that trust in the mountain
of Samaria," vouchsafing now to restore that very region, purposely requests the men "to
go and show themselves to the priests," because these were to be found only there where
the temple was; submitting the Samaritan to the Jew, inasmuch as "salvation was of the
Jews," whether to the Israelite or the Samaritan. To the tribe of Judah, indeed, wholly
appertained the promised Christ, in order that men might know that at Jerusalem were both
the priests and the temple; that there also was the womb of religion, and its living
fountain, not its mere "well. Seeing, therefore, that they recognised the truth that at
Jerusalem the law was to be fulfilled, He healed them. whose salvation was to come of
faith without the ceremony of the law.

16 Whence also, astonished that one only out of the ten was thankful for his release to
the divine grace, He does not command him to offer a gift according to the law, because he
had already paid his tribute of gratitude when "he glorified God; for thus did the Lord
will that the law's requirement should be interpreted. And yet who was the God to whom the
Samaritan gave thanks, because thus far not even had an Israelite heard of another god?
Who else but He by whom all had hitherto been healed through Christ? And therefore it was
said to him, "Thy faith hath made thee whole," because he had discovered that it was his
duty to render the true oblation to Almighty God-even thanksgiving-in His true temple, and
before His true High Priest Jesus Christ. But it is impossible either that the Pharisees
should seem to have inquired of the Lord about the coming of the kingdom of the rival god,
when no other god has ever yet been announced by Christ; or that He should have answered
them concerning the kingdom of any other god than Him of whom they were in the habit of
asking Him. "The kingdom of God," He says, "cometh not with observation; neither do they
say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Now, who will
not interpret the words "within you" to mean in your hand, within your power, if you hear,
and do the commandment of God?

17 If, however, the kingdom of God lies in His commandment, set before your mind Moses on
the other side, according to our antitheses, and you will find the self-same view of the
case. "The commandment is not a lofty one, neither is it far off from thee. It is not in
heaven, that thou shouldest say, `Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us,
that we may hear it, and do it? 'nor is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, `Who
shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 'But
the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, and in thy hands, to do
it. This means, "Neither in this place nor that place is the kingdom of God; for, behold,
it is within you. And if the heretics, in their audacity, should contend that the Lord did
not give an answer about His own kingdom, but only about the Creator's kingdom, concerning
which they had inquired, then the following words are against them. For He tells them that
"the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected," before His coming, at which His
kingdom will be really revealed. In this statement He shows that it was His own kingdom
which His answer to them had contemplated, and which was now awaiting His own sufferings
and rejection.

18 But having to be rejected and afterwards to be acknowledged, and taken up and
glorified, He borrowed the very word "rejected" from the passage, where, under the figure
of a stone, His twofold manifestation was celebrated by David-the first in rejection, the
second in honour: "The stone," says He, "which the builders rejected, is become the head-
stone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing. Now it would be idle, if we believed that
God had predicted the humiliation, or even the glory, of any Christ at all, that He could
have signed His prophecy for any but Him whom He had foretold under the figure of a stone,
and a rock, and a mountain. If, however, He speaks of His own coming, why does He compare
it with the days of Noe and of Lot, which were dark and terrible-a mild and gentle God as
He is? Why does He bid us "remember Lot's wife," who despised the Creator's command, and
was punished for her contempt, if He does not come with judgment to avenge the infraction
of His precepts? If He really does punish, like the Creator, if He is my Judge, He ought
not to have adduced examples for the purpose of instructing me from Him whom He yet
destroys, that He might not seem to be my instructor. But if He does not even here speak
of His own coming, but of the coming of the Hebrew Christ, let us still wait in
expectation that He will vouchsafe to us some prophecy of His own advent;

19 meanwhile we will continue to believe that He is none other than He whom He reminds us
of in every passage. 20 Chapter 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. 21 When He recommends perseverance and
earnestness in prayer, He sets before us the parable of the judge who was compelled to
listen to the widow, owing to the earnestness and importunity of her requests. He show us
that it is God the judge whom we must importune with prayer, and not Himself, if He is not
Himself the judge. But He added, that "God would avenge His own elect. Since, then, He who
judges will also Himself be the avenger, He proved that the Creator is on that account the
specially good God, whom He represented as the avenger of His own elect, who cry day and
night to Him, And yet, when He introduces to our view the Creator's temple, and describes
two men worshipping therein with diverse feelings-the Pharisee in pride, the publican in
humility-and shows us how they accordingly went down to their homes, one rejected, the
other justified, He surely, by thus teaching us the proper discipline of prayer, has
determined that that God must be prayed to from whom men were to receive this discipline
of prayer-whether condemnatory of pride, or justifying in humility. I do not find from
Christ any temple, any suppliants, any sentence (of approval or condemnation) belonging to
any other god than the Creator. Him does He enjoin us to worship in humility, as the
lifter-up of the humble, not in pride, because He brings down the proud. What other god
has He manifested to me to receive my supplications?

22 With what formula of worship, with what hope (shall I approach him? ) I trow, none. For
the prayer which He has taught us suits, as we have proved, none but the Creator. It is,
of course, another matter if He does not wish to be prayed to, because He is the supremely
and spontaneously good God! But who is this good God? There is, He says, "none but one. It
is not as if He had shown us that one of two gods was the supremely good; but He expressly
asserts that there is one only good God, who is the only good, because He is the only God.
Now, undoubtedly, He is the good God who "sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, and
maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good; " sustaining and nourishing and
assisting even Marcionites themselves! When afterwards "a certain man asked him, `Good
Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? '" (Jesus) inquired whether he knew (that
is, in other words, whether he kept) the commandments of the Creator, in order to testify
that it was by the Creator's precepts that eternal life is acquired. Then, when he
affirmed that from his youth up he had kept all the principal commandments, (Jesus) said
to him: "One thing thou yet lackest: sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and
thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.

23 Well now, Marcion, and all ye who are companions in misery, and associates in hatred
with that heretic, what will you dare say to this? Did Christ rescind the forementioned
commandments: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false
witness, Honour thy father and thy mother? "Or did He both keep them, and then add what
was wanting to them? This very precept, however, about giving to the poor, was very
largely diffused through the pages of the law and the prophets. This vainglorious observer
of the commandments was therefore convicted of holding money in much higher estimation
(than charity). This verity of the gospel then stands unimpaired: "I am not come to
destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them. He also dissipated other
doubts, when He declared that the name of God and of the Good belonged to one and the same
being, at whose disposal were also the everlasting life and the treasure in heaven and
Himself too-whose commandments He both maintained and augmented with His own supplementary
precepts. He may likewise be discovered in the following passage of Micah, saying: "He
hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do
justly, and to love mercy, and to be ready to follow the Lord thy God? " 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;

24 ""to love mercy"-"Give to the poor: ""and to be ready to walk with God"-"And come,"
says He, "follow me. The Jewish nation was from its beginning so carefully divided into
tribes and clans, and families and houses, that no man could very well have been ignorant
of his descent-even from the recent assessments of Augustus, which were still probably
extant at this time. But the Jesus of Marcion (although there could be no doubt of a
person's having been born, who was seen to be a man), as being unborn, could not, of
course, have possessed any public testimonial of his descent, but was to be regarded as
one of that obscure class of whom nothing was in any way known. Why then did the blind
man, on hearing that He was passing by, exclaim, "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on
me? " unless he was considered, in no uncertain manner, to be the Son of David (in other
words, to belong to David's family) through his mother and his brethren, who at some time
or other had been made known to him by public notoriety? "Those, however, who went before
rebuked the blind man, that he should hold his peace. And properly enough; because he was
very noisy, not because he was wrong about the son of David Else you must show me, that
those who rebuked him were aware that Jesus was not the Son of David, in order that they
may be supposed to have had this reason for imposing silence on the blind man.

25 But even if you could show me this, still (the blind man) would more readily have
presumed that they were ignorant, than that the Lord could possibly have permitted an
untrue exclamation about Himself. But the Lord "stood patient. Yes; but not as confirming
the error, for, on the contrary, He rather displayed the Creator. Surely He could not have
first removed this man's blindness, in order that he might afterwards cease to regard Him
as the Son of David! However, that you may not slander His patience, nor fasten on Him any
charge of dissimulation, nor deny Him to be the Son of David, He very pointedly confirmed
the exclamation of the blind man-both by the actual gift of healing, and by bearing
testimony to his faith: "Thy faith," say Christ, "hath made thee whole. What would you
have the blind man's faith to have been? That Jesus was descended from that (alien) god
(of Marcion), to subvert the Creator and overthrow the law and the prophets? That He was
not the destined offshoot from the root of Jesse, and the fruit of David's loins, the
restorer also of the blind? But I apprehend there were at that time no such stone-blind
persons as Marcion, that an opinion like this could have constituted the faith of the
blind man, and have induced him to confide in the mere name, of Jesus, the Son of David.

26 He, who knew all this of Himself, and wished others to know it also, endowed the faith
of this man-although it was already gifted with a better sight, and although it was in
possession of the true light-with the external vision likewise, in order that we too might
learn the rule of faith, and at the same time find its recompense. Whosoever wishes to see
Jesus the Son of David must believe in Him; through the Virgin's birth. He who will not
believe this will not hear from Him the salutation, "Thy faith hath saved thee. And so he
will remain blind, falling into Antithesis after Antithesis, which mutually destroy each
other, just as "the blind man leads the blind down into the ditch. For (here is one of
Marcion's Antitheses): whereas David in old time, in the capture of Sion, was offended by
the blind who opposed his admission (into the stronghold) -in which respect (I should
rather say) that they were a type of people equally blind, who in after-times would not
admit Christ to be the son of David-so, on the contrary, Christ succoured the blind man,
to show by this act that He was not David's son, and how different in disposition He was,
kind to the blind, while David ordered them to be slain. If all this were so, why did
Marcion allege that the blind man's faith was of so worthless a stamp? The fact is, the
Son of David so acted, that the Antithesis must lose its point by its own absurdity.

27 Those persons who offended David were blind, and the man who now presents himself as a
suppliant to David's son is afflicted with the same infirmity. Therefore the Son of David
was appeased with some sort of satisfaction by the blind man when He restored him to
sight, and added His approval of the faith which had led him to believe the very truth,
that he must win to his help the Son of David by earnest entreaty. But, after all, I
suspect that it was the audacity (of the old Jebusites) which offended David, and not
their malady.


THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION
==============================

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION continued

CHAPTER XXXVII.-CHRIST AND ZACCH¦US. 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.

1 "Salvation comes to the house" of Zacchµus even. For what reason? Was it because he also
believed that Christ came by Marcion? But the blind man's cry was still sounding in the
ears of all: "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me. And "all the people gave praise
unto God"-not Marcion's, but David's. Now, although Zacchµus was probably a Gentile, he
yet from his intercourse with Jews had obtained a smattering of their Scriptures, and,
more than this, had, without knowing it, fulfilled the precepts of Isaiah: "Deal thy
bread," said the prophet, "to the hungry, and bring the poor that are cast out into thine
house. This he did in the best possible way, by receiving the Lord, and entertaining Him
in his house. "When thou seest the naked cover him. This he promised to do, in an equally
satisfactory way, when he offered the half of his goods for all works of mercy. So also
"he loosened the bands of wickedness. undid the heavy burdens, let the oppressed go free,
and broke every yoke," when he said, "If I have taken anything from any man by false
accusation, I restore him fourfold. Therefore the Lord said, "This day is salvation come
to this house. Thus did He give His testimony, that the precepts of the Creator spoken by
the prophet tended to salvation.

2 But when He adds, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost,"
my present contention is not whether He was come to save what was lost, to whom it had
once belonged, and from whom what He came to save had fallen away; but I approach a
different question. Man, there can be no doubt of it, is here the subject of
consideration. Now, since he consists of two parts, body and soul, the point to be
inquired into is, in which of these two man would seem to have been lost? If in his body,
then it is his body, not his soul, which is lost. What, however, is lost, the Son of man
saves. The body, therefore, has the salvation. If, (on the other hand, ) it is in his soul
that man is lost, salvation is designed for the lost soul; and the body which is not lost
is safe. If, (to take the only other supposition, ) man is wholly lost, in both his
natures, then it necessarily follows that salvation is appointed for the entire man; and
then the opinion of the heretics is shivered to pieces, who say that there is no salvation
of the flesh. And this affords a confirmation that Christ belongs to the Creator, who
followed the Creator in promising the salvation of the whole man.

3 The parable also of the (ten) servants, who received their several recompenses according
to the manner in which they had increased their lord's money by trading proves Him to be a
God of judgment-even a God who, in strict account, not only bestows honour, but also takes
away what a man seems to have. Else, if it is the Creator whom He has here delineated as
the "austere man," who "takes up what he laid not down, and reaps what he did not sow," my
instructor even here is He, (whoever He may be, ) to whom belongs the money He teaches me
fruitfully to expend. 4 Chapter XXXVIII.-Christ's Refutations of the Pharisees. Rendering
Dues to C¦sar 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.

5 Christ knew "the baptism of John, whence it was. Then why did He ask them, as if He knew
not? He knew that the Pharisees would not give Him an answer; then why did He ask in vain?
Was it that He might judge them out of their own mouth, or their own heart? Suppose you
refer these points to an excuse of the Creator, or to His comparison with Christ; then
consider what would have happened if the Pharisees had replied to His question. Suppose
their answer to have been, that John's baptism was "of men," they would have been
immediately stoned to death. Some Marcion, in rivalry to Marcion, would have stood up and
said: O most excellent God; how different are his ways from the Creator's! Knowing that
men would rush down headlong over it, He placed them actually on the very precipice. For
thus do men treat of the Creator respecting His law of the tree. But John's baptism was
"from heaven. "Why, therefore," asks Christ, "did ye not believe him? " He therefore who
had wished men to believe John, purposing to censure them because they had not believed
him, belonged to Him whose sacrament John was administering. But, at any rate, when He
actually met their refusal to say what they thought, with such reprisals as, "Neither tell
I you by what authority I do these things," He returned evil for evil! "Render unto Caesar
the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

6 What will be "the things which are God's? "Such things as are like Caesar's denarius-
that is to say, His image and similitude. That, therefore, which he commands to be
"rendered unto God," the Creator, is man, who has been stamped with His image, likeness,
name, and substance. Let Marcion's god look after his own mint. Christ bids the denarius
of man's imprint to be rendered to His Caesar, (His Caesar I say, ) not the Caesar of a
strange god. The truth, however, must be confessed, this god has not a denarius to call
his own! In every question the just and proper rule is, that the meaning of the answer
ought to be adapted to the proposed inquiry. But it is nothing short of madness to return
an answer altogether different from the question submitted to you. God forbid, then, that
we should expect from Christ conduct which would be unfit even to an ordinary man! The
Sadducees, who said there was no resurrection, in a discussion on that subject, had
proposed to the Lord a case of law touching a certain woman, who, in accordance with the
legal prescription, had been married to seven brothers who had died one after the other.
The question therefore was, to which husband must she be reckoned to belong in the
resurrection? 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;

7 that it should seem advisable for Him either to evade their questions, or to make them
the occasion of indirectly mooting a subject which He was not in the habit of teaching
publicly at any other time. He therefore gave His answer, that "the children of this world
marry. You see how pertinent it was to the case in point. Because the question concerned
the next world, and He was going to declare that no one marries there, He opens the way by
laying down the principles that here, where there is death, there is also marriage. "But
they whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world and the resurrection
from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; forasmuch as they cannot die any
more, since they become equal to the angels, being made the children of God and of the
resurrection. If, then, the meaning of the answer must not turn on any other point than on
the proposed question, and since the question proposed is fully understood from this sense
of the answer, then the Lord's reply admits of no other interpretation than that by which
the question is clearly understood. You have both the time in which marriage is permitted,
and the time in which it is said to be unsuitable, laid before you, not on their own
account, but in consequence of an inquiry about the resurrection.

8 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, and after the rule (I have laid down about
questions and answers), to deal with the arguments which have any consistency in them.
They procured then a copy of the Scripture, and made short work with its text, by reading
it thus: "Those whom the god of that world shall account worthy. They add the phrase "of
that world" to the word "god," whereby they make another god"the god of that world;
"whereas the passage ought to be read thus: "Those whom God shall account worthy of the
possession of that world" (removing the distinguishing phrase "of this world" to the end
of the clause, in other words, "Those whom God shall account worthy of obtaining and
rising to that world. 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?

9 " 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. For He had affirmed the resurrection, by
describing the form thereof in opposition to the opinion of the Sadducees. Now, He did not
reject the attestation of those who had assumed His answer to bear this meaning. If,
however, the Scribes thought Christ was David's Son, whereas (David) himself calls Him
Lord, what relation has this to Christ? David did not literally confute an error of the
Scribes, yet David asserted the honour of Christ, when he more prominently affirmed that
He was his Lord than his Son,-an attribute which was hardly suitable to the destroyer of
the Creator. But how consistent is the interpretation on our side of the question!

10 For He, who had been a little while ago invoked by the blind man as "the Son of David,"
then made no remark on the subject, not having the Scribes in His presence; whereas He now
purposely moots the point before them, and that of His own accord, in order that He might
show Himself whom the Mind man, following the doctrine of the Scribes, had simply declared
to be the Son of David, to be also his Lord. He thus honoured the blind man's faith which
had acknowledged His Sonship to David; but at the same time He struck a blow at the
tradition of the Scribes, which prevented them from knowing that He was also (David's)
Lord. Whatever had relation to the glory of the Creator's Christ, no other would thus
guard and maintain but Himself the Creator's Christ. 11 Chapter 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.

12 As touching the propriety of His names, it has already been seen that both of them" are
suitable to Him who was the first both to announce His Christ to mankind, and to give Him
the further name of Jesus. The impudence, therefore, of Marcion's Christ will be evident,
when he says that many will come in his name, whereas this name does not at all belong to
him, since he is not the Christ and Jesus of the Creator, to whom these names do properly
appertain; and more especially when he prohibits those to be received whose very equal in
imposture he is, inasmuch as he (equally with them ) comes in a name which belongs to
another-unless it was his business to warn off from a mendaciously assumed name the
disciples (of One) who, by reason of His name being properly given to Him, possessed also
the verity thereof. But when "they shall by and by come and say, I am Christ," they will
be received by you, who have already received one altogether like them. Christ, however,
comes in His own name. What will you do, then, when He Himself comes who is the very
Proprietor of these names, the Creator's Christ and Jesus? Will you reject Him? But how
iniquitous, how unjust and disrespectful to the good God, that you should not receive Him
who comes in His own name, when you have received another in His name! Now, let us see
what are the signs which He ascribes to the times.

13 "Wars," I observe, "and kingdom against kingdom, and nation against nation, and
pestilence, and famines, and earthquakes, and fearful sights, and great signs from heaven"
-all which things are suitable for a severe and terrible God. Now, when He goes on to say
that "all these things must needs come to pass," what does He represent Himself to be? The
Destroyer, or the Defender of the Creator? For He affirms thai these appointments of His
must fully come to pass; but surely as the good God, He would have frustrated rather than
advanced events so sad and terrible, if they had not been His own (decrees). "But before
all these," He foretells that persecutions and sufferings were to come upon them, which
indeed were "to turn for a testimony to them," and for their salvation. Hear what is
predicted in Zechariah: "The Lord of hosts shall protect them; and they shall devour them,
and subdue them with sling-stones; and they shall drink their blood like wine, and they
shall fill the bowls as it were of the altar. And the Lord shall save them in that day,
even His people, like sheep; because as sacred stones they roll," etc. And that you may
not suppose that these predictions refer to such sufferings as await them from so many
wars with strangers, consider the nature (of the sufferings). In a prophecy of wars which
were to be waged with legitimate arms, no one would think of enumerating stones as
weapons, which are better known in popular crowds and unarmed tumults.

14 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," who, like
"consecrated stones," were rolled up and down exposed to the attack of all men. And
therefore in this passage He forbids men "to meditate before what they answer" when
brought before tribunals, even as once He suggested to Balaam the message which he had not
thought of, nay, contrary to what he had thought; and promised "a mouth" to Moses, when he
pleaded in excuse the slowness of his speech, and that wisdom which, by Isaiah, He showed
to be irresistible: "One shall say, I am the Lord's, and shall call himself by the name of
Jacob, and another shall subscribe himself by the name of lsrµl. Now, what plea is wiser
and more irresistible than the simple and open" confession made in a martyr's cause, who
"prevails with God"-which is what "Israel" means?

15 Now, one cannot wonder that He forbade "premeditation," who actually Himself received
from the Father the ability of uttering words in season: "The Lord hath given to me the
tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season (to him that is
weary); " except that Marcion introduces to us a Christ who is not subject to the Father.
That persecutions from one's nearest friends are predicted, and calumny out of hatred to
His name, I need not again refer to. But "by patience," says He, "ye shall yourselves be
saved. Of this very patience the Psalm says, "The patient endurance of the just shall not
perish for ever; " because it is said in another Psalm, "Precious (in the sight of the
Lord) is the death of the just"-arising, no doubt, out of their patient endurance, so that
Zechariah declares: "A crown shall be to them that endure. But that you may not boldly
contend that it was as announcers of another god that the apostles were persecuted by the
Jews, remember that even the prophets suffered the same treatment of the Jews, and that
they were not the heralds of any other god than the Creator. Then, having shown what was
to be the period of the destruction, even "when Jerusalem should begin to be compassed
with armies," He described the signs of the end of all things:

16 "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." 17 That "the very powers also of heaven have to be
shaken," you may find in Joel: "And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth-
blood and fire, and pillars of smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon
into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come. In Habakkuk also you have
this statement: "With rivers shall the earth be cleaved; the nations shall see thee, and
be in pangs. Thou shalt disperse the waters with thy step; the deep uttered its voice; the
height of its fear was raised; the sun and the moon stood still in their course; into
light shall thy coruscations go; and thy shield shall be (like) the glittering of the
lightning's flash; in thine anger thou shalt grind the earth, and shalt thresh the nations
in thy wrath. 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. "So likewise ye, when ye
shall see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.

18 This will be the great day of the Lord, and of the glorious coming of the Son of man
from heaven, of which Daniel wrote: "Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds
of heaven," etc. "And there was given unto Him the kingly power," which (in the parable)
"He went away into a far country to receive for Himself," leaving money to His servants
wherewithal to trade and get increase -even (that universal kingdom of) all nations, which
in the Psalm the Father had promised to give to Him: Ask of me, and I will give Thee the
heathen for Thine inheritance. "And all that glory shall serve Him; His dominion shall be
an everlasting one, which shall not be taker from Him, and His kingdom that which shall
not be destroyed," because in it "men shall not die, neither shall they marry, but be like
the angels. It is about the same advent of the Son of man and the benefits thereof that we
read in Habakkuk: "Thou wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people, even to save Thine
anointed ones, -in other words, those who shall look up and lift their heads, being
redeemed in the time of His kingdom.

19 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 down to the
parable of the fig-tree you will find the sense in its connection suit in every point the
Son of man, so that it consistently ascribes to Him both the sorrows and the joys, and the
catastrophes and the promises; nor can you separate them from Him in either respect.

20 For as much, then, as there is but one Son of man whose advent is placed between the
two issues of catastrophe and promise, it must needs follow that to that one Son of man
belong both the judgments upon the nations, and the prayers of the saints. He who thus
comes in midway so as to be common to both issues, will terminate one of them by
inflicting judgment on the nations at His coming; and will at the same time commence the
other by fulfilling the prayers of His saints: so that if (on the one hand) you grant that
the coming of the Son of man is (the advent) of my Christ, then, when you ascribe to Him
the infliction of the judgments 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.

21 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. Now, if the fructification of the common trees be an antecedent sign of the
approach of summer, so in like manner do the great conflicts of the world indicate the
arrival of that kingdom which they precede. But every sign is His, to whom belong the
thing of which it is the sign; and to everything is appointed its sign by Him to whom the
thing belongs. 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. What things, pray, are these? Are they the things
which the Creator made?

22 Then the elements will tractably endure the accomplishment of their Maker's
dispensation. If, however, they emanate from your excellent god, I much doubt whether the
heaven and earth will peaceably allow the completion of things which their Creator's enemy
has determined! If the Creator quietly submits to this, then He is no "jealous God. But
let heaven and earth pass away, since their Lord has so determined; only let His word
remain for evermore! And so Isaiah predicted that it should. Let the disciples also be
warned, "lest their hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and cares of
this world; and so that day come upon them unawares, like a snare " -if indeed they should
forget God amidst the abundance and occupation of the world. Like this will be found the
admonition of Moses,-so that He who delivers from "the snare" of that day is none other
than He who so long before addressed to men the same admonition Some places there were in
Jerusalem where to teach; other places outside Jerusalem whither to retire -"in the day-
time He was teaching in the temple; "just as He had foretold by Hosea: "In my house did
they find me, and there did I speak with them. "But at night He went out to the Mount of
Olives. For thus had Zechariah pointed out: "And His feet shall stand in that day on the
Mount of Olives. Fit hours for an audience there also were.

23 "Early in the morning" must they resort to Him, who (having said by Isaiah, "The Lord
giveth me the tongue of the learned") added, "He hath appointed me the morning, and hath
also given me an ear to hear. Now if this is to destroy the prophets, what will it be to
fulfil them? 24 Chapter 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.
25 In like manner does He also know the very time it behoved Him to suffer, since the law
prefigures His passion. Accordingly, of all the festal days of the Jews He chose the
passover. In this Moses had declared that there was a sacred mystery: "It is the Lord's
passover. How earnestly, therefore, does He manifest the bent of His soul: "With desire I
have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer. What a destroyer of the law
was this, who actually longed to keep its passover! Could it be that He was so fond of
Jewish lamb? But was it not because He had to be "led like a lamb to the slaughter; and
because, as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so was He not to open His mouth," that He
so profoundly wished to accomplish the symbol of His own redeeming blood? He might also
have been betrayed by any stranger, did I not find that even here too He fulfilled a
Psalm: "He who did eat bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me. And without a
price might He have been betrayed. For what need of a traitor was there in the case of one
who offered Himself to the people openly, and might quite as easily have been captured by
force as taken by treachery? This might no doubt have been well enough for another Christ,
but would not have been suitable in One who was accomplishing prophecies.

26 For it was written, "The righteous one did they sell for silver. The very amount and
the destination of the money, which on Judas' remorse was recalled from its first purpose
of a fee, and appropriated to the purchase of a potter's field, as narrated in the Gospel
of Matthew, were clearly foretold by Jeremiah: "And they took the thirty pieces of silver,
the price of Him who was valued and gave them for the potter's field. When He so earnestly
expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would
have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken
the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my
body," that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been,
unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a
figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say, ) He pretended the bread was His body, because
He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us.
It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body, that
bread should have been crucified!But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other
edible thing, say) a melon, which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart!

27 He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said
Himself by Jeremiah: "I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I
knew not that they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His
bread," which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He
always did, upon the ancient prophecies, He declared plainly enough what He meant by the
bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and
making the new testament to be sealed "in His blood," affirms the reality of His body. For
no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were
presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess
blood. 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?

28 " The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His
passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the
bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened
in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend
reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the
book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ
was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that
patriarch, saying, "He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of
grapes" -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in
the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used
the figure of wine to describe His blood.

29 Chapter 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. 30 "Woe," says He, "to that man
by whom the Son of man is betrayed! Now it is certain that in this woe must be understood
the imprecation and threat of an angry and incensed Master, unless Judas was to escape
with impunity after so vast a sin. If he were meant to escape with impunity, the "woe" was
an idle word; if not, he was of course to be punished by Him against whom he had committed
the sin of treachery. Now, if He knowingly permitted the man, whom He deliberately elected
to be one of His companions, to plunge into so great a crime, you must no longer use an
argument against the Creator in Adam's case, which may now recoil on your own God: either
that he was ignorant, and had no foresight to hinder the future sinner; or that he was
unable to hinder him, even if he was ignorant; or else that he was unwilling, even if he
had the foreknowledge and the ability; and so deserved the stigma of maliciousness, in
having permitted the man of his own choice to perish in his sin. I advise you therefore
(willingly) to acknowledge the Creator in that god of yours, rather than against your will
to be assimilating your excellent god to Him. For in the case of Peter, too, he gives you
proof that he is a jealous God, when he destined the apostle, after his presumptuous
protestations of zeal, to a flat denial of him, rather than prevent his fall.

31 The Christ of the prophets was destined, moreover, to be betrayed with a kiss, for He
was the Son indeed of Him who was "honoured with the lips" by the people. When led before
the council, He is asked whether He is the Christ. Of what Christ could the Jews have
inquired but their own? Why, therefore, did He not, even at that moment, declare to them
the rival (Christ)? You reply, In order that He might be able to suffer. In other words,
that this most excellent god might plunge men into crime, whom he was still keeping in
ignorance. But even if he had told them, he would yet have to suffer. For he said, "If I
tell you, ye will not believe. And refusing to believe, they would have continued to
insist on his death. And would he not even more probably still have had to suffer, if had
announced himself as sent by the rival god, and as being, therefore, the enemy of the
Creator? It was not, then, in order that He might suffer, that He at that critical moment
refrained from proclaiming Himself the other Christ, but because they wanted to extort a
confession from His mouth, which they did not mean to believe even if He had given it to
them, whereas it was their bounden duty to have acknowledged Him in consequence of His
works, which were fulfilling their Scriptures. It was thus plainly His course to keep
Himself at that moment unrevealed, because a spontaneous recognition was due to Him.

32 But yet for all this, He with a solemn gesture says, "Hereafter shall the Son of man
sit on the right hand of the power of God. For it was on the authority of the prophecy of
Daniel that He intimated to them that He was "the Son of man," and of David's Psalm, that
He would "sit at the right hand of God. Accordingly, after He had said this, and so
suggested a comparison of the Scripture, a ray of light did seem to show them whom He
would have them understand Him to be; for they say: "Art thou then the Son of God? " Of
what God, but of Him whom alone they knew? Of what God but of Him whom they remembered in
the Psalm as having said to His Son, "Sit Thou on my right hand? "Then He answered, "Ye
say that I am; " as if He meant: It is ye who say this-not I. But at the same time He
allowed Himself to be all that they had said, in this their second question. By what
means, however, are you going to prove to us that they pronounced the sentence "Ergo tu
filius Dei es" interrogatively, and not affirmatively?

33 Just as, (on the one hand, ) because He had shown them in an indirect manner, by
passages of Scripture, that they ought to regard Him as the Son of God, they therefore
meant their own words, "Thou art then the Son of God," to be taken in a like (indirect)
sense, as much as to say, "You do not wish to say this of yourself plainly, so, (on the
other hand, ) He likewise answered them, "Ye say that I am," in a sense equally free from
doubt, even affirmatively; and so completely was His statement to this effect, that they
insisted on accepting that sense which His statement indicated. 34 Chapter 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.

35 For when He was brought before Pilate, they proceeded to urge Him with the serious
charge , of declaring Himself to be Christ the King; that is, undoubtedly, as the Son of
God, who was to sit at God's right hand. They would, however, have burdened Him with some
other title, if they had been uncertain whether He had called Himself the Son of God-if He
had not pronounced the words, "Ye say that I am," so as (to admit) that He was that which
they said He was. Likewise, when Pirate asked Him, "Art thou Christ (the King)? "He
answered, as He had before (to the Jewish council) "Thou sayest that I am" in order that
He might not seem to have been driven by a fear of his power to give him a fuller answer.
"And so the Lord i hath stood on His trial. And he placed His people on their trial. The
Lord Himself comes to a trial with "the elders and rulers of the people," as Isaiah
predicted. And then He fulfilled all that had been written of His passion. At that time
"the heathen raged, and the people imagined vain things; the kings of the earth set
themselves, and the rulers gathered themselves together against the Lord and against His
Christ. The heathen were Pilate and the Romans; the people were the tribes of Israel; the
kings were represented in Herod, and the rulers in the chief priests.

36 When, indeed, He was sent to Herod gratuitously by Pilate, the words of Hosea were
accomplished, for he had prophesied of Christ: "And they shall carry Him bound as a
present to the king. Herod was "exceeding glad" when he saw Jesus, but he heard not a word
from Him. For, "as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so He opened not His mouth," because
"the Lord had given to Him a disciplined tongue, that he might know how and when it
behoved Him to speak" -even that "tongue which clove to His jaws," as the Psalm said it
should, through His not speaking. Then Barabbas, the most abandoned criminal, is released,
as if he were the innocent man; while the most righteous Christ is delivered to be put to
death, as if he were the murderer. Moreover two malefactors are crucified around Him, in
order that He might be reckoned amongst the transgressors. Although His raiment was,
without doubt, parted among the soldiers, and partly distributed by lot, yet Marcion has
erased it all (from his Gospel), for he had his eye upon the Psalm: "They parted my
garments amongst them, and cast lots upon my vesture. You may as well take away the cross
itself! But even then the Psalm is not silent concerning it: "They pierced my hands and my
feet. Indeed, the details of the whole event are therein read: "Dogs compassed me about;
the assembly of the wicked enclosed me around. All that looked upon me laughed me to
scorn;

37 they did shoot out their lips and shake their heads, (saying, ) He hoped in God, let
Him deliver Him. Of what use now is (your tampering with) the testimony of His garments?
If you take it as a booty for your false Christ, still all the Psalm (compensates) the
vesture of Christ. But, behold, the very elements are shaken. For their Lord was
suffering. If, however, it was their enemy to whom all this injury was done, the heaven
would have gleamed with light, the sun would have been even more radiant, and the day
would have prolonged its course -gladly gazing at Marcion's Christ suspended on his
gibbet! These proofs would still have been suitable for me, even if they had not been the
subject of prophecy. Isaiah says: "I will clothe the heavens with blackness. This will be
the day, concerning which Amos also writes: And it shall come to pass in that day, saith
the Lord, that the sun shall go down at noon and the earth shall be dark in the clear day.
(At noon) the veil of. the temple was rent" by the escape of the cherubim, which "left the
daughter of Sion as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers. With
what constancy has He also, in Psalms 30., laboured to present to us the very Christ! He
calls with a loud voice to the Father, "Into Thine hands I commend my spirit," that even
when dying He might expend His last breath in fulfilling the prophets.

38 Having said this, He gave up the ghost. Who? Did the spirit give itself up; or the
flesh the spirit? But the spirit could not have breathed itself out. That which breathes
is one thing, that which is breathed is another. If the spirit is breathed it must needs
be breathed by another. If, however, there had been nothing there but spirit, it would be
said to have departed rather than expired. What, however, breathes out spirit but the
flesh, which both breathes the spirit whilst it has it, and breathes it out when it loses
it? Indeed, if it was not flesh (upon the cross), but a phantom of flesh (and a phantom is
but spirit, and so the spirit breathed its own self out, and departed as it did so), no
doubt the phantom departed, when the spirit which was the phantom departed: and so the
phantom and the spirit disappeared together, and were nowhere to be seen. Nothing
therefore remained upon the cross, nothing hung there, after "the giving up of the ghost;
" there was nothing to beg of Pilate, nothing to take down from the cross, nothing to wrap
in the linen, nothing to lay in the new sepulchre. Still it was not nothing that was
there. What was there, then? If a phantom Christ was yet there. If Christ had departed, He
had taken away the phantom also. The only shift left to the impudence of the heretics, is
to admit that what remained there was the phantom of a phantom!

39 But what if Joseph knew that it was a body which he treated with so much piety? That
same Joseph "who had not consented" with the Jews in their crime? The "happy man who
walked not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the
seat of the scornful." 40 Chapter 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. 41 It was very meet that
the man who buried the Lord should thus be noticed in prophecy, and thenceforth be
"blessed; " since prophecy does not omit the (pious) office of the women who resorted
before day-break to the sepulchre with the spices which they had prepared. For of this
incident it is said by Hosea: "To seek my face they will watch till day-light, saying unto
me, Come, and let us return to the Lord: for He hath taken away, and He will heal us; He
hath smitten, and He will bind us up; after two days will He revive us: in the third day
He will raise us up. For who can refuse to believe that these words often revolved in the
thought of those women between the sorrow of that desertion with which at present they
seemed to themselves to have been smitten by the Lord, and the hope of the resurrection
itself, by which they rightly supposed that all would be restored to them? But when "they
found not the body (of the Lord Jesus)," "His sepulture was removed from the midst of
them," according to the prophecy of Isaiah. "Two angels however, appeared there. For just
so many honorary companions were required by the word of God, which usually prescribes
"two witnesses. Moreover, the women, returning from the sepulchre, and from this vision of
the angels, were foreseen by Isaiah, when he says, "Come, ye women, who return from the
vision; " that is, "come," to report the resurrection of the Lord.

42 It was well, however, that the unbelief of the disciples was so persistent, in order
that to the last we might consistently maintain that Jesus revealed Himself to the
disciples as none other than the Christ of the prophets. For as two of them were taking a
walk, and when the Lord had joined their company, without its appearing that it was He,
and whilst He dissembled His knowledge of what had just taken place, they say: "But we
trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel," -meaning their own, that
is, the Creator's Christ. So far had He been from declaring Himself to them as another
Christ! They could not, however, deem Him to be the Christ of the Creator; nor, if He was
so deemed by them, could He have tolerated this opinion concerning Himself, unless He were
really He whom He was supposed to be. Otherwise He would actually be the author of error,
and the prevaricator of truth, contrary to the character of the good; God. But at no time
even after His resurrection did He reveal Himself to them as any other than what, on their
own showing, they had always thought Him to be. He pointedly reproached them: "O fools,
and slow of heart in not believing that which He spake unto you. By saying this, He proves
that He does not belong to the rival god, but to the same God. For the same thing was said
by the angels to the women:

43 "Remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must
be delivered up, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again. "Must be delivered up;
"and why, except that it was so written by God the Creator? He therefore upbraided them,
because they were offended solely at His passion, and because they doubted of the truth of
the resurrection which had been reported to them by the women, whereby (they showed that)
they had not believed Him to have been the very same as they had thought Him to be.
Wishing, therefore, to be believed by them in this wise, He declared Himself to be just
what they had deemed Him to be-the Creator's Christ, the Redeemer of lsrµl. But as
touching the reality of His body, what can be plainer? When they were doubting whether He
were not a phantom-nay, were supposing that He was one-He says to them, "Why are ye
troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I
myself; for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have. 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.

44 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," when they had before
known Him to be corporeal? Else, if He were altogether a phantom, why did He upbraid them
for supposing Him to be a phantom? But whilst they still believed not, He asked them for
some meat, for the express purpose of showing them that He had teeth.

45 And now, as I would venture to believe, we have accomplished our undertaking. We have
set forth Jesus Christ as none other than the Christ of the Creator. Our proofs we have
drawn from His doctrines, maxims, affections, feelings, miracles, sufferings, and even
resurrection-as foretold by the prophets. Even to the last He taught us (the same truth of
His mission), when He sent forth His apostles to preach His gospel "among all nations; "
for He thus fulfilled the psalm: "Their sound is gone out through all the earth, and their
words to the end of the world." Marcion, I pity you; your labour has been in vain. For the
Jesus Christ who appears in your Gospel is mine.


THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION
==============================

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION continued

BOOK 5

1 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. Chapter 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. 2 There is
nothing without a beginning but God alone. Now, inasmuch as the beginning: occupies the
first place in the condition of all things, so it must necessarily take precedence in the
treatment of them, if a clear knowledge is to be arrived at concerning their condition;
for you could not find the means of examining even the quality of anything, unless you
were certain of its existence, and that after discovering its origin. Since therefore I am
brought, in the course of my little work, to this point, I require to know of Marcion the
origin of his apostles even-I, who am to some degree a new disciple, the follower of no
other master; who at the same time can believe nothing, except that nothing ought to be
believed hastily (and that I may further say is hastily believed, which is believed
without any examination of its beginning); in short, I who have the best reason possible
for bringing this inquiry to a most careful solution, since a man is affirmed to me to be
an apostle whom I do not find mentioned in the Gospel in the catalogue of the apostles.
Indeed, when I hear that this man was chosen by the Lord after He had attained His rest in
heaven, I feel that a kind of improvidence is imputable to Christ, for not knowing before
that this man was necessary to Him; and because He thought that he must be added to the
apostolic body in the way of a fortuitous encounter rather than a deliberate selection;

3 by necessity (so to speak), and not voluntary choice, although the members of the
apostolate had been duly ordained, and were now dismissed to their several missions.
Wherefore, O shipmaster of Pontus, if you have never taken on board your small craft any
contraband goods or smuggler's cargo, if you have never thrown overboard or tampered with
a freight, you are still more careful and conscientious, I doubt not, in divine things;
and so I should be glad if you would inform us under what bill of lading you admitted the
Apostle Paul on board, who ticketed him, what owner forwarded him, who handed him to you,
that so you may land him without any misgiving, lest he should turn out to belong to him,
who can substantiate his claim to him by producing all his apostolic writings. He
professes himself to be "an apostle"-to use his own, words-"not of men, nor by man, but by
Jesus Christ. Of course, any one may make a profession concerning himself; but his
profession is only rendered valid by the authority of a second person. One man signs,
another countersigns; one man appends his seal, another registers in the public records.
No one is at once a proposer and a seconder to himself. Besides, you have read, no doubt,
that "many shall come, saying, I am Christ. Now if any one can pretend that he is Christ,
how much more might a man profess to be an apostle of Christ!

4 But still, for my own part, I appear in the character of a disciple and an inquirer;
that so I may even thus both refute your belief, who have nothing to support it, and
confound your shamelessness, who make claims without possessing the means of establishing
them. Let there be a Christ, let there be an apostle, although of another god; but what
matter? since they are only to draw their proofs out of the Testament of the Creator.
Because even the book of Genesis so long ago promised me the Apostle Paul. For among the
types and prophetic blessings which he pronounced over his sons, Jacob, when he turned his
attention to Benjamin, exclaimed, "Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf; in the morning He shall
devour the prey, and at night he shall impart nourishment. He foresaw that Paul would
arise out of the tribe of Benjamin, a voracious wolf, devouring his prey in the morning:
in order words, in the early period of his life he would devastate the Lord's sheep, as a
persecutor of the churches; but in the evening he would give them nourishment, which means
that in his declining years he would educate the fold of Christ, as the teacher of the
Gentiles.

5 Then, again, in Saul's conduct towards David, exhibited first in violent persecution of
him, and then in remorse and reparation, on his receiving from him good for evil, we have
nothing else than an anticipation of Paul in Saul-belonging, too, as they did, to the same
tribe-and of Jesus in David, from whom He descended according to the Virgin's genealogy.
Should you, however, disapprove of these types, the Acts of the Apostles, at all events,
have handed down to me this career of Paul, which you must not refuse to accept. Thence I
demonstrate that from a persecutor he became "an apostle, not of men, neither by man; "
thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason for rejecting your
defence of him, and for bearing fearlessly your taunt. "Then you deny the Apostle Paul. I
do not calumniate him whom I defend. I deny him, to compel you to the proof of him. I deny
him, to convince you that he is mine. If you have regard to our belief you should admit
the particulars which comprise it. If you challenge us to your belief, (pray) tell us what
things constitute its basis. Either prove the truth of what you believe, or failing in
your proof, (tell us) how you believe. Else what conduct is yours, believing in opposition
to Him from whom alone comes the proof of that which you believe?

6 Take now from my point of view the apostle, in the same manner as you have received the
Christ-the apostle shown to be as much mine as the Christ is. And here, too, we will fight
within the same lines, and challenge our adversary on the mere ground of a simple rule,
that even an apostle who is said not to belong to the Creator-nay, is displayed as in
actual hostility to the Creator-can be fairly regarded as teaching nothing, knowing
nothing, wishing nothing in favour of the Creator whilst it would be a first principle
with him to set forth another god with as much eagerness as he would use in withdrawing us
from the law of the Creator. It is not at all likely that he would call men away from
Judaism without showing them at the same time what was the god in whom he invited them to
believe; because nobody could possibly pass from allegiance to the Creator without knowing
to whom he had to cross over. For either Christ had already revealed another god-in which
case the apostle's testimony would also follow to the same effect, for fear of his not
being else regarded as an apostle of the god whom Christ had revealed, and because of the
impropriety of his being concealed by the apostle who had been already revealed by Christ-
or Christ had made no such revelation concerning God;

7 then there was all the greater need why the apostle should reveal a God who could now be
made known by no one else, and who would undoubtedly be left without any belief at all, if
he were revealed not even by an apostle. We have laid down this as our first principle,
because we wish at once to profess that we shall pursue the same method here in the
apostle's case as we adopted before in Christ's case, to prove that he proclaimed no new
god; that is, we shall draw our evidence from the epistles of St. Paul himself. Now, the
garbled form in which we have found the heretic's Gospel will have already prepared us to
expect to find the epistles also mutilated by him with like perverseness-and that even as
respects their number. 8 Chapter 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.

9 The epistle which we also allow to be the most decisive against Judaism, is that wherein
the apostle instructs the Galatians. For the abolition of the ancient law we fully admit,
and hold that it actually proceeds from the dispensation of the Creator,-a point which we
have already often treated in the course of our discussion, when we showed that the
innovation was foretold by the prophets of our God. Now, if the Creator indeed promised
that "the ancient things should pass away," to be superseded by a new course of things
which should arise, whilst Christ marks the period of the separation when He says, "The
law and the prophets were until John" -thus making the Baptist the limit between the two
dispensations of the old things then terminating-and the new things then beginning, the
apostle cannot of course do otherwise, (coming as he does) in Christ, who was revealed
after John, than invalidate "the old things" and confirm "the new," and yet promote
thereby the faith of no other god than the Creator, at whose instance it was foretold that
the ancient things should pass away.

10 Therefore both the abrogation of the law and the establishment of the gospel help my
argument even in this epistle, wherein they both have reference to the fond assumption of
the Galatians, which led them to suppose that faith in Christ (the Creator's Christ, of
course) was obligatory, but without annulling the law, because it still appeared to them a
thing incredible that the law should be set aside by its own author. Again, if they had at
all heard of any other god from the apostle, would they not have concluded at once, of
themselves, that they must give up the law of that God whom they had left, in order to
follow another? For what man would be long in learning, that he ought to pursue a new
discipline, after he had taken up with a new god? Since, however, the same God was
declared in the gospel which had always been so well known in the law, the only change
being in the dispensation, the sole point of the question to be discussed was, whether the
law of the Creator ought by the gospel to be excluded in the Christ of the Creator? Take
away this point, and the controversy falls to the ground.

11 Now, since they would all know of themselves, on the withdrawal of this point, that
they must of course renounce all submission to the Creator by reason of their faith in
another god, there could have been no call for the apostle to teach them so earnestly that
which their own belief must have spontaneously suggested to them. Therefore the entire
purport of this epistle is simply to show us that the supersession of the law comes from
the appointment of the Creator-a point, which we shall still have to keep in mind. Since
also he makes mention of no other god (and he could have found no other opportunity of
doing so, more suitable than when his purpose was to set forth the reason for the
abolition of the law-especially as the prescription of a new god would have afforded a
singularly good and most sufficient reason), it is clear enough in what sense he writes,
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him who hath called you to His grace to another
gospel" -He means) "another" as to the conduct it prescribes, not in respect of its
worship; "another" as to the discipline it teaches, not in respect of its divinity;
because it is the office of Christ's gospel to call men from the law to grace, not from
the Creator to another god. For nobody had induced them to apostatize from the Creator,
that they should seem to "be removed to another gospel," simply when they return again to
the Creator.

12 When he adds, too, the words, "which is not another," he confirms the fact that the
gospel which he maintains is the Creator's. For the Creator Himself promises the gospel,
when He says by Isaiah: "Get thee up into the high mountain, thou that bringest to Sion
good tidings; lift up thy voice with strength, thou that bringest the gospel to Jerusalem.
Also when, with respect to the apostles personally, He says, "How beautiful are the feet
of them that preach the gospel of peace, that bring good tidings of good" -even
proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles, because He also says, "In His name shall the
Gentiles trust; " that is, in the name of Christ, to whom He says, "I have given thee as a
light of the Gentiles. However, you will have it that it is the gospel of a new god which
was then set forth by the apostle. So that there are two gospels for two gods; and the
apostle made a great mistake when he said that "there is not another" gospel, since there
is (on the hypothesis) another; and so he might have made a better defence of his gospel,
by rather demonstrating this, than by insisting on its being but one. But perhaps, to
avoid this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards, "Though an
angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed," because he was aware that
the Creator was going to introduce a gospel! But you thus entangle yourself still more.

13 For this is now the mesh in which you are caught. To affirm that there are two gospels,
is not the part of a man who has already denied that there is another. His meaning,
however, is clear, for he has mentioned himself first (in the anathema): "But though we or
an angel from heaven preach any other gospel. It is by way of an example that he has
expressed himself. If even he himself might not preach any other gospel, then neither
might an angel. He said "angel" in this way, that he might show how much more men ought
not to be believed, when neither an angel nor an apostle ought to be; not that he meant to
apply an angel to the gospel of the Creator. He then cursorily touches on his own
conversion from a persecutor to an apostle-confirming thereby the Acts of the Apostles, in
which book may be found the very subject of this epistle, how that certain persons
interposed, and said that men ought to be circumcised, and that the law of Moses was to be
observed; and how the apostles, when consulted, determined, by the authority of the Holy
Ghost, that "a yoke should not be put upon men's necks which their fathers even had not
been able to bear. Now, since the Acts of the Apostles thus agree with Paul, it becomes
apparent why you reject them. It is because they declare no other God than the Creator,
and prove Christ to belong to no other God than the Creator;

14 whilst the promise of the Holy Ghost is shown to have been fulfilled in no other
document than the Acts of the Apostles. Now, it is not very likely that these should be
found in agreement with the apostle, on the one hand, when they described his career in
accordance with his own statement; but should, on the other hand, be at variance with him
when they announce the (attribute of) divinity in the Creator's Christ-as if Paul did not
follow the preaching of the apostles when he received from them the prescription of not
teaching the Law. 15 Chapter 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.

16 But with regard to the countenance of Peter and the rest of the apostles, he tells us
that "fourteen years after he went up to Jerusalem," in order to confer with them about
the rule which he followed in his gospel, lest perchance he should all those years have
been running, and be running still, in vain, (which would be the case, ) of course, if his
preaching of the gospel fell short of their method. So great had been his desire to be
approved and supported by those whom you wish on all occasions to be understood as in
alliance with Judaism! When indeed he says, that "neither was Titus circumcised," he for
the first time shows us that circumcision was the only question connected with the
maintenance of the law, which had been as yet agitated by those whom he therefore calls
"false brethren unawares brought in. These persons went no further than to insist on a
continuance of the law, retaining unquestionably a sincere belief in the Creator. They
perverted the gospel in their teaching, not indeed by such a tampering with the Scripture
as should enable them to expunge the Creator's Christ, but by so retaining the ancient
régime as not to exclude the Creator's law. 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.

17 Let us only attend to the clear sense and to the reason of the thing, and the
perversion of the Scripture will be apparent. When he first says, "Neither Titus, who was
with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised," and then adds, "And that because
of false brethren unawares brought in," etc., he gives us an insight into his reason for
acting in a clean contrary way, showing us wherefore he did that which he would neither
have done nor shown to us, if that had not happened which induced him to act as he did.
But then I want you to tell us whether they would have yielded to the subjection that was
demanded, if these false brethren had not crept in to spy out their liberty? I apprehend
not. They therefore gave way (in a partial concession), because there were persons whose
weak faith required consideration. For their rudimentary belief, which was still in
suspense about the observance of the law, deserved this concessive treatment, when even
the apostle himself had some suspicion that he might have run, and be still running, in
vain.

18 Accordingly, the false brethren who were the spies of their Christian liberty must be
thwarted in their efforts to bring it under the yoke of their own Judaism before that Paul
discovered whether his labour had been in vain, before that those who preceded him in the
apostolate gave him their right hands of fellowship, before that he entered on the office
of preaching to the Gentiles, according to their arrangement with him. He therefore made
some concession, as was necessary, for a time; and this was the reason why he had Timothy
circumcised, and the Nazarites introduced into the temple, which incidents are described
in the Acts. Their truth may be inferred from their agreement with the apostle's own
profession, how "to the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and to them
that were under the law, as under the law,"-and so here with respect to those who come in
secretly,-"and lastly, how he became all things to all men, that he might gain all. 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.

19 Rightly, then, did Peter and James and John give their right hand of fellowship to
Paul, and agree on such a division of their work, as that Paul should go to the heathen,
and themselves to the circumcision. Their agreement, also, "to remember the poor" was in
complete conformity with the law of the Creator, which cherished the poor and needy, as
has been shown in our observations on your Gospel. It is thus certain that the question
was one which simply regarded the law, while at the same time it is apparent what portion
of the law it was convenient to have observed. Paul, however, censures Peter for not
walking straightforwardly according to the truth of the gospel. No doubt he blames him;
but it was solely because of his inconsistency in the matter of "eating," which he varied
according to the sort of persons (whom he associated with) "fearing them which were of the
circumcision," but not on account of any perverse opinion touching another god. For if
such a question had arisen, others also would have been "resisted face to face" by the man
who had not even spared Peter on the comparatively small matter of his doubtful
conversation. But what do the Marcionites wish to have believed (on the point)? For the
rest, the apostle must (be permitted to) go on with his own statement, wherein he says
that "a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith: " faith, however, in
the same God to whom belongs the law also.

20 For of course he would have bestowed no labour on severing faith from the law, when the
difference of the god would, if there had only been any, have of itself produced such a
severance. Justly, therefore, did he refuse to "build up again (the structure of the law)
which he had overthrown. The law, indeed, had to be overthrown, from the moment when John
"cried in the wilderness, Prepare ye the ways of the Lord," that valleys and hills and
mountains may be filled up and levelled, and the crooked and the rough ways be made
straight and smooth -in other words, that the difficulties of the law might be changed
into the facilities of the gospel. 21 For he remembered that the time was come of which
the Psalm spake, "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast off their yoke from us; "
since the time when "the nations became tumultuous, and the people imagined vain counsels;
"when "the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the
Lord, and against His Christ," in order that thenceforward man might be justified by the
liberty of faith, not by servitude to the law, "because the just shall live by his faith.
Now, although the prophet Habakkuk first said this, yet you have the apostle here
confirming the prophets, even as Christ did. The object, therefore, of the faith whereby
the just man shall live, will be that same God to whom likewise belongs the law, by doing
which no man is justified. Since, then, there equally are found the curse in the law and
the blessing in faith, you have both conditions set forth by the Creator: "Behold," says
He, "I have set before you a blessing and a curse. You cannot establish a diversity of
authors because there happens to be one of things; for the diversity is itself proposed by
one and the same author. Why, however, "Christ was made a curse for us," is declared by
the apostle himself in a way which quite helps our side, as being the result of the
Creator's appointment.

22 But yet it by no means follows, because the Creator said of old, "Cursed is every one
that hangeth on a tree," that Christ belonged to another god, and on that account was
accursed even then in the law. And how, indeed, could the Creator have cursed by
anticipation one whom He knew not of? Why, however, may it not be more suitable for the
Creator to have delivered His own Son to His own curse, than to have submitted Him to the
malediction of that god of yours,-in behalf, too, of man, who is an alien to him? Now, if
this appointment of the Creator respecting His Son appears to you to be a cruel one, it is
equally so in the case of your own god; if, on the contrary, it be in accordance with
reason in your god, it is equally so-nay, much more so-in mine. For it would be more
credible that that God had provided blessing for man, through the curse of Christ, who
formerly set both a blessing and a curse before man, than that he had done so, who,
according to you, never at any time pronounced either. "We have received therefore, the
promise of the Spirit," as the apostle says, "through faith," even that faith by which the
just man lives, in accordance with the Creator's purpose. What I say, then, is this, that
that God is the object of faith who prefigured the grace of faith.

23 But when he also adds, ".For ye are all the children of faith," it becomes dear that
what the heretic's industry erased was the mention of Abraham's name; for by faith the
apostle declares us to be "children of Abraham," and after mentioning him he expressly
called us "children of faith" also. But how are we children of faith? and of whose faith,
if not Abraham's? For since "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for
righteousness; " since, also, he deserved for that reason to be called "the father of many
nations," whilst we, who are even more like him in believing in God, are thereby justified
as Abraham was, and thereby also obtain life-since the just lives by his faith,-it
therefore happens that, as he in the previous passage called us "sons of Abraham," since
he is in faith our (common) father, so here also he named us "children of faith," for it
was owing to his faith that it was promised that Abraham should be the father of (many)
nations. As to the fact itself of his calling off faith from circumcision, did he not seek
thereby to constitute us the children of Abraham, who had believed previous to his
circumcision in the flesh? In short, faith in one of two gods cannot possibly admit us to
the dispensation of the other, so that it should impute righteousness to those who believe
in him, and make the just live through him, and declare the Gentiles to be his children
through faith.

24 Such a dispensation as this belongs wholly to Him through whose appointment it was
already made known by the call of this self-same Abraham, as is conclusively shown ' by
the natural meaning. 25 Chapter 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. 26 "But," says he, "I speak after the manner of
men: when we were children, we were placed in bondage under the elements of the world.
This, however, was not said "after the manner of men. For there is no figure here, but
literal truth. For (with respect to the latter clause of this passage), what child (in the
sense, that is, in which the Gentiles are children) is not in bondage to the elements of
the world, which he looks up to in the light of a god? With regard, however, to the former
clause, there was a figure (as the apostle wrote it); because after he had said, "I speak
after the manner of men," he adds), "Though it be but a man's covenant, no man
disannulleth, or addeth thereto. For by the figure of the permanency of a human covenant
he was defending the divine testament. "To Abraham were the promises made, and to his
seed. He said not `to seeds, 'as of many; but as of one, `to thy seed, 'which is Christ.
Fie on Marcion's sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when
he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained. "But when the fulness
of time was come, God sent forth His Son" -the God, of course, who is the Lord of that
very succession of times which constitutes an age; who also ordained, as "signs" of time,
suns and moons and constellations and stars;

27 who furthermore both predetermined and predicted that the revelation of His Son should
be postponed to the end of the times. "It shall come to pass in the last days, that the
mountain (of the house) of the Lord shall be manifested"; "and in the last days I will
pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh" as Joel says. It was characteristic of Him (only) to
wait patiently for the fulness of time, to whom belonged the end of time no less than the
beginning. But as for that idle god, who has neither any work nor any prophecy, nor
accordingly any time, to show for himself, what has he ever done to bring about the
fulness of time, or to wait patiently its completion? If nothing, what an impotent state
to have to wait for the Creator's time, in servility to the Creator! But for what end did
He send His Son? "To redeem them that were under the law," in other words, to "make the
crooked ways straight, and the rough places smooth," as Isaiah says -in order that old
things might pass away, and a new course begin, even "the new law out of Zion, and the
word of the Lord from Jerusalem," and "that we might receive the adoption of sons," that
is, the Gentiles, who once were not sons. For He is to be "the light of the Gentiles," and
"in His name shall the Gentiles trust.

28 That we may have, therefore the assurance that we are the children of God, "He hath
sent forth His Spirit into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. For "in the last days," saith
He," I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." 29 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. By the Romans, however, the rudiments of learning are wont to be
called elements. He did not therefore seek, by any depreciation of the mundane elements,
to turn them away from their god, although, when he said just before, "Howbeit, then, ye
serve them which by nature are no gods," he censured the error of that physical or natural
superstition which holds the elements to be god; but at the God of those elements he aimed
not in this censure. He tells us himself clearly enough what he means by "elements," even
the rudiments of the law: "Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years" -the
sabbaths, I suppose, and "the preparations," and the fasts, and the "high days. For the
cessation of even these, no less than of circumcision, was appointed by the Creator's
decrees, who had said by Isaiah, "Your new moons, and your sabbaths, and your high days I
cannot bear; your fasting, and feasts, and ceremonies my soul hateth; " also by Amos, "I
hate, I despise your feast-days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies; " and
again by Hosea, "I will cause to cease all her mirth, and her feast-days, and her
sabbaths, and her new moons, and all her solemn assemblies.

30 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. "For
(it is written) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free
woman; but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman
was by promise: which things are allegorized" (that is to say, they presaged something
besides the literal history);

31 "for these are the two covenants," or the two exhibitions (of the divine plans), as we
have found the word interpreted," the one from the Mount Sinai," in relation to the
synagogue of the Jews, according to the law, "which gendereth to bondage"-"the other
gendereth" (to liberty, being raised) above all principality, and power, and dominion, and
every name that is l named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come, "which
is the mother of us all," in which we have the promise of (Christ's) holy church; by
reason of which he adds in conclusion: "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond
woman, but of the free. In this passage he has undoubtedly shown that Christianity had a
noble birth, being sprung, as the mystery of the allegory indicates, from that son of
Abraham who was born of the free woman; whereas from the son of the bond maid came the
legal bondage of Judaism. Both dispensations, therefore, emanate from that same God by
whom, as we have found, they were both sketched out beforehand. When he speaks of "the
liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free," does not the very phrase indicate that He is
the Liberator who was once the Master? For Galba himself never liberated slaves which were
not his own, even when about to restore free men to their liberty. By Him, therefore, will
liberty be bestowed, at whose command lay the enslaving power of the law. And very
properly.

32 It was not meet that those who had received liberty should be "entangled again with the
yoke of bondage" -that is, of the law; now that the Psalm had its prophecy accomplished:
"Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us, since the rulers
have gathered themselves together against the Lord and against His Christ. All those,
therefore, who had been delivered from the yoke of slavery he would earnestly have to
obliterate the very mark of slavery-even circumcision, on the authority of the
prophet'sprediction. He remembered how that Jeremiah had said, "Circumcise the foreskins
of your heart; " as Moses likewise had enjoined, "Circumcise your hard hearts" -not the
literal flesh. If, now, he were for excluding circumcision, as the messenger of a new god,
why does he say that "in Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor
uncircumcision? 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.

33 Furthermore, since both circumcision and uncircumcision were attributed to the same
Deity, both lost their power in Christ, by reason of the excellency of faith-of that faith
concerning which it had been written, "And in His name shall the Gentiles trust? " -of
that faith "which," he says "worketh by love. By this saying he also shows that the
Creator is the source of that grace. For whether he speaks of the love which is due to
God, or that which is due to one's neighbor-in either case, the Creator's grace is meant:
for it is He who enjoins the first in these words, "Thou shalt love God with all thine
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength; " and also the second in another
passage: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. "But he that troubleth you shall have
to bear judgment. From what God? From (Marcion's) most excellent god? But he does not
execute judgment. From the Creator? But neither will He condemn the maintainer of
circumcision. Now, if none other but the Creator shall be found to execute judgment, it
follows that only He, who has determined on the cessation of the law, shall be able to
condemn the defenders of the law; and what, if he also affirms the law in that portion of
it where it ought (to be permanent)?

34 "For," says he, "all the law is fulfilled in you by this: `Thou shalt love thy
neighbour as thyself.' " If, indeed, he will have it that by the words "it is fulfilled"
it is implied that the law no longer has to be fulfilled, then of course he does not mean
that I should any more love my neighbour as myself, since this precept must have ceased
together with the law. But no! we must evermore continue to observe this commandment. The
Creator's law, therefore, has received the approval of the rival god, who has, in fact,
bestowed upon it not the sentence of a summary dismissal, but the favour of a compendious
acceptance; the gist of it all being concentrated in this one precept! But this
condensation of the law is, in fact, only possible to Him who is the Author of it. When,
therefore, he says, "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ,"
since this cannot be accomplished except a man love his neighbour as himself, it is
evident that the precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (which, in fact,
underlies the injunction, "Bear ye one another's burdens"), is really "the law of Christ,"
though literally the law of the Creator. Christ, therefore, is the Creator's Christ, as
Christ's law is the Creator's law. "Be not deceived, God is not mocked. But Marcion's god
can be mocked; for he knows not how to be angry, or how to take vengeance. "For whatsoever
a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

35 It is then the God of recompense and judgment who threatens this. "Let us not be weary
in well-doing; " and "as we have opportunity, let us do good. Deny now that the Creator
has given a commandment to do good, and then a diversity of precept may argue a difference
of gods. If, however, He also announces recompense, then from the same God must come the
harvest both of death and of life. But "in due time we shall reap; " because in
Ecclesiastes it is said, "For everything there will be a time. Moreover, "the world is
crucified unto me," who am a servant of the Creator-"the world," (I say, ) but not the God
who made the world-"and I unto the world," not unto the God who made the world. The world,
in the apostle's sense, here means life and conversation according to worldly principles;
it is in renouncing these that we and they are mutually crucified and mutually slain. He
calls them "persecutors of Christ. But when he adds, that "he bare in his body the scars
of Christ"-since scars, of course, are accidents of body -he therefore expressed the
truth, that the flesh of Christ is not putative, but real and substantial, the scars of
which he represents as borne upon his body.

36 Chapter 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. 37 My preliminary remarks on the
preceding epistle called me away from treating of its superscription, for I was sure that
another opportunity would occur for considering the matter, it being of constant
recurrence, and in the same form too, in every epistle. The point, then, is, that it is
not (the usual) health which the apostle prescribes for those to whom he writes, but
"grace and peace. I do not ask, indeed, what a destroyer of Judaism has to do with a
formula which the Jews still use. For to this day they salute each other with the greeting
of "peace," and formerly in their Scriptures they did the same. But I understand him by
his practice plainly enough to have corroborated the declaration of the Creator: "How
beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good, who preach the gospel of
peace! For the herald of good, that is, of God's "grace" was well aware that along with it
"peace" also was to be proclaimed. Now, when he announces these blessings as "from God the
Father and the Lord Jesus," he uses titles that are common to both, and which are also
adapted to the mystery of our faith; and I suppose it to be impossible accurately to
determine what God is declared to be the Father and the Lord Jesus, unless (we consider)
which of their accruing attributes are more suited to them severally.

38 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, and the whole race of mankind by their neglect of natural duty,
had both sinned and rebelled against the Creator. Marcion's god, however, could not have
been offended, both because he was unknown to everybody, and because he is incapable of
being irritated. What grace, therefore, can be had of a god who has not been offended?
What peace from one who has never experienced rebellion? "The cross of Christ," he says,
"is to them that perish foolishness; but unto such as shall obtain salvation, it is the
power of God and the wisdom of God. And then, that we may known from whence this comes, he
adds:

39 "For it is written, `I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing
the understanding of the prudent.' " Now, since these are the Creator's words, and since
what pertains to the doctrine of the cross he accounts as foolishness, therefore both the
cross, and also Christ by reason of the cross, will appertain to the Creator, by whom were
predicted the incidents of the cross. But if the Creator, as an enemy, took away their
wisdom in order that the cross of Christ, considered as his adversary, should be accounted
foolishness, how by any possibility can the Creator have foretold anything about the cross
of a Christ who is not His own, and of whom He knew nothing, when He published the
prediction? But, again, how happens it, that in the system of a Lord who is so very good,
and so profuse in mercy, some carry off salvation, when they believe the cross to be the
wisdom and power of God, whilst others incur perdition, to whom the cross of Christ is
accounted folly;-(how happens it, I repeat, ) unless it is in the Creator's dispensation
to have punished both the people of Israel and the human race, for some great offence
committed against Him, with the loss of wisdom and prudence? What follows will confirm
this suggestion, when he asks, "Hath not God infatuated the wisdom of this world? " and
when he adds the reason why:

40 "For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God
by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. But first a word about the
expression "the world; " because in this passage particularly, the heretics expend a great
deal of their subtlety in showing that by world is meant the lord of the world. We,
however, understand the term to apply to any person that is in the world, by a simple
idiom of human language, which often substitutes that which contains for that which is
contained. "The circus shouted," "The forum spoke," and "The basilica murmured," are well-
known expressions, meaning that the people in these places did so. Since then the man, not
the god, of the world in his wisdom knew not God, whom indeed he ought to have known (both
the Jew by his knowledge of the Scriptures, and all the human race by their knowledge of
God's works), therefore that God, who was not acknowledged in His wisdom, resolved to
smite men's knowledge with His foolishness, by saving all those who believe in the folly
of the preached cross. "Because the Jews require signs," who ought to have already made up
their minds about God, "and the Greeks seek after wisdom," who rely upon their own wisdom,
and not upon God's. If, however, it was a new god that was being preached, what sin had
the Jews committed, in seeking after signs to believe;

41 or the Greeks, when they hunted after a wisdom which they would prefer to accept? Thus
the very retribution which overtook both Jews and Greeks proves that God is both a jealous
God and a Judge, inasmuch as He infatuated the world's wisdom by an angry and a judicial
retribution. Since, then, the causes are in the hands of Him who gave us the Scriptures
which we use, it follows that the apostle, when treating of the Creator, (as Him whom both
Jew and Gentile as yet have) not known, means undoubtedly to teach us, that the God who is
to become known (in Christ) is the Creator. The very "stumbling-block" which he declares
Christ to be "to the Jews," points unmistakeably to the Creator's prophecy respecting Him,
when by Isaiah He says: "Behold I lay in Sion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence.
This rock or stone is Christ. This stumbling-stone Marcion retains still. Now, what is
that "foolishness of God which is wiser than men," but the cross and death of Christ? What
is that "weakness of God which is stronger than men," but the nativity and incarnation of
God? If, however, Christ was not born of the Virgin, was not constituted of human flesh,
and thereby really suffered neither death nor the cross there was nothing in Him either of
foolishness or weakness; nor is it any longer true, that "God hath chosen the foolish
things of the world to confound the wise;

42 "nor, again, hath "God chosen the weak things of the world to confound the mighty; "nor
"the base things" and the least things "in the world, and things which are despised, which
are even as nothing" (that is, things which really are not), "to bring to nothing things
which are" (that is, which really are). For nothing in the dispensation of God is found to
be mean, and ignoble, and contemptible. Such only occurs in man's arrangement. The very
Old Testament of the Creator itself, it is possible, no doubt, to charge with foolishness,
and weakness, and dishonour and meanness, and contempt. What is more foolish and more weak
than God's requirement of bloody sacrifices and of savoury holocausts? What is weaker than
the cleansing of vessels and of beds? What more dishonourable than the discoloration of
the reddening skin? What so mean as the statute of retaliation? What so contemptible as
the exception in meats and drinks? The whole of the Old Testament, the heretic, to the
best of my belief, holds in derision. For God has chosen the foolish things of the world
to confound its wisdom. Marcion's god has no such discipline, because he does not take
after (the Creator) in the process of confusing opposites by their opposites, so that "no
flesh shall glory; but, as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. In
what Lord? Surely in Him who gave this precept. Unless, forsooth, the Creator enjoined us
to glory in the god of Marcion

43 Chapter 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. 44 By all these statements,
therefore, does he show us what God he means, when he says, "We speak the wisdom of God
among them that are perfect. It is that God who has confounded the wisdom of the wise, who
has brought to nought the understanding of the prudent, who has reduced to folly the
world's wisdom, by choosing its foolish things, and disposing them to the attainment of
salvation. This wisdom, he says, once lay hidden in things that were foolish, weak, and
lacking in honour; once also was latent under figures, allegories, and enigmatical types;
but it was afterwards to be revealed in Christ, who was set "as a light to the Gentiles,"
by the Creator who promised through the mouth of Isaiah that He would discover "the hidden
treasures, which eye had not seen. Now, that that god should have ever hidden anything who
had never made a cover wherein to practise concealment, is in itself a wholly incredible
idea. If he existed, concealment of himself was out of the question-to say nothing of any
of his religious ordinances. The Creator, on the contrary, was as well known in Himself as
His ordinances were. These, we know, were publicly instituted in Israel; but they lay
overshadowed with latent meanings, in which the wisdom of God was concealed to be brought
to light by and by amongst "the perfect," when the time should come, but "pre-ordained in
the counsels of God before the ages. But whose ages, if not the Creator's?

45 For because ages consist of times, and times are made up of days, and months, and
years; since also days, and months, and years are measured by suns, and moons, and stars,
which He ordained for this purpose (for "they shall be," says He, "for signs of the months
and the years"), it clearly follows that the ages belong to the Creator, and that nothing
of what was fore-ordained before the ages can be said to be the property of any other
being than Him who claims the ages also as His own. Else let Marcion show that the ages
belong to his god. He must then also claim the world itself for him; for it is in it that
the ages are reckoned, the vessel as it were of the times, as well as the signs thereof,
or their order. But he has no such demonstration to show us. I go back therefore to the
point, and ask him this question: Why did (his god) fore-ordain our glory before the ages
of the Creator? I could understand his having predetermined it before the ages, if he had
revealed it at the commencement of time. But when he does this almost at the very
expiration of all the ages of the Creator, his predestination before the ages, and not
rather within the ages, was in vain, because he did not mean to make any revelation of his
purpose until the ages had almost run out their course.

46 For it is wholly inconsistent in him to be so forward in planning purposes, who is so
backward in revealing them. 47 In the Creator, however, the two courses were perfectly
compatible-both the predestination before the ages and the revelation at the end thereof,
because that which He both fore-ordained and revealed He also in the intermediate space of
time announced by the pre-ministration of figures, and symbols, and allegories. But
because (the apostle) subjoins, on the subject of our glory, that "none of the princes of
this world knew it for had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory,"
the heretic argues that the princes of this world crucified the Lord (that is, the Christ
of the rival god) in order that this blow might even recoil on the Creator Himself. Any
one, however, who has seen from what we have already said how our glory must be regarded
as issuing from the Creator, will already have come to the conclusion that, inasmuch as
the Creator settled it in His own secret purpose, it properly enough was unknown to all
the princes and powers of the Creator, on the principle that servants are not permitted to
know their masters' plans, much less the fallen angels and the leader of transgression
himself, the devil; for I should contend that these, on account of their fall, were
greater strangers still to any knowledge of the Creator's dispensations.

48 But it is no longer open to me even to interpret the princes and powers of this world
as the Creator's, since the apostle imputes ignorance to them, whereas even the devil
according to our Gospel recognised Jesus in the temptation, and, according to the record
which is common to both (Marcionites and ourselves) the evil spirit knew that Jesus was
the Holy One of God, and that Jesus was His name, and that He was come to destroy them.
The parable also of the strong man armed, whom a stronger than he overcame and seized his
goods, is admitted by Marcion to have reference to the Creator: therefore the Creator
could not have been ignorant any longer of the God of glory, since He is overcome by him;
nor could He have crucified him whom He was unable to cope with. The inevitable inference,
therefore, as it seems to me, is that we must believe that the princes and powers of the
Creator did knowingly crucify the God of glory in His Christ, with that desperation and
excessive malice with which the most abandoned slaves do not even hesitate to slay their
masters. For it is written in my Gospel that "Satan entered into Judas. According to
Marcion, however, the apostle in the passage under consideration does not allow the
imputation of ignorance, with respect to the Lord of glory, to the powers of the Creator;
because, indeed, he will have it that these are not meant by "the princes of this world.

49 But (the apostle) evidently did not speak of spiritual princes; so that he meant
secular ones, those of the princely people, (chief in the divine dispensation, although)
not, of course, amongst the nations of the world, and their rulers, and king Herod, and
even Pilate, and, as represented by him, that power of Rome which was the greatest in the
world, and then presided over by him. Thus the arguments of the other side are pulled
down, and our own proofs are thereby built up. But you still maintain that our glory comes
from your god, with whom it also lay in secret. Then why does your god employ the self-
same Scripture which the apostle also relies on? What has your god to do at all with the
sayings of the prophets? "Who hath discovered the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His
counsellor? " So says Isaiah. What has he also to do with illustrations from our God? For
when (the apostle) calls himself "a wise master-builder," we find that the Creator by
Isaiah designates the teacher who sketches out the divine discipline by the same title, "I
will take away from Judah the cunning artificer," etc. And was it not Paul himself who was
there foretold, destined "to be taken away from Judah"-that is, from Judaism-for the
erection of Christianity, in order "to lay that only foundation, which is Christ? " Of
this work the Creator also by the same prophet says, "Behold, I lay in Sion for a
foundation a precious stone and honourable;

50 and he that resteth thereon shall not be confounded. Unless it be, that God professed
Himself to be the builder up of an earthly work, that so He might not give any sign of His
Christ, as destined to be the foundation of such as believe in Him, upon which every man
should build at will the superstructure of either sound or worthless doctrine; forasmuch
as it is the Creator's function, when a man's work shall be tried by fire, (or) when a
reward shall be recompensed to him by fire; because it is by fire that the test is applied
to the building which you erect upon the foundation which is laid by Him, that is, the
foundation of His Christ. "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit
of God dwelleth in you? " Now, since man is the property, and the work, and the image and
likeness of the Creator, having his flesh, formed by Him of the ground, and his soul of
His afflatus, it follows that Marcion's god wholly dwells in a temple which belongs to
another, if so be we are not the Creator's temple. But "if any man defile the temple of
God, he shall be himself destroyed" -of course, by the God of the temple. If you threaten
an avenger, you threaten us with the Creator. "Ye must become fools, that ye may be wise.
Wherefore? "Because the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. With what God?

51 Even if the ancient Scriptures have contributed nothing in support of our view thus
far, an excellent testimony turns up in what (the apostle) here adjoins: "For it is
written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness; and again, The Lord knoweth the
thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. For in general we may conclude for certain that
he could not possibly have cited the authority of that God whom he was bound to destroy,
since he would not teach for Him. "Therefore," says he, "let no man glory in man; " an
injunction which is in accordance with the teaching of the Creator, "wretched is the man
that trusteth in man; " again, "It is better to trust in the Lord than to confide in man;
" and the same thing is said about glorying (in princes). 52 Chapter 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.

53 "And the hidden things of darkness He will Himself bring to light," even by Christ; for
He has promised Christ to be a Light, and Himself He has declared to be a lamp, "searching
the hearts and reins. From Him also shall "praise be had by every man," from whom
proceeds, as from a judge, the opposite also of praise. But here, at least, you say he
interprets the world to be the God thereof, when he says: "We are made a spectacle unto
the world, and to angels, and to men. For if by world he had meant the people thereof, he
would not have afterwards specially mentioned "men. To prevent, however, your using such
an argument as this, the Holy Ghost has providentially explained the meaning of the
passage thus: "We are made a spectacle to the world," i.e. "both to angels," who minister
therein, "and to men," who are the objects of their ministration. Of course, a man of the
noble courage of our apostle (to say nothing of the Holy Ghost) was afraid, when writing
to the children whom he had begotten in the gospel, to speak freely of the God of the
world; for against Him he could not possibly seem to have a word to say, except only in a
straightforward manner! I quite admit, that, according to the Creator's law, the man was
an offender" who had his father's wife. He followed, no doubt, the principles of natural
and public law.

54 When, however, he condemns the man "to be delivered unto Satan," he becomes the herald
of an avenging God. It does not matter that he also said, "For the destruction of the
flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord," since both in the destruction
of the flesh and in the saving of the spirit there is, on His part, judicial process; and
when he bade "the wicked person be put away from the midst of them," he only mentioned
what is a very frequently recurring sentence of the Creator. "Purge out the old leaven,
that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. The unleavened bread was therefore, in
the Creator's ordinance, a figure of us (Christians). "For even Christ our passover is
sacrificed for us. But why is Christ our passover, if the passover be not a type of
Christ, in the similitude of the blood which saves, and of the Lamb, which is Christ? Why
does (the apostle) clothe us and Christ with symbols of the Creator's solemn rites, unless
they had relation to ourselves? When, again, he warns us against fornication, he reveals
the resurrection of the flesh. "The body," says he, "is not for fornication, but for the
Lord; and the Lord for the body," just as the temple is for God, and God for the temple. A
temple will therefore pass away with its god, and its god with the temple. You see, then,
how that "He who raised up the Lord will also raise us up.

55 In the body will He raise us, because the body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the
body. And suitably does he add the question: "Know ye not that your bodies are the members
of Christ? " What has the heretic to say? That these members of Christ will not rise
again, for they are no longer our own? "For," he says, "ye are bought with a price. A
price! surely none at all was paid, since Christ was a phantom, nor had He any corporeal
substance which He could pay for our bodies! But, in truth, Christ had wherewithal to
redeem us; and since He has redeemed, at a great price, these bodies of ours, against
which fornication must not be committed (because they are now members of Christ, and not
our own), surely He will secure, on His own account, the safety of those whom He made His
own at so much cost! Now, how shall we glorify, how shall we exalt, God in our body, which
is doomed to perish? We must now encounter the subject of marriage, which Marcion, more
continent than the apostle, prohibits. For the apostle, although preferring the grace of
continence, yet permits the contraction of marriage and the enjoyment of it, and advises
the continuance therein rather than the dissolution there of. Christ plainly forbids
divorce, Moses unquestionably permits it.

56 Now, when Marcion wholly prohibits all carnal intercourse to the faithful (for we will
say nothing about his catechumens), and when he prescribes repudiation of all engagements
before marriage, whose teaching does he follow, that of Moses or of Christ? Even Christ,
however, when He here commands "the wife not to depart from her husband, or if she depart,
to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband," both permitted divorce, which indeed
He never absolutely prohibited, and confirmed (the sanctity) of marriage, by first
forbidding its dissolution; and, if separation had taken place, by wishing the nuptial
bond to be resumed by reconciliation. But what reasons does (the apostle) allege for
continence? Because "the time is short. I had almost thought it was because in Christ
there was another god! And yet He from whom emanates this shortness of the time, will also
send what suits the said brevity. No one makes provision for the time which is another's.
You degrade your god, O Marcion, when you make him circumscribed at all by the Creator's
time. Assuredly also, when (the apostle) rules that marriage should be "only in the Lord,"
that no Christian should intermarry with a heathen, he maintains a law of the Creator, who
everywhere prohibits marriage with strangers. But when he says, "although there be that
are called gods, whether in l heaven or in earth," the meaning of his words is clear-not
as if there were gods in reality, but as if there were some who are called gods, without
being truly so.

57 He introduces his discussion about meats offered to idols with a statement concerning
idols (themselves): "We know that an idol is nothing in the world. Marcion, however, does
not say that the Creator is not God; so that the apostle can hardly be thought to have
ranked the Creator amongst those who are called gods, without being so; since, even if
they had been gods, "to us there is but one God, the Father. Now, from whom do all things
come to us, but from Him to whom all things belong? And pray, what things are these? You
have them in a preceding part of the epistle: "All things are yours; whether Paul, or
Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come.
He makes the Creator, then the God of all things, from whom proceed both the world and
life and death, which. cannot possibly belong to the other god. From Him, therefore,
amongst the "all things" comes also Christ. When he teaches that every man ought to live
of his own industry, he begins with a copious induction of examples-of soldiers, and
shepherds, and husbandmen. But he wanted divine authority. What was the use, however, of
adducing the Creator's, which he was destroying? It was vain to do so; for his god had no
such authority! (The apostle) says: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the
corn," and adds: "Doth God take care of oxen? "Yes, of oxen, for the sake of men!

58 For, says he, "it is written for our sakes. Thus he showed that the law had a symbolic
reference to ourselves, and that it gives its sanction in favour of those who live of the
gospel. (He showed) also, that those who preach the gospel are on this account sent by no
other god but Him to whom belongs the law, which made provision for them, when he says:
"For our sakes was this writ. ten. Still he declined to use this power which the law gave
him, because he preferred working without any restraint. Of this he boasted, and suffered
no man to rob him of such glory -certainly with no view of destroying the law, which he
proved that another man might use. For behold Marcion, in his blindness, stumbled at the
rock whereof our fathers drank in the wilderness. For since "that rock was Christ," it
was, of course, the Creator's, to whom also belonged the people. But why resort to the
figure of a sacred sign given by an extraneous god? Was it to teach the very truth, that
ancient things prefigured the Christ who was to be educed out of them? For, being about to
take a cursory view of what befell the people (of Israel) he begins with saying: "Now
these things happened as examples for us. 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?

59 He withdraws me to himself in alarm from Him from whom he transfers my allegiance. Will
his antagonist make me better disposed to him? Should I now commit the same sins as the
people, shall I have to suffer the same penalties, or not? But if not the same, how vainly
does he propose to me terrors which I shall not have to endure! From whom, again, shall I
have to endure them? If from the Creator, What evils does it appertain to Him to inflict?
And how will it happen that, jealous God as He is, He shall punish the man who offends His
rival, instead of rather encouraging him. If, however, from the other god-but he knows not
how to punish. So that the whole declaration of the apostle lacks a reasonable basis, if
it is not meant to relate to the Creator's discipline. But the fact is, the apostle's
conclusion corresponds to the beginning: "Now all these things happened unto them for
ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are
come. What a Creator! how prescient already, and considerate in warning Christians who
belong to another god! Whenever cavils occur the like to those which have been already
dealt with, I pass them by; certain others I despatch briefly. A great argument for
another god is the permission to eat of all kinds of meats, contrary to the law.

60 Just as if we did not ourselves allow that the burdensome ordinances of the law were
abrogated-but by Him who imposed them, who also promised the new condition of things. The
same, therefore, who prohibited meats, also restored the use of them, just as He had
indeed allowed them from the beginning. If, however, some strange god had come to destroy
our God, his foremost prohibition would certainly have been, that his own votaries should
abstain from supporting their lives on the resources of his adversary. 61 Chapter
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 in His
God. 62 "The head of every man is Christ. What Christ, if He is not the author of man? The
head he has here put for authority; now "authority" will accrue to none else than the
"author. Of what man indeed is He the head? Surely of him concerning whom he adds soon
afterwards: "The man ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image of God.
Since then he is the image of the Creator (for He, when looking on Christ His Word, who
was to become man, said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness" ), how can
I possibly have another head but Him whose image I am? For if I am the image of the
Creator there is no room in me for another head But wherefore "ought the woman to have
power over her head, because of the angels? " If it is because "she was created for the
man," and taken out of the man, according to the Creator's purpose, then in this way too
has the apostle maintained the discipline of that God from whose institution he explains
the reasons of His discipline. He adds: "Because of the angels. What angels? In other
words, whose angels? If he means the fallen angels of the Creator, there is great
propriety in his meaning. It is right that that face which was a snare to them should wear
some mark of a humble guise and obscured beauty.

63 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 among
"works of the flesh," and that he would have those persons accounted estimable who shun
heresies as an evil thing. In like manner, when treating of the gospel, we have proved
from the sacrament of the bread and the cup the verity of the Lord's body and blood in
opposition to Marcion's phantom; whilst throughout almost the whole of my work it has been
contended that all mention of judicial attributes points conclusively to the Creator as to
a God who judges. Now, on the subject of "spiritual gifts," I have to remark that these
also were promised by the Creator through Christ; and I think that we may derive from this
a very just conclusion that the bestowal of a gift is not the work of a god other than Him
who is proved to have given the promise. Here is a prophecy of Isaiah "There shall come
forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall spring up from his root; and upon
Him shall rest the Spirit of the Lord. After which he enumerates the special gifts of the
same "The spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit
of knowledge and of religion.

64 And with the fear of the Lord shall the Spirit fill Him. In this figure of a flower he
shows that Christ was to arise out of the rod which sprang from the stem of Jesse; in
other words, from the virgin of the race of David, the son of Jesse. In this Christ the
whole substantia of the Spirit would have to rest, not meaning that it would be as it were
some subsequent acquisition accruing to Him who was always, even before His incarnation,
the Spirit of God; so that you cannot argue from this that the prophecy has reference to
that Christ who (as mere man of the race only of David) was to obtain the Spirit of his
God. (The prophet says, ) on the contrary, that from the time when (the true Christ)
should appear in the flesh as the flower predicted, rising from the root of Jesse, there
would have to rest upon Him the entire operation of the Spirit of grace, which, so far as
the Jews were concerned, would cease and come to an end. This result the case itself
shows; for after this time the Spirit of the Creator never breathed amongst them. From
Judah were taken away "the wise man, and the cunning artificer, and the counsellor, and
the prophet; " that so it might prove true that "the law and the prophets were until John.
Now hear how he declared that by Christ Himself, when returned to heaven, these spiritual
gifts were to be sent: "He ascended up.

65 on high," that is, into heaven; "He led captivity captive," meaning death or slavery of
man; "He gave gifts to the sons of men," that is, the gratuities, which we call
charismata. He says specifically "sons of men," and not men promiscuously; thus exhibiting
to us those who were the children of men truly so called, choice men, apostles. "For,"
says he, "I have begotten you through the gospel; " and "Ye are my children, of whom I
travail again in birth. Now was absolutely fulfilled that promise of the Spirit which was
given by the word of Joel: "In the last days will I pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh,
and their sons and their daughters shall prophesy; and upon my servants and upon my
handmaids will I pour out of my Spirit. Since, then, the Creator promised the gift of His
Spirit in the latter days; and since Christ has in these last days appeared as the
dispenser of spiritual gifts (as the apostle says, "When the fulness of the time was come,
God sent forth His Son; " and again, "This I say, brethren, that the time is short" ), it
evidently follows in connection with this prediction of the last days, that this gift of
the Spirit belongs to Him who is the Christ of the predicters. Now compare the Spirit's
specific graces, as they are described by the apostle, and promised by the prophet Isaiah.
"To one is given," says he, "by the Spirit the word of wisdom;

66 "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. See how the apostle agrees with the prophet both
in making the distribution of the one Spirit, and in interpreting His special graces.
This, too, I may confidently say: he who has likened the unity of our body throughout its
manifold and divers members to the compacting together of the various gifts of the Spirit,
shows also that there is but one Lord of the human body and of the Holy Spirit. This
Spirit, (according to the apostle's showing, ) meant not that the service of these gifts
should be in the body, nor did He place them in the human body); and on the subject of the
superiority of love above all these gifts, He even taught the apostle that it was the
chief commandment, just as Christ has shown it to be: "Thou shalt love the Lord with all
thine heart and soul, with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as
thine own self.

67 When he mentions the fact that "it is written in the law," how that the Creator would
speak with other tongues and other lips, whilst confirming indeed the gift of tongues by
such a mention, he yet cannot be thought to have affirmed that the gift was that of
another god by his reference to the Creator's prediction. In precisely the same manner,
when enjoining on women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake of
learning (although that even they have the right of prophesying, he has already shown when
he covers the woman that prophesies with a veil), he goes to the law for his sanction that
woman should be under obedience. Now this law, let me say once for all, he ought to have
made no other acquaintance with, than to destroy it. But that we may now leave the subject
of spiritual gifts, facts themselves will be enough to prove which of us acts rashly in
claiming them for his God, and whether it is possible that they are opposed to our side,
even if the Creator promised them for His Christ who is not yet revealed, as being
destined only for the Jews, to have their operations in His time, in His Christ, and among
His people. Let Marcion then exhibit, as gifts of his god, some prophets, such as have not
spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God, such as have both predicted things to
come, and have made manifest the secrets of the heart;

68 let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer -only let it be by the Spirit, in an
ecstasy, that is, in a rapture, whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him;
let him show to me also, that any woman of boastful tongue in his community has ever
prophesied from amongst those specially holy sisters of his. Now all these signs (of
spiritual gifts) are forthcoming from my side without any difficulty, and they agree, too,
with the rules, and the dispensations, and the instructions of the Creator; therefore
without doubt the Christ, and the Spirit, and the apostle, belong severally to my God.
Here, then, is my frank avowal for any one who cares to require it. 69 Chapter 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.

70 Meanwhile the Marcionite will exhibit nothing of this kind; he is by this time afraid
to say which side has the better right to a Christ who is not yet revealed. Just as my
Christ is to be expected, who was predicted from the beginning, so his Christ therefore
has no existence, as not having been announced from the beginning. Ours is a better faith,
which believes in a future Christ, than the heretic's, which has none at all to believe
in. Touching the resurrection of the dead, let us first inquire how some persons then
denied it. No doubt in the same way in which it is even now denied, since the resurrection
of the flesh has at all times men to deny it. But many wise men claim for the soul a
divine nature, and are confident of its undying destiny, and even the multitude worship
the dead in the presumption which they boldly entertain that their souls survive. As for
our bodies, however, it is manifest that they perish either at once by fire or the wild
beasts, or even when most carefully kept by length of time. When, therefore, the apostle
refutes those who deny the resurrection of the flesh, he indeed defends, in opposition to
them, the precise matter of their denial, that is, the resurrection of the body. You have
the whole answer wrapped up in this. All the rest is superfluous.

71 Now in this very point, which is called the resurrection of the dead, it is requisite
that the proper force of the words should be accurately maintained. The word dead
expresses simply what has lost the vital principle, by means of which it used to live. Now
the body is that which loses life, and as the result of losing it becomes dead. To the
body, therefore, the term dead is only suitable. Moreover, as resurrection accrues to what
is dead, and dead is a term applicable only to a body, therefore the body alone has a
resurrection incidental to it. So again the word Resurrection, or (rising again), embraces
only that which has fallen down. "To rise," indeed, can be predicated of that which has
never fallen down, but had already been always lying down. But "to rise again" is
predicable only of that which has fallen down; because it is by rising again, in
consequence of its having fallen down, that it is said to have re-risen. For the syllable
RE always implies iteration (or happening again). We say, therefore, that the body falls
to the ground by death, as indeed facts themselves show, in accordance with the law of
God. For to the body it was said, ("Till thou return to the ground, for out of it wast
thou taken; for) dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. That, therefore, which
came from the ground shall return to the ground. Now that falls down which returns to the
ground;

72 and that rises again which falls down. "Since by man came death, by man came also the
resurrection. 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 in Christ concur in identity of substance with our
mortality in Adam. But at this point (the apostle) has made a parenthetical statement
concerning Christ, which, bearing as it does on our present discussion, must not pass
unnoticed. For the resurrection of the body will receive all the better proof, in
proportion as I shall succeed in showing that Christ belongs to that God who is believed
to have provided this resurrection of the flesh in His dispensation. When he says, "For He
must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet," we can see at once from this
statement that he speaks of a God of vengeance, and therefore of Him who made the
following promise to Christ: "Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy
footstool. The rod of Thy strength shall the Lord send forth from Sion, and He shall rule
along with Thee in the midst of Thine enemies.

73 It is necessary for me to lay claim to those Scriptures which the Jews endeavour to
deprive us of, and to show that they sustain my view. Now they say that this Psalm was a
chant in honour of Hezekiah, because "he went up to the house of the Lord," and God turned
back and removed his enemies. Therefore, (as they further hold, ) those other words,
"Before the morning star did I beget thee from the womb," are applicable to Hezekiah, and
to the birth of Hezekiah. We on our side have published Gospels (to the credibility of
which we have to thank them for having given some confirmation, indeed, already in so
great a subject ); and these declare that the Lord was born at night, that so it might be
"before the morning star," as is evident both from the star especially, and from the
testimony of the angel, who at night announced to the shepherds that Christ had at that
moment been born, and again from the place of the birth, for it is towards night that
persons arrive at the (eastern)" inn. Perhaps, too, there was a mystic purpose in Christ's
being born at night, destined, as He was, to be the light of the truth amidst the dark
shadows of ignorance. Nor, again, would God have said, "I have begotten Thee," except to
His true Son. For although He says of all the people (Israel), "I have begotten children,"
yet He added not "from the womb.

74 Now, why should He have added so superfluously this phrase "from the womb" (as if there
could be any doubt about any one's having been born from the womb), unless the Holy Ghost
had wished the words to be with especial care understood of Christ? "I have begotten Thee
from the womb," that is to say, from a womb only, without a man's seed, making it a
condition of a fleshly body that it should come out of a womb. What is here added (in the
Psalm), "Thou art a priest for ever," relates to (Christ) Himself. Hezekiah was no priest;
and even if he had been one, he would not have been a priest for ever. "After the order,"
says He, "of Melchizedek. 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:

75 "Give Thy judgments, O God, to the King," that is, to Christ who was to come as King,
"and Thy righteousness unto the King's son," that is, to Christ's people; for His sons are
they who are born again in Him. But it will here be said that this Psalm has reference to
Solomon. However, will not those portions of the Psalm which apply to Christ alone, be
enough to teach us that all the rest, too, relates to Christ, and not to Solomon? "He
shall come down," says He, "like rain upon a fleece, and like dropping showers upon the
earth," describing His descent from heaven to the flesh as gentle and unobserved. Solomon,
however, if he had indeed any descent at all, came not down like a shower, because he
descended not from heaven. But I will set before you more literal points. "He shall have
dominion," says the Psalmist, "from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the
earth. To Christ alone was this given; whilst Solomon reigned over only the moderately-
sized kingdom of Judah. "Yea, all kings shall fall down before Him. Whom, indeed, shall
they all thus worship, except Christ? "All nations shall serve Him. To whom shall all thus
do homage, but Christ? "His name shall endure for ever. Whose name has this eternity of
fame, but Christ's? "Longer than the sun shall His name remain," for longer than the sun
shall be the Word of God, even Christ. "And in Him shall all nations be blessed.

76 In Solomon was no nation blessed; in Christ every nation. And what if the Psalm proves
Him to be even God? "They shall call Him blessed. (On what ground? ) Because blessed Is
the Lord God of Israel, who only doeth wonderful things. "Blessed also is His glorious
name, and with His glory shall all the earth be filled. On the contrary, Solomon (as I
make bold to affirm) lost even the glory which he had from God, seduced by his love of
women even into idolatry. And thus, the statement which occurs in about the middle of this
Psalm, "His enemies shall lick the dust" (of course, as having been, (to use the apostle's
phrase, ) "put under His feet" ), will bear upon the very object which I had in view, when
I both introduced the Psalm, and insisted on my opinion of its sense,-namely, that I might
demonstrate both the glory of His kingdom and the subjection of His enemies in pursuance
of the Creator's own plans, with the view of laying down this conclusion, that none but He
can be believed to be the Christ of the Creator.

77 Chapter 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. 78 Let us
now return to the resurrection, to the defence of which against heretics of all sorts we
have given indeed sufficient attention in another work of ours. But we will not be wanting
(in some defence of the doctrine) even here, in consideration of such persons as are
ignorant of that little treatise. "What," asks he, "shall they do who are baptized for the
dead, if the dead rise not? " Now, never mind that practice, (whatever it may have been.
The Februarian lustrations will perhaps answer him (quite as well), by praying for the
dead. Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates some new god as the author and
advocate of this (baptism for the dead. His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might
all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who
were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a
resurrection. We have the apostle in another passage defining "but one baptism. To be
"baptized for the dead" therefore means, in fact, to be baptized for the body; for, as we
have shown, it is the body which becomes dead. What, then, shall they do who are baptized
for the body, if the body rises not again? We stand, then, on firm ground (when we say)
that the next question which the apostle has discussed equally relates to the body. But
"some man will say, `How are the dead raised up?

79 With what body do they come? '" Having established the doctrine of the resurrection
which was denied, it was natural to discuss what would be the sort of body (in the
resurrection), of which no one had an idea. On this point we have other opponents with
whom to engage, For Marcion does not in any wise admit the resurrection of the flesh, and
it is only the salvation of the soul which he promises; consequently the question which he
raises is not concerning the sort of body, but the very substance thereof.
Notwithstanding, he is most plainly refuted even from what the apostle advances respecting
the quality of the body, in answer to those who ask, "How are the dead raised up? with
what body do they come? "For as he treated of the sort of body, he of course ipso facto
proclaimed in the argument that it was a body which would rise again. Indeed, since he
proposes as his examples "wheat grain, or some other grain, to which God giveth a body,
such as it hath pleased Him; " since also he says, that "to every seed is its own body; "
that, consequently, "there is one kind of flesh of men, whilst there is another of beasts,
and (another) of birds; that there are also celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial;

80 and that there is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another
glory of the stars" -does he not therefore intimate that there is to be a resurrection of
the flesh or body, which he illustrates by fleshly and corporeal samples? Does he not also
guarantee that the resurrection shall be accomplished by that God from whom proceed all
the (creatures which have served him for) examples? "So also," says he, "is the
resurrection of the dead. How? Just as the grain, which is sown a body, springs up a body.
This sowing of the body he called the dissolving thereof in the ground, "because it is
sown in corruption," (but "is raised) to honour and power. Now, just as in the case of the
grain, so here: to Him will belong the work in the revival of the body, who ordered the
process in the dissolution thereof. If, however, you remove the body from the resurrection
which you submitted to the dissolution, what becomes of the diversity in the issue?
Likewise, "although it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

81 Now, although the natural principle of life and the spirit have each a body proper to
itself, so that the "natural body" may fairly be taken to signify the soul, and "the
spiritual body" the spirit, yet that is no reason for supposing the apostle to say that
the soul is to become spirit in the resurrection, but that the body (which, as being born
along with the soul, and as retaining its life by means of the soul, admits of being
called animal (or natural ) will became spiritual, since it rises through the Spirit to an
eternal life. In short, since it is not the soul, but the flesh which is "sown in
corruption," when it turns to decay in the ground, it follows that (after such
dissolution) the soul is no longer the natural body, but the flesh, which was the natural
body, (is the subject of the future change), forasmuch as of a natural body it is made a
spiritual body, as he says further down, "That was not first which is spiritual. For to
this effect he just before remarked of Christ Himself: "The first man Adam was made a
living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Our heretic, however, in the
excess of his folly, being unwilling that the statement should remain in this shape,
altered "last Adam" into "last Lord;

82 " 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. Now, although among things which are even individually diverse, one
must be first and another last, yet they must have one author. If, however, the author be
a different one, he himself indeed may be called the last. But the thing which he
introduces is the first, and that only can be the last, which is like this first in
nature. It is, however, not like the first in nature, when it is not the work of the same
author. In like manner (the heretic) will be refuted also with the word "man: " "The first
man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. Now, since the first
was a man, how can there be a second, unless he is a man also? Or, else, if the second is
"Lord," was the first "Lord" also? It is, however, quite enough for me, that in his Gospel
he admits the Son of man to be both Christ and Man;

83 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," -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?

84 "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. He
means the works of the flesh and blood, which, in his Epistle to the Galatians, deprive
men of the kingdom of God. In other passages also he is accustomed to put the natural
condition instead of the works that are done therein, as when he says, that "they who are
in the flesh cannot please God. Now, when shall we be able to please God except whilst we
are in this flesh? 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.

85 How then is it, that the soul, which is the real author of the works of the flesh,
shall attain to the kingdom of God, after the deeds done in the body have been stoned for,
whilst the body, which was nothing but (the soul's) ministering agent, must remain in
condemnation? Is the cup to be punished, but the poisoner to escape? Not that we indeed
claim the kingdom of God for the flesh: all we do is, to assert a resurrection for the
substance thereof, as the gate of the kingdom through which it is entered. But the
resurrection is one thing, and the kingdom is another. The resurrection is first, and
afterwards the kingdom. We say, therefore, that the flesh rises again, but that when
changed it obtains the kingdom. "For the dead shall be raised incorruptible," even those
who had been corruptible when their bodies fell into decay; "and we shall be changed, in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye. For this corruptible"-and as he spake, the apostle
seemingly pointed to his own flesh-"must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality. in order, indeed, that it may be rendered a fit substance for the kingdom of
God. "For we shall be like the angels. This will be the perfect change of our flesh-only
after its resurrection. Now if, on the contrary, there is to be no flesh, how then shall
it put on incorruption and immortality?

86 Having then become something else by its change, it will obtain the kingdom of God, no
longer the (old) flesh and blood, but the body which God shall have given it. Rightly then
does the apostle declare, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; " for this
(honour) does he ascribe to the changed condition which ensues on the resurrection. Since,
therefore, shall then be accomplished the word which was written by the Creator, "O death,
where is thy victory"-or thy struggle? "O death, where is thy sting? " -written, I say, by
the Creator, for He wrote them by His prophet -to Him will belong the gift, that is, the
kingdom, who proclaimed the word which is to be accomplished in the kingdom. And to none
other God does he tell us that "thanks" are due, for having enabled us to achieve "the
victory" even over death, than to Him from whom he received the very expression of the
exulting and triumphant challenge to the mortal foe.

87 Chapter 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. 88 If, owing to the fault of human error, the word God
has become a common name (since in the world there are said and believed to be "gods many"
), yet "the blessed God," (who is "the Father) of our Lord Jesus Christ," will be
understood to be no other God than the Creator, who both blessed all things (that He had
made), as you find in Genesis, and is Himself "blessed by all things," as Daniel tells us.
Now, if the title of Father may be claimed for (Marcion's) sterile god, how much more for
the Creator? To none other than Him is it suitable, who is also "the Father of mercies,"
and (in the prophets) has been described as "full of compassion, and gracious, and
plenteous in mercy. In Jonah you find the signal act of His mercy, which He showed to the
praying Ninevites. How inflexible was He at the tears of Hezekiah! How ready to forgive
Ahab, the husband of Jezebel, the blood of Naboth, when he deprecated His anger. How
prompt in pardoning David on his confession of his sin -preferring, indeed, the sinner's
repentance to his death, of course because of His gracious attribute of mercy. Now, if
Marcion's god has exhibited or proclaimed any such thing as this, I will allow him to be
"the Father of mercies.

89 Since, however, he ascribes to him this title only from the time he has been revealed,
as if he were the father of mercies from the time only when he began to liberate the human
race, then we on our side, too, adopt the same precise date of his alleged revelation; but
it is that we may deny him! It is then not competent to him to ascribe any quality to his
god, whom indeed he only promulged by the fact of such an ascription; for only if it were
previously evident that his god had an existence, could he be permitted to ascribe an
attribute to him. The ascribed attribute is only an accident; but accidents are preceded
by the statement of the thing itself of which they are predicated, especially when another
claims the attribute which is ascribed to him who has not been previously shown to exist.
Our denial of his existence will be all the more peremptory, because of the fact that the
attribute which is alleged in proof of it belongs to that God who has been already
revealed. Therefore "the New Testament" will appertain to none other than Him who promised
it-if not "its letter, yet its spirit; " and herein will lie its newness. Indeed, He who
had engraved its letter in stones is the same as He who had said of its spirit, "I will
pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh. Even if "the letter killeth, yet the Spirit giveth
life; " and both belong to Him who says:

90 "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal. We have already made good the Creator's
claim to this twofold character of judgment and goodness -"killing in the letter" through
the law, and "quickening in the Spirit" through the Gospel. Now these attributes, however
different they be, cannot possibly make two gods; for they have already (in the prevenient
dispensation of the Old Testament) been found to meet in One. He alludes to Moses' veil,
covered with which "his face could not be stedfastly seen by the children of Israel. Since
he did this to maintain the superiority of the glory of the New Testament, which is
permanent in its glory, over that of the Old, "which was to be done away," this fact gives
support to my belief which exalts the Gospel above the law and you must look well to it
that it does not even more than this. For only there is superiority possible where was
previously the thing over which superiority can be affirmed. But then he says, "But their
minds were blinded" -of the world; certainly not the Creator's mind, but the minds of the
people which are in the world. Of Israel he says, Even unto this day the same veil is upon
their heart; " showing that the veil which was on the face of Moses was a figure of the
veil which is on the heart of the nation still;

91 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," 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?

92 So he says that "we now with open face" (meaning the candour of the heart, which in the
Jews had been covered with a veil), "beholding Christ, are changed into the same image,
from that glory" (wherewith Moses was transfigured as by the glory of the Lord) "to
another glory. By thus setting forth the glory which illumined the person of Moses from
his interview with God, and the veil which concealed the same from the infirmity of the
people, and by superinducing thereupon the revelation and the glory of the Spirit in the
person of Christ-"even as," to use his words, "by the Spirit of the Lord" -he testifies
that the whole Mosaic system was a figure of Christ, of whom the Jews indeed were
ignorant, but who is known to us Christians. We are quite aware that some passages are
open to ambiguity, from the way in which they are read, or else from their punctuation,
when there is room for these two causes of ambiguity. The latter method has been adopted
by Marcion, by reading the passage which follows, "in whom the God of this world," as if
it described the Creator as the God of this world, in order that he may, by these words,
imply that there is another God for the other world. We, however, say that the passage
ought to be punctuated with a comma after God, to this effect: "In whom God hath blinded
the eyes of the unbelievers of this world.

93 "In whom" means the Jewish unbelievers, from some of whom the gospel is still hidden
under Moses' veil. Now it is these whom God had threatened for "loving Him indeed with the
lip, whilst their heart was far from Him," in these angry words: "Ye shall hear with your
ears, and not understand; and see with your eyes, but not perceive; " and, "If ye will not
believe, ye shall not understand; " and again, "I will take away the wisdom of their wise
men, and bring to nought the understanding of their prudent ones. But these words, of
course, He did not pronounce against them for concealing the gospel of the unknown God. At
any rate, if there is a God of this world, He blinds the heart of the unbelievers of this
world, because they have not of their own accord recognised His Christ, who ought to be
understood from His Scriptures. Content with my advantage, I can willingly refrain from
noticing to any greater length this point of ambiguous punctuation, so as not to give my
adversary any advantage, indeed, I might have wholly omitted the discussion. 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.

94 The whole superstition, indeed, of this world has got into his hands, so that he blinds
effectually the hearts of unbelievers, and of none more than the apostate Marcion's. Now
he did not observe how much this clause of the sentence made against him: "For God, who
commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to (give) the
light of the knowledge (of His glory) in the face of (Jesus) Christ. Now who was it that
said; "Let there be light? " And who was it that said to Christ concerning giving light to
the world: "I have set Thee as a light to the Gentiles" -to them, that is, "who sit in
darkness and in the shadow of death? " (None else, surely, than He), to whom the Spirit in
the Psalm answers, in His foresight of the future, saying, "The light of Thy countenance,
O Lord, hath been displayed upon us. Now the countenance (or person ) of the Lord here is
Christ. Wherefore the apostle said above: Christ, who is the image of God. Since Christ,
then, is the person of the Creator, who said, "Let there be light," it follows that Christ
and the apostles, and the gospel, and the veil, and Moses-nay, the whole of the
dispensations-belong to the God who is the Creator of this world, according to the
testimony of the clause (above adverted to), and certainly not to him who never said, "Let
there be light.

95 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 them to remember,
that at the time when they were Gentiles they were without Christ, aliens from (the
commonwealth of) Israel, without intercourse, without the covenants and any hope of
promise, nay, without God, even in his own world, as the Creator thereof. Since therefore
he said, that the Gentiles were without God, whilst their god was the devil, not the
Creator, it is clear that he must be understood to be the lord of this world, whom the
Gentiles received as their god-not the Creator, of whom they were in ignorance. But how
does it happen, that "the treasure which we have in these earthen vessels of ours" should
not be regarded as belonging to the God who owns the vessels? Now since God's glory is,
that so great a treasure is contained in earthen vessels, and since these earthen vessels
are of the Creator's make, it follows that the glory is the Creator's; nay, since these
vessels of His smack so much of the excellency of the power of God, that power itself must
be His also! Indeed, all these things have been consigned to the said "earthen vessels"
for the very purpose that His excellence might be manifested forth. Henceforth, then, the
rival god will have no claim to the glory, and consequently none to the power.

96 Rather, dishonour and weakness will accrue to him, because the earthen vessels with
which he had nothing to do have received all the excellency! Well, then, if it be in these
very earthen vessels that he tells us we have to endure so great sufferings, in which we
bear about with us the very dying of God, (Marcion's) god is really ungrateful and unjust,
if he does not mean to restore this same I substance of ours at the resurrection, wherein
so much has been endured in loyalty to him, in which Christ's very death is borne about,
wherein too the excellency of his power is treasured. For he gives prominence to the
statement, "That the life also of Christ may be manifested in our body," as a contrast to
the preceding, that His death is borne about in our body. Now of what life of Christ does
he here speak? Of that which we are now living? Then how is it, that in the words which
follow he exhorts us not to the things which are seen and are temporal, but to those which
are not seen and are eternal -in other words, not to the present, but to the future? But
if it be of the future life of Christ that he speaks, intimating that it is to be made
manifest in our body, then he has clearly predicted the resurrection of the flesh.

97 He says, too, that "our outward man perishes," not meaning by an eternal perdition
after death, but by labours and sufferings, in reference to which he previously said, "For
which cause we will not faint. Now, when he adds of "the inward man" also, that it "is
renewed day by day," he demonstrates both issues here-the wasting away of the body by the
wear and tear of its trials, and the renewal of the soul by its contemplation of the
promises. 98 Chapter 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. 99 As to the house of this our earthly dwelling-place, when he says
that "we have an eternal home in heaven, not made with hands," he by no means would imply
that, because it was built by the Creator's hand, it must perish in a perpetual
dissolution after death. He treats of this subject in order to offer consolation against
the fear of death and the dread of this very dissolution, as is even more manifest from
what follows, when he adds, that "in this tabernacle of our earthly body we do groan,
earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with the vesture which is from heaven, if so be,
that having been unclothed, we shall not be found naked; "in other words, shall regain
that of which we have been divested, even our body. And again he says: "We that are in
this tabernacle do groan, not as if we were oppressed with an unwillingness to be
unclothed, but (we wish)to be clothed upon. He here says expressly, what he touched but
lightly in his first epistle, where he wrote: ) "The dead shall be raised Incorruptible
(meaning those who had undergone mortality), "and we shall be changed" (whom God shall
find to be yet in the flesh). Both those shall be raised incorruptible, because they shall
regain their body-and that a renewed one, from which shall come their incorruptibility;

100 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. So that whilst these shall put on over their (changed) body this, heavenly
raiment, the dead also shall for their part recover their body, over which they too have a
supervesture to put on, even the incorruption of heaven; because of these it was that he
said: "This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
The one put on this (heavenly) apparel, when they recover their bodies; the others put it
on as a supervesture, when they indeed hardly lose them (in the suddenness of their
change). It was accordingly not without good reason that he described them as "not wishing
indeed to be unclothed," but (rather as wanting) "to be clothed upon; " in other words, as
wishing not to undergo death, but to be surprised into life, "that this moral (body) might
be swallowed up of life," by being rescued from death in the supervesture of its changed
state.

101 This is why he shows us how much better it is for us not to be sorry, if we should be
surprised by death, and tells us that we even hold of God "the earnest of His Spirit"
(pledged as it were thereby to have "the clothing upon," which is the object of our hope),
and that "so long as we are in the flesh, we are absent from the Lord; " moreover, that we
ought on this account to prefer "rather to be absent from the body and to be present with
the Lord," and so to be ready to meet even death with joy. In this view it is that he
informs us how "we must all appear before the judgement-seat of Christ, that every one may
receive the things done in his body, according as he hath done either good or bad. Since,
however, there is then to be a retribution according to men's merits, how will any be able
to reckon with God? But by mentioning both the judgment-seat and the distinction between
works good and bad, he sets before us a Judge who is to award both sentences, and has
thereby affirmed that all will have to be present at the tribunal in their bodies. For it
will be impossible to pass sentence except on the body, for what has been done in the
body. God would be unjust, if any one were not punished or else rewarded in that very
condition, wherein the merit was itself achieved.

102 "If therefore any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old; things are passed away;
behold, all things are become new; " and so is accomplished the prophecy of Isaiah. When
also he (in a later passage) enjoins us "to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh
and blood" (since this substance enters not the kingdom of Gods ); when, again, he
"espouses the church as a chaste virgin to Christ," a spouse to a spouse in very deed, an
image cannot be combined and compared with what is opposed to the real nature the thing
(with which it is compared). when he designates "false apostles, deceitful workers
transforming themselves" into likenesses of himself, of course by their hypocrisy, he
charges them with the guilt of disorderly conversation, rather than of false doctrine. The
contrariety, therefore, was one of conduct, not of gods. If "Satan himself, too, is
transformed into an angel of light," such an assertion must not be used to the prejudice
of the Creator. The Creator is not an angel, but God. Into a god of light, and not an
angel of light, must Satan then have been said to be transformed, if he did not mean to
call him "the angel," which both we and Marcion know him to be. On Paradise is the title
of a treatise of ours, in which is discussed all that the subject admits of.

103 I shall here simply wonder, in connection with this matter, whether a god who has no
dispensation of any kind on earth could possibly have a paradise to call his own-without
perchance availing himself of the paradise of the Creator, to use it as he does His world-
much in the character of a mendicant. And yet of the removal of a man from earth to heaven
we have an instance afforded us by the Creator in Elijah. But what will excite my surprise
still more is the case (next supposed by Marcion), that a God so good and gracious, and so
averse to blows and cruelty, should have suborned the angel Satan-not his own either, but
the Creator's-"to buffet" the apostle, and then to have refused his request, when thrice
entreated to liberate him! It would seem, therefore, that Marcion's god imitates the
Creator's conduct, who is an enemy to the proud, even "putting down the mighty from their
seats. Is he then the same God as He who gave Satan power over the person of Job that his
"strength might be made perfect in weakness? " How is it that the censurer of the
Galatians still retains the very formula of the law: "In the mouth of two or three
witnesses shall every word be established? " How again is it that he threatens sinners
"that he will not spare" them -he, the preacher of a most gentle god? Yea, he even
declares that "the Lord hath given to him the power of using sharpness in their presence!

104 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! 105 Chapter 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. 106 Since my
little work is approaching its termination, 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) affords no argument for another god, predicted as it was indeed in Christ, and in
the Creator's own plans 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
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 salvation 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," 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, His own
law and His own gospel.

107 When, again, he declares that "the wrath (of God) is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness," (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," 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 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 unmutilated text of our own copy. 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.

108 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) -surely the God who shall judge is He to whom
belong both the law, and that nature which is the rule to them who know not the law. But
how will He conduct this judgment? "According to my gospel," says (the apostle), "by
(Jesus) Christ. 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. The wrath, therefore,
which is to vindicate truth, can only be revealed from heaven by the God of wrath; so that
this sentence, which is quite in accordance with that previous one wherein the judgment is
declared to be the Creator's, 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.

109 (This invective he utters) in perfect homage to the law of God, not as if he meant to
ten sure the Creator Himself with having commanded 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, -adopting such methods as they are apt (shamelessly) to charge upon Him in other
particulars also. Are we then to suppose 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). 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. Since this
is the circumcision recommended by Jeremiah: "Circumcise (yourselves to the Lord, and take
away) the foreskins of your heart; " and even of Moses: "Circumcise, therefore, the
hardness of your heart," -the Spirit which circumcises the heart will proceed from Him who
prescribed the letter also which clips the flesh;

110 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; " 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 the
law; now it is "the righteousness of God which is by the faith of (Jesus) Christ. 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 "Then"? 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. With what God? Him whose
enemies we have never, in any dispensation, 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 enemies can ever be reduced to peace. "Moreover," says he, "the law entered, that
the offence might abound. And wherefore this? "In order," he says, "that (where sin
abounded), grace might much more abound.

111 Whose grace, if not of that God from whom also came the law? Unless it be, forsooth,
that the Creator intercalated His law for the mere purpose of 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 "reigned unto death, even so might grace
reign through righteousness unto (eternal) life by Jesus Christ," His own antagonist! For
this (I suppose it was, that) the law of the Creator had "concluded all under sin," and
had brought in "all the world as guilty (before God)," and had "stopped every mouth," 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. It may be contended that Christ's body is indeed a body, but
not exactly flesh. Now, whatever may be the substance, since he mentions "the body of
Christ," whom he immediately after states to have been "raised from the dead," none other
body can be understood than that of the flesh, in respect of which the law was called (the
law) of death. 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.

112 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. 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! It was not the law, therefore, which led me astray, but "sin,
taking occasion by the commandment. 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. 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 good, 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" 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.

113 Chapter 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. 114
If the Father "sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," 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. 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, For it would be no great matter
if the Spirit of God remedied the flesh; but when a flesh, which is the very copy 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 of the
sinfulness, and not to any falsity of the substance. Because he would not have added the
attribute "sinful," 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.

115 But inasmuch as he has put the two together, and said "sinful flesh," (or "flesh of
sin,") 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 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 with our own; but true still, as being of a nature not really unlike ours.
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). But a phantom, which is merely
such and nothing else, is not a likeness. The apostle, however, himself here comes to our
aid;

116 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 -he shows that when he wrote the
words, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," 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, 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," 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 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. In these words he both affirmed the resurrection of the flesh (without
which nothing can rightly be called 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;

117 and that was in no other way than in the body. I have here a very wide gulf of
expunged Scripture to leap across; 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. Hereupon we shall be confronted with an argument of the heretic, that the
Jews were ignorant of the superior God, 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;

118 " and as to their preferring the establishment of their own righteousness, (the
Creator again describes them as) "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men; "
moreover, as "having gathered themselves together against the Lord and against His Christ"
-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! 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. If Marcion had an object in his erasures, 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:

119 "I will give to them treasures which have been hidden, and which men have not seen
will I open to them. 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? " 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 the precepts of
your new god: "Abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is good. Well, is the
precept different in the Creator's teaching? "Take away the evil from you, depart from it,
and be doing good. Then again: "Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love.
Now is not this of the same import as: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self? "
(Again, your apostle says: ) "Rejoicing in hope; " that is, of God. So says the Creator's
Psalmist: "It is better to hope in the Lord, than to hope even in princes. "Patient in
tribulation. You have (this in) the Psalm: "The Lord hear thee in the day of tribulation.
"Bless, and curse not," (says your apostle.

120 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. For against such a disposition Isaiah pronounces a woe. "Recompense to
no man evil for evil. (Like unto which is the Creator's precept: ) "Thou shalt not
remember thy brother's evil against thee. (Again: ) "Avenge not yourselves; " for it is
written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. "Live peaceably with all men.
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. 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). 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? " In vain has (our man of)
Pontus laboured to deny this statement. If the gospel has not fulfilled the law, then all
I can say is, the law has fulfilled the gospel.

121 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, if he holds Him thus up as an object to be feared. 122 Chapter
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. 123 I shall not be sorry to bestow attention on the shorter epistles
also. Even in brief works there is much pungency? The Jews had slain their prophets. 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. Now, what
was there so very acrimonious 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.

124 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 by the sin having been in fact committed against one
and the same Lord in the two respective circumstances. 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. In what way? "Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as
the Gentiles. Concupiscence, however, is not ascribed to marriage even among the Gentiles,
but to extravagant, unnatural, and enormous sins. The law of nature is opposed to luxury
as well as to grossness and uncleanness; it does not forbid connubial intercourse, but
concupiscence; and it takes care of 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.

125 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. I
find it was in their foresight of all this, that the heavenly intelligences gazed with
admiration on "the Jerusalem which is above," 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? " Now, as
Christ has prepared for us this ascension into heaven, He must be the Christ of whom Amos
spoke: "It is He who builds His ascent up to the heavens," 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? " 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. 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.

126 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 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. 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, 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? " Now he has here pro-
pounded the soul and the body as two several and distinct things.

127 For although the soul has a kind of body of a quality of its own, 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 is expressly called by the name
"body." 128 Chapter 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.

129 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 as the awarder of both weal and woe, 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. 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" -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 (of vengeance), and therefore
to the Creator, inasmuch as He takes vengeance on such as know not the Lord, that is, on
the heathen.

130 For he has mentioned separately "those who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus
Christ," 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. 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," he
uses the words of Isaiah who for the express reason makes the self-same Lord "arise to
shake terribly the earth. 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? " According indeed to our view, he is Antichrist;

131 as it is taught us in both the ancient and the new prophecies, 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, and do not
acknowledge 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? "
"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 (to believe a lie), that they
all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 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 -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.

132 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 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 of inspiring men with their
love of untruth? In short, it is incontestable that the emissary, and the truth, and the
salvation belong to Him to whom also appertain the wrath, and the jealousy, and "the
sending of the strong delusion," 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, and indications (of
His divinity), but who in spite of all this evidence has not been acknowledged;

133 or he who has been brought out to view 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 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," 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." 134 Chapter 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.

135 We have it on the true tradition 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), 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, he declared
Him to be God in Christ with whom all things agree which are predicted. 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
) "all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth," 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?

136 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? " Now who could have first trusted-i.e. previously trusted -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.

137 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. Of what
promise? That which was made through Joel: "In the last days will I pour out of my Spirit
upon all flesh," 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"
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. From Him
also is besought "the spirit of wisdom," at whose disposal is enumerated that sevenfold
distribution of the spirit of grace by Isaiah. He likewise will grant "the enlightenment
of the eyes of the understanding," 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. In His gift, too, are "the
riches (of the glory) of His inheritance in the saints," who promised such an inheritance
in the call of the Gentiles: "Ask of me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine
inheritance.

138 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" -even the same
who said: "Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. For in
another passage the Spirit says to the Father concerning the Son: "Thou hast put all
things under His feet. Now, if from all these facts which are found in the Creator there
is yet to be deduced another god and another Christ, let us go in quest of the Creator. I
suppose, forsooth, 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. 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.

139 Nor, again, can He possibly seem to be the instigator 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 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; ... I will go up above the
clouds; I will be like the Most High. 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. For he has filled the whole world with the lying
pretence of his own divinity. To be sure, 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," he must not be understood to
indicate that the Creator was the lord of sinful men, and the prince of this air;

140 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. Let the
heretic, however, not contend that, because the Creator called the Jews children,
therefore the Creator is the lord of wrath. 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," 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, which he has already infected with the implanted germ of sin.
"We," says he, "are His workmanship, created in Christ. 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:

141 "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, having no hope, and without God in the world.
Now, without what God and without what Christ were these Gentiles? Surely, without Him to
whom the commonwealth 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. 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:

142 "They who were far off from me have come to my righteousness. 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" -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. 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. And thus you have
(as I have said elsewhere) exhibited the stupidity of Pontus, rather than the adroitness
of a Marrucinian, for you here deny him flesh to whom in the verse above you allowed
blood! Since, however, He has made the law obsolete 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. "For to create in
Himself of twain," for He who had made is also the same who creates (just as we have found
it stated above:

143 "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus"), "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" (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. 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" -(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, 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," but from the figure given him in the
Psalm: "The stone which the builders rejected is become the head (stone) of the corner? "

144 Chapter 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. 145 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. 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. The
falsification, however, is flagrantly 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. 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.

146 But if he states that it was hidden from them, he must needs be understood 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? " 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, 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:

147 "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. 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," or by Isaiah as "taking away the spoils of Samaria and the power of
Damascus," you make Him out to be really and truly a warrior confest to the eye. 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;

148 " and again, using the very words in which the Psalm expresses his meaning, (he says,
) "Be ye angry, and sin not; " "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath. "Have no
fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness; " for (in the Psalm it is written, )
"With the holy man thou shalt be holy, and with the perverse thou shalt be perverse; "
and, "Thou shalt put away evil from among you. Again, "Go ye out from the midst of them;
touch not the unclean thing; separate yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of the Lord.
(The apostle says further: ) "Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess," -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. This
prohibition from drink was given also to the high priest Aaron and his sons, "when they
went into the holy place. The command, to "sing to the Lord with psalms and hymns," comes
suitably from him who knew that those who "drank wine with drums and psalteries" were
blamed by God. 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: " what reason
does he give for this? "Because," says he, "the husband is the head of the wife.

149 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; " and again, in like manner: "He who loveth his wife, loveth his own
flesh, even as Christ loved the Church. 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. 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. 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.

150 I shall now endeavour, from my point of view, to prove that the same God is (the God)
of the man 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. In passing, (I would say
that) it is enough for me that the works of the Creator are great mysteries 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. 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. Now, although Marcion has
erased (the next clause), "which is the first commandment with promise," still the law
says plainly, "Honour thy father and thy mother. Again, (the apostle writes: ) "Parents,
bring up your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

151 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. 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," what a host of Creator Gods there must be! 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," 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," 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? 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?

152 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 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, from any apprehension that they would become gods; His
prohibition was meant to prevent their dying after the transgression. But "the spiritual
wickedness" did not signify the Creator, because of the apostle's additional description,
"in heavenly places; " 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. But how happened it that (the apostle) resorted to ambiguous descriptions, and I know
not what obscure enigmas, for the purpose of disparaging 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?

153 Chapter 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. 154 I am accustomed in my
prescription against all heresies, to fix my compendious criterion (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. 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, 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. He calls Christ "the image of the invisible God.

155 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. If Christ is not "the first-begotten before every creature," as that "Word of God by
whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made; " 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. For how is He
before all, if He is not before all things? 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? 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?

156 In what way also could it have "pleased (the Father) that in Him should all fulness
dwell? " 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, our false apostles and Judaizing
gospellers have introduced 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, 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," but to Him whom those very things had altogether offended, against whom they had
rebelled by transgression, (but) to whom they had at last returned? 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" does He reconcile to the Creator, against whom we had committed
offence-worshipping the creature to the prejudice of the Creator.

157 As, however, he says elsewhere, 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. 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; "
meaning, of course, that He died in that body wherein death was possible through the
flesh: (therefore he adds, ) not through the Church (per ecclesiam), but expressly for 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), 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;

158 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.
He also denies the resurrection of the flesh,-a truth which none of the schools of
philosophy agreed together to hold. 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" -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. 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," we cannot suppose that sins are forgiven by Him against whom, as having been
all along unknown, they could not have been committed.

159 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? "
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," (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.

160 When, therefore, he speaks of their "following the commandments and doctrines of men,"
he refers to the conduct of those persons who "held not the Head," even Him in whom all
things are gathered together; for they are all recalled to Christ, and concentrated in Him
as their initiating principle -even the meats and drinks which were indifferent in their
nature. All the rest of his precepts, as we have shown sufficiently, when treating of them
as they occurred in another epistle, emanated from the Creator, who, while predicting that
"old things were to pass away," and that He would "make all things new," commanded men "to
break up fresh ground for themselves," and thereby taught them even then to put off the
old man and put on the new. 161 Chapter 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.

162 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," he had a favourable opportunity, no doubt, 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, 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," 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.

163 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, 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 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; but emptied 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," 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.

164 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 Him as thus "found" in the manner 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," 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.

165 For he could hardly mean this to be a climax to the human suffering, to extol the
virtue 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 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 -he now reckons to be only "loss" to
himself; (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" (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. 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.

166 I here recognise the Creator's ancient promise to Abraham: "I will multiply thy seed
as the stars of heaven. Therefore "one star differeth from another star in glory. 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," 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 at
the advent of God, and who shall have to be changed," 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). Then, if we are to be caught up alone with them, surely we shall likewise be
changed together with them.

Chapter 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.

167 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, I
beg you to remember that we have here adduced proofs out of the apostle, in support of the
subjects which we previously had to handle, and that we have now brought to a close 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). 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.


AGAINST HERMOGENES
==================

AGAINST HERMOGENES Tertullian

c. AD 155–220

North African lawyer and the first great Latin theologian.

INTRODUCTION

Containing an Argument Against His Opinion that Matter is Eternal.

[Translated by Dr. Holmes.]

CHAPTER I.-THE OPINIONS OF HERMOGENES, BY THE PRESCRIPTIVE RULE OF ANTIQUITY SHOWN TO BE HERETICAL. NOT DERIVED FROM CHRISTIANITY, BUT FROM HEATHEN PHILOSOPHY. SOME OF THE TENETS MENTIONED.

1 We are accustomed, for the purpose of shortening argument, to lay down the rule against
heretics of the lateness of their date. For in as far as by our rule, priority is given to
the truth, which also foretold that there would be heresies, in so far must all later
opinions be prejudged as heresies, being such as were, by the more ancient rule of truth,
predicted as (one day) to happen. Now, the doctrine of Hermogenes has this taint of
novelty. He is, in short, a man living in the world at the present time; by his very
nature a heretic, and turbulent withal, who mistakes loquacity for eloquence, and supposes
impudence to be firmness, and judges it to be the duty of a good conscience to speak ill
of individuals. Moreover, he despises God's law in his painting, maintaining repeated
marriages, alleges the law of God in defence of lust, and yet despises it in respect of
his art. He falsifies by a twofold process-with his cautery and his pen. He is a thorough
adulterer, both doctrinally and carnally, since he is rank indeed with the contagion of
your marriage-hacks, and has also failed in cleaving to the rule of faith as much as the
apostle's own Hermogenes. However, never mind the man, when it is his doctrine which I
question. He does not appear to acknowledge any other Christ as Lord, though he holds Him
in a different way;

2 but by this difference in his faith he really makes Him another being,-nay, he takes
from Him everything which is God, since he will not have it that He made all things of
nothing. For, turning away from Christians to the philosophers, from the Church to the
Academy and the Porch, he learned there from the Stoics how to place Matter (on the same
level) with the Lord, just as if it too had existed ever both unborn and unmade, having no
beginning at all nor end, out of which, according to him, the Lord afterwards created all
things.

CHAPTER II.-HERMOGENES, AFTER A PERVERSE INDUCTION FROM MERE HERETICAL ASSUMPTIONS, CONCLUDES THAT GOD CREATED ALL THINGS OUT OF PRE-EXISTING MATTER.

1 Our very bad painter has coloured this his primary shade absolutely without any light,
with such arguments as these: He begins with laying down the premiss, that the Lord made
all things either out of Himself, or out of nothing, or out of something; in order that,
after he has shown that it was impossible for Him to have made them either out of Himself
or out of nothing, he might thence affirm the residuary proposition that He made them out
of something, and therefore that that something was Matter. He could not have made all
things, he says, of Himself; because whatever things the Lord made of Himself would have
been parts of Himself; but He is not dissoluble into parts, , because, being the Lord, He
is indivisible, and unchangeable, and always the same. Besides, if He had made anything
out of Himself, it would have been something of Himself. Everything, however, both which
was made and which He made must be accounted imperfect, because it was made of a part, and
He made it of a part; or if, again, it was a whole which He made, who is a whole Himself,
He must in that case have been at once both a whole, and yet not a whole; because it
behaved Him to be a whole, that He might produce Himself, and yet not a whole, that He
might be produced out of Himself. But this is a most difficult position.

2 For if He were in existence, He could not be made, for He was in existence already; if,
however, he were not in existence He could not make, because He was a nonentity. He
maintains, moreover, that He who always exists, does not come into existence, but exists
for ever and ever. He accordingly concludes that He made nothing out of Himself, since He
never passed into such a condition as made it possible for Him to make anything out of
Himself. In like manner, he contends that He could not have made all things out of
nothing-thus: He defines the Lord as a being who is good, nay, very good, who must will to
make things as good and excellent as He is Himself; indeed it were impossible for Him
either to will or to make anything which was not good, nay, very good itself. Therefore
all things ought to have been made good and excellent by Him, after His own condition.
Experience shows, however, that things which are even evil were made by Him: not, of
course, of His own will and pleasure; because, if it had been of His own will and
pleasure, He would be sure to have made nothing unfitting or unworthy of Himself. That,
therefore, which He made not of His own will must be understood to have been made from the
fault of something, and that is from Matter, without a doubt.

CHAPTER III.-AN ARGUMENT OF HERMOGENES. THE ANSWER: WHILE GOD IS A TITLE ETERNALLY APPLICABLE TO THE DIVINE BEING, LORD AND FATHER ARE ONLY RELATIVE APPELLATIONS, NOT ETERNALLY APPLICABLE. AN INCONSISTENCY IN THE ARGUMENT OF HERMOGENES POINTED OUT.

1 He adds also another point: that as God was always God, there was never a time when God
was not also Lord. But it was in no way possible for Him to be regarded as always Lord, in
the same manner as He had been always God, if there had not been always, in the previous
eternity, a something of which He could be regarded as evermore the Lord. So he concludes
that God always had Matter co-existent with Himself as the Lord thereof. Now, this tissue
of his I shall at once hasten to pull abroad. I have been willing to set it out in form to
this length, for the information of those who are unacquainted with the subject, that they
may know that his other arguments likewise need only be understood to be refuted. We
affirm, then, that the name of God always existed with Himself and in Himself-but not
eternally so the Lord. Because the condition of the one is not the same as that of the
other. God is the designation of the substance itself, that is, of the Divinity; but Lord
is (the name) not of substance, but of power. I maintain that the substance existed always
with its own name, which is God; the title Lord was afterwards added, as the indication
indeed of something accruing. For from the moment when those things began to exist, over
which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became
Lord and received the name thereof.

2 Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always
been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could
not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was,
however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to
constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous
to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some
future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He
become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve
Him. Do I seem to you to be weaving arguments, Hermogenes? how neatly does Scripture lend
us its aid, when it applies the two titles to Him with a distinction, and reveals them
each at its proper time! For (the title ) God, indeed, which always belonged to Him, it
names at the very first: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; " and as
long as He continued making, one after the other, those things of which He was to be the
Lord, it merely mentions God. "And God said," "and God made," "and God saw; " but nowhere
do we yet find the Lord.

3 But when He completed the whole creation, and especially man himself, who was destined
to understand His sovereignty in a way of special propriety, He then is designated Lord.
Then also the Scripture added the name Lord: "And the Lord God, Deus Dominus, took the
man, whom He had formed; " "And the Lord God commanded Adam. Thenceforth He, who was
previously God only, is the Lord, from the time of His having something of which He might
be the Lord. For to Himself He was always God, but to all things was He only then God,
when He became also Lord. Therefore, in as far as (Hermogenes) shall suppose that Matter
was eternal, on the ground that the Lord was eternal, in so far will it be evident that
nothing existed, because it is plain that the Lord as such did not always exist. Now I
mean also, on my own part, to add a remark for the sake of ignorant persons, of whom
Hermogenes is an extreme instance, and actually to retort against him his own arguments.
For when he denies that Matter was born or made, I find that, even on these terms, the
title Lord is unsuitable to God in respect of Matter, because it must have been free, when
by not having a beginning it had not an author. The fact of its past existence it owed to
no one, so that it could be a subject to no one.

4 Therefore ever since God exercised His power over it, by creating (all things) out of
Matter, although it had all along experienced God as its Lord, yet Matter does, after all,
demonstrate that God did not exist in the relation of Lord to it, although all the while
He was really so.

CHAPTER IV.-HERMOGENES GIVES DIVINE ATTRIBUTES TO MATTER, AND SO MAKES TWO GODS.

1 At this point, then, I shall begin to treat of Matter, how that, (according to
Hermogenes, ) God compares it with Himself as equally unborn, equally unmade, equally
eternal, set forth as being without a beginning, without an end. For what other estimate
of God is there than eternity? What other condition has eternity than to have ever
existed, and to exist yet for evermore by virtue of its privilege of having neither
beginning nor end? Now, since this is the property of God, it will belong to God alone,
whose property it is-of course on this ground, that if it can be ascribed to any other
being, it will no longer be the property of God, but will belong, along with Him, to that
being also to which it is ascribed. For "although there be that are called gods" in name,
"whether in heaven or in earth, yet to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all
things; " whence the greater reason why, in our view, that which is the property of God
ought to be regarded as pertaining to God alone, and why (as I have already said) that
should cease to be such a property, when it is shared by another being. Now, since He is
God, it must necessarily be a unique mark of this quality, that it be confined to One.
Else, what will be unique and singular, if that is not which has nothing equal to it?

2 What will be principal, if that is not which is above all things, before all things, and
from which all things proceed? By possessing these He is God alone, and by His sole
possession of them He is One. If another also shared in the possession, there would then
be as many gods as there were possessors of these attributes of God. Hermogenes,
therefore, introduces two gods: he introduces Matter as God's equal. God, however, must be
One, because that is God which is supreme; but nothing else can be supreme than that which
is unique; and that cannot possibly be unique which has anything equal to it; and Matter
will be equal with God when it is held to be eternal.

CHAPTER V.-HERMOGENES COQUETS WITH HIS OWN ARGUMENT, AS IF RATHER AFRAID OF IT. AFTER INVESTING MATTER WITH DIVINE QUALITIES, HE TRIES TO MAKE IT SOMEHOW INFERIOR TO GOD.

1 But God is God, and Matter is Matter. As if a mere difference in their names prevented
equality, when an identity of condition is claimed for them! Grant that their nature is
different; assume, too, that their form is not identical,-what matters it so long as their
absolute state have but one mode? God is unborn; is not Matter also unborn? God ever
exists; is not Matter, too, ever existent? Both are without beginning; both are without
end; both are the authors of the universe-both He who created it, and the Matter of which
He made it. For it is impossible that Matter should not be regarded as the author of all
things, when the universe is composed of it. What answer will he give? Will he say that
Matter is not then comparable with God as soon as it has something belonging to God;
since, by not having total (divinity), it cannot correspond to the whole extent of the
comparison? But what more has he reserved for God, that he should not seem to have
accorded to Matter the full amount of the Deity? He says in reply, that even though this
is the prerogative of Matter, both the authority and the substance of God must remain
intact, by virtue of which He is regarded as the sole and prime Author, as well as the
Lord of all things. Truth, however, maintains the unity of God in such a way as to insist
that whatever belongs to God Himself belongs to Him alone.

2 For so will it belong to Himself if it belong to Him alone; and therefore it will be
impossible that another god should be admitted, when it is permitted to no other being to
possess anything of God. Well, then, you say, we ourselves at that rate possess nothing of
God. But indeed we do, and shall continue to do-only it is from Him that we receive it,
and not from ourselves. For we shall be even gods, if we, shall deserve to be among those
of whom He declared, "I have said, Ye are gods," and, "God standeth in the congregation of
the gods. But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us, because it is He
alone who can make gods. The property of Matter, however, he makes to be that which it has
in common with God. Otherwise, if it received from God the property which belongs to
God,-I mean its attribute of eternity -one might then even suppose that it both possesses
an attribute in common with God, and yet at the same time is not God. But what
inconsistency is it for him to allow that there is a conjoint possession of an attribute
with God, and also to wish that what he does not refuse to Matter should be, after all,
the exclusive privilege of God!

CHAPTER VI.-THE SHIFTS TO WHICH HERMOGENES IS REDUCED, WHO DEIFIES MATTER, AND YET IS UNWILLING TO HOLD HIM EQUAL WITH THE DIVINE CREATOR.

1 He declares that God's attribute is still safe to Him, of being the only God, and the
First, and the Author of all things, and the Lord of all things, and being incomparable to
any-qualities which he straightway ascribes to Matter also. He is God, to be sure. God
shall also attest the same; but He has also sworn sometimes by Himself, that there is no
other God like Him. Hermogenes, however, will make Him a liar. For Matter will be such a
God as He-being unmade, unborn, without beginning, and without end. God will say, "I am
the first! Yet how is He the first, when Matter is co-eternal with Him? Between co-
eternals and contemporaries there is no sequence of rank. Is then, Matter also the first?
"I," says the Lord, "have stretched out the heavens alone. But indeed He was not alone,
when that likewise stretched them out, of which He made the expanse. When he asserts the
position that Matter was eternal, without any encroachment on the condition of God, let
him see to it that we do not in ridicule turn the tables on him, that God similarly was
eternal without any encroachment on the condition of Matter-the condition of Both being
still common to Them. The position, therefore, remains unimpugned both in the case of
Matter, that it did itself exist, only along with God; and that God existed alone, but
with Matter. It also was first with God, as God, too, was first with it;

2 it, however, is not comparable with God, as God, too, is not to be compared with it;
with God also it was the Author (of all things), and with God their Sovereign. In this way
he proposes that God has something, and yet not the whole, of Matter. For Him,
accordingly, Hermogenes has reserved nothing which he had not equally conferred on Matter,
so that it is not Matter which is compared with God, but rather God who is compared with
Matter. Now, inasmuch as those qualities which we claim as peculiar to God-to have always
existed, without a beginning, without an end, and to have been the First, and Alone, and
the Author of all things-are also compatible to Matter, I want to know what property
Matter possesses different and alien from God, and hereby special to itself, by reason of
which it is incapable of being compared with God? That Being, in which occur all the
properties of God, is sufficiently predetermined without any further comparison.

CHAPTER VII.-HERMOGENES HELD TO HIS THEORY IN ORDER THAT ITS ABSURDITY MAY BE EXPOSED ON HIS OWN PRINCIPLES.

1 When he contends that matter is less than God, and inferior to Him, and therefore
diverse from Him, and for the same reason not a fit subject of comparison with Him, who is
a greater and superior Being, I meet him with this prescription, that what is eternal and
unborn is incapable of any diminution and inferiority, because it is simply this which
makes even God to be as great as He is, inferior and subject to none-nay, greater and
higher than all. For, just as all things which are born, or which come to an end, and are
therefore not eternal, do, by reason of their exposure at once to an end and a beginning,
admit of qualities which are repugnant to God-I mean diminution and inferiority, because
they are born and made-so likewise God, for this very reason, is unsusceptible of these
accidents, because He is absolutely unborn, and also unmade. And yet such also is the
condition of Matter. Therefore, of the two Beings which are eternal, as being unborn and
unmade-God and Matter-by reason of the identical mode of their common condition (both of
them equally possessing that which admits neither of diminution nor subjection-that is,
the attribute of eternity), we affirm that neither of them is less or greater than the
other, neither of them is inferior or superior to the other; but that they both stand on a
par in greatness, on a par in sublimity, and on the same level of that complete and
perfect felicity of which eternity is reckoned to consist.

2 Now we must not resemble the heathen in our opinions; for they, when constrained to
acknowledge God, insist on having other deities below Him. The Divinity, however, has no
degrees, because it is unique; and if it shall be found in Matter-as being equally unborn
and unmade and eternal-it must be resident in both alike, because in no case can it be
inferior to itself. In what way, then, will Hermogenes have the courage to draw
distinctions; and thus to subject matter to God, an eternal to the Eternal, an unborn to
the Unborn, an author to the Author? seeing that it dares to say, I also am the first; I
too am before all things; and I am that from which all things proceed; equal we have been,
together we have been-both alike without beginning, without end; both alike without an
Author, without a God. What God, then, is He who subjects me to a contemporaneous, co-
eternal power? If it be He who is called God, then I myself, too, have my own (divine)
name. Either I am God, or He is Matter, because we both are that which neither of us is.
Do you suppose, therefore, that he has not made Matter equal with God, although, for-
sooth, he pretends it to be inferior to Him?

CHAPTER VIII.-ON HIS OWN PRINCIPLES, HERMOGENES MAKES MATTER, ON THE WHOLE, SUPERIOR TO GOD.

1 Nay more, he even prefers Matter to God, and rather subjects God to it, when he will
have it that God made all things out of Matter. For if He drew His resources from it for
the creation of the world, Matter is already found to be the superior, inasmuch as it
furnished Him with the means of effecting His works; and God is thereby clearly subjected
to Matter, of which the substance was indispensable to Him. For there is no one but
requires that which he makes use of; no one but is subject to the thing which he requires,
for the very purpose of being able to make use of it. So, again, there is no one who, from
using what belongs to another, is not inferior to him of whose property he makes use; and
there is no one who imparts of his own for another's use, who is not in this respect
superior to him to whose use he lends his property. On this principle, Matter self, no
doubt, was not in want of God, but rather lent itself to God, who was in want of it-rich
and abundant and liberal as it was-to one who was, I suppose, too small, and too weak, and
too unskilful, to form what He willed out of nothing.

2 A grand service, verily, did it confer on God in giving Him means at the present time
whereby He might be known to be God, and be called Almighty-only that He is no longer
Almighty, since He is not powerful enough for this, to produce all things out of nothing.
To be sure, Matter bestowed somewhat on itself also-even to get its own self acknowledged
with God as God's co-equal, nay more, as His helper; only there is this drawback, that
Hermogenes is the only man that has found out this fact, besides the philosophers-those
patriarchs of all heresy. For the prophets knew nothing about it, nor the apostles thus
far, nor, I suppose, even Christ.

CHAPTER IX.-SUNDRY INEVITABLE BUT INTOLERABLE CONCLUSIONS FROM THE PRINCIPLES OF HERMOGENES.

1 He cannot say that it was as its Lord that God employed Matter for His creative works,
for He could not have been the Lord of a substance which was co-equal with Himself. Well,
but perhaps it was a title derived from the will of another, which he enjoyed-a precarious
holding, and not a lordship, and that to such a degree, that although Matter was evil, He
yet endured to make use of an evil substance, owing, of course, to the restraint of His
own limited power, which made Him impotent to create out of nothing, not in consequence of
His power; for if, as God, He had at all possessed power over Matter which He knew to be
evil, He would first have converted it into good-as its Lord and the good God-that so He
might have a good thing to make use of, instead of a bad one. But being undoubtedly good,
only not the Lord withal, He, by using such power as He possessed, showed the necessity He
was under of yielding to the condition of Matter, which He would have amended if He had
been its Lord. Now this is the answer which must be given to Hermogenes when he maintains
that it was by virtue of His Lordship that God used Matter-even of His non-possession of
any right to it, on the ground, of course, of His not having Himself made it.

2 Evil then, on your terms, must proceed from God Himself, since He is-I will not say the
Author of evil, because He did not form it, but-the permitter thereof, as having dominion
over it. If indeed Matter shall prove not even to belong to God at all, as being evil, it
follows, that when He made use of what belonged to another, He used it either on a
precarious title because He was in need of it, or else by violent possession because He
was stronger than it. For by three methods is the property of others obtained,-by right,
by permission, by violence; in other words, by lordship, by a title derived from the will
of another, by force. Now, as lordship is out of the question, Hermogenes must choose
which (of the other methods) is suitable to God. Did He, then, make all things out of
Matter, by permission, or by force? But, in truth, would not God have more wisely
determined that nothing at all should be created, than that it should be created by the
mere sufferance of another, or by violence, and that, too, with a substance which was
evil?

CHAPTER X.-TO WHAT STRAITS HERMOGENES ABSURDLY REDUCES THE DIVINE BEING. HE DOES NOTHING SHORT OF MAKING HIM THE AUTHOR OF EVIL.

1 Even if Matter had been the perfection of good, would it not have been equally
indecorous in Him to have thought of the property of another, however good, (to effect His
purpose by the help of it)? It was, therefore, absurd enough for Him, in the interest of
His own glory, to have created the world in such a way as to betray His own obligation to
a substance which belonged to another-and that even not good. Was He then, asks
(Hermogenes), to make all things out of nothing, that so evil things themselves might be
attributed to His will? Great, in all conscience, must be the blindness of our heretics
which leaves them to argue in such a way that they either insist on the belief of another
God supremely good, on the ground of their thinking the Creator to be the author of evil,
or else they set up Matter with the Creator, in order that they may derive evil from
Matter, not from the Creator. And yet there is absolutely no god at all that is free from
such a doubtful plight, so as to be able to avoid the appearance even of being the author
of evil, whosoever he is that-I will not say, indeed, has made, but still-has permitted
evil to be made by some author or other, and from some source or other.

2 Hermogenes, therefore, ought to be told at once, although we postpone to another place
our distinction concerning the mode of evil, that even he has effected no result by this
device of his. For observe how God is found to be, if not the Author of, yet at any rate
the conniver at, evil, inasmuch as He, with all His extreme goodness, endured evil in
Matter before He created the world, although, as being good, and the enemy of evil, He
ought to have corrected it. For He either was able to correct it, but was unwilling; or
else was willing, but being a weak God, was not able. If He was able and yet unwilling, He
was Himself evil, as having favoured evil; and thus He now opens Himself to the charge of
evil, because even if He did not create it yet still, since it would not be existing if He
had been against its existence, He must Himself have then caused it to exist, when He
refused to will its non-existence. And what is more shameful than this? When He willed
that to be which He was Himself unwilling to create, He acted in fact against His very
self, inasmuch as He was both willing that that should exist which He was unwilling to
make, and unwilling to make that which He was willing should exist. As if what He willed
was good, and at the same time what he refused to be the Maker of was evil.

3 What He judged to be evil by not creating it, He also proclaimed to be good by
permitting it to exist. By bearing with evil as a good instead of rather extirpating it,
He proved Himself to be the promoter thereof; criminally, if through His own will-
disgracefully, if through necessity. God must either be the servant of evil or the friend
thereof, since He held converse with evil in Matter-nay, more, effected His works out of
the evil thereof.

CHAPTER XI.-HERMOGENES MAKES GREAT EFFORTS TO REMOVE EVIL FROM GOD TO MATTER. HOW HE FAILS TO DO THIS CONSISTENTLY WITH HIS OWN ARGUMENT.

1 But, after all, by what proofs does Hermogenes persuade us that Matter is evil? For it
will be impossible for him not to call that evil to which he imputes evil. Now we lay down
this principle, that what is eternal cannot possibly admit of diminution and subjection,
so as to be considered inferior to another co-eternal Being. So that we now affirm that
evil is not even compatible with it, since it is incapable of subjection, from the fact
that it cannot in any wise be subject to any, because it is eternal. But inasmuch as, on
other grounds, it is evident what is eternal as God is the highest good, whereby also He
alone is good-as being eternal, and therefore good-as being God, how can evil be inherent
in Matter, which (since it is eternal) must needs be believed to be the highest good? Else
if that which is eternal prove to be also capable of evil, this (evil) will be able to be
also believed of God to His prejudice; so that it is without adequate reason that he has
been so anxious to remove evil from God; since evil must be compatible with l an eternal
Being, even by being made compatible with Matter, as Hermogenes makes it. But, as the
argument now stands, since what is eternal can be deemed evil, the evil must prove to be
invincible and insuperable, as being eternal; and in that case it will be in vain that we
labour "to put away evil from the midst of us;

2 " in that case, moreover, God vainly gives us such a command and precept; nay more, in
vain has God appointed any judgment at all, when He means, indeed, to inflict punishment
with injustice. But if, on the other hand, there is to be an end of evil, when the chief
thereof, the devil, shall "go away into the fire which God hath prepared for him and his
angels" -having been first "cast into the bottomless pit; " when likewise "the
manifestation of the children of God" shall have "delivered the creature" from evil, which
had been "made subject to vanity; " when the cattle restored in the innocence and
integrity of their nature shall be at peace with the beasts of the field, when also little
children shall play with serpents; when the Father shall have put beneath the feet of His
Son His enemies, as being the workers of evil,-if in this way an end is compatible with
evil, it must follow of necessary that a beginning is also compatible with it; and Matter
will turn out to have a beginning, by virtue of its having also an end. For whatever
things are set to the account of evil, have a compatibility with the condition of evil.

CHAPTER XII.-THE MODE OF CONTROVERSY CHANGED. THE PREMISSES OF HERMOGENES ACCEPTED, IN ORDER TO SHOW INTO WHAT CONFUSION THEY LEAD HIM.

1 Come now, let us suppose Matter to be evil, nay, very evil, by nature of course, just as
we believe God to be good, even very good, in like manner by nature. Now nature must be
regarded as sure and fixed, just as persistently fixed in evil in the case of Matter, as
immoveable and unchangeable in good in the case of God. Because, as is evident, if nature
admits of change from evil to good in Matter, it can be changed from good to evil in God.
Here some man will say, Then will "children not be raised up to Abraham from the stones? "
Will "generations of vipers not bring forth the fruit of repentance? " And "children of
wrath" fail to become sons of peace, if nature be unchangeable? Your reference to such
examples as these, my friend, is a thoughtless one. For things which owe their existence
to birth such as stones and vipers and human beings-are not apposite to the case of
Matter, which is unborn; since their nature, by possessing a beginning, may have also a
termination. But bear in mind that Matter has once for all been determined to be eternal,
as being unmade, unborn, and therefore supposably of an unchangeable and incorruptible
nature;

2 and this from the very opinion of Hermogenes himself, which he alleges against us when
he denies that God was able to make (anything) of Himself, on the ground that what is
eternal is incapable of change, because it would lose-so the opinion runs -what it once
was, in becoming by the change that which it was not, if it were not eternal. But as for
the Lord, who is also eternal, (he maintained) that He could not be anything else than
what He always is. Well, then, I will adopt this definite opinion of his, and by means
thereof refute him. I blame Matter with a like censure, because out of it, evil though it
be-nay, very evil-good things have been created, nay, "very good" ones: "And God saw that
they were good, and God blessed them" -because, of course, of their very great goodness;
certainly not because they were evil, or very evil. Change is therefore admissible in
Matter; and this being the case, it has lost its condition of eternity; in short, its
beauty is decayed in death. Eternity, however, cannot be lost, because it cannot be
eternity, except by reason of its immunity from loss. For the same reason also it is
incapable of change, inasmuch as, since it is eternity, it can by no means be changed.

CHAPTER XIII.-ANOTHER GROUND OF HERMOGENES THAT MATTER HAS SOME GOOD IN IT. ITS ABSURDITY.

Here the question will arise How creatures were made good out of it, which were formed
without any change at all? How occurs the seed of what is good, nay, very good, in that
which is evil, nay, very evil? Surely a good tree does not produce evil fruit, since there
is no God who is not good; nor does an evil tree yield good fruit, since there is not
Matter except what is very evil. Or if we were to grant him that there is some germ of
good in it, then there will be no longer a uniform nature (pervading it), that is to say,
one which is evil throughout; but instead thereof (we now encounter) a double nature,
partly good and partly evil; and again the question will arise, whether, in a subject
which is good and evil, there could possibly have been found a harmony for light and
darkness, for sweet and bitter? So again, if qualities so utterly diverse as good and evil
have been able to unite together, and have imparted to Matter a double nature, productive
of both kinds of fruit, then no longer will absolutely good things be imputable to God,
just as evil things are not ascribed to Him, but both qualities will appertain to Matter,
since they are derived from the property of Matter. At this rate, we shall owe to God
neither gratitude for good things, nor grudge for evil ones, because He has produced no
work of His own proper character. From which circumstance will arise the clear proof that
He has been subservient to Matter.

CHAPTER XIV.-TERTULLIAN PUSHES HIS OPPONENT INTO A DILEMMA.

1 Now, if it be also argued, that although Matter may have afforded Him the opportunity,
it was still His own will which led Him to the creation of good creatures, as having
detected what was good in matter-although this, too, be a discreditable supposition -yet,
at any rate, when He produces evil likewise out of the same (Matter), He is a servant to
Matter, since, of course, it is not of His own accord that He produces this too, having
nothing else that He can do than to effect creation out of an evil stock -unwillingly, no
doubt, as being good; of necessity, too, as being unwilling; and as an act of servitude,
because from necessity. Which, then, is the worthier thought, that He created evil things
of necessity, or of His own accord? Because it was indeed of necessity that He created
them, if out of Matter; of His own accord, if out of nothing. For you are now labouring in
vain when you try to avoid making God the Author of evil things; because, since He made
all things of Matter, they will have to be ascribed to Himself, who made them, just
because He made them. Plainly the interest of the question, whence He made all things,
identifies itself with (the question), whether He made all things out of nothing; and it
matters not whence He made all things, so that He made all things thence, whence most
glory accrued to Him.

2 Now, more glory accrued to Him from a creation of His own will than from one of
necessity; in other words, from a creation out of nothing, than from one out of Matter. It
is more worthy to believe that God is free, even as the Author of evil, than that He is a
slave. Power, whatever it be, is more suited to Him than infirmity. If we thus even admit
that matter had nothing good in it, but that the Lord produced whatever good He did
produce of His own power, then some other questions will with equal reason arise. First,
since there was no good at all in Matter, it is clear that good was not made of Matter, on
the express ground indeed that Matter did not possess it. Next, if good was not made of
Matter, it must then have been made of God; if not of God, then it must have been made of
nothing.-For this is the alternative, on Hermogenes' own showing.

CHAPTER XV.-THE TRUTH, THAT GOD MADE ALL THINGS FROM NOTHING, RESCUED FROM THE OPPONENT'S FLOUNDERINGS.

1 Now, if good was neither produced out of matter, since it was not in it, evil as it was,
nor out of God, since, according to the position of Hermogenes, nothing could have been
produced out of god, it will be found that good was created out of nothing, inasmuch as it
was formed of none-neither of Matter nor of God. And if good was formed out of nothing,
why not evil too? Nay, if anything was formed out of nothing, why not all things? Unless
indeed it be that the divine might was insufficient for the production of all things,
though it produced a something out of nothing. Or else if good proceeded from evil matter,
since it issued neither from nothing nor from God, it will follow that it must have
proceeded from the conversion of Matter contrary to that unchangeable attribute which has
been claimed for it, as an eternal being. Thus, in regard to the source whence good
derived its existence, Hermogenes will now have to deny the possibility of such. But still
it is necessary that (good) should proceed from some one of those sources from which he
has denied the very possibility of its having been derived.

2 Now if evil be denied to be of nothing for the purpose of denying it to be the work of
God, from whose will there would be too much appearance of its being derived, and be
alleged to proceed from Matter, that it may be the property of that very thing of whose
substance it is assumed to be made, even here also, as I have said, God will have to be
regarded as the Author of evil; because, whereas it had been His duty to produce all good
things out of Matter, or rather good things simply, by His identical attribute of power
and will, He did yet not only not produce all good things, but even (some) evil things-of
course, either willing that the evil should exist if He was able to cause their non-
existence, or not being strong enough to effect that all things should be good, if being
desirous of that result, He failed in the accomplishment thereof; since there can be no
difference whether it were by weakness or by will, that the Lord proved to be the Author
of evil. Else what was the reason that, after creating good things, as if Himself good, He
should have also produced evil things, as if He failed in His goodness, since He did not
confine Himself to the production of things which were simply consistent with Himself?

3 What necessity was there, after the production of His proper work, for His troubling
Himself about Matter also by producing evil likewise, in order to secure His being alone
acknowledged as good from His good, and at the same time to prevent Matter being regarded
as evil from (created) evil? Good would have flourished much better if evil had not blown
upon it. For Hermogenes himself explodes the arguments of sundry persons who contend that
evil things were necessary to impart lustre to the good, which must be understood from
their contrasts. This, therefore, was not the ground for the production of evil; but if
some other reason must be sought for the introduction thereof, why could it not have been
introduced even from nothing, since the very same reason would exculpate the Lord from the
reproach of being thought the author of evil, which now excuses the existence of evil
things, when He produces them out of Matter? And if there is this excuse, then the
question is completely shut up in a corner, where they are unwilling to find it, who,
without examining into the reason itself of evil, or distinguishing how they should either
attribute it to God or separate it from God, do in fact expose God to many most unworthy
calumnies.

CHAPTER XVI.-A SERIES OF DILEMMAS. THEY SHOW THAT HERMOGENES CANNOT ESCAPE FROM THE ORTHODOX CONCLUSION.

1 On the very threshold, then, of this doctrine, which I shall probably have to treat of
elsewhere, I distinctly lay it down as my position, that both good and evil must be
ascribed either to God, who made them out of Matter; or to Matter itself, out of which He
made them; or both one and the other to both of them together, because they are bound
together-both He who created, and that out of which He created; or (lastly) one to One and
the other to the Other, because after Matter and God there is not a third. Now if both
should prove to belong to God, God evidently will be the author of evil; but God, as being
good, cannot be the author of evil. Again, if both are ascribed to Matter, Matter will
evidently be the very mother of good, but inasmuch as Matter is wholly evil, it cannot be
the mother of good. But if both one and the other should be thought to belong to Both
together, then in this case also Matter will be comparable with God; and both will be
equal, being on equal terms allied to evil as well as to good. Matter, however, ought not
to be compared with God, in order that it may not make two gods.

2 If, (lastly, ) one be ascribed to One, and the other to the Other-that is to say, let
the good be God's, and the evil belong to Matter-then, on the one hand, evil must not be
ascribed to God, nor, on the other hand, good to Matter. And God, moreover, by making both
good things and evil things out of Matter, creates them along with it. This being the
case, I cannot tell how Hermogenes is to escape from my conclusion; for he supposes that
God cannot be the author of evil, in what way soever He created evil out of Matter,
whether it was of His own will, or of necessity, or from the reason (of the case). If,
however, He is the author of evil, who was the actual Creator, Matter being simply
associated with Him by reason of its furnishing Him with substance, you now do away with
the cause of your introducing Matter. For it is not the less true, that it is by means of
Matter that God shows Himself the author of evil, although Matter has been assumed by you
expressly to prevent God's seeming to be the author of evil. Matter being therefore
excluded, since the cause of it is excluded, it remains that God without doubt, must have
made all things out of nothing. Whether evil things were amongst them we shall see, when
it shall be made clear what are evil things, and whether those things are evil which you
at present deem to be so.

3 For it is more worthy of God that He produced even these of His own will, by producing
them out of nothing, than from the predetermination of another, (which must have been the
case) if He had produced them out of Matter. It is liberty, not necessity, which suits the
character of God. I would much rather that He should have even willed to create evil of
Himself, than that He should have lacked ability to hinder its creation.

CHAPTER XVII.-THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORK IN CREATION. YOU CANNOT DEPART IN THE LEAST FROM IT, WITHOUT LANDING YOURSELF IN AN ABSURDITY.

This rule is required by the nature of the One-only God, who is One-only in no other way
than as the sole God; and in no other way sole, than as having nothing else (co-existent)
with Him. So also He will be first, because all things are after Him; and all things are
after Him, because all things are by Him; and all things are by Him, because they are of
nothing: so that reason coincides with the Scripture, which says: "Who hath known the mind
of the Lord? or who hath been His counsellor? or with whom took He counsel? or who hath
shown to Him the way of wisdom and knowledge? Who hath first given to Him, and it shall be
recompensed to him again? " Surely none! Because there was present with Him no power, no
material, no nature which belonged to any other than Himself. But if it was with some
(portion of Matter) that He effected His creation, He must have received from that
(Matter) itself both the design and the treatment of its order as being "the way of wisdom
and knowledge." For He had to operate conformably with the quality of the thing, and
according to the nature of Matter, not according to His own will in consequence of which
He must have made even evil things suitably to the nature not of Himself, but of Matter.

CHAPTER XVIII.-AN EULOGY ON THE WISDOM AND WORD OF GOD, BY WHICH GOD MADE ALL THINGS OF NOTHING.

1 If any material was necessary to God in the creation of the world, as Hermogenes
supposed, God had a far nobler and more suitable one in His own wisdom -one which was not
to be gauged by the writings of philosophers, but to be learnt from the words or prophets.
This alone, indeed, knew the mind of the Lord. For "who knoweth the things of God, and the
things in God, but the Spirit, which is in Him? " Now His wisdom is that Spirit. This was
His counsellor, the very way of His wisdom and knowledge. Of this He made all things,
making them through It, and making them with It. "When He prepared the heavens," so says
(the Scripture ), "I was present with Him; and when He strengthened above the winds the
lofty clouds, and when He secured the fountains which are under the heaven, I was present,
compacting these things along with Him. I was He in whom He took delight; moreover, I
daily rejoiced in His presence: for He rejoiced when He had finished the world, and
amongst the sons of men did He show forth His pleasure.

2 Now, who would not rather approve of this as the fountain and origin of all things-of
this as, in very deed, the Matter of all Matter, not liable to any end, not diverse in
condition, not restless in motion, not ungraceful in form, but natural, and proper, and
duly proportioned, and beautiful, such truly as even God might well have required, who
requires His own and not another's? Indeed, as soon as He perceived It to be necessary for
His creation of the world, He immediately creates It, and generates It in Himself. "The
Lord," says the Scripture, "possessed me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of
His works. Before the worlds He rounded me; before He made the earth, before the mountains
were settled in their places; moreover, before the hills He generated me, and prior to the
depths was I begotten. Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God is declared
to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is
any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that, which from
its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning,-I
mean His wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thought of God It began to
assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works,-how much more impossible is it
that anything should have been without a beginning which was extrinsic to the Lord!

3 But if this same Wisdom is the Word of God, in the capacity of Wisdom, and (as being He)
without whom nothing was made, just as also (nothing) was set in order without Wisdom, how
can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed
nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word? Not to say that
what is unbegotten is stronger than that which is born, and what is not made more powerful
than that which is made. Because that which did not require a Maker to give it existence,
will be much more elevated in rank than that which had an author to bring it into being.
On this principle, then, if evil is indeed unbegotten, whilst the Son of God is begotten
("for," says God, "my heart hath emitted my most excellent Word" ), I am not quite sure
that evil may not be introduced by good, the stronger by the weak, in the same way as the
unbegotten is by the begotten. Therefore on this ground Hermogenes puts Matter even before
God, by putting it before the Son. Because the Son is the Word, and "the Word is God," and
"I and my Father are one. But after all, perhaps, the Son will patiently enough submit to
having that preferred before Him which (by Hermogenes), is made equal to the Father!

CHAPTER XIX.-AN APPEAL TO THE HISTORY OF CREATION. TRUE MEANING OF THE TERM BEGINNING, WHICH THE HERETIC CURIOUSLY WRESTS TO AN ABSURD SENSE.

1 But I shall appeal to the original document of Moses, by help of which they on the other
side vainly endeavour to prop up their conjectures, with the view, of course, of appearing
to have the support of that authority which is indispensable in such an inquiry. They have
found their opportunity, as is usual with heretics, in wresting the plain meaning of
certain words. For instance the very beginning, when God made the heaven and the earth,
they will construe as if it meant something substantial and embodied, to be regarded as
Matter. We, however, insist on the proper signification of every word, and say that
principium means beginning,-being a term which is suitable to represent things which begin
to exist. For nothing which has come into being is without a beginning, nor can this its
commencement be at any other moment than when it begins to have existence. Thus principium
or beginning, is simply a term of inception, not the name of a substance. Now, inasmuch as
the heaven and the earth are the principal works of God, and since, by His making them
first, He constituted them in an especial manner the beginning of His creation, before all
things else, with good reason does the Scripture preface (its record of creation) with the
words," In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth; " just as it would have said,
"At last God made the heaven and the earth," if God had created these after all the rest.

2 Now, if the beginning is a substance, the end must also be material. No doubt, a
substantial thing may be the beginning of some other thing which may be formed out of it
thus the clay is the beginning of the vessel. and the seed is the beginning of the plant.
But when we employ the word beginning in this sense of origin, and not in that of order,
we do not omit to mention also the name of that particular thing which we regard as the
origin of the other. On the other hand, if we were to make such a statement as this, for
example, "In the beginning the potter made a basin or a water-jug," the word beginning
will not here indicate a material substance (for I have not mentioned the clay, which is
the beginning in this sense, but only the order of the work, meaning that the potter made
the basin and the jug first, before anything else-intending afterwards to make the rest.
It is, then, to the order of the works that the word beginning has reference, not to the
origin of their substances. I might also explain this word beginning in another way, which
would not, however, be inapposite. The Greek term for beginning, which is a0rkh/, admits
the sense not only of priority of order, but of power as well; whence princes and
magistrates are called a0rkontej.Therefore in this sense too, beginning may be taken for
princely authority and power.

3 It was, indeed, in His transcendent authority and power, that God made the heaven and
the earth.

CHAPTER XX.-MEANING OF THE PHRASE-IN THE BEGINNING. TERTULLIAN CONNECTS IT WITH THE WISDOM OF GOD, AND ELICITS FROM IT THE TRUTH THAT THE CREATION WAS NOT OUT OF PRE-EXISTENT MATTER.

1 But in proof that the Greek word means nothing else than beginning, and that beginning
admits of no other sense than the initial one, we have that (Being) even acknowledging
such a beginning, who says: "The Lord possessed me, the beginning of His ways for the
creation of His works. For since all things were made by the Wisdom of God, it follows
that, when God made both the heaven and the earth in principio-that is to say, in the
beginning-He made them in His Wisdom. If, indeed, beginning had a material signification,
the Scripture would not have informed us that God made so and so in principio, at the
beginning, but rather ex principio, of the beginning; for He would not have created in,
but of, matter. When Wisdom, however, was referred to, it was quite right to say, in the
beginning. For it was in Wisdom that He made all things at first, because by meditating
and arranging His plans therein, He had in fact already done (the work of creation); and
if He had even intended to create out of matter, He would yet have effected His creation
when He previously meditated on it and arranged it in His Wisdom, since It was in fact the
beginning of His ways: this meditation and arrangement being the primal operation of
Wisdom, opening as it does the way to the works by the act of meditation and thought.

2 This authority of Scripture I claim for myself even from this circumstance, that whilst
it shows me the God who created, and the works He created, it does not in like manner
reveal to me the source from which He created. For since in every operation there are
three principal things, He who makes, and that which is made, and that of which it is
made, there must be three names mentioned in a correct narrative of the operation-the
person of the maker the sort of thing which is made, and the material of which it is
formed. If the material is not mentioned, while the work and the maker of the work are
both mentioned, it is manifest that He made the work out of nothing.For if He had had
anything to operate upon, it would have been mentioned as well as (the other two
particulars). In conclusion, I will apply the Gospel as a supplementary testimony to the
Old Testament. Now in this there is all the greater reason why there should be shown the
material (if there were any) out of which God made all things, inasmuch as it is therein
plainly revealed by whom He made all things. "In the beginning was the Word" -that is, the
same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth -"and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was
made.

3 Now, since we have here clearly told us who the Maker was, that is, God, and what He
made, even all things, and through whom He made them, even His Word, would not the order
of the narrative have required that the source out of which all things were made by God
through the Word should likewise be declared, if they had been in fact made out of
anything? What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not
mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there
had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it.

CHAPTER XXI.-A RETORT OF HERESY ANSWERED. THAT SCRIPTURE SHOULD IN SO MANY WORDS TELL US THAT THE WORLD WAS MADE OF NOTHING IS SUPERFLUOUS.

1 But, you will say to me, if you determine that all things were made of nothing, on the
ground that it is not told us that anything was made out of pre-existent Matter, take care
that it be not contended on the opposite side, that on the same ground all things were
made out of Matter, because it is not likewise expressly said that anything was made out
of nothing. Some arguments may, of course, be thus retorted easily enough; but it does not
follow that they are on that account fairly admissible, where there is a diversity in the
cause. For I maintain that, even if the Scripture has not expressly declared that all
things were made out of nothing-just as it abstains (from saying that they were formed)out
of Matter-there was no such pressing need for expressly indicating the creation of all
things out of nothing, as there was of their creation out of Matter, if that had been
their origin. Because, in the case of what is made out of nothing, the very fact of its
not being indicated that it was made of any particular thing shows that it was made of
nothing; and there is no danger of its being supposed that it was made of anything, when
there is no indication at all of what it was made of.

2 In the case, however, of that which is made out of something, unless the very fact be
plainly declared, that it was made out of something, there will be danger, until it is
shown of what it was made, first of its appearing to be made of nothing, because it is not
said of what it was made; and then, should it be of such a nature as to have the
appearance of having certainly been made of something, there will be a similar risk of its
seeming to have been made of afar different material from the proper one, so long as there
is an absence of statement of what it was made of. Then, if God had been unable to make
all things of nothing, the Scripture could not possibly have added that He had made all
things of nothing: (there could have been no room for such a statement, ) but it must by
all means have informed us that He had made all things out of Matter, since Matter must
have been the source; because the one case was quite to be understood, if it were not
actually stated, whereas the other case would be left in doubt unless it were stated.

CHAPTER XXII.-THIS CONCLUSION CONFIRMED BY THE USAGE OF HOLY SCRIPTURE IN ITS HISTORY OF THE CREATION. HERMOGENES IN DANGER OF THE WOE PRONOUNCED AGAINST ADDING TO SCRIPTURE.

1 And to such a degree has the Holy Ghost made this the rule of His Scripture, that
whenever anything is made out of anything, He mentions both the thing that is made and the
thing of which it is made. "Let the earth," says He, "bring forth grass, the herb yielding
seed, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself, after its
kind. And it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after its
kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after its kind. And again:
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life,
and fowl that may fly above the earth through the firmament of heaven. And it was so. And
God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought
forth abundantly, after their kind. Again afterwards: "And God said, Let the earth bring
forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beasts of the
earth after their kind. If therefore God, when producing other things out of things which
had been already made, indicates them by the prophet, and tells us what He has produced
from such and such a source (although we might ourselves suppose them to be derived from
some source or other, short of nothing; since there had already been created certain
things, from which they might easily seem to have been made);

2 if the Holy Ghost took upon Himself so great a concern for our instruction, that we
might know from what everything was produced, would He not in like manner have kept us
well informed about both the heaven and the earth, by indicating to us what it was that He
made them of, if their original consisted of any material substance, so that the more He
seemed to have made them of nothing, the less in fact was there as yet made, from which He
could appear to have made them? Therefore, just as He shows us the original out of which
He drew such things as were derived from a given source, so also with regard to those
things of which He does not point out whence He produced them, He confirms (by that
silence our assertion) that they were produced out of nothing. "In the beginning," then,
"God made the heaven and the earth. I revere the fulness of His Scripture, in which He
manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a
Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word. But whether all things were made out
of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is
written, Hermogenes' shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe
which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word.

CHAPTER XXIII.-HERMOGENES PURSUED TO ANOTHER PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE. THE ABSURDITY OF HIS INTERPRETATION EXPOSED.

But he draws an argument from the following words, where it is written: "And the earth was
without form, and void." For he resolves the word earth into Matter, because that which is
made out of it is the earth. And to the word was he gives the same direction, as if it
pointed to what had always existed unbegotten and unmade. It was without form, moreover,
and void, because he will have Matter to have existed shapeless and confused, and without
the finish of a maker's hand. Now these opinions of his I will refute singly; but first I
wish to say to him, by way of general answer: We are of opinion that Matter is pointed at
in these terms. But yet does the Scripture intimate that, because Matter was in existence
before all, anything of like condition was even formed out of it? Nothing of the kind.
Matter might have had existence, if it so pleased-or rather if Hermogenes so pleased. It
might, I say, have existed, and yet God might not have made anything out of it, either as
it was unsuitable to Him to have required the aid of anything, or at least because He is
not shown to have made anything out of Matter.Its existence must therefore be without a
cause, you will say. Oh, no! certainly not without cause. For even if the world were not
made out of it, yet a heresy has been hatched there from; and a specially impudent one
too, because it is not Matter which has produced the heresy, but the heresy has rather
made Matter itself.

CHAPTER XXIV.-EARTH DOES NOT MEAN MATTER AS HERMOGENES WOULD HAVE IT.

I now return to the several points by means of which he thought that Matter was signified.
And first I will inquire about the terms. For we read only of one of them, Earth; the
other, namely Matter, we do not meet with. I ask, then, since Matter is not mentioned in
Scripture, how the term earth can be applied to it, which marks a substance of another
kind? There is all the greater need why mention should also have been made of Matter, if
this has acquired the further sense of Earth, in order that I may be sure that Earth is
one and the same name as Matter, and so not claim the designation for merely one
substance, as the proper name thereof, and by which it is better known; or else be unable
(if I should feel the inclination), to apply it to some particular species of Mater,
instead, indeed, of making it the common term of all Matter. For when a proper name does
not exist for that thing to which a common term is ascribed, the less apparent is the
object to which it may be ascribed, the more capable will it be of being applied to any
other object whatever. Therefore, even supposing that Hermogenes could show us the name
Matter, he is bound to prove to us further, that the same object has the surname Earth, in
order that he may claim for it both designations alike.

CHAPTER XXV.-THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE ARE TWO EARTHS MENTIONED IN THE HISTORY OF THE CREATION, REFUTED.

1 He accordingly maintains that there are two earths set before us in the passage in
question: one, which God made in the beginning; the other being the Matter of which God
made the world, and concerning which it is said, "And the earth was without form, and
void. Of course, if I were to ask, to which of the two earths the name earth is best
suited, I shall be told that the earth which was made derived the appellation from that of
which it was made, on the ground that it is more likely that the offspring should get its
name from the original, than the original from the offspring. This being the case, another
question presents itself to us, whether it is right and proper that this earth which God
made should have derived its name from that out of which He made it? For I find from
Hermogenes and the rest of the Materialist heretics, that while the one earth was indeed
"without form, and void," this one of ours obtained from God in an equal degree both form,
and beauty, and symmetry; and therefore that the earth which was created was a different
thing from that out of which it was created. Now, having become a different thing, it
could not possibly have shared with the other in its name, after it had declined from its
condition.

2 If earth was the proper name of the (original) Matter, this world of ours, which is not
Matter, because it has become another thing, is unfit to bear the name of earth, seeing
that that name belongs to something else, and is a stranger to its nature. But (you will
tell me) Matter which has undergone creation, that is, our earth, had with its original a
community of name no less than of kind. By no means. For although the pitcher is formed
out of the clay, I shall no longer call it clay, but a pitcher; so likewise, although
electrum is compounded of gold and silver, I shall yet not call it either gold or silver,
but electrum. When there is a departure from the nature of any thing, there is likewise a
relinquishment of its name-with a propriety which is alike demanded by the designation and
the condition. How great a change indeed from the condition of that earth, which is
Matter, has come over this earth of ours, is plain even from the fact that the latter has
received this testimony to its goodness in Genesis, "And God saw that it was good; " while
the former, according to Hermogenes, is regarded as the origin and cause of all evils.
Lastly, if the one is Earth because the other is, why also is the one not Matter as the
other is? Indeed, by this rule both the heaven and all creatures ought to have had the
names of Earth and Matter, since they all consist of Matter.

3 I have said enough touching the designation Earth, by which he will have it that Matter
is understood. This, as everybody knows, is the name of one of the elements; for so we are
taught by nature first, and afterwards by Scripture, except it be that credence must be
given to that Silenus who talked so confidently in the presence of king Midas of another
world, according to the account of Theopompus. But the same author informs us that there
are also several gods.

CHAPTER XXVI.-THE METHOD OBSERVED IN THE HISTORY OF THE CREATION, IN REPLY TO THE PERVERSE INTERPRETATION OF HERMOGENES.

1 We, however, have but one God, and but one earth too, which in the beginning God made.
The Scripture, which at its very outset proposes to run through the order thereof tells us
as its first information that it was created; it next proceeds to set forth what sort of
earth it was. In like manner with respect to the heaven, it informs us first of its
creation-"In the beginning God made the heaven: " it then goes on to introduce its
arrangement; how that God both separated "the water which was below the firmament from
that which was above the firmament," and called the firmament heaven, -the very thing He
had created in the beginning. Similarly it (afterwards) treats of man: "And God created
man, in the image of God made He him. It next reveals how He made him: "And (the Lord) God
formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living soul. Now this is undoubtedly the correct and fitting mode for the
narrative. First comes a prefatory statement, then follow the details in full; first the
subject is named, then it is described. How absurd is the other view of the account, when
even before he had premised any mention of his subject, i.e. Matter, without even giving
us its name, he all on a sudden promulged its form and condition, describing to us its
quality before mentioning its existence,-pointing out the figure of the thing formed, but
concealing its name!

2 But how much more credible is our opinion, which holds that Scripture has only subjoined
the arrangement of the subject after it has first duly described its formation and
mentioned its name! Indeed, how full and complete is the meaning of these words: "In the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth; but the earth was without form, and void,"
-the very same earth, no doubt, which God made, and of which the Scripture had been
speaking at that very moment. For that very "but" is inserted into the narrative like a
clasp, (in its function) of a conjunctive particle, to connect the two sentences
indissolubly together: "But the earth. This word carries back the mind to that earth of
which mention had just been made, and binds the sense thereunto. Take away this "but," and
the tie is loosened; so much so that the passage, "But the earth was without form, and
void," may then seem to have been meant for any other earth.

CHAPTER XXVII.-SOME HAIR-SPLITTING USE OF WORDS IN WHICH HIS OPPONENT HAD INDULGED.

1 But you next praise your eyebrows, and toss back your head, and beckon with your finger,
in characteristic disdain, and say: There is the was, looking as if it pointed to an
eternal existence,-making its subject, of course, unbegotten and unmade, and on that
account worthy of being supposed to be Matter. Well now, for my own part, I shall resort
to no affected protestation, but simply reply that "was" may be predicated of everything-
even of a thing which has been created, which was born, which once was not, and which is
not your Matter. For of everything which has being, from whatever source it has it,
whether it has it by a beginning or without a beginning, the word "was" will be predicated
from the very fact that it exists. To whatever thing the first tense of the verb is
applicable for definition, to the same will be suitable the later form of the verb, when
it has to descend to relation. "Est" (it is) forms the essential part of a definition,
"erat" (it was) of a relation. Such are the trifles and subtleties of heretics, who wrest
and bring into question the simple meaning of the commonest words. A grand question it is,
to be sure, whether "the earth was," which was made! The real point of discussion is,
whether "being without form, and void," is a state which is more suitable to that which
was created, or to that of which it was created, so that the predicate (was) may appertain
to the same thing to which the subject (that which was) also belongs. Chap, XXVIII.-A
Curious Inconsistency IN Hermogenes Exposed. Certain Expressions IN The History OF
Creation Vindicated IN The True Sense.

2 But we shall show not only that this condition agreed with this earth of ours, but that
it did not agree with that other (insisted on by Hermogenes). For, inasmuch as pure Matter
was thus subsistent with God, without the interposition indeed of any element at all
(because as yet there existed nothing but itself and God), it could not of course have
been invisible. Because, although Hermogenes contends that darkness was inherent in the
substance of Matter, a position which we shall have to meet in its proper place, yet
darkness is visible even to a human being (for the very fact that there is the darkness is
an evident one), much more is it so to God. If indeed it had been invisible, its quality
would not have been by any means discoverable. How, then, did Hermogenes find out that
that substance was "without form," and confused and disordered, which, as being invisible,
was not palpable to his senses? If this mystery was revealed to him by God, he ought to
give us his proof. I want to know also, whether (the substance in question) could have
been described as "void." That certainly is "void" which is imperfect. Equally certain is
it, that nothing can be imperfect but that which is made; it is imperfect when it is not
fully made. Certainly, you admit. Matter, therefore, which was not made at all, could not
have been imperfect; and what was not imperfect was not "void." Having no beginning,
because it was not made, it was also unsusceptible of any void-condition. For this void-
condition is an accident of beginning. The earth, on the contrary, which was made, was
deservedly called "void." For as soon as it was made, it had the condition of being
imperfect, previous to its completion.

CHAPTER XXIX.-THE GRADUAL DEVELOPMENT OF COSMICAL ORDER OUT OF CHAOS IN THE CREATION, BEAUTIFULLY STATED.

1 God, indeed, consummated all His works in a due order; at first He paled them out, as it
were, in their unformed elements, and then He arranged them in their finished beauty. For
He did not all at once inundate light with the splendour of the sun, nor all at once
temper darkness with the moon's assuaging ray. The heaven He did not all at once bedeck
with constellations and stars, nor did He at once fill the seas with their teeming
monsters. The earth itself He did not endow with its varied fruitfulness all at once; but
at first He bestowed upon it being, and then He filled it, that it might not be made in
vain. For thus says Isaiah: "He created it not in vain; He formed it to be inhabited.
Therefore after it was made, and while awaiting its perfect state, it was "without form,
and void: ""void" indeed, from the very fact that it was without form (as being not yet
perfect to the sight, and at the same time unfurnished as yet with its other qualities);
and "without form," because it was still covered with waters, as if with the rampart of
its fecundating moisture, by which is produced our flesh, in a form allied with its own.
For to this purport does David say: "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the
world, and all that dwell therein: He hath rounded it upon the seas, and on the streams
hath He established it.

2 It was when the waters were withdrawn into their hollow abysses that the dry land became
conspicuous, which was hitherto covered with its watery envelope. Then it forthwith
becomes "visible," God saying, "Let the water be gathered together into one mass, and let
the dry land appear. "Appear," says He, not "be made. It had been already made, only in
its invisible condition it was then waiting to appear. "Dry," because it was about to
become such by its severance from the moisture, but yet "land. "And God called the dry
land Earth," not Matter. And so, when it afterwards attains its perfection, it ceases to
be accounted void, when God declares, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding
seed after its kind, and cording to its likeness, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit, whose
seed is in itself, after its kind. Again: "Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, after their kind.
Thus the divine Scripture accomplished its full order. For to that, which it had at first
described as "without form (invisible) and void," it gave both visibility and completion.
Now no other Matter was "without form (invisible) and void. Henceforth, then, Matter will
have to be visible and complete. So that I must see Matter, since it has become visible.

3 I must likewise recognize it as a completed thing, so as to be able to gather from it
the herb bearing seed, and the tree yielding fruit, and that living creatures, made out of
it, may minister to my need. Matter, however, is nowhere, but the Earth is here, confessed
to my view. I see it, I enjoy it, ever since it ceased to be "without form (invisible),
and void. Concerning it most certainly did Isaiah speak when he said, "Thus saith the Lord
that created the heavens, He was the God that formed the earth, and made it. The same
earth for certain did He form, which He also made. Now how did He form it? Of course by
saying, "Let the dry land appear. Why does He command it to appear, if it were not
previously invisible? His purpose was also, that He might thus prevent His having made it
in vain, by rendering it visible, and so fit for use. And thus, throughout, proofs arise
to us that this earth which we inhabit is the very same which was both created and formed
by God, and that none other was "Without form, and void," than that which had been created
and formed. It therefore follows that the sentence, "Now the earth was without form, and
void," applies to that same earth which God mentioned separately along with the heaven.

CHAPTER XXX.-ANOTHER PASSAGE IN THE SACRED HISTORY OF THE CREATION, RELEASED FROM THE MISHANDLING OF HERMOGENES.

The following words will in like manner apparently corroborate the conjecture of
Hermogenes, "And darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the water; as if these blended substances, presented us with arguments for his
massive pile of Matter. Now, so discriminating an enumeration of certain and distinct
elements (as we have in this passage), which severally designates" darkness," "the deep"
"the Spirit of God," "the waters," forbids the inference that anything confused or (from
such confusion) uncertain is meant. Still more, when He ascribed to them their own places,
"darkness on the face of the deep," "the Spirit upon the face of the waters," He
repudiated all confusion in the substances; and by demonstrating their separate position,
He demonstrated also their distinction. Most absurd, indeed, would it be that Matter,
which is introduced to our view as "without form," should have its "formless" condition
maintained by so many words indicative of form, without any intimation of what that
confused body is, which must of course be supposed to be unique, since it is without form.
For that which is without form is uniform; but even that which is without form, when it is
blended together from various component parts, must necessarily have one outward
appearance; and it has not any appearance, until it has the one appearance (which comes)
from many parts combined. Now Matter either had those specific parts within itself, from
the words indicative of which it had to be understood-I mean "darkness," and "the deep,"
and "the Spirit," and "the waters"-or it had them not. If it had them, how is it
introduced as being "without form? " If it had them not, how does it become known?

CHAPTER XXXI.-A FURTHER VINDICATION OF THE SCRIPTURE NARRATIVE OF THE CREATION, AGAINST A FUTILE VIEW OF HERMOGENES.

1 But this circumstance, too, will be caught at, that Scripture meant to indicate of the
heaven only, and this earth of yours, that God made it in the beginning, while nothing of
the kind is said of the above-mentioned specific parts; and therefore that these, which
are not described as having been made, appertain to unformed Matter. To this point also we
must give an answer. Holy I Scripture would be sufficiently explicit, if it had declared
that the heaven and the earth, as the very highest works of creation, were made by God,
possessing of course their own special appurtenances, which might be understood to be
implied in these highest works themselves. Now the appurtenances of the heaven and the
earth, made then in the beginning, were the darkness and the deep, and the spirit, and the
waters. For the depth and the darkness underlay the earth. Since the deep was under the
earth, and the darkness was over the deep, undoubtedly both the darkness and the deep were
under the earth. Below the heaven, too, lay the spirit and the waters. For since the
waters were over the earth, which they covered, whilst the spirit was over the waters,
both the spirit and the waters were alike over the earth. Now that which is over the
earth, is of course under the heaven.

2 And even as the earth brooded over the deep and the darkness, so also did the heaven
brood over the spirit and the waters, and embrace them.Nor, indeed, is there any novelty
in mentioning only that which contains, as pertaining to the whole, and understanding that
which is contained as included in it, in its character of a portion. Suppose now I should
say the city built a theatre and a circus, but the stage was of such and such a kind, and
the statues were on the canal, and the obelisk was reared above them all, would it follow
that, because I did not distinctly state that these specific things were made by the city,
they were therefore not made by it along with the circus and the theatre? Did I not,
indeed, refrain from specially mentioning the formation of these particular things because
they were implied in the things which I had already said were made, and might be
understood to be inherent in the things in which they were contained? But this example may
be an idle one as being derived from a human circumstance; I will take another, which has
the authority of Scripture itself. It says that "God made man of the dust of the ground
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. Now,
although it here mentions the nostrils, it does not say that they were made by God;

3 so again it speaks of skin and bones, and flesh and eyes, and sweat and blood, in
subsequent passages, and yet it never intimated that they had been created by God. What
will Hermogenes have to answer? That the human limbs must belong to Matter, because they
are not specially mentioned as objects of creation? Or are they included in the formation
of man? In like manner, the deep and the darkness, and the spirit and the waters, were as
members of the heaven and the earth. For in the bodies the limbs were made, in the bodies
the limbs too were mentioned. No element but what is a member of that element in which it
is contained. But all elements are contained in the heaven and the earth.

CHAPTER XXXII.-THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION IN GENESIS A GENERAL ONE. CORROBORATED, HOWEVER, BY MANY OTHER PASSAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, WHICH GIVE ACCOUNT OF SPECIFIC CREATIONS. FURTHER CAVILLINGS CONFUTED.

1 This is the answer I should give in defence of the Scripture before us, for seeming here
to set forth the formation of the heaven and the earth, as if (they were) the sole bodies
made. It could not but know that there were those who would at once in the bodies
understand their several members also, and therefore it employed this concise mode of
speech. But, at the same time, it foresaw that there would be stupid and crafty men, who,
after paltering with the virtual meaning, would require for the several members a word
descriptive of their formation too. It is therefore because of such persons, that
Scripture in other passages teaches us of the creation of the individual parts. You have
Wisdom saying, "But before the depths was I brought forth," in order that you may believe
that the depths were also "brought forth"-that is, created-just as we create sons also,
though we "bring them forth. It matters not whether the depth was made or born, so that a
beginning be accorded to it, which however would not be, if it were subjoined to matter.
Of darkness, indeed, the Lord Himself by Isaiah says, "I formed the light, and I created
darkness. Of the wind also Amos says, "He that strengtheneth the thunder , and createth
the wind, and declareth His Christ unto men; " thus showing that that wind was created
which was reckoned with the formation of the earth, which was wafted over the waters,
balancing and refreshing and animating all things:

2 not (as some suppose) meaning God Himself by the spirit, on the ground that "God is a
Spirit," because the waters would not be able to bear up their Lord; but He speaks of that
spirit of which the winds consist, as He says by Isaiah, "Because my spirit went forth
from me, and I made every blast. In like manner the same Wisdom says of the waters, "Also
when He made the fountains strong, things which are under the sky, I was fashioning them
along with Him. Now, when we prove that these particular things were created by God,
although they are only mentioned in Genesis, without any intimation of their having been
made, we shall perhaps receive from the other side the reply, that these were made, it is
true, but out of Matter, since the very statement of Moses, "And darkness was on the face
of the deep, and the spirit of God moved on the face of the waters," refers to Matter, as
indeed do all those other Scriptures here and there, which demonstrate that the separate
parts were made out of Matter. It must follow, then, that as earth consisted of earth, so
also depth consisted of depth, and darkness of darkness, and the wind and waters of wind
and waters. And, as we said above, Matter could not have been without form, since it had
specific parts, which were formed out of it-although as separate things -unless, indeed,
they were not separate, but were the very same with those out of which they came.

3 For it is really impossible that those specific things, which are set forth under the
same names, should have been diverse; because in that case the operation of God might seem
to be useless, if it made things which existed already; since that alone would be a
creation, when things came into being, which had not been (previously) made. Therefore, to
conclude, either Moses then pointed to Matter when he wrote the words: "And darkness was
on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved on the face of the waters; "or else,
inasmuch as these specific parts of creation are afterwards shown in other passages to
have been made by God, they ought to have been with equal explicitness shown to have been
made out of the Matter which, according to you, Moses had previously mentioned; or else,
finally, if Moses pointed to those specific parts, and not to Matter, I want to know where
Matter has been pointed out at all.

CHAPTER XXXIII.-STATEMENT OF THE TRUE DOCTRINE CONCERNING MATTER. ITS RELATION TO GOD'S CREATION OF THE WORLD.

But although Hermogenes finds it amongst his own colourable pretences (for it was not in
his power to discover it in the Scriptures of God), it is enough for us, both that it is
certain that all things were made by God, and that there is no certainty whatever that
they were made out of Matter. And even if Matter had previously existed, we must have
believed that it had been really made by God, since we maintained (no less) when we held
the rule of faith to be, that nothing except God was uncreated. Up to this point there is
room for controversy, until Matter is brought to the test of the Scriptures, and fails to
make good its case. The conclusion of the whole is this: I find that there was nothing
made, except out of nothing; because that which I find was made, I know did not once
exist. Whatever was made out of something, has its origin in something made: for instance,
out of the ground was made the grass, and the fruit, and the cattle, and the form of man
himself; so from the waters were produced the animals which swim and fly. The original
fabrics out of which such creatures were produced I may call their materials, but then
even these were created by God.

CHAPTER XXXIV.-A PRESUMPTION THAT ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY GOD OUT OF NOTHING AFFORDED BY THE ULTIMATE REDUCTION OF ALL THINGS TO NOTHING. SCRIPTURES PROVING THIS REDUCTION VINDICATED FROM HERMOGENES' CHARGE OF BEING MERELY FIGURATIVE.

1 Besides, the belief that everything was made from nothing will be impressed upon us by
that ultimate dispensation of God which will bring back all things to nothing. For "the
very heaven shall be rolled together as a scroll; '" nay, it shall come to nothing along
with the earth itself, with which it was made in the beginning. "Heaven and earth shall
pass away," says He. "The first heaven and the first earth passed away," "and there was
found no place for them," because, of course, that which comes to an end loses locality.
In like manner David says, "The heavens, the works of Thine hands, shall themselves
perish. For even as a vesture shall He change them, and they shall be changed. Now to be
changed is to fall from that primitive state which they lose whilst undergoing the change.
"And the stars too shall fall from heaven, even as a fig-tree casteth her green figs when
she is shaken of a mighty wind. "The mountains shall melt like wax at the presence of the
Lord; " that is, "when He riseth to shake terribly the earth. "But I will dry up the
pools; " and "they shall seek water, and they shall find none. Even" the sea shall be no
more.

2 Now if any person should go so far as to suppose that all these passages ought to be
spiritually interpreted, he will yet be unable to deprive them of the true accomplishment
of those issues which must come to pass just as they have been written For all figures of
speech necessarily arise out of real things, not out of chimerical ones; t because nothing
is capable of imparting anything of its own for a similitude, except it actually be that
very thing which it imparts in the similitude. I return therefore to the principle which
defines that all things which have come from nothing shall return at last to nothing. For
God would not have made any perishable thing out of what was eternal, that is to say, out
of Matter; neither out of greater things would He have created inferior ones, to whose
character it would be more agreeable to produce greater things out of inferior ones,-in
other words, what is eternal out of what is perishable. This is the promise He makes even
to our flesh, and it has been His will to deposit within us this pledge of His own virtue
and power, in order that we may believe o that He has actually awakened the universe out
of nothing, as if it had been stepped in death, in the sense, of course, of its previous
non-existence for the purpose of its coming into existence.

CHAPTER XXXV.-CONTRADICTORY PROPOSITIONS ADVANCED BY HERMOGENES RESPECTING MATTER AND ITS QUALITIES.

As regards all other points touching Matter, although there is no necessity why we should
treat of them (for our first point was the manifest proof of its existence), we must for
all that pursue our discussion just as if it did exist, in order that its non-existence
may be the more apparent, when these other points concerning it prove inconsistent with
each other, and in order at the same time that Hermogenes may acknowledge his own
contradictory positions. Matter, says he, at first sight seems to us to be incorporeal;
but when examined by the light of right reason, it is found to be neither corporeal nor
incorporeal. What is this right reason of yours, which declares nothing right, that is,
nothing certain? For, if I mistake not, everything must of necessity be either corporeal
or incorporeal (although I may for the moment allow that there is a certain incorporeality
in even substantial things, although their very substance is the body of particular
things); at all events, after the corporeal and the incorporeal there is no third state.
But if it be contended that there is a third state discovered by this right reason of
Hermogenes, which makes Matter neither corporeal nor incorporeal, (I ask, ) Where is it?
what sort of thing is it? what is it called? what is its description? what is it
understood to be? This only has his reason declared, that Matter is neither corporeal nor
incorporeal.


AGAINST HERMOGENES
==================

AGAINST HERMOGENES continued

CHAPTER XXXVI.-OTHER ABSURD THEORIES RESPECTING MATTER AND ITS INCIDENTS EXPOSED IN AN IRONICAL STRAIN, MOTION IN MATTER. HERMOGENES' CONCEITS RESPECTING IT.

1 But see what a contradiction he next advances (or perhaps some other reason occurs to
him), when he declares that Matter partly corporeal and partly incorporeal. Then must
Matter be considered (to embrace) both conditions, in order that it may not have either?
For it will be corporeal, and incorporeal in spite of the declaration of that antithesis,
which is plainly above giving any reason for its opinion, just as that "other reason" also
was. Now, by the corporeal part of Matter, he means that of which bodies are created; but
by the incorporeal part of Matter, he means its uncreated motion. If, says he, Matter were
simply a body, there would appear to be in it nothing incorporeal, that is, (no) motion;
if, on the other hand, it had been wholly incorporeal no body could be formed out of it.
What a peculiarly right reason have we here! Only if you make your sketches as right as
you make your reason, Hermogenes, no painter would be more stupid than yourself. For who
is going to allow you to reckon motion as a moiety of Matter , seeing that it is not a
substantial thing, because it is not corporeal, but an accident (if indeed it be even
that) of a substance and a body? Just as action is, and impulsion, just as a slip is, or a
fall, so is motion. When anything moves even of itself, its motion is the result of
impulse;

2 but certainly it is no part of its substance in your sense, when you make motion the
incorporeal part of matter. All things, indeed, have motion-either of themselves as
animals, or of others as inanimate things; but yet we should not say that either a man or
a stone was both corporeal and incorporeal because they had both a body and motion: we
should say rather that all things have one form of simple corporeality, which is the
essential quality of substance. If any incorporeal incidents accrue to them, as actions,
or passions, or functions, or desires, we do not reckon these parts as of the things. How
then does he contrive to assign an integral portion of Matter to motion, which does not
pertain to substance, but to a certain condition of substance? Is not this
incontrovertible? Suppose you had taken it into your head to represent matter as
immoveable, would then the immobility seem to you to be a moiety of its form? Certainly
not. Neither, in like manner, could motion. But I shall be at liberty to speak of motion
elsewhere.

CHAPTER XXXVII.-IRONICAL DILEMMAS RESPECTING MATTER, AND SUNDRY MORAL QUALITIES FANCIFULLY ATTRIBUTED TO IT.

1 I see now that you are coming back again to that reason, which has been in the habit of
declaring to you nothing in the way of certainty. For just as you introduce to our notice
Matter as being neither corporeal nor incorporeal, so you allege of it that it is neither
good nor evil; and you say, whilst arguing further on it in the same strain: "If it were
good, seeing that it had ever been so, it would not require the arrangement of itself by
God; if it were naturally evil, it would not have admitted of a change for the better, nor
would God have ever applied to such a nature any attempt at arrangement of it, for His
labour would have been in vain. Such are your words, which it would have been well if you
had remembered in other passages also, so as to have avoided any contradiction of them.
As, however, we have already treated to some extent of this ambiguity of good and evil
touching Matter, I will now reply to the only proposition and argument of yours which we
have before us. I shall not stop to repeat my opinion, that it was your bounden duty to
have said for certain that Matter was either good or bad, or in some third condition; but
(I must observe)that you have not here even kept to the statement which you chose to make
before. Indeed, you retract what you declared-that Matter is neither good nor evil;

2 because you imply that it is evil when you say, "If it were good, it would not require
to be set in order by God; "so again, when you add, "If it were naturally evil, it would
not admit of any change for the better," you seem to intimate that it is good. And so you
attribute to it a close relation to good and evil, although you declared it neither good
nor evil. With a view, however, to re lute the argument whereby you thought you were going
to clinch your proposition, I here contend: If Matter had always been good, why should it
not have still wanted a change for the better? Does that which is good never desire, never
wish, never feel able to advance, so as to change its good for a better? And in like
manner, if Matter had been by nature evil, why might it not have been changed by God as
the more powerful Being, as able to convert the nature of stones into children of Abraham?
Surely by such means you not only compare the Lord with Matter, but you even put Him below
it, since you affirm that the nature of Matter could not possibly be brought under control
by Him, and trained to something better. But although you are here disinclined to allow
that Matter is by nature evil, yet in another passage you will deny having made such an
admission.

CHAPTER XXXIII.-OTHER SPECULATIONS OF HERMOGENES, ABOUT MATTER AND SOME OF ITS ADJUNCTS, SHOWN TO BE ABSURD. FOR INSTANCE, ITS ALLEGED INFINITY.

My observations touching the site of Matter, as also concerning its mode have one and the
same object in view-to meet and refute your perverse positions. You put Matter below God,
and thus, of course, you assign a place to it below God. Therefore Matter is local. Now,
if it is local, it is within locality; if within locality, it is bounded by the place
within which it is; if it is bounded, it has an outline, which (painter as you are in your
special vocation) you know is the boundary to every object susceptible of outline. Matter,
therefore, cannot be infinite, which, since it is in space, is bounded by space; and being
thus determinable by space, it is susceptible of an outline. You, however, make it
infinite, when you say: "It is on this account infinite, because it is always existent."
And if any of your disciples should choose to meet us by declaring your meaning to be that
Matter is infinite in time, not in its corporeal mass, still what follows will show that
(you mean) corporeal infinity to be an attribute of Matter, that it is in respect of bulk
immense and un-circumscribed. "Wherefore," say you, "it is not fabricated as a whole, but
in its parts." In bulk, therefore, is it infinite, not in time. And you contradict
yourself when you make Matter infinite in bulk, and at the same time ascribe place to it,
including it within space and local outline. But yet at the same time I cannot tell why
God should not have entirely formed it, unless it be because He was either impotent or
envious. I want therefore to know the moiety of that which was not wholly formed (by God),
in order that I may understand what kind of thing the entirety was. It was only right that
God should have made it known as a model of antiquity, to set off the glory of His work.

CHAPTER XXXIX.-THESE LATTER SPECULATIONS SHOWN TO BE CONTRADICTORY TO THE FIRST PRINCIPLES RESPECTING MATTER, FORMERLY LAID DOWN BY HERMOGENES.

Well, now, since it seems to you to be the correcter thing, let Matter be circumscribed by
means of changes and displacements; let it also be capable of comprehension, since (as you
say)it is used as material by God, on the ground of its being convertible, mutable, and
separable. For its changes, you say, show it to be inseparable. And here you have swerved
from your own lines which you prescribed respecting the person of God when you laid down
the rule that God made it not out of His own self, because it was not possible for Him to
become divided seeing that He is eternal and abiding for ever, and therefore unchangeable
and indivisible. Since Matter too is estimated by the same eternity, having neither
beginning nor end, it will be unsusceptible of division, of change, for the same reason
that God also is. Since it is associated with Him in the joint possession of eternity, it
must needs share with Him also the powers, the laws, and the conditions of eternity. In
like manner, when you say, "All things simultaneously throughout the universe possess
portions of it, that so the whole may be ascertained from its parts," you of course mean
to indicate those parts which were produced out of it, and which are now visible to us.
How then is this possession (of Matter)by all things throughout the universe effected-that
is, of course, from the very beginning -when the things which are now visible to us are
different in their condition from what they were in the beginning?

CHAPTER XL.-SHAPELESS MATTER AN INCONGRUOUS ORIGIN FOR GOD'S BEAUTIFUL COSMOS. HERMOGENES DOES NOT MEND HIS ARGUMENT BY SUPPOSING THAT ONLY A PORTION OF MATTER WAS USED IN THE CREATION.

You say that Matter was reformed for the better -from a worse condition, of course; and
thus you would make the better a copy of the worse. Everything was in confusion, but now
it is reduced to order; and would you also say, that out of order, disorder is produced?
No one thing is the exact mirror of another thing; that is to say, it is not its co-equal.
Nobody ever found himself in a barber's looking-glass look like an ass instead of a man;
unless it be he who supposes that unformed and shapeless Matter answers to Matter which is
now arranged and beautified in the fabric of the world. What is there now that is without
form in the world, what was there once that was formed in Matter, that the world is the
mirror of Matter? Since the world is known among the Greeks by a term denoting ornament,
how can it present the image of unadorned Matter, in such a way that you can say the whole
is known by its parts? To that whole will certainly belong even the portion which has not
yet become formed; and you have already declared that the whole of Matter was not used as
material in the creation. It follows, then, that this rude, and confused, and unarranged
portion cannot be recognized in the polished, and distinct and well-arranged parts of
creation, which indeed can hardly with propriety be called parts of Matter, since they
have quitted its condition, by being separated from it in the transformation they have
undergone.

CHAPTER XLI.-SUNDRY QUOTATIONS FROM HERMOGENES. NOW UNCERTAIN AND VAGUE ARE HIS SPECULATIONS RESPECTING MOTION IN MATTER, AND THE MATERIAL QUALITIES OF GOOD AND EVIL.

1 I come back to the point of motion, that I may show how slippery you are at every step.
Motion in Matter was disordered, and confused, and turbulent. This is why you apply to it
the comparison of a boiler of hot water surging over. Now how is it, that in another
passage another sort of motion is affirmed by you? For when you want to represent Matter
as neither good nor evil, you say: "Matter, which is the substratum (of creation)
possessing as it does motion in an equable impulse, tends in no very great degree either
to good or to evil. Now if it had this equable impulse, it could not be turbulent, nor be
like the boiling water of the caldron; it would rather be even and regular, oscillating
indeed of its own accord between good and evil, but yet not prone or tending to either
side. It would swing, as the phrase is, in a just and exact balance. Now this is not
unrest; this is not turbulence or inconstancy; but rather the regularity, and evenness,
and exactitude of a motion, inclining to neither side. If it oscillated this way and that
way, and inclined rather to one particular side, it would plainly in that case merit the
reproach of unevenness, and inequality, and turbulence. Moreover, although the motion of
Matter was not prone either to good or to evil, it would still, of course, oscillate
between good and evil;

2 so that from this circumstance too it is obvious that Matter is contained within certain
limits, because its motion, while prone to neither good nor evil, since it had no natural
bent either way, oscillated from either between both, and therefore was contained within
the limits of the two. But you, in fact, place both good and evil in a local habitation,
when you assert that motion in Matter inclined to neither of them. For Matter which was
local, when inclining neither hither nor thither, inclined not to the places in which good
and evil were. But when you assign locality to good and evil, you make them corporeal by
making them local, since those things which have local space must needs first have bodily
substance. In fact, incorporeal things could not have any locality of their own except in
a body, when they have access to a body. But when Matter inclined not to good and evil, it
was as corporeal or local essences that it did not incline to them. You err, therefore,
when you will have it that good and evil are substances. For you make substances of the
things to which you assign locality; but you assign locality when you keep motion in
Matter poised equally distant from both sides.

CHAPTER XLII.-FURTHER EXPOSURE OF INCONSISTENCIES IN THE OPINIONS OF HERMOGENES RESPECTING THE DIVINE QUALITIES OF MATTER.

1 You have thrown out all your views loosely and at random, in order that it might not be
apparent, by too close a proximity, how contrary they are to one another. I, however, mean
to gather them together and compare them. You allege that motion in Matter is without
regularity, and you go on to say that Matter aims at a shapeless condition, and I then, in
another passage, that it desires to be set in order by God. Does that, then, which affects
to be without form, want to be put into shape? Or does that which wants to be put into
shape, affect to be without form? You are unwilling that God should seem to be equal to
Matter; and then again you say that it has a common condition with God. "For it is
impossible," you say, "if it has nothing in common with God, that it can be set in order
by Him." But if it had anything in common with God, it did not want to be set in order,
being, forsooth, a part of the Deity through a community of condition; or else even God
was susceptible of being set in order by Matter, by His having Himself something in common
with it. And now you herein subject God to necessity, since there was in Matter something
on account of which He gave it form. You make it, however, a common attribute of both of
them, that they set themselves in motion by themselves, and that they are ever in motion.
What less do you ascribe to Matter than to God? There will be found all through a
fellowship of divinity in this freedom and perpetuity of motion.

2 Only in God motion is regular, in Matter irregular. In both, however, there is equally
the attribute of Deity-both alike having free and eternal motion. At the same time, you
assign more to Matter, to which belonged the privilege of thus moving itself in a way not
allowed to God.

CHAPTER XLIII.-OTHER DISCREPANCIES EXPOSED AND REFUTED RESPECTING THE EVIL IN MATTER BEING CHANGED TO GOOD.

On the subject of motion I would make this further remark. Following the simile of the
boiling caldron, you say that motion in Matter, before it was regulated, was confused,
restless, incomprehensible by reason of excess in the commotion. Then again you go on to
say, "But it waited for the regulation of God, and kept its irregular motion
incomprehensible, owing to the tardiness of its irregular motion." Just before you ascribe
commotion, here tardiness, to motion. Now observe how many slips you make respecting the
nature of Matter. In a former passage you say, "If Matter were naturally evil, it would
not have admitted of a change for the better; nor would God have ever applied to it any
attempt at arrangement, for His labour would have been in vain." You therefore concluded
your two opinions, that Matter was not by nature evil, and that its nature was incapable
of being changed by God; and then, forgetting them, you afterwards drew this inference:
"But when it received adjustment from God, and was reduced to order, it relinquished its
nature." Now, inasmuch as it was transformed to good, it was of course transformed from
evil; and if by God's setting it in order it relinquished the nature of evil, it follows
that its nature came to an end; now its nature was evil before the adjustment, but after
the transformation it might have relinquished that nature.

CHAPTER XLIV.-CURIOUS VIEWS RESPECTING GOD'S METHOD OF WORKING WITH MATTER EXPOSED. DISCREPANCIES IN THE HERETIC'S OPINION ABOUT GOD'S LOCAL RELATION TO MATTER.

But it remains that I should show also how you make God work. You are plainly enough at
variance with the philosophers; but neither are you in accord with the prophets. The
Stoics maintain that God pervaded Matter, just as honey the honeycomb. You, however,
affirm that it is not by pervading Matter that God makes the world, but simply by
appearing, and approaching it, just as beauty affects a thing by simply appearing, and a
loadstone by approaching it. Now what similarity is there in God forming the world, and
beauty wounding a soul, or a magnet attracting iron? For even if God appeared to Matter,
He yet did not wound it, as beauty does the soul; if, again, He approached it, He yet did
not cohere to it, as the magnet does to the iron. Suppose, however, that your examples are
suitable ones. Then, of course, it was by appearing and approaching to Matter that God
made the world, and He made it when He appeared and when He approached to it. Therefore,
since He had not made it before then, He had neither appeared nor approached to it. Now,
by whom can it be believed that God had not appeared to Matter-of the same nature as it
even was owing to its eternity? Or that He had been at a distance from it-even He whom we
believe to be existent everywhere, and everywhere apparent; whose praises all things
chant, even inanimate things and things incorporeal, according to (the prophet) Daniel?
How immense the place, where God kept Himself so far aloof from Matter as to have neither
appeared nor approached to it before the creation of the world! I suppose He journeyed to
it from a long distance, as soon as He washed to appear and approach to it.

CHAPTER XLV.-CONCLUSION. CONTRAST BETWEEN THE STATEMENTS OF HERMOGENES AND THE TESTIMONY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE RESPECTING THE CREATION. CREATION OUT OF NOTHING, NOT OUT OF MATTER.

1 But it is not thus that the prophets and the apostles have told us that the world was
made by God merely appearing and approaching Matter. They did not even mention any Matter,
but (said) that Wisdom was first set up, the beginning of His ways, for His works. Then
that the Word was produced, "through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing
was made. Indeed, "by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all their hosts by
the breath of His mouth. He is the Lord's right hand, indeed His two bands, by which He
worked and constructed the universe. "For," says He, "the heavens are the works of Thine
hands," wherewith "He hath meted out the heaven, and the earth with a span. Do not be
willing so to cover God with flattery, as to contend that He produced by His mere
appearance and simple approach so many vast substances, instead of rather forming them by
His own energies. For this is proved by Jeremiah when he says, "God hath made the earth by
His power, He hath established the world by His wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven
by His understanding. These are the energies by the stress of which He made this universe.
His glory is greater if He laboured. At length on the seventh day He rested from His
works. Both one and the other were after His manner.

2 If, on the contrary, He made this world simply by appearing and approaching it, did He,
on the completion of His work, cease to appear and approach it any more. Nay rather, God
began to appear more conspicuously and to be everywhere accessible from the time when the
world was made. You see, therefore, how all things consist by the operation of that God
who "made the earth by His power, who established the world by His wisdom, and stretched
out the heaven by His understanding; "not appearing merely, nor approaching, but applying
the almighty efforts of His mind, His wisdom, His power, His understanding, His word, His
Spirit, His might. Now these things were not necessary to Him, if He had been perfect by
simply appearing and approaching. They are, however, His "invisible things," which,
according to the apostle, "are from the creation of the world clearly seen by the things
that are made; they are no parts of a nondescript Matter, but they are the sensible
evidences of Himself. "For who hath known the mind of the Lord," of which (the apostle)
exclaims: "O the depth of the riches both of His wisdom and knowledge! how unsearchable
are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! " Now what clearer truth do these words
indicate, than that all things were made out of nothing? They are incapable of being found
out or investigated, except by God alone. Otherwise, if they were traceable or
discoverable in Matter, they would be capable of investigation.

3 Therefore, in as far as it has become evident that Matter had no prior existence (even
from this circumstance, that it is impossible for it to have had such an existence as is
assigned to it), in so far is it proved that all things were made by God out of nothing.
It must be admitted, however, that Hermogenes, by describing for Matter a condition like
his own-irregular, confused, turbulent, of a doubtful and precipate and fervid impulse-has
displayed a specimen of his own art, and painted his own portrait.


AGAINST THE VALENTINIANS
========================

AGAINST THE VALENTINIANS Tertullian

c. AD 155–220

North African lawyer and the first great Latin theologian.

INTRODUCTION

In which the author gives a concise account of, together with sundry caustic
animadversions on, the very fantastic theology of the sect. This treatise is professedly
taken from the writings of Justin, Miltiades, Irenaeus, and Proculus. [Translated by Dr.
Roberts.]

CHAPTER I.-INTRODUCTORY. TERTULLIAN COMPARES THE HERESY TO THE OLD ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES. BOTH SYSTEMS ALIKE IN PREFERRING CONCEALMENT OF ERROR AND SIN TO PROCLAMATION OF TRUTH AND VIRTUE.

1 The Valentinians, who are no doubt a very large body of heretics-comprising as they do
so many apostates from the truth, who have a propensity for fables, and no discipline to
deter them (therefrom) care for nothing so much as to obscure what they preach, if indeed
they (can be said to) preach who obscure their doctrine. The officiousness with which they
guard their doctrine is an officiousness which betrays their guilt. Their disgrace is
proclaimed in the very earnestness with which they maintain their religious system. Now,
in the case of those Eleusinian mysteries, which are the very heresy of Athenian
superstition, it is their secrecy that is their disgrace. Accordingly, they previously
beset all access to their body with tormenting conditions; and they require a long
initiation before they enrol (their members), even instruction during five years for their
perfect disciples, in order that they may mould their opinions by this suspension of full
knowledge, and apparently raise the dignity of their mysteries in proportion to the
craving for them which they have previously created. Then follows the duty of silence.
Carefully is that guarded, which is so long in finding. All the divinity, however, lies in
their secret recesses: there are revealed at last all the aspirations of the fully
initiated, the entire mystery of the sealed tongue, the symbol of virility. But this
allegorical representation, under the pretext of nature's reverend name, obscures a real
sacrilege by help of an arbitrary symbol, and by empty images obviates the reproach of
falsehood!

2 In like manner, the heretics who are now the object of our remarks, the Valentinians,
have formed Eleusinian dissipations of their own, consecrated by a profound silence,
having nothing of the heavenly in them but their mystery. By the help of the sacred names
and titles and arguments of true religion, they have fabricated the vainest and foulest
figment for men's pliant liking, out of the affluent suggestions of Holy Scripture, since
from its many springs many errors may well emanate. If you propose to them inquiries
sincere and honest, they answer you with stern look and contracted brow, and say, "The
subject is profound. If you try them with subtle questions, with the ambiguities of their
double tongue, they affirm a community of faith (with yourself). If you intimate to them
that you understand their opinions, they insist on knowing nothing themselves. If you come
to a close engagement with them they destroy your own fond hope of a victory over them by
a self-immolation. Not even to their own disciples do they commit a secret before they
have made sure of them. They have the knack of persuading men before instructing them;
although truth persuades by teaching, but does not teach by first persuading.

CHAPTER II.-THESE HERETICS BRAND THE CHRISTIANS AS SIMPLE PERSONS. THE CHARGE ACCEPTED, AND SIMPLICITY EULOGIZED OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES.

For this reason we are branded by them as simple, and as being merely so, without being
wise also; as if indeed wisdom were compelled to be wanting in simplicity, whereas the
Lord unites them both: "Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and simple as doves." Now if we,
on our parts, be accounted foolish because we are simple, does it then follow that they
are not simple because they are wise? Most perverse, however, are they who are not simple,
even as they are most foolish who are not wise. And yet, (if I must choose) I should
prefer taking the latter condition for the lesser fault; since it is perhaps better to
have a wisdom which falls short in quantity, than that which is bad in quality -better to
be in error than to mislead. Besides, the face of the Lord is patiently waited for by
those who "seek Him in simplicity of heart," as says the very Wisdom-not of Valentinus,
but-of Solomon. Then, again, infants have borne by their blood a testimony to Christ.
(Would you say) that it was children who shouted "Crucify Him"? They were neither children
nor infants; in other words, they were not simple. The apostle, too, bids us to "become
children again" towards God, " to be as children in malice" by our simplicity, yet as
being also "wise in our practical faculties." At the same time, with respect to the order
of development in Wisdom, I have admitted that it flows from simplicity. In brief, "the
dove" has usually served to figure Christ; "the serpent," to tempt Him. The one even from
the first has been the harbinger of divine peace; the other from the beginning has been
the despoiler of the divine image. Accordingly, simplicity alone will be more easily able
to know and to declare God, whereas wisdom alone will rather do Him violence, and betray
Him.

CHAPTER III.-THE FOLLY OF THIS HERESY. IT DISSECTS AND MUTILATES THE DEITY. CONTRASTED WITH THE SIMPLE WISDOM OF TRUE RELIGION. TO EXPOSE THE ABSURDITIES OF THE VALENTINIAN SYSTEM IS TO DESTROY IT.

1 Let, then, the serpent hide himself as much as he is able, and let him wrest all his
wisdom in the labyrinths of his obscurities; let him dwell deep down in the ground; let
him worm himself into secret holes; let him unroll his length through his sinuous joints;
let him tortuously crawl, though not all at once, beast as he is that skulks the light. Of
our dove, however, how simple is the very home!-always in high and open places, and facing
the light! As the symbol of the Holy Spirit, it loves the (radiant) East, that figure of
Christ. Nothing causes truth a blush, except only being hidden, because no man will be
ashamed to give ear thereto. No man will be ashamed to recognise Him as God whom nature
has already commended to him, whom he already perceives in all His works, -Him indeed who
is simply, for this reason, imperfectly known; because man has not thought of Him as only
one, because he has named Him in a plurality (of gods), and adored Him in other forms.
Yet, to induce oneself to turn from this multitude of deities to another crowd, to remove
from a familiar authority to an unknown one, to wrench oneself from what is manifest to
what is hidden, is to offend faith on the very threshold.

2 Now, even suppose that you are initiated into the entire fable, will it not occur to you
that you have heard something very like it from your fond nurse when you were a baby,
amongst the lullabies she sang to you about the towers of Lamia, and the horns of the sun?
Let, however, any man approach the subject from a knowledge of the faith which he has
otherwise learned, as soon as he finds so many names of ¦ons, so many marriages, so many
offsprings, so many exits, so many issues, felicities and infelicities of a dispersed and
mutilated Deity, will that man hesitate at once to pronounce that these are "the fables
and endless genealogies" which the inspired apostle by anticipation condemned, whilst
these seeds of heresy were even then shooting forth? Deservedly, therefore, must they be
regarded as wanting in simplicity, and as merely prudent, who produce such fables not
without difficulty, and defend them only indirectly, who at the same time do not
thoroughly instruct those whom they teach. This, of course, shows their astuteness, if
their lessons are disgraceful; their unkindness, if they are honourable. As for us,
however, who are the simple folk, we know all about it. In short, this is the very first
weapon with which we are armed for our encounter; it unmasks and brings to view the whole
of their depraved system. And in this we have the first augury of our victory;

3 because even merely to point out that which is concealed with so great an outlay of
artifice, is to destroy it.

CHAPTER IV.-THE HERESY TRACEABLE TO VALENTINUS, AN ABLE BUT RESTLESS MAN. MANY SCHISMATICAL LEADERS OF THE SCHOOL MENTIONED. ONLY ONE OF THEM SHOWS RESPECT TO THE MAN WHOSE NAME DESIGNATES THE ENTIRE SCHOOL.

1 We know, I say, most fully their actual origin, and we are quite aware why we call them
Valentinians, although they affect to disavow their name. They have departed, it is true,
from their founder, yet is their origin by no means destroyed; and even if it chance to be
changed, the very change bears testimony to the fact. Valentinus had expected to become a
bishop, because he was an able man both in genius and eloquence. Being indignant, however,
that another obtained the dignity by reason of a claim which confessorship had given him,
he broke with the church of the true faith. Just like those (restless) spirits which, when
roused by ambition, are usually inflamed with the desire of revenge, he applied himself
with all his might to exterminate the truth; and finding the clue of a certain old
opinion, he marked out a path for himself with the subtlety of a serpent. Ptolemµus
afterwards entered on the same path, by distinguishing the names and the numbers of the
¦nons into personal substances, which, however, he kept apart from God. Valentinus had
included these in the very essence of the Deity, as senses and affections of motion.
Sundry bypaths were then struck off therefrom, by Heraclean and Secundus and the magician
Marcus. Theotimus worked hard about "the images of the law. Valentinus, however, was as
yet nowhere, and still the Valentinians derive their name from Valentinus.

2 Axionicus at Antioch is the only man who at the present time does honour to the memory
of Valentinus, by keeping his rules to the full. But this heresy is permitted to fashion
itself into as many various shapes as a courtezan, who usually changes and adjusts her
dress every day. And why not? When they review that spiritual seed of theirs in every man
after this fashion, whenever they have hit upon any novelty, they forthwith call their
presumption a revelation, their own perverse ingenuity a spiritual gift; but (they deny
all) unity, admitting only diversity. And thus we clearly see that, setting aside their
customary dissimulation, most of them are in a divided state, being ready to say (and that
sincerely) of certain points of their belief, "This is not so; "and, "I take this in a
different sense; "and, "I do not admit that. By this variety, indeed, innovation is
stamped on the very face of their rules; besides which, it wears all the colourable
features of ignorant conceits.

CHAPTER V.-MANY EMINENT CHRISTIAN WRITERS HAVE CAREFULLY AND FULLY REFUTED THE HERESY. THESE THE AUTHOR MAKES HIS OWN GUIDES.

My own path, however, lies along the original tenets of their chief teachers, not with the
self-appointed leaders of their promiscuous followers. Nor shall we hear it said of us
from any quarter, that we have of our own mind fashioned our own materials, since these
have been already produced, both in respect of the opinions and their refutations, in
carefully written volumes, by so many eminently holy and excellent men, not only those who
have lived before us, but those also who were contemporary with the heresiarchs
themselves: for instance Justin, philosopher and martyr; Miltiades, the sophist of the
churches Irenµus, that very exact inquirer into all doctrines; our own Proculus, the model
of chaste old age and Christian eloquence. All these it would be my desire closely to
follow in every work of faith, even as in this particular one. Now if there are no
heresies at all but what those who refute them are supposed to have fabricated, then the
apostle who predicted them must have been guilty of falsehood. If, however, there are
heresies, they can be no other than those which are the subject of discussion. No writer
can be supposed to have so much time on his hands as to fabricate materials which are
already in his possession.

CHAPTER VI.-ALTHOUGH WRITING IN LATIN HE PROPOSES TO RETAIN THE GREEK NAMES OF THE VALENTINIAN EMANATIONS OF DEITY. NOT TO DISCUSS THE HERESY BUT ONLY TO EXPOSE IT. THIS WITH THE RAILLERY WHICH ITS ABSURDITY MERITS.

1 In order then, that no one may be blinded by so many outlandish names, collected
together, and adjusted at pleasure, and of doubtful import, I mean in this little work,
wherein we merely undertake to propound this (heretical) mystery, to explain in what
manner we are to use them. Now the rendering of some of these names from the Greek to as
to produce an equally obvious sense of the word, is by no means an easy process: in the
case of some others, the genders, are not suitable; while others, again, are more
familiarly known in their Greek form. For the most part, therefore, we shall use the Greek
names; their meanings will be seen on the margins of the pages. Nor will the Greek be
unaccompanied with the Latin equivalents; only these will be marked in lines above, for
the purpose of explaining the personal names, rendered necessary by the ambiguities of
such of them as admit some different meaning. But although I must postpone all discussion,
and be content at present with the mere exposition (of the heresy), still, wherever any
scandalous feature shall seem to require a castigation, it must be attacked by all means,
if only with a passing thrust. Let the reader regard it as the skirmish before the battle.
It will be my drift to show how to wound rather than to inflict deep gashes. If in any
instance mirth be excited, this will be quite as much as the subject deserves.

2 There are many things which deserve refutation in such a way as to have no gravity
expended on them. Vain and silly topics are met with especial fitness by laughter. Even
the truth may indulge in ridicule, because it is jubilant; it may play with its enemies,
because it is fearless. 0nly we must take care that its laughter be not unseemly, and so
itself be laughed at; but wherever its mirth is decent, there it is a duty to indulge it.
And so at last I enter on my task.

CHAPTER VII.-THE FIRST EIGHT EMANATIONS, OR ¦ONS, CALLED THE OGDOAD, ARE THE FOUNTAIN OF ALL THE OTHERS. THEIR NAMES AND DESCENT RECORDED.

1 Beginning with Ennius, the Roman poet, he simply spoke of "the spacious saloons of
heaven,"-either on account of their elevated site, or because in Homer he had read about
Jupiter banqueting therein. As for our heretics, however, it is marvellous what storeys
upon storeys and what heights upon heights, they have hung up, raised and spread out as a
dwelling for each several god of theirs. Even our Creator has had arranged for Him the
saloons of Ennius in the fashion of private rooms, with chamber piled upon chamber, and
assigned to each god by just as many staircases as there were heresies. The universe, in
fact, has been turned into "rooms to let. Such storeys of the heavens you would imagine to
be detached tenements in some happy isle of the blessed, I know not where. There the god
even of the Valentinians has his dwelling in the attics. They call him indeed, as to his
essence, Ai0w=n te/leoj (Perfect ¦on), but in respect of his personality, Proarxh/ (Before
the Beginning), 9H'Arkh/ (The Beginning), and sometimes Bythos (Depth), a name which is
most unfit for one who dwells in the heights above! They describe him as unbegotten,
immense, infinite, invisible, and eternal; as if, when they described him to be such as we
know that he ought to be, they straightway prove him to be a being who may be said to have
had such an existence even before all things else. I indeed insist upon it that he is such
a being;

2 and there is nothing which I detect in beings of this sort more obvious, than that they
who are said to have been before all things-things, too, not their own-are found to be
behind all things. Let it, however, be granted that this Bythos of theirs existed in the
infinite ages of the past in the greatest and profoundest repose, in the extreme rest of a
placid and, if I may use the expression, stupid divinity, such as Epicurus has enjoined
upon us. And yet, although they would have him be alone, they assign to him a second
person in himself and with himself, Ennoea (Thought), which they also call both Charis
(Grace) and Sige (Silence). Other things, as it happened, conduced in this most agreeable
repose to remind him of the need of by and by producing out of himself the beginning of
all things. This he deposits in lieu of seed in the genital region, as it were, of the
womb of his Sige. Instantaneous conception is the result: Sige becomes pregnant, and is
delivered, of course in silence; and her offspring is Nus (Mind), very like his father and
his equal in every respect. In short, he alone is capable of comprehending the measureless
and incomprehensible greatness of his father. Accordingly he is even called the Father
himself, and the Beginning of all things, and, with great propriety, Monogenes (The Only-
begotten). And yet not with absolute propriety, since he is not born alone. For along with
him a female also proceeded, whose name was Veritas (Truth).

3 But how much more suitably might Monogenes be called Protogenes (First begotten), since
he was begotten first! Thus Bythos and Sige, Nus. and Veritas, are alleged to be the first
fourfold team of the Valentinian set (of gods) the parent stock and origin of them all.
For immediately when Nus received the function of a procreation of his own, he too
produces out of himself Sermo (the Word) and Vita (the Life). If this latter existed not
previously, of course she existed not in Bythos. And a pretty absurdity would it be, if
Life existed not in God! However, this offspring also produces fruit, having for its
mission the initiation of the universe and the formation of the entire Pleroma: it
procreates Homo (Man) and Ecclesia (the Church). Thus you have an Ogdoad, a double Tetra,
out of the conjunctions of males and females-the cells (so to speak) of the primordial
¦ons, the fraternal nuptials of the Valentinian gods, the simple originals of heretical
sanctity and majesty, a rabble -shall I say of criminals or of deities? -at any rate, the
fountain of all ulterior fecundity.

CHAPTER VIII.-THE NAMES AND DESCENT OF OTHER ¦ONS; FIRST HALF A SCORE, THEN TWO MORE, AND ULTIMATELY A DOZEN BESIDES. THESE THIRTY CONSTITUTE THE PLEROMA. BUT WHY BE SO CAPRICIOUS AS TO STOP AT THIRTY?

1 For, behold, when the second Tetrad-Sermo and Vita, Homo and Ecclesia -had borne fruit
to the Father's glory, having an intense desire of themselves to present to the Father
something similar of their own, they bring other issue into being -conjugal of course, as
the others were -by the union of the twofold nature. On the one hand, Sermo and Vita pour
out at a birth a half-score of ¦ons; on the other hand, Homo and Ecclesia produce a couple
more, so furnishing an equipoise to their parents, since this pair with the other ten make
up just as many as they did themselves procreate. I now give the names of the half-score
whom I have mentioned: Bythios (Profound) and Mixis (Mixture), Ageratos (Never old) and
Henosis (Union), Autophyes (Essential nature) and Hedone (Pleasure), Acinetos (Immoveable)
and Syncrasis (Commixture, ) Monogenes (Only-begotten) and Macaria (Happiness). On the
other hand, these will make up the number twelve (to which I have also referred):
Paracletus (Comforter) and Pistis (Faith), Patricas (Paternal) and Elpis (Hope), Metricos
(Maternal) and Agape (Love), Ainos (Praise) and Synesis (Intelligence), Ecclesiasticus
(Son of Ecclesia) and Macariotes (Blessedness), Theletus (Perfect) and Sophia (Wisdom). I
cannot help here quoting from a like example what may serve to show the import of these
names. In the schools of Carthage there was once a certain Latin rhetorician, an
excessively cool fellow, whose name was Phosphorus.

2 He was personating a man of valour, and wound up with saying, "I come to you, excellent
citizens, from battle, with victory for myself, with happiness for you, full of honour,
covered with glory, the favourite of fortune, the greatest of men, decked with triumph.
And forthwith his scholars begin to shout for the school of Phosphorus, feu= (ah! Are you
a believer in Fortunata, and Hedone, and Acinetus, and Theletus? Then shout out your feu=
for the school of Ptolemy. This must be that mystery of the Pleroma, the fulness of the
thirty-fold divinity. Let us see what special attributes belong to these numbers-four, and
eight, and twelve. Meanwhile with the number thirty all fecundity ceases. The generating
force and power and desire of the ¦ons is spent. As if there were not still left some
strong rennet for curdling numbers. As if no other names were to be got out of the page's
hall! For why are there not sets of fifty and of a hundred procreated? Why, too, are there
no comrades and boon companions named for them?

CHAPTER IX.-OTHER CAPRICIOUS FEATURES IN THE SYSTEM. THE ¦ONS UNEQUAL IN ATTRIBUTES. THE SUPERIORITY OF NUS; THE VAGARIES OF SOPHIA RESTRAINED BY HOROS. GRAND TITLES BORNE BY THIS LAST POWER.

1 But, further, there is an "acceptance of persons," inasmuch as Nus alone among them all
enjoys the knowledge of the immeasurable Father, joyous and exulting, while they of course
pine in sorrow. To be sure, Nus, so far as in him lay, both wished and tried to impart to
the others also all that he had learnt about the greatness and incomprehensibility of the
Father; but his mother, Sige, interposed-she who (you must know) imposes silence even on
her own beloved heretics; although they affirm that this is done at the will of the
Father, who will have all to be inflamed with a longing after himself. Thus, while they
are tormenting themselves with these internal desires, while they are burning with the
secret longing to know the Father, the crime is almost accomplished. For of the twelve
¦ons which Homo and Ecclesia had produced, the youngest by birth (never mind the solecism,
since Sophia (Wisdom) is her name), unable to restrain herself, breaks away without the
society of her husband Theletus, in quest of the Father and contracts that kind of sin
which had indeed arisen amongst the others who were conversant with Nus but had flowed on
to this ¦on, that is, to Sophia; as is usual with maladies which, after arising in one
part of the body, spread abroad their infection to some other limb. The fact is, under a
pretence of love to the Father, she was overcome with a desire to rival Nus, who alone
rejoiced in the knowledge of the Father.

2 But when Sophia, straining after impossible aims, was disappointed of her hope, she is
both overcome with difficulty, and racked with affection. Thus she was all but swallowed
up by reason of the charm and toil (of her research), and dissolved into the remnant of
his substance; nor would there have been any other alternative for her than perdition, if
she had not by good luck fallen in with Horus (Limit). He too had considerable power. He
is the foundation of the great universe, and, externally, the guardian thereof. To him
they give the additional names of Crux (Cross), and Lytrotes (Redeemer, ) and Carpistes
(Emancipator). When Sophia was thus rescued from danger, and tardily persuaded, she
relinquished further research after the Father, found repose, and laid aside all her
excitement, or Enthymesis (Desire, ) along with the passion which had come over her.

CHAPTER X.-ANOTHER ACCOUNT OF THE STRANGE ABERRATIONS OF SOPHIA, AND THE RESTRAINING SERVICES OF HORUS. SOPHIA WAS NOT HERSELF, AFTER ALL, EJECTED FROM THE PLEROMA, BUT ONLY HER ENTHYMESIS.

1 But some dreamers have given another account of the aberration and recovery of Sophia.
After her vain endeavours, and the disappointment of her hope, she was, I suppose,
disfigured with paleness and emaciation, and that neglect of her beauty which was natural
to one who was deploring the denial of the Father,-an affliction which was no less painful
than his loss. Then, in the midst of all this sorrow, she by herself alone, without any
conjugal help, conceived and bare a female offspring. Does this excite your surprise?
Well, even the hen has the power of being able to bring forth by her own energy. They say,
too, that among vultures there are only females, which become parents alone. At any rate,
she was another without aid from a male, and she began at last to be afraid that her end
was even at hand. She was all in doubt about the treatment of her case, and took pains at
self-concealment. Remedies could nowhere be found. For where, then, should we have
tragedies and comedies, from which to borrow the process of exposing what has been born
without connubial modesty? While the thing is in this evil plight, she raises her eyes,
and turns them to the Father. Having, however, striven in vain, as her strength was
failing her, she falls to praying. Her entire kindred also supplicates in her behalf, and
especially Nus. Why not? What was the cause of so vast an evil? Yet not a single casualty
befell Sophia without its effect. All her sorrows operate.

2 Inasmuch as all that conflict of hers contributes to the origin of Matter. Her
ignorance, her fear, her distress, become substances. Hereupon the Father by and by, being
moved, produces in his own image, with a view to these circumstances the Horos whom we
have mentioned above; (and this he does) by means of Monogenes Nus, a male-female (¦on),
because there is this variation of statement about the Father's sex. They also go on to
tell us that Horos is likewise called Metagogius, that is, "a conductor about," as well as
Horothetes (Setter of Limits). By his assistance they declare that Sophia was checked in
her illicit courses, and purified from all evils, and henceforth strengthened (in virtue),
and restored to the conjugal state: (they add) that she indeed remained within the bounds
of the Pleroma, but that her Enthymesis, with the accruing Passion, was banished by Horos,
and crucified and cast out from the Pleroma,-even as they say, Malum foras! (Evil, avaunt!
Still, that was a spiritual essence, as being the natural impulse of an ¦on, although
without form or shape, inasmuch as it had apprehended nothing, and therefore was
pronounced to be an infirm and feminine fruit.

CHAPTER XI.-THE PROFANE ACCOUNT GIVEN OF THE ORIGIN OF CHRIST AND THE HOLY GHOST STERNLY REBUKED. AN ABSURDITY RESPECTING THE ATTAINMENT OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ABLY EXPOSED.

1 Accordingly, after the banishment of the Enthymesis, and the return of her mother Sophia
to her husband, the (illustrious) Monogenes, the Nus, released indeed from all care and
concern of the Father, in order that he might consolidate all things, and defend and at
last fix the Pleroma, and so prevent any concussion of the kind again, once more emits a
new couple (blasphemously named). I should suppose the coupling of two males to be a very
shameful thing, or else the one must be a female, and so the male is discredited by the
female. One divinity is assigned in the case of all these, to procure a complete
adjustment among the ¦ons. Even from this fellowship in a common duty two schools actually
arise, two chairs, and, to some extent, the inauguration of a division in the doctrine of
Valentinus. It was the function of Christ to instruct the ¦ons in the nature of their
conjugal relations (you see what the whole thing was, of course!), and how to form some
guess about the unbegotten, and to give them the capacity of generating within themselves
the knowledge of the Father; it being impossible to catch the idea of him, or comprehend
him, or, in short, even to enjoy any perception of him, either by the eye or the ear,
except through Monogenes (the Only-begotten). Well, I will even grant them what they
allege about knowing the Father, so that they do not refuse us (the attainment of) the
same.

2 I would rather point out what is perverse in their doctrine, how they were taught that
the incomprehensible part of the Father was the cause of their own perpetuity, whilst that
which might be comprehended of him was the reason of their generation and formation. Now
by these several positions the tenet, I suppose, is insinuated, that it is expedient for
God not to be apprehended, on the very ground that the incomprehensibility of His
character is the cause of perpetuity; whereas what in Him is comprehensible is productive,
not of perpetuity, but rather of conditions which lack perpetuity-namely, nativity and
formation. The Son, indeed, they made capable of comprehending the Father. The manner in
which He is comprehended, the recently produced Christ fully taught them. To the Holy
Spirit, however, belonged the special gifts, whereby they, having been all set on a
complete par in respect of their earnestness to learn, should be enabled to offer up their
thanksgiving, and be introduced to a true tranquillity.

CHAPTER XII.-THE STRANGE JUMBLE OF THE PLEROMA. THE FRANTIC DELIGHT OF THE MEMBERS THEREOF. THEIR JOINT CONTRIBUTION OF PARTS SET FORTH WITH HUMOROUS IRONY.

1 Thus they are all on the self-same footing in respect of form and knowledge, all of them
having become what each of them severally is; none being a different being, because they
are all what the others are. They are all turned into Nuses, into Homos, into Theletuses;
and so in the case of the females, into Siges, into Zoes, into Ecclesias, into Forunatas,
so that Ovid would have blotted out his own Metamorphoses if he had only known our larger
one in the present day. Straightway they were reformed and thoroughly established, and
being composed to rest from the truth, they celebrate the Father in a chorus of praise in
the exuberance of their joy. The Father himself also revelled in the glad feeling; of
course, because his children and grandchildren sang so well. And why should he not revel
in absolute delight? Was not the Pleroma freed (from all danger)? What ship's captain
fails to rejoice even with indecent frolic? Every day we observe the uproarious
ebullitions of sailors' joys. Therefore, as sailors always exult over the reckoning they
pay. in common, so do these ¦ons enjoy a similar pleasure, one as they now all are in
form, and, as I may add, in feeling too. With the concurrence of even their new brethren
and masters, they contribute into one common stock the best and most beautiful thing with
which they are severally adorned. Vainly, as I suppose.

2 For if they were all one by reason by the above-mentioned thorough equalization, there
was no room for the process of a common reckoning, which for the most part consists of a
pleasing variety. They all contributed the one good thing, which they all were. There
would be, in all probability, a formal procedure in the mode or in the form of the very
equalization in question. Accordingly, out of the donation which they contributed to the
honour and glory of the Father, they jointly fashion the most beautiful constellation of
the Pleroma, and its perfect fruit, Jesus. Him they also surname Soter (Saviour) and
Christ, and Sermo (Word) after his ancestors; and lastly Omnia (All Things), as formed
from a universally culled nosegay, like the jay of ¦sop, the Pandora of Hesiod, the bowl
of Accius, the honey-cake of Nestor, the miscellany of Ptolemy. How much nearer the mark,
if these idle title-mongers had called him Pancarpian, after certain Athenian customs. By
way of adding external honour also to their wonderful puppet, they produce for him a
bodyguard of angels of like nature. If this be their mutual condition, it may be all
right; if, however, they are consubstantial with Soter (for I have discovered how
doubtfully the case is stated), where will be his eminence when surrounded by attendants
who are co-equal with himself?

CHAPTER XIII.-FIRST PART OF THE SUBJECT, TOUCHING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PLEROMA, BRIEFLY RECAPITULATED. TRANSITION TO THE OTHER PART, WHICH IS LIKE A PLAY OUTSIDE THE CURTAIN.

In this series, then, is contained the first emanation of ¦ons, who are alike born, and
are married, and produce offspring: there are the most dangerous fortunes of Sophia in her
ardent longing for the Father, the most seasonable help of Horos, the expiation of her
Enthymesis and accruing Passion, the instruction of Christ and the Holy Spirit, their
tutelar reform of the ¦ons, the piebald ornamentation of Sorer, the consubstantial retinue
of the angels. All that remains, according to you, is the fall of the curtain and the
clapping of hands. What remains in my opinion, however, is, that you should hear and take
heed. At all events, these things are said to have been played out within the company of
the Pleroma, the first scene of the tragedy. The rest of the play, however, is beyond the
curtain-I mean outside of the Pleroma. And yet if it be such within the bosom of the
Father, within the embrace of the guardian Horos, what must it be outside, in free space,
where God did not exist?

CHAPTER XIV.-THE ADVENTURES OF ACHAMOTH OUTSIDE THE PLEROMA. THE MISSION OF CHRIST IN PURSUIT OF HER. HER LONGING FOR CHRIST. HOROS' HOSTILITY TO HER. HER CONTINUED SUFFERING.

1 For Enthymesis, or rather Achamoth-because by this inexplicable name alone must she be
henceforth designated-when in company with the vicious Passion, her inseparable companion,
she was expelled to places devoid of that light which is the substance of the Pleroma,
even to the void and empty region of Epicurus, she becomes wretched also because of the
place of her banishment. She is indeed without either form or feature, even an untimely
and abortive production. Whilst she is in this plight, Christ descends from the heights,
conducted by Horos, in order to impart form to the abortion, out of his own energies, the
form of substance only, but not of knowledge also. Still she is left with some property.
She has restored to her the odour of immortality, in order that she might, under its
influence, be overcome with the desire of better things than belonged to her present
plight. Having accomplished His merciful mission, not without the assistance of the Holy
Spirit, Christ returns to the Pleroma. It is usual out of an abundance of things for names
to be also forthcoming. Enthymesis came from action; whence Achamoth came is still a
question; Sophia emanates from the Father, the Holy Spirit from an angel. She entertains a
regret lot Christ immediately after she had discovered her desertion by him. Therefore she
hurried forth herself, in quest of the light of Him Whom she did not at all discover, as
He operated in an invisible manner;

2 for how else would she make search for His light, which was as unknown to her as He was
Himself? Try, however, she did, and perhaps would have found Him, had not the self-same
Horos, who had met her mother so opportunely, fallen in with the daughter quite as
unseasonably, so as to exclaim at her Iao! just as we hear the cry "Porro Quirites" ("Out
of the way, Romans!"), or else Fidem Caesaris! ("By the faith of Caesar!"), whence (as
they will have it) the name Iao comes to be found is the Scriptures. Being thus hindered
from proceeding further, and being unable to surmount the Cross, that is to say, Horos,
because she had not yet practised herself in the part of Catullus' Laureolus, and given
over, as it were, to that passion of hers in a manifold and complicated mesh, she began to
be afflicted with every impulse thereof, with sorrow,-because she had not accomplished her
enterprise, with fear,-lest she should lose her life, even as she had lost the light, with
consternation, and then with ignorance. But not as her mother (did she suffer this), for
she was an ¦on. Hers, however, was a worse suffering, considering her condition; for
another tide of emotion still overwhelmed her, even of conversion to the Christ, by Whom
she had been restored to life, and had been directed to this very conversion.

CHAPTER XV.-STRANGE ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF MATTER, FROM THE VARIOUS AFFECTIONS OF ACHAMOTH. THE WATERS FROM HER TEARS; LIGHT FROM HER SMILE.

1 Well, now, the Pythagoreans may learn, the Stoics may know, Plato himself (may
discover), whence Matter, which they will have to be unborn, derived both its origin and
substance for all this pile of the world-(a mystery) which not even the renowned Mercurius
Trismegistus, master (as he was) of all physical philosophy, thought out. You have just
heard of "Conversion," one element in the "Passion" (we have so often mentioned). Out of
this the whole life of the world, and even that of the Demiurge himself, our God, is said
to have had its being. Again, you have heard of "sorrow" and "fear. From these all other
created things took their beginning. For from her tears flowed the entire mass of waters.
From this circumstance one may form an idea of the calamity which she encountered, so vast
were the kinds of the tears wherewith she overflowed. She had salt tear-drops, she had
bitter, and sweet, and warm, and cold, and bituminous, and ferruginous, and sulphurous,
and even poisonous, so that the Nonacris exuded therefrom which killed Alexander; and the
river of the Lyncestµ flowed from the same source, which produces drunkenness; and the
Salmacis was derived from the same source, which renders men effeminate. The rains of
heaven Achamoth whimpered forth, and we on our part are anxiously employed in saving up in
our cisterns the very wails and tears of another. In like manner, from the "consternation"
and "alarm" (of which we have also heard), bodily elements were derived.

2 And yet amidst so many circumstances of solitude, in this vast prospect of destitution,
she occasionally smiled at the recollection of the sight of Christ, and from this smile of
joy light flashed forth. How great was this beneficence of Providence, which induced her
to smile, and all that we might not linger for ever in the dark! Nor need you feel
astonished how from her joy so splendid an element could have beamed upon the world, when
from her sadness even so necessary a provision flowed forth for man. O illuminating smile!
O irrigating tear! And yet it might now have acted as some alleviation amidst the horror
of her situation; for she might have shaken off all the obscurity thereof as often as she
had a mind to smile, even not to be obliged to turn suppliant to those who had deserted
her.

CHAPTER XVI.-ACHAMOTH PURIFIED FROM ALL IMPURITIES OF HER PASSION BY THE PARACLETE, ACTING THROUGH SOTER, WHO OUT OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED IMPURITIES ARRANGES MATTER, SEPARATING ITS EVIL FROM THE BETTER QUALITIES.

She, too, resorts to prayers, after the manner of her mother. But Christ, Who now felt a
dislike to quit the Pleroma, appoints the Paraclete as his deputy. To her, therefore, he
despatches Soter, (who must be the same as Jesus, to whom the Father imparted the supreme
power over the whole body of the ¦ons, by subjecting them all to him, so that "by him," as
the apostle says, "all things were created" ), with a retinue and cortege of contemporary
angels, and (as one may suppose) with the dozen fasces. Hereupon Achamoth, being quite
struck with the pomp of his approach, immediately covered herself with a veil, moved at
first with a dutiful feeling of veneration and modesty; but afterwards she surveys him
calmly, and his prolific equipage. With such energies as she had derived from the
contemplation, she meets him with the salutation, ku/rie xai=re (" Hail, Lord ")! Upon
this, I suppose, he receives her, confirms and conforms her in knowledge, as well as
cleanses her from all the outrages of Passion, without, however, utterly severing them,
with an indiscriminateness like that which had happened in the casualties which befell her
mother. For such vices as had become inveterate and confirmed by practice he throws
together; and when he had consolidated them in one mass, he fixes them in a separate body,
so as to compose the corporeal condition of Matter, extracting out of her inherent,
incorporeal passion such an aptitude of nature as might qualify it to attain to a
reciprocity of bodily substances, which should emulate one another, so that a twofold
condition of the substances might be arranged; full of evil through its faults, the other
susceptible of passion from conversion. This will prove to be Matter, which has set us in
battle array against Hermogenes, and all others who presume to teach that God made all
things out of Matter, not out of nothing.

CHAPTER XVII.-ACHAMOTH IN LOVE WITH THE ANGELS. A PROTEST AGAINST THE LASCIVIOUS FEATURES OF VALENTINIANISM. ACHAMOTH BECOMES THE MOTHER OF THREE NATURES.

Then Achamoth, delivered at length from all her evils, wonderful to tell goes on and bears
fruit with greater results. For warmed with the joy of so great an escape from her unhappy
condition, and at the same time heated with the actual contemplation of the angelic
luminaries (one is ashamed) to use such language, but there is no other way of expressing
one's meaning), she during the emotion somehow became personally inflamed with desire
towards them, and at once grew pregnant with a spiritual conception, at the very image of
which the violence of her joyous transport, and the delight of her prurient excitement had
imbibed and impressed upon her. She at length gave birth to an offspring, and then there
arose a leash of natures, from a triad of causes,-one material, arising from her passion;
another animal, arising from her conversion; the third spiritual, which had its origin in
her imagination.

CHAPTER XVIII.-BLASPHEMOUS OPINION CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF THE DEMIURGE, SUPPOSED TO BE THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE.

Having become a better proficient in practical conduct by the authority which, we may well
suppose, accrued to her from her three children, she determined to impart form to each of
the natures. The spiritual one however, she was unable to touch, inasmuch as she was
herself spiritual. For a participation in the same nature has, to a very great extent,
disqualified like and consubstantial beings from having superior power over one another.
Therefore she applies herself solely to the animal nature, adducing the instructions of
Soter (for her guidance). And first of all (she does) what cannot be described and read,
and heard of, without an intense horror at the blasphemy thereof: she produces this God of
ours, the God of all except of the heretics, the Father and Creator and King of all
things, which are inferior to him. For from him do they proceed. If, however, they proceed
from him, and not rather from Achamoth, or if only secretly from her, without his
perceiving her, he was impelled to all that he did, even like a puppet which is moved from
the outside. In fact, it was owing to this very ambiguity about the personal agency in the
works which were done, that they coined for him the mixed name of (Motherly Father),
whilst his other appellations were distinctly assigned according to the conditions and
positions of his works: so that they call him Father in relation to the animal substances
to which they give the place of honour on his fight hand; whereas, in respect of the
material substances which they banish to his left hand, they name him Demiurgus; whilst
his title King designates his authority over both classes, nay over the universe.

CHAPTER XIX.-PALPABLE ABSURDITIES AND CONTRADICTIONS IN THE SYSTEM RESPECTING ACHAMOTH AND THE DEMIURGE.

And yet there is not any agreement between the propriety of the names and that of the
works, from which all the names are suggested; since all of them ought to have borne the
name of her by whom the things were done, unless after all it turn out that they were not
made by her. For, although they say that Achamoth devised these forms in honour of the
¦ons, they yet transfer this work to Soter as its author, when they say that he operated
through her, so far as to give her the very image of the invisible and unknown Father-that
is, the image which was unknown and invisible to the Demiurge; whilst he formed this same
Demiurge in imitation of Nus the son of Propator; and whilst the archangels, who were the
work of the Demiurge, resembled the other ¦ons. Now, when I hear of such images of the
three, I ask, do you not wish me to laugh at these pictures of their most extravagant
painter? At the female Achamoth, a picture of the Father? At the Demiurge, ignorant of his
mother, much more so of his father? At the picture of Nus, Ignorant of his father too, and
the ministering angels, facsimiles of their lords? This is painting a mule from an ass,
and sketching Ptolemy from Valentinus.

CHAPTER XX-THE DEMIURGE WORKS AWAY AT CREATION, AS THE DRUDGE OF HIS MOTHER ACHAMOTH, IN IGNORANCE ALL THE WHILE OF THE NATURE OF HIS OCCUPATION.

The Demiurge therefore, placed as he was without the limits of the Pleroma in the
ignominious solitude of his eternal exile, rounded a new empire-this world (of ours)-by
clearing away the confusion and distinguishing the difference between the two substances
which severally constituted it, the animal and the material. Out of incorporeal (elements)
he constructs bodies, heavy, light, erect and stooping, celestial and terrene. He then
completes the sevenfold stages of heaven itself, with his own throne above all. Whence he
had the additional name of Sabbatum from the hebdomadal nature of his abode; his mother
Achamoth, too, had the title Ogdoada, after the precedent of the primeval Ogdoad. These
heavens, however, they consider to be intelligent, and sometimes they make angels of them,
as indeed they do of the Demiurge himself; as also (they call) Paradise the fourth
archangel, because they fix it above the third heaven, of the power of which Adam partook,
when he sojourned there amidst its fleecy clouds and shrubs. Ptolemy remembered perfectly
well the prattle of his boyhood, that apples grew in the sea, and fishes on the tree;
after the same fashion, he assumed that nut-trees flourished in the skies. The Demiurge
does his work in ignorance, and therefore perhaps he is unaware that trees ought to be
planted only on the ground. His mother, of course, knew all about it: how is it, then,
that she did not suggest the fact, since she was actually executing her own operation? But
whilst building up so vast an edifice for her son by means of those works, which proclaim
him at once to be father, god and, king before the conceits of the Valentinians, why she
refused to let them be known to even him, is a question which I shall ask afterwards.

CHAPTER XXI.-THE VANITY AS WELL AS IGNORANCE OF THE DEMIURGE. ABSURD RESULTS FROM SO IMPERFECT A CONDITION.

Meanwhile you must believe that Sophia has the surnames of earth and of Mother-"Mother-
Earth," of course-and (what may excite your laughter still more heartily) even Holy
Spirit. In this way they have conferred all honour on that female, I suppose even a beard,
not to say other things. Besides, the Demiurge had so little mastery over things, on the
score, you must know, of his inability to approach spiritual essences, (constituted as he
was) of animal elements, that, imagining himself to be the only being, he uttered this
soliloquy: "I am God, and beside me there is none else." But for all that, he at least was
aware that he had not himself existed before. He understood, therefore, that he had been
created, and that there must be a creator of a creature of some sort or other. How happens
it, then, that he seemed to himself to be the only being, notwithstanding his uncertainty,
and although he had, at any rate, some suspicion of the existence of some creator?

CHAPTER XXII.-ORIGIN OF THE DEVIL, IN THE CRIMINAL EXCESS OF THE SORROW OF ACHAMOTH. THE DEVIL, CALLED ALSO MUNDITENENS, ACTUALLY WISER THAN THE DEMIURGE, ALTHOUGH HIS WORK.

The odium felt amongst them against the devil is the more excusable, even because the
peculiarly sordid character of his origin justifies it. For he is supposed by them to have
had his origin in that criminal excess of her sorrow, from which they also derive the
birth of the angels, and demons, and all the wicked spirits. Yet they affirm that the
devil is the work of the Demiurge, and they call him Munditenens (Ruler of the World), and
maintain that, as he is of a spiritual nature, he has a better knowledge of the things
above than the Demiurge, an animal being. He deserves from them the pre-eminence which all
heresies provide him with.

CHAPTER XXIII.-THE RELATIVE POSITIONS OF THE PLEROMA. THE REGION OF ACHAMOTH, AND THE CREATION OF THE DEMIURGE. THE ADDITION OF FIRE TO THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS AND BODIES OF NATURE.

Their most eminent powers, moreover, they confine within the following limits, as in a
citadel. In the most elevated of all summits presides the tricenary Pleroma, Horos marking
off its boundary line. Beneath it, Achamoth occupies the intermediate space for her abode,
treading down her son. For under her comes the Demiurge in his own Hebdomad, or rather the
Devil, sojourning in this world in common with ourselves, formed, as has been said above,
of the same elements and the same body, out of the most profitable calamities of Sophia;
inasmuch as, (if it had not been for these, ) our spirit would have had no space for
inhaling and ejecting air-that delicate vest of all corporeal creatures, that revealer of
all colours, that instrument of the seasons-if the sadness of Sophia had not filtered it,
just as her fear did the animal existence, and her conversion the Demiurge himself. Into
all these elements and bodies fire was fanned. Now, since they have not as yet explained
to us the original sensation of this in Sophia, I will on my own responsibility conjecture
that its spark was struck out of the delicate emotions of her (feverish grief). For you
may be quite sure that, amidst all her vexations, she must have had a good deal of fever.

CHAPTER XXIV.-THE FORMATION OF MAN BY THE DEMIURGE. HUMAN FLESH NOT MADE OF THE GROUND, BUT OF A NONDESCRIPT PHILOSOPHIC SUBSTANCE.

Such being their conceits respecting: God, or, if you like, the gods, of what sort are
their figments concerning man? For, after he had made the world, the Demiurge turns his
hands to man, and chooses for him as his substance not any portion of "the dry land," as
they say, of which alone we have any knowledge (although it was, at that time, not yet
dried by the waters becoming separated from the earthy residuum, and only afterwards
became dry), but of the invisible substance of that matter, which philosophy indeed dreams
of, from its fluid and fusible composition, the origin of which I am unable to imagine,
because it exists nowhere. Now, since fluidity and fusibility are qualities Of liquid
matter, and since everything liquid flowed from Sophia's tears, we must, as a necessary
conclusion, believe that muddy earth is constituted of Sophia's eye-rheums and viscid
discharges, which are just as much the dregs of tears as mud is the sediment of waters.
Thus does the Demiurge mould man as a potter does his clay, and animates him with his own
breath. Made after his image and likeness, he will therefore be both material and animal.
A fourfold being! For in respect of his "image," he must be deemed clayey, that is to say,
material, although the Demiurge is not composed of matter; but as to his "likeness," he is
animal, for such, too, is the Demiurge. You have two (of his constituent elements).
Moreover, a coating of flesh was, as they allege, afterwards placed over the clayey
substratum, and it is this tunic of skin which is susceptible of sensation.

CHAPTER XXV.-AN EXTRAVAGANT WAY OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE COMMUNICATION OF THE SPIRITUAL NATURE TO MAN. IT WAS FURTIVELY MANAGED BY ACHAMOTH, THROUGH THE UNCONSCIOUS AGENCY OF HER SON.

In Achamoth, moreover, there was inherent a certain property of a spiritual germ, of her
mother Sophia's substance; and Achamoth herself had carefully severed off (the same
quality), and implanted it in her son the Demiurge, although he was actually unconscious
of it. It is for you to imagine the industry of this clandestine arrangement. For to this
end had she deposited and concealed (this germ), that, whenever the Demiurge came to
impart life to Adam by his inbreathing, he might at the same time draw off from the vital
principle the spiritual seed, and, as by a pipe, inject it into the clayey nature; in
order that, being then fecundated in the material body as in a womb, and having fully
grown there, it might be found fit for one day receiving the perfect Word. When,
therefore, the Demiurge commits to Adam the transmission of his own vital principle, the
spiritual man lay hid, although inserted by his breath, and at the same time introduced
into the body, because the Demiurge knew no more about his mother's seed than about
herself. To this seed they give the name of Ecclesia (the Church), the mirror of the
church above, and the perfection of man; tracing this perfection from Achamoth, just as
they do the animal nature from the Demiurge, the clayey material of the body (they derive)
from the primordial substance, the flesh from Matter. So that you have a new Geryon here,
only a fourfold (rather than a threefold) monster.

CHAPTER XXVI.-THE THREE SEVERAL NATURES-THE MATERIAL, THE ANIMAL, AND THE SPIRITUAL, AND THEIR SEVERAL DESTINATIONS. THE STRANGE VALENTINIAN OPINION ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF SOTER'S NATURE.

1 In like manner they assign to each of them a separate end. To the material, that is to
say the carnal (nature), which they also call "the left-handed," they assign undoubted
destruction; to the animal (nature), which they also call "the right-handed," a doubtful
issue, inasmuch as it oscillates between the material and the spiritual, and is sure to
fall at last on the side to which it has mainly gravitated. As regards the spiritual,
however, (they say) that it enters into the formation of the animal, in order that it may
be educated in company with it and be disciplined by repeated intercourse with it. For the
animal (nature) was in want of training even by the senses: for this purpose, accordingly,
was the whole structure of the world provided; for this purpose also did Soter (the
Saviour) present Himself in the world-even for the salvation of the animal (nature). By
yet another arrangement they will have it that He, in some prodigious way, clothed Himself
with the primary portions of those substances, the whole of which He was going. to restore
to salvation; in such wise that He assumed the spiritual nature from Achamoth, whilst He
derived the animal (being), Christ, afterwards from the Demiurge; His corporal substance,
however, which was constructed of an animal nature (only with wonderful and indescribable
skill), He wore for a dispensational purpose, in order that He might, in spite of His own
unwillingness, be capable of meeting persons, and of being seen and touched by them, and
even of dying. But there was nothing material assumed by Him, inasmuch as that was
incapable of salvation. As if He could possibly have been more required by any others than
by those who were in want of salvation! And all this, in order that by severing the
condition of our flesh from Christ they may also deprive it of the hope of salvation!

2 Chapter XXVII.-The Christ of the Demiurge, Sent into the World by the Virgin. Not of
Her. He Found in Her, Not a Mother, But Only a Passage or Channel. Jesus Descended Upon
Christ, at His Baptism, Like a Dove; But, Being Incapable of Suffering, He Left Christ to
Die on the Cross Alone. 3 I now adduce (what they say) concerning Christ, upon whom some
of them engraft Jesus with so much licence, that they foist into Him a spiritual seed
together with an animal inflatus. Indeed, I will not undertake to describe these
incongruous crammings, which they have contrived in relation both to their men and their
gods. Even the Demiurge has a Christ of His on-His natural Son. An animal, in short,
produced by Himself, proclaimed by the prophets-His position being one which must be
decided by prepositions; in other words, He was produced by means of a virgin, rather than
of a virgin! On the ground that, having descended into the virgin rather in the manner of
a passage through her than of a birth by her, He came into existence through her, not of
her-not experiencing a mother in her, but nothing more than a way. Upon this same Christ,
therefore (so they say.), Jesus descended in the sacrament of baptism, in the likeness of
a dove. Moreover, there was even in Christ accruing from Achamoth the condiment of a
spiritual seed, in order of course to prevent the corruption of all the other stuffing.
For after the precedent of the principal Tetrad, they guard him with four substances-the
spiritual one of Achamoth, the animal one of the Demiurge, the corporeal one, which cannot
be described, and that of Soter, or, in other phrase, the columbine. As for Soter (Jesus),
he remained in Christ to the last, impassible, incapable of injury, incapable of
apprehension.

4 By and by, when it came to a question of capture, he departed from him during the
examination before Pilate. In like manner, his mother's seed did not admit of being
injured, being equally exempt from all manner of outrage, and being undiscovered even by
the Demiurge himself. The animal and carnal Christ, however, does suffer after the fashion
of the superior Christ, who, for the purpose of producing Achamoth, had been stretched
upon the cross, that is, Horos, in a substantial though not a cognizable form. In this
manner do they reduce all things to mere images-Christians themselves being indeed nothing
but imaginary beings!

CHAPTER XXVIII.-THE DEMIURGE CURED OF HIS IGNORANCE BY THE SAVIOUR'S ADVENT, FROM WHOM HE HEARS OF THE GREAT FUTURE IN STORE FOR HIMSELF.

Meanwhile the Demiurge, being still ignorant of everything, although he will actually have
to make some announcement himself by the prophets, but is quite incapable of even this
part of his duty (because they divide authority over the prophets between Achamoth, the
Seed, and the Demiurge), no sooner heard of the advent of Soter (Saviour) than he runs to
him with haste and joy, with all his might, like the centurion in the Gospel. And being
enlightened by him on all points, he learns from him also of his own prospect how that he
is to succeed to his mother's place. Being thenceforth free from all care, he carries on
the administration of this world, mainly under the plea of protecting the church, for as
long a time as may be necessary and proper.

CHAPTER XXIX.-THE THREE NATURES AGAIN ADVERTED TO. THEY ARE ALL EXEMPLIFIED AMONGST MEN. FOR INSTANCE, BY CAIN, AND ABEL, AND SETH.

1 I will now collect from different sources, by way of conclusion, what they affirm
concerning the dispensation of the whole human race. Having at first stated their views as
to man's threefold nature-which was, however, united in one in the case of Adam-they then
proceed after him to divide it (into three) with their especial characteristics, finding
opportunity for such distinction in the posterity of Adam himself, in which occurs a
threefold division as to moral differences. Cain and Abel, and Seth, who were in a certain
sense the sources of the human race, become the fountain-heads of just as many qualities
of nature and essential character. The material nature, which had become reprobate for
salvation, they assign to Cain; the animal nature, which was poised between divergent
hopes, they find in Abel; the spiritual, preordained for certain salvation, they store up
in Seth. In this way also they make a twofold distinction among souls, as to their
property of good and evil-according to the material condition derived from Cain, or the
animal from Abel. Men's spiritual state they derive over and above the other conditions,
from Seth adventitiously, not in the way of nature, but of grace, in such wise that
Achamoth infuses it among superior beings like rain into good souls, that is, those who
are enrolled in the animal class. Whereas the material class-in other words, those which
are bad souls-they say, never receive the blessings of salvation; for that nature they
have pronounced to be incapable of any change or reform in its natural condition.

2 This grain, then, of spiritual seed is modest and very small when cast from her hand,
but under her instruction increases and advances into full conviction, as we have already
said; and the souls, on this very account, so much excelled all others, that the Demiurge,
even then in his ignorance, held them in great esteem. For it was from their list that he
had been accustomed to select men for kings and for priests; and these even now, if they
have once attained to a full and complete knowledge of these foolish conceits of theirs,
since they are already naturalized in the fraternal bond of the spiritual state, Will
obtain a sure salvation, nay, one which is on all accounts their due.

CHAPTER XXX.-THE LAX AND DANGEROUS VIEWS OF THIS SECT RESPECTING GOOD WORKS. THAT THESE ARE UNNECESSARY TO THE SPIRITUAL MAN.

For this reason it is that they neither regard works as necessary for themselves, nor do
they observe any of the calls of duty, eluding even the necessity of martyrdom on any
pretence which may suit their pleasure. For this rule, (they say), is enjoined upon the
animal seed, in order that the salvation, which we do not possess by any privilege of our
state, we may work out by right of our conduct. Upon us, who are of an imperfect nature,
is imprinted the mark of this (animal) seed, because we are reckoned as sprung from the
loves of Theletus, and consequently as an abortion, just as their mother was. But woe to
us indeed, should we in any point transgress the yoke of discipline, should we grow dull
in the works of holiness and justice, should we desire to make our confession anywhere
else, I know not where, and not before the powers of this world at the tribunals of the
chief magistrates! As for them, however, they may prove their nobility by the
dissoluteness of their life and their diligence in sin, since Achamoth fawns on them as
her own; for she, too, found sin no unprofitable pursuit. Now it is held amongst them,
that, for the purpose of honouring the celestial marriages, it is necessary to contemplate
and celebrate the mystery always by cleaving to a companion, that, is to a woman;
otherwise (they account any man) degenerate, and a bastard to the truth, who spends his
life in the world without loving a woman or uniting himself to her. Then what is to become
of the eunuchs whom we see amongst them?

CHAPTER XXXI.-AT THE LAST DAY GREAT CHANGES TAKE PLACE AMONGST THE ¦ONS AS WELL AS AMONG MEN. HOW ACHAMOTH AND THE DEMIURGE ARE AFFECTED THEN. IRONY ON THE SUBJECT.

It remains that we say something about the end of the world, and the dispensing of reward.
As soon as Achamoth has completed the full harvest of her seed, and has then proceeded to
gather it into her garner, or, after it has been taken to the mill and ground to flour,
has hidden it in the kneading-trough with yeast until the whole be leavened, then shall
the end speedily come. Then, to begin with, Achamoth herself removes from the middle
region, from the second stage to the highest, since she is restored to the Pleroma: she is
immediately received by that paragon of perfection Soter, as her spouse of course, and
they two afterwards consummate new nuptials. This must be the spouse of the Scripture, the
Pleroma of espousals (for you might suppose that the Julian laws were interposing, since
there are these migrations from place to place). In like manner, the Demiurge, too, will
then change the scene of his abode from the celestial Hebdomad to the higher regions, to
his mother's now vacant saloon -by this time knowing her, without however seeing her. (A
happy coincidence!) For if he had caught a glance of her, he would have preferred never to
have known her.

CHAPTER XXXII.-INDIGNANT IRONY EXPOSING THE VALENTINIAN FABLE ABOUT THE JUDICIAL TREATMENT OF MANKIND AT THE LAST JUDGMENT. THE IMMORALITY OF THE DOCTRINE.

1 As for the human race, its end will be to the following effect:-To all which bear the
earthy and material mark there accrues an entire destruction, because "all flesh is
grass," and amongst these is the soul of moral man, except when it has found salvation by
faith. The souls of just men, that is to say, our souls, will be conveyed to the Demiurge
in the abodes of the middle region. We are duly thankful; we shall be content to be
classed with our god, in whom lies our own origin. Into the palace of the Pleroma nothing
of the animal nature is admitted-nothing but the spiritual swarm of Valentinus. There,
then, the first process is the despoiling of men themselves, that is, men within the
Pleroma. Now this despoiling consists of the putting off of the souls in which they appear
to be clothed, which they will give back to their Demiurge as they had obtained them from
him. They will then become wholly intellectual spirits-impalpable, invisible -and in this
state will be readmitted invisibly to the Pleroma-stealthily, if the case admits of the
idea. What then? They will be dispersed amongst the angels, the attendants on Soter. As
sons, do you suppose? Not at all. As servants, then? No, not even so. Well, as phantoms?
Would that it were nothing more! Then in what capacity, if you are ashamed to tell us? In
the capacity of brides. Then will they end their Sabine rapes with the sanction of
wedlock.

2 This will be the guerdon of the spiritual, this the recompense of their faith! Such
fables have their use. Although but a Marcus or a Gaius, full-grown in this flesh of ours,
with a beard and such like proofs (of virility, ) it may be a stern husband, a father, a
grandfather, a great-grandfather (never mind what, in fact, if only a male), you may
perhaps in the bridal-chamber of the Pleroma-I have already said so tacitly -even become
the parent by an angel of some ¦on of high numerical rank. For the right celebration of
these nuptials, instead of the torch and veil, I suppose that secret fire is then to burst
forth, which, after devastating the whole existence of things, will itself also be reduced
to nothing at last, after everything has been reduced to ashes; and so their fable too
will be ended. But I, too, am no doubt a rash man, in having exposed: so great a mystery
in so derisive a way: I ought to be afraid that Achamoth, who did not choose to make
herself known even to her own son, would turn mad, that Theletus would be enraged, that
Fortune would be irritated. But I am yet a liege-man of the Demiurge. I have to return
after death to the place where there is no more giving in marriage, where I have to be
clothed upon rather than to be despoiled,-where, even if I am despoiled of my sex, I am
Glassed with angels-not a male angel, nor a female one.

3 There will be no one to do aught against me, nor will they then find any male energy in
me.

CHAPTER XXXIII.-THESE REMAINING CHAPTERS AN APPENDIX TO THE MAIN WORK. IN THIS CHAPTER TERTULLIAN NOTICES A DIFFERENCE AMONG SUNDRY FOLLOWERS OF PTOLEMY, A DISCIPLE OF VALENTINUS.

I shall now at last produce, by way of finale, after so long a story, those points which
not to interrupt the course of it, and by the interruption distract the reader's
attention, I have preferred reserving to this place. They have been variously advanced by
those who have improved on the doctrines of Ptolemy. For there have been in his school
"disciples above their master," who have attributed to their Bythus two wives-Cogitatio
(Thought) and Voluntas (Will). For Cogitatio alone was not sufficient wherewith to produce
any offspring, although from the two wives procreation was most easy to him. The former
bore him Monogenes (Only-Begotten) and Veritas (Truth). Veritas was a female after the
likeness of Cogitatio; Monogenes a male bearing a resemblance to Voluntas. For it is the
strength of Voluntas which procures the masculine nature, inasmuch as she affords
efficiency to Cogitatio.

CHAPTER XXXIV.-OTHER VARYING OPINIONS AMONG THE VALENTINIANS RESPECTING THE DEITY, CHARACTERISTIC RAILLERY.

Others of purer mind, mindful of the honour of the Deity, have, for the purpose of freeing
him from the discredit of even single wedlock, preferred assigning no sex whatever to
Bythus; and therefore very likely they talk of "this deity" in the neuter gender rather
than "this god." Others again, on the other hand, speak of him as both masculine and
feminine, so that the worthy chronicler Fenestella must not suppose that an hermaphrodite;
was only to be found among the good people of Luna.

CHAPTER XXXV.-YET MORE DISCREPANCIES. JUST NOW THE SEX OF BYTHUS WAS AN OBJECT OF DISPUTE; NOW HIS RANK COMES IN QUESTION. ABSURD SUBSTITUTES FOR BYTHUS CRITICISED BY TERTULLIAN.

There are some who do not claim the first place for Bythus, but only a lower one. They put
their Ogdoad in the foremost rank; itself, however, derived from a Tetrad, but under
different names. For they put Proarche (Before the Beginning) first, Anennoetos
(Inconceivable) second, Arrhetos (Indescribable) third, Aoratos (Invisible) fourth. Then
after Proarche they say Arche (Beginning) came forth and occupied the first and the fifth
place; from Anennoetos came Acataleptos (Incomprehensible) in the second and the sixth
place; from Arrhetos came Anonomastos (Nameless) in the third and the seventh place; from
Aoratos came Agennetos (Unbegotten) in the fourth and the eight place. Now by what method
he arranges this, that each of these ¦ons should be born in two places, and that, too, at
such intervals, I prefer to be ignorant of than to be informed. For what can be right in a
system which is propounded with such absurd particulars?

CHAPTER XXXVI.-LESS REPREHENSIBLE THEORIES IN THE HERESY. BAD IS THE BEST OF VALENTINIANISM.

How much more sensible are they who, rejecting all this tiresome nonsense, have refused to
believe that any one ¦on has descended from another by steps like these, which are really
neither more nor less Gemonian; but that on a given signal the eight-fold emanation, of
which we have heard, issued all at once from the Father and His Ennoea (Thought), -that it
is, in fact, from His mere motion that they gain their designations. When, as they say, He
thought of producing offspring, He on that account gained the name of Father. After
producing, because the issue which He produced was true, He received the name of Truth.
When He wanted Himself to be manifested, He on that account was announced as Man. Those,
moreover, whom He preconceived in His thought when He produced them, were then designated
the Church. As man, He uttered His Word; and so this Word is His first-begotten Son, and
to the Word was added Life. And by this process the first Ogdoad was completed. However,
the whole of this tiresome story is utterly poor and weak.

CHAPTER XXXVII.-OTHER TURGID AND RIDICULOUS THEORIES ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE ¦ONS AND CREATION, STATED AND CONDEMNED.

Now listen to some other buffooneries of a master who is a great swell among them, and who
has pronounced his dicta with an even priestly authority. They run thus: There comes, says
he, before all things Proarche, the inconceivable, and indescribable, and nameless, which
I for my own part call Monotes (Solitude). With this was associated another power, to
which also I give the name of Henotes (Unity). Now, inasmuch as Monotes and Henotes-that
is to say, Solitude and Union-were only one being, they produced, and yet not in the way
of production, the intellectual, innascible, invisible beginning of all things, which
human language has called Monad (Solitude). This has inherent in itself a consubstantial
force, which it calls Unity These powers, accordingly, Solitude or Solitariness, and
Unity, or Union, propagated all the other emanations of ¦ons. Wonderful distinction, to be
sure! Whatever change Union and Unity may undergo, Solitariness and Solitude is profoundly
supreme. Whatever designation you give the power, it is one and the same.

CHAPTER XXXVIII.-DIVERSITY IN THE OPINIONS OF SECUNDUS, AS COMPARED WITH THE GENERAL DOCTRINE OF VALENTINUS.

Secundus is a trifle more human, as he is briefer: he divides the Ogdoad into a pair of
Tetrads, a right hand one and a left hand one, one light and the other darkness. Only he
is unwilling to derive the power which apostatized and fell away from any one of the ¦ons,
but from the fruits which issued from their substance.

CHAPTER XXXIX.-THEIR DIVERSITY OF SENTIMENT AFFECTS THE VERY CENTRAL DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIANITY, EVEN THE PERSON AND CHARACTER OF THE LORD JESUS. THIS DIVERSITY VITIATES EVERY GNOSTIC SCHOOL.

Now, concerning even the Lord Jesus, into how great a diversity of opinion are they
divided! One party form Him of the blossoms of all the ¦ons. Another party will have it
that He is made up only of those ten whom the Word and the Life produced; from which
circumstance the titles of the Word and the Life were suitably transferred to Him. Others,
again, that He rather sprang from the twelve, the offspring of Man and the Church and
therefore, they say, He was designated "Son of man." Others, moreover, maintain that He
was formed by Christ and the Holy Spirit, who have to provide for the establishment of the
universe, and that He inherits by right His Father's appellation. Some there are who have
imagined that another origin must be found for the title "Son of man; "for they have had
the presumption to call the Father Himself Man, by reason of the profound mystery of this
title: so that what can you hope for more ample concerning faith in that God, with whom
you are now yourself on a par? Such conceits are constantly cropping out amongst them,
from the redundance of their mother's seed. And so it happens that the doctrines which
have grown up amongst the Valentinians have already extended their rank growth to the
woods of the Gnostics.


AGAINST PRAXEAS
===============

AGAINST PRAXEAS Tertullian

c. AD 155–220

North African lawyer and the first great Latin theologian.

INTRODUCTION

In which he defends, in all essential points, the doctrine of the holy trinity.
[Translated by Dr. Holmes.]

CHAPTER I.-SATAN'S WILES AGAINST THE TRUTH. HOW THEY TAKE THE FORM OF THE PRAXEAN HERESY. ACCOUNT OF THE PUBLICATION OF THIS HERESY.

1 In various ways has the devil rivalled and resisted the truth. Sometimes his aim has
been to destroy the truth by defending it. He maintains that there is one only Lord, the
Almighty Creator of the world, in order that out of this doctrine of the unity he may
fabricate a heresy. He says that the Father Himself came down into the Virgin, was Himself
born of her, Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus Christ. Here the old serpent has
fallen out with himself, since, when he tempted Christ after John's baptism, he approached
Him as "the Son of God; "surely intimating that God had a Son, even on the testimony of
the very Scriptures, out of which he was at the moment forging his temptation: "If thou be
the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. Again: "If thou be the Son of
God, cast thyself down from hence; for it is written, He shall give His angels charge
concerning thee"-referring no doubt, to the Father-"and in their hands they shall bear
thee up, that thou hurt not thy foot against a stone. Or perhaps, after all, he was only
reproaching the Gospels with a lie, saying in fact: "Away with Matthew; away with Luke!
Why heed their words? In spite of them, I declare that it was God Himself that I
approached; it was the Almighty Himself that I tempted face to face; and it was for no
other purpose than to tempt Him that I approached Him.

2 If, on the contrary, it had been only the Son of God, most likely I should never have
condescended to deal with Him. However, he is himself a liar from the beginning, and
whatever man he instigates in his own way; as, for instance, Praxeas. For he was the first
to import into Rome from Asia this kind of heretical pravity, a man in other respects of
restless disposition, and above all inflated with the pride of confessorship simply and
solely because he had to bear for a short time the annoyance of a prison; on which
occasion, even "if he had given his body to be burned, it would have profiled him
nothing," not having the love of God, whose very gifts he has resisted and destroyed. For
after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and
Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed his peace on the
churches of Asia and Phrygia, he, by importunately urging false accusations against the
prophets themselves and their churches, and insisting on the authority of the bishop's
predecessors in the see, compelled him to recall the pacific letter which he had issued,
as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the said gifts. By this Praxeas did
a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy;
he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father.

3 Praxeas' tares had been moreover sown, and had produced their fruit here also, while
many were asleep in their simplicity of doctrine; but these tares actually seemed to have
been plucked up, having been discovered and exposed by him whose agency God was pleased to
employ. Indeed, Praxeas had deliberately resumed his old (true) faith, teaching it after
his renunciation of error; and there is his own handwriting in evidence remaining among
the carnally-minded, in whose society the transaction then took place; afterwards nothing
was heard of him. We indeed, on our part, subsequently withdrew from the carnally-minded
on our acknowledgment and maintenance of the Paraclete. But the tares of Praxeas had then
everywhere shaken out their seed, which having lain hid for some while, with its vitality
concealed under a mask, has now broken out with fresh life. But again shall it be rooted
up, if the Lord will, even now; but if not now, in the day when all bundles of tares shall
be gathered together, and along with every other stumbling-block shall be burnt up with
unquenchable fire.

CHAPTER II.-THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AND UNITY, SOMETIMES CALLED THE DIVINE ECONOMY, OR DISPENSATION OF THE PERSONAL RELATIONS OF THE GODHEAD.

1 In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God
Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We,
however, as we indeed always have done and more especially since we have been better
instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is
one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oi0konomi/a, as it is called, that
this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things
were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the
Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her-being both Man and God, the Son of
Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe
Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He
had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right
hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also
from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete,
the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the
Holy Ghost.

2 That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even
before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will
be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the
absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must
henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever-that whatever
is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. But keeping this
prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the
statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons;
were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without
examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes
itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in
any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very
selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity
(that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which
distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons-the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in
substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect;

3 yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God,
from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without
division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.

CHAPTER III.-SUNDRY POPULAR FEARS AND PREJUDICES. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY IN UNITY RESCUED FROM THESE MISAPPREHENSIONS.

1 The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned, ) who always constitute
the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the
ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to
the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must
yet be believed in with His own oi0konomi/a. The numerical order and distribution of the
Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the
Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported
by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and
three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of
the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce
heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain
the Monarchy (or, sole government of God). And so, as far as the sound goes, do even
Latins (and ignorant ones too) pronounce the word in such a way that you would suppose
their understanding of the monarxi/a (or Monarchy) was as complete as their pronunciation
of the term. Well, then Latins take pains to pronounce the monarxi/a (or Monarchy), while
Greeks actually refuse to understand the oi0konomi/a, or Dispensation (of the Three in
One).

2 As for myself, however, if I have gleaned any knowledge of either language, I am sure
that monarxi/a (or Monarchy) has no other meaning than single and individual rule; but for
all that, this monarchy does not, because it is the government of one, preclude him whose
government it is, either from having a son, or from having made himself actually a son to
himself, or from ministering his own monarchy by whatever agents he will. Nay more, I
contend that no dominion so belongs to one only, as his own, or is in such a sense
singular, or is in such a sense a monarchy, as not also to be administered through other
persons most closely connected with it, and whom it has itself provided as officials to
itself. If, moreover, there be a son belonging to him whose monarchy it is, it does not
forthwith become divided and cease to be a monarchy, if the son also be taken as a sharer
in it; but it is as to its origin equally his, by whom it is communicated to the son; and
being his, it is quite as much a monarchy (or sole empire), since it is held together by
two who are so inseparable. Therefore, inasmuch as the Divine Monarchy also is
administered by so many legions and hosts of angels, according as it is written, "Thousand
thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him;

3 " and since it has not from this circumstance ceased to be the rule of one (so as no
longer to be a monarchy), because it is administered by so many thousands of powers; how
comes it to pass that God should be thought to suffer division and severance in the Son
and in the Holy Ghost, who have the second and the third places assigned to them, and who
are so closely joined with the Father in His substance, when He suffers no such (division
and severance) in the multitude of so many angels? Do you really suppose that Those, who
are naturally members of the Father's own substance, pledges of His love, instruments of
His might, nay, His power itself and the entire system of His monarchy, are the overthrow
and destruction thereof? You are not right in so thinking. I prefer your exercising
yourself on the meaning of the thing rather than on the sound of the word. Now you must
understand the overthrow of a monarchy to be this, when another dominion, which has a
framework and a state peculiar to itself (and is therefore a rival), is brought in over
and above it: when, e.g., some other god is introduced in opposition to the Creator, as in
the opinions of Marcion; or when many gods are introduced, according to your Valentinuses
and your Prodicuses. Then it amounts to an overthrow of the Monarchy, since it involves
the destruction of the Creator.

CHAPTER IV.-THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD AND THE SUPREMACY AND SOLE GOVERNMENT OF THE DIVINE BEING. THE MONARCHY NOT AT ALL IMPAIRED BY THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE.

1 But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the
Father, and (represent Him) as doing nothing without the Father's will, and as having
received all power from the Father, how can I be possibly destroying the Monarchy from the
faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? The
same remark (I wish also to be formally) made by me with respect to the third degree in
the Godhead, because I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the
Father through the Son. Look to it then, that it be not you rather who are destroying the
Monarchy, when you overthrow the arrangement and dispensation of it, which has been
constituted in just as many names as it has pleased God to employ. But it remains so firm
and stable in its own state, notwithstanding the introduction into it of the Trinity, that
the Son actually has to restore it entire to the Father; even as the apostle says in his
epistle, concerning the very end of all: "When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to
God, even the Father; for He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet; "
following of course the words of the Psalm: "Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine
enemies Thy footstool.

2 "When, however, all things shall be subdued to Him, (with the exception of Him who did
put all things under Him, ) then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him who put
all things under Him, that God may be all in all. We thus see that the Son is no obstacle
to the Monarchy, although it is now administered by the Son; because with the Son it is
still in its own state, and with its own state will be restored to the Father by the Son.
No one, therefore, will impair it, on account of admitting the Son (to it), since it is
certain that it has been committed to Him by the Father, and by and by has to be again
delivered up by Him to the Father. Now, from this one passage of the epistle of the
inspired apostle, we have been already able to show that the Father and the Son are two
separate Persons, not only by the mention of their separate names as Father and the Son,
but also by the fact that He who delivered up the kingdom, and He to whom it is delivered
up-and in like manner, He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected-
must necessarily be two different Beings.

CHAPTER V.-THE EVOLUTION OF THE SON OR WORD OF GOD FROM THE FATHER BY A DIVINE PROCESSION. ILLUSTRATED BY THE OPERATION OF THE HUMAN THOUGHT AND CONSCIOUSNESS.

1 But since they will have the Two to be but One, so that the Father shall be deemed to be
the same as the Son, it is only right that the whole question respecting the Son should be
examined, as to whether He exists, and who He is and the mode of His existence. Thus shall
the truth itself secure its own sanction from the Scriptures, and the interpretations
which guard them. There are some who allege that even Genesis opens thus in Hebrew: "In
the beginning God made for Himself a Son. As there is no ground for this, I am led to
other arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the
creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was
alone-being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He
was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He
alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own
Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from
Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call lo/goj,
by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our
people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in
the beginning with God;

2 although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had
not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; because also
Word itself consists of Reason, which it thus proves to have been the prior existence as
being its own substance. Not that this distinction is of any practical moment. For
although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself, both in
company with and included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and arranged
within Himself everything which He was afterwards about to utter through His Word. Now,
whilst He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing
that to become Word which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse. And that
you may the more readily understand this, consider first of all, from your own self, who
are made "in the image and likeness of God," for what purpose it is that you also possess
reason in yourself, who are a rational creature, as being not only made by a rational
Artificer, but actually animated out of His substance. Observe, then, that when you are
silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your
reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought, at every impulse of
your conception. Whatever you think, there is a word; whatever you conceive, there is
reason. You must needs speak it in your mind;

3 and while you are speaking, you admit speech as an interlocutor with you, involved in
which there is this very reason, whereby, while in thought you are holding converse with
your word, you are (by reciprocal action) producing thought by means of that converse with
your word. Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which
in thinking you utter speech, and through which also, (by reciprocity of process, ) in
uttering speech you generate thought. The word is itself a different thing from yourself.
Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness even you
are regarded as being, inasmuch as He has reason within Himself even while He is silent,
and involved in that Reason His Word! I may therefore without rashness first lay this down
(as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not
alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which
He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.

CHAPTER VI.-THE WORD OF GOD IS ALSO THE WISDOM OF GOD. THE GOING FORTH OF WISDOM TO CREATE THE UNIVERSE, ACCORDING TO THE DIVINE PLAN.

This power and disposition of the Divine Intelligence is set forth also in the Scriptures
under the name of Sofi/a, Wisdom; for what can be better entitled to the name of Wisdom
than the Reason or the Word of God? Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, constituted in the
character of a Second Person: "At the first the Lord created me as the beginning of His
ways, with a view to His own works, before He made the earth, before the mountains were
settled; moreover, before all the hills did He beget me; " that is to say, He created and
generated me in His own intelligence. Then, again, observe the distinction between them
implied in the companionship of Wisdom with the Lord. "When He prepared the heaven," says
Wisdom, "I was present with Him; and when He made His strong places upon the winds, which
are the clouds above; and when He secured the fountains, (and all things) which are
beneath the sky, I was by, arranging all things with Him; I was by, in whom He delighted;
and daily, too, did I rejoice in His presence." Now, as soon as it pleased God to put
forth into their respective substances and forms the things which He had planned and
ordered within Himself, in conjunction with His Wisdom's Reason and Word, He first put
forth the Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order
that all things might be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed,
yea, and already made, so far forth as (they were) in the mind and intelligence of God.
This, however, was still wanting to them, that they should also be openly known, and kept
permanently in their proper forms and substances

CHAPTER VII.-THE SON BY BEING DESIGNATED WORD AND WISDOM, (ACCORDING TO THE IMPERFECTION OF HUMAN THOUGHT AND LANGUAGE) LIABLE TO BE DEEMED A MERE ATTRIBUTE. HE IS SHOWN TO BE A PERSONAL BEING.

1 Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His
own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, "Let there be light. This is the perfect
nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God-formed by Him first to devise and
think out all things under the name of Wisdom-"The Lord created or formed me as the
beginning of His ways; " then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect-"When He
prepared the heaven, I was present with Him. Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by
proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all
things; and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to
Himself, from the womb of His own heart-even as the Father Himself testifies: "My heart,"
says He, "hath emitted my most excellent Word. The father took pleasure evermore in Him,
who equally rejoiced with a reciprocal gladness in the Father's presence: "Thou art my
Son, to-day have I begotten Thee; " even before the morning star did I beget Thee. The Son
likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom:
"The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all
the hills did He beget Me.

2 For if indeed Wisdom in this passage seems to say that She was created by the Lord with
a view to His works, and to accomplish His ways, yet proof is given in another Scripture
that "all things were made by the Word, and without Him was there nothing made; " as,
again, in another place (it is said), "By His word were the heavens established, and all
the powers thereof by His Spirit" -that is to say, by the Spirit (or Divine Nature) which
was in the Word: thus is it evident that it is one and the same power which is in one
place described under the name of Wisdom, and in another passage under the appellation of
the Word, which was initiated for the works of God which "strengthened the heavens; " "by
which all things were made," "and without which nothing was made. Nor need we dwell any
longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the
name both of Wisdom and of Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit. He became
also the Son of God, and was begotten when He proceeded forth from Him. Do you then, (you
ask, ) grant that the Word is a certain substance, constructed by the Spirit and the
communication of Wisdom? Certainly I do. But you will not allow Him to be really a
substantive being, by having a substance of His own;

3 in such a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a person, and so be able
(as being constituted second to God the Father, ) to make two, the Father and the Son, God
and the Word. For you will say, what is a word, but a voice and sound of the mouth, and
(as the grammarians teach) air when struck against, intelligible to the ear, but for the
rest a sort of void, empty, and incorporeal thing. I, on the contrary, contend that
nothing empty and void could have come forth from God, seeing that it is not put forth
from that which is empty and void; nor could that possibly be devoid of substance which
has proceeded from so great a substance, and has produced such mighty substances: for all
things which were made through Him, He Himself (personally) made. How could it be, that He
Himself is nothing, without whom nothing was made? How could He who is empty have made
things which are solid, and He who is void have made things which are full, and He who is
incorporeal have made things which have body? For although a thing may sometimes be made
different from him by whom it is made, yet nothing can be made by that which is a void and
empty thing. Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son,
who Himself is designated God? "The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

4 It is written, "Thou shalt not take God's name in vain. This for certain is He "who,
being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. In what form of
God? Of course he means in some form, not in none. For who will deny that God is a body,
although "God is a Spirit? " For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own
form. Now, even if invisible things, whatsoever they be, have both their substance and
their form in God, whereby they are visible to God alone, how much more shall that which
has been sent forth from His substance not be without substance! Whatever, therefore, was
the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and
while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father.

CHAPTER VIII.-THOUGH THE SON OR WORD OF GOD EMANATES FROM THE FATHER, HE IS NOT, LIKE THE EMANATIONS OF VALENTINUS, SEPARABLE FROM THE FATHER. NOR IS THE HOLY GHOST SEPARABLE FROM EITHER. ILLUSTRATIONS FROM NATURE.

1 If any man from this shall think that I am introducing some probolh/-that is to say,
some prolation of one thing out of another, as Valentinus does when he sets forth ¦on from
¦on, one after another-then this is my first reply to you: Truth must not therefore
refrain from the use of such a term, and its reality and meaning, because heresy also
employs it. The fact is, heresy has rather taken it from Truth, in order to mould it into
its own counterfeit. Was the Word of God put forth or not? Here take your stand with me,
and flinch not. If He was put forth, then acknowledge that the true doctrine has a
prolation; and never mind heresy, when in any point it mimics the truth. The question now
is, in what sense each side uses a given thing and the word which expresses it. Valentinus
divides and separates his prolations from their Author, and places them at so great a
distance from Him, that the ¦on does not know the Father: he longs, indeed, to know Him,
but cannot; nay, he is almost swallowed up and dissolved into the rest of matter. With us,
however, the Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded "the Father's bosom. He
has also heard and seen all things with the Father; and what He has been commanded by the
Father, that also does He speak.

2 And it is not His own will, but the Father's, which He has accomplished, which He had
known most intimately, even from the beginning. "For what man knoweth the things which be
in God, but the Spirit which is in Him? " But the Word was formed by the Spirit, and (if I
may so express myself) the Spirit is the body of the Word. The Word, therefore, is both
always in the Father, as He says, "I am in the Father; " and is always with God, according
to what is written, "And the Word was with God; " and never separate from the Father, or
other than the Father, since "I and the Father are one. This will be the prolation, taught
by the truth, the guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation
from the Father, without being separated from Him. For God sent forth the Word, as the
Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river,
and the sun the ray. For these are probolai/, or emanations, of the substances from which
they proceed. I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the
root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun; because every original source
is a parent, and everything which issues from the origin is an offspring. Much more is
(this true of) the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar designation
the name of Son.

3 But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor
the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. Following, therefore,
the form of these analogies, I confess that I call God and His Word-the Father and His
Son-two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined;
the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and
the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Everything which proceeds from something else
must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account
separated: Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a
third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as
the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third
from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is
alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the
Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at
all disturb the Monarchy, whilst it at the same time guards the state of the Economy.

CHAPTER IX.-THE CATHOLIC RULE OF FAITH EXPOUNDED IN SOME OF ITS POINTS. ESPECIALLY IN THE UNCONFUSED DISTINCTION OF THE SEVERAL PERSONS OF THE BLESSED TRINITY.

1 Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that
the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you
know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and
the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This
statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely
disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation
among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when
(extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of
the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs
from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by
distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the
other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a
derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: "My Father is greater
than I. In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being "a little lower than the
angels.

2 Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who
begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is
sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is
another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete,
so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in
the Godhead); for He says, "I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another
Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth," thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself,
even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third
degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the
order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct
names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?
For, of course, all things will be what their names represent them to be; and what they
are and ever will be, that will they be called; and the distinction indicated by the names
does not at all admit of any confusion, because there is none in the things which they
designate. "Yes is yes, and no is no; for what is more than these, cometh of evil."

CHAPTER X.-THE VERY NAMES OF FATHER AND SON PROVE THE PERSONAL DISTINCTION OF THE TWO. THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY BE IDENTICAL, NOR IS THEIR IDENTITY NECESSARY TO PRESERVE THE DIVINE MONARCHY.

1 So it is either the Father or the Son, and the day is not the same as the night; nor is
the Father the same as the Son, in such a way that Both of them should be One, and One or
the Other should be Both,-an opinion which the most conceited "Monarchians" maintain. He
Himself, they say, made Himself a Son to Himself. Now a Father makes a Son, and a Son
makes a Father; and they who thus become reciprocally related out of each other to each
other cannot in any way by themselves simply become so related to themselves, that the
Father can make Himself a Son to Himself, and the Son render Himself a Father to Himself.
And the relations which God establishes, them does He also guard. A father must needs have
a son, in order to be a father; so likewise a son, to be a son, must have a father. It is,
however, one thing to have, and another thing to be. For instance, in order to be a
husband, I must have a wife; I can never myself be my own wife. In like manner, in order
to be a father, I have a son, for I never can be a son to myself; and in order to be a
son, I have a father, it being impossible for me ever to be my own father. And it is these
relations which make me (what I am), when I come to possess them:

2 I shall then be a father, when I have a son; and a son, when I have a father. Now, if I
am to be to myself any one of these relations, I no longer have what I am myself to be:
neither a father, because I am to be my own father; nor a son, because I shall be my own
son. Moreover, inasmuch as I ought to have one of these relations in order to be the
other; so, if I am to be both together, I shall fail to be one while I possess not the
other. For if I must be myself my son, who am also a father, I now cease to have a son,
since I am my own son. But by reason of not having a son, since I am my own son, how can I
be a father? For I ought to have a son, in order to be a father. Therefore I am not a son,
because I have not a father, who makes a son. In like manner, if I am myself my father,
who am also a son, I no longer have a father, but am myself my father. By not having a
father, however, since I am my own father, how can I be a son? For I ought to have a
father, in order to be a son. I cannot therefore be a father, because I have not a son,
who makes a father.

3 Now all this must be the device of the devil-this excluding and severing one from the
other-since by including both together in one under pretence of the Monarchy, he causes
neither to be held and acknowledged, so that He is not the Father, since indeed He has not
the Son; neither is He the Son, since in like manner He has not the Father: for while He
is the Father, He will not be the Son. In this way they hold the Monarchy, but they hold
neither the Father nor the Son. Well, but "with God nothing is impossible. True enough;
who can be ignorant of it? Who also can be unaware that "the things which are impossible
with men are possible with God? " The foolish things also of the world hath God chosen to
confound the things which are wise. We have read it all. Therefore, they argue, it was not
difficult for God to make Himself both a Father and a Son, contrary to the condition of
things among men. For a barren woman to have a child against nature was no difficulty with
God; nor was it for a virgin to conceive. Of course nothing is "too hard for the Lord. But
if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious
imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that
it was not impossible for Him to do it.

4 We must not, however, because He is able to do all things suppose that He has actually
done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it. God could,
if He had liked, have furnished man with wings to fly with, just as He gave wings to
kites. We must not, however, run to the conclusion that He did this because He was able to
do it. He might also have extinguished Praxeas and all other heretics at once; it does not
follow, however, that He did, simply because He was able. For it was necessary that there
should be both kites and heretics; it was necessary also that the Father should be
crucified. In one sense there will be something difficult even for God-namely, that which
He has not done--not because He could not, but because He would not, do it. For with God,
to be willing is to be able, and to be unwilling is to be unable; all that He has willed,
however, He has both been able to accomplish, and has displayed His ability. Since,
therefore, if God had wished to make Himself a Son to Himself, He had it in His power to
do so; and since, if He had it in His power, He effected His purpose, you will then make
good your proof of His power and His will (to do even this) when you shall have proved to
us that He actually did it.

CHAPTER XI.-THE IDENTITY OF THE FATHER AND THE SON, AS PRAXEAS HELD IT, SHOWN TO BE FULL OF PERPLEXITY AND ABSURDITY. MANY SCRIPTURES QUOTED IN PROOF OF THE DISTINCTION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS OF THE TRINITY.

1 It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as
we do, when we prove that He made His Word a Son to Himself. For if He calls Him Son, and
if the Son is none other than He who has proceeded from the Father Himself, and if the
Word has proceeded from the Father Himself, He will then be the Son, and not Himself from
whom He proceeded. For the Father Himself did not proceed from Himself. Now, you who say
that the Father is the same as the Son, do really make the same Person both to have sent
forth from Himself (and at the same time to have gone out from Himself as) that Being
which is God. If it was possible for Him to have done this, He at all events did not do
it. You must bring forth the proof which I require of you-one like my own; that is, (you
must prove to me) that the Scriptures show the Son and the Father to be the same, just as
on our side the Father and the Son are demonstrated to be distinct; I say distinct, but
not separate:

2 for as on my part I produce the words of God Himself, "My heart hath emitted my most
excellent Word," so you in like manner ought to adduce in opposition to me some text where
God has said, "My heart hath emitted Myself as my own most excellent Word," in such a
sense that He is Himself both the Emitter and the Emitted, both He who sent forth and He
who was sent forth, since He is both the Word and God. I bid you also observe, that on my
side I advance the passage where the Father said to the Son, "Thou art my Son, this day
have I begotten Thee. If you want me to believe Him to be both the Father and the Son,
show me some other passage where it is declared, "The Lord said unto Himself, I am my own
Son, to-day have I begotten myself; "or again, "Before the morning did I beget myself; "
and likewise, "I the Lord possessed Myself the beginning of my ways for my own works;
before all the hills, too, did I beget myself; " and whatever other passages are to the
same effect. Why, moreover, could God the Lord of all things, have hesitated to speak thus
of Himself, if the fact had been so? Was He afraid of not being believed, if He had in so
many words declared Himself to be both the Father and the Son? Of one thing He was at any
rate afraid-of lying.

3 Of Himself, too, and of His own truth, was He afraid. Believing Him, therefore, to be
the true God, I am sure that He declared nothing to exist in any other way than according
to His own dispensation and arrangement, and that He had arranged nothing in any other way
than according to His own declaration. On your side, however, you must make Him out to be
a liar, and an impostor, and a tamperer with His word, if, when He was Himself a Son to
Himself, He assigned the part of His Son to be played by another, when all the Scriptures
attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed
furnish us with our Rule of faith, that He who speaks; and He of whom He speaks, and to
whom He speaks, cannot possibly seem to be One and the Same. So absurd arid misleading a
statement would be unworthy of God, that, widen it was Himself to whom He was speaking, He
speaks rather to another, and not to His very self. Hear, then, other utterances also of
the Father concerning the Son by the mouth of Isaiah: "Behold my Son, whom I have chosen;
my beloved, in whom I am well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall bring
forth judgment to the Gentiles. " Hear also what He says to the Son:

4 "Is it a great thing for Thee, that Thou shouldest be called my Son to raise up the
tribes of Jacob, and to restore the dispersed of Israel? I have given Thee for a light to
the Gentiles, that Thou mayest be their salvation to the end of the earth. " Hear now also
the Son's utterances respecting the Father: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He
hath anointed me to preach the gospel unto men. He speaks of Himself likewise to the
Father in the Psalm: "Forsake me not until I have declared the might of Thine arm to all
the generation that is to come. " Also to the same purport in another Psalm: "O Lord, how
are they increased that trouble me! But almost all the Psalms which prophesy of the person
of Christ, represent the Son as conversing with the Father-that is, represent Christ (as
speaking) to God. Observe also the Spirit speaking of the Father and the Son, in the
character of a third Person: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until
I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. " Likewise in the words of Isaiah: "Thus saith the
Lord to the Lord mine Anointed. " Likewise, in the same prophet, He says to the Father
respecting the Son: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the
Lord revealed?

5 We brought a report concerning Him, as if He were a little child, as if He were a root
in a dry ground, who had no form nor comeliness. These are a few testimonies out of many;
for we do not pretend to bring up all the passages of Scripture, because we have a
tolerably large accumulation of them in the various heads of our subject, as we in our
several chapters call them in as our witnesses in the fulness of their dignity and
authority. Still, in these few quotations the distinction of Persons in the Trinity is
clearly set forth. For there is the Spirit Himself who speaks, and the Father to whom He
speaks, and the Son of whom He speaks. In the same manner, the other passages also
establish each one of several Persons in His special character-addressed as they in some
cases are to the Father or to the Son respecting the Son, in other cases to the Son or to
the Father concerning the Father, and again in other instances to the (Holy) Spirit.

CHAPTER XII.-OTHER QUOTATIONS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE ADDUCED IN PROOF OF THE PLURALITY OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD.

1 If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple
Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and
Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, "Let us make man in our own image, and after
our own likeness; " whereas He ought to have said, "Let me make man in my own image, and
after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage,
however, "Behold the man is become as one of us," He is either deceiving or amusing us in
speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke,
as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it
because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in
plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had
already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person
also, the Spirit in the Word,that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, "Let us make;
"and, "in our image; "and, "become as one of us. For with whom did He make man? and to
whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day
to put on human nature; and the Spirit on the other, who was to sanctify man.

2 With these did He then speak, in the Unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and
witnesses In the following text also He distinguishes among the Persons: "So God created
man in His own image; in the image of God created He him. Why say "image of God? "Why not
"His own image" merely, if He was only one who was the Maker, and if there was not also
One in whose image He made man? But there was One in whose image God was making man, that
is to say, Christ's image, who, being one day about to become Man (more surely and more
truly so), had already caused the man to be called His image, who was then going to be
formed of clay-the image and similitude of the true and perfect Man. But in respect of the
previous works of the world what says the Scripture? Its first statement indeed is made,
when the Son has not yet appeared: "And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.
Immediately there appears the Word, "that true light, which lighteth man on his coming
into the world," and through Him also came light upon the world. From that moment God
willed creation to be effected in the Word, Christ being present and ministering unto Him:
and so God created. And God said, "Let there be a firmament, ... and God made the
firmament; " and God also said. "Let there be lights (in the firmament); and so God made a
greater and a lesser light.

3 But all the rest of the created things did He in like manner make, who made the former
ones-I mean the Word of God. "through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing
was made. Now if He too is God, according to John, (who says. "The Word was God," then you
have two Beings-One that commands that the thing be made. and the Other that executes the
order and creates. In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another. I
have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance-in the way of
distinction, not of division. But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in
three coherent and inseparable (Persons), yet I am bound to acknowledge, from the
necessity of the case, that He who issues a command is different from Him who executes it.
For, indeed, He would not be issuing a command if He were all the while doing the work
Himself, while ordering it to be done by the second. But still He did issue the command,
although He would not have intended to command Himself if He were only one; or else He
must have worked without any command, because He would not have waited to command Himself.

CHAPTER XIII.-THE FORCE OF SUNDRY PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATED IN RELATION TO THE PLURALITY OF PERSONS AND UNITY OF SUBSTANCE. THERE IS NO POLYTHEISM HERE, SINCE THE UNITY IS INSISTED ON AS A REMEDY AGAINST POLYTHEISM.

1 Well then, you reply, if He was God who spoke, and He was also God who created, at this
rate, one God spoke and another created; (and thus) two Gods are declared. If you are so
venturesome and harsh, reflect a while; and that you may think the better and more
deliberately, listen to the psalm in which Two are described as God: "Thy throne, O God,
is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness. Thou hast
loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee
or made Thee His Christ. Now, since He here speaks to God, and affirms that God is
anointed by God, He must have affirmed that Two are God, by reason of the sceptre's royal
power. Accordingly, Isaiah also says to the Person of Christ: "The Sabµans, men of
stature, shall pass over to Thee; and they shall follow after Thee, bound in fetters; and
they shall worship Thee, because God is in Thee: for Thou art our God, yet we knew it not;
Thou art the God of Israel. For here too, by saying, "God is in Thee, and "Thou art God,"
he sets forth Two who were God: (in the former expression in Thee, he means) in Christ,
and (in the other he means) the Holy Ghost. That is a still grander statement which you
will find expressly made in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God.

2 There was One "who was," and there was another "with whom" He was. But I find in
Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou
on my right hand. And Isaiah says this: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom
is the arm of the Lord revealed? " Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he
had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much
more ancient testimony we have also in Genesis: "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon
Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. Now, either deny that this is
Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words
ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when
they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple
declarations? If, indeed, you follow those who did not at the time endure the Lord when
showing Himself to be the Son of God, because they would not believe Him to be the Lord,
then (I ask you)call to mind along with them the passage where it is written, "I have
said, Ye are gods, and ye are children of the Most High; " and again, "God standeth in the
congregation of gods;

3 " in order that, if the Scripture has not been afraid to designate as gods human beings,
who have become sons of God by faith, you may be sure that the same Scripture has with
greater propriety conferred the name of the Lord on the true and one-only Son of God. Very
well! you say, I shall challenge you to preach from this day forth (and that, too, on the
authority of these same Scriptures) two Gods and two Lords, consistently with your views.
God forbid, (is my reply. For we, who by the grace of God possess an insight into both the
times and the occasions of the Sacred Writings, especially we who are followers of the
Paraclete, not of human teachers, do indeed definitively declare that Two Beings are God,
the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three, according
to the principle of the divine economy, which introduces number, in order that the Father
may not, as you perversely infer, be Himself believed to have been born and to have
suffered, which it is not lawful to believe, forasmuch as it has not been so handed down.
That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds
out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and
the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God;

4 but because in earlier times Two were actually spoken of as God, and two as Lord, that
when Christ should come He might be both acknowledged as God and designated as Lord, being
the Son of Him who is both God and Lord. Now, if there were found in the Scriptures but
one Personality of Him who is God and Lord, Christ would justly enough be inadmissible to
the title of God and Lord: for (in the Scriptures) there was declared to be none other
than One God and One Lord, and it must have followed that the Father should Himself seem
to have come down (to earth), inasmuch as only One God and One Lord was ever read of (in
the Scriptures), and His entire Economy would be involved in obscurity, which has been
planned and arranged with so clear a foresight in His providential dispensation as matter
for our faith.

5 As soon, however, as Christ came, and was recognised by us as the very Being who had
from the beginning caused plurality (in the Divine Economy), being the second from the
Father, and with the Spirit the third, and Himself declaring and manifesting the Father
more fully (than He had ever been before), the title of Him who is God and Lord was at
once restored to the Unity (of the Divine Nature), even because the Gentiles would have to
pass from the multitude of their idols to the One Only God, in order that a difference
might be distinctly settled between the worshippers of One God and the votaries of
polytheism. For it was only right that Christians should shine in the world as "children
of light," adoring and invoking Him who is the One God and Lord as "the light of the
world. Besides, if, from that perfect knowledge which assures us that the title of God and
Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, we were to
invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should become
less courageous to endure the martyr's sufferings, from which an easy escape would
everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a plurality of gods and lords, as sundry
heretics do, who hold more gods than One. I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor
of lords, but I shall follow the apostle;

6 so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father
"God," and invoke Jesus Christ as "Lord. But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be
able to call Him "God," as the same apostle says: "Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God
blessed for ever. For I should give the name of" sun" even to a sunbeam, considered in
itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should
at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns,
still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of
one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.

CHAPTER XIV.-THE NATURAL INVISIBILITY OF THE FATHER, AND THE VISIBILITY OF THE SON WITNESSED IN MANY PASSAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. ARGUMENTS OF THEIR DISTINCTNESS, THUS SUPPLIED.

1 Moreover, there comes to our aid, when we insist upon the Father and the Son as being
Two, that regulating principle which has determined God to be invisible. When Moses in
Egypt desired to see the face of the Lord, saying, "If therefore I have found grace in Thy
sight, manifest Thyself unto me, that I may see Thee and know Thee," God said, "Thou canst
not see my face; for there shall no man see me, and live: " in other words, he who sees me
shall die. Now we find that God has been seen by many persons, and yet that no one who saw
Him died (at the sight). The truth is, they saw God according to the faculties of men, but
not in accordance with the full glory of the Godhead. For the patriarchs are said to have
seen God (as Abraham and Jacob), and the prophets (as, for instance Isaiah and Ezekiel),
and yet they did not die. Either, then, they ought to have died, since they had seen Him-
for (the sentence runs), "No man shall see God, and live ; "or else if they saw God, and
yet did not die, the Scripture is false in stating that God said, "If a man see my face,
he shall not live. Either way, the Scripture misleads us, when it makes God invisible, and
when it produces Him to our sight.

2 Now, then, He must be a different Being who was seen, because of one who was seen it
could not be predicated that He is invisible. It will therefore follow, that by Him who is
invisible we must understand the Father in the fulness of His majesty, while we recognise
the Son as visible by reason of the dispensation of His derived existence; even as it is
not permitted us to contemplate, the sun, in the full amount of his substance which is in
the heavens, but we can only endure with our eyes a ray, by reason of the tempered
condition of this portion which is projected from him to the earth. Here some one on the
other side may be disposed to contend that the Son is also invisible as being the Word,
and as being also the Spirit; and, while claiming one nature for the Father and the Son,
to affirm that the Father is rather One and the Same Person with the Son. But the
Scripture, as we have said, maintains their difference by the distinction it makes between
the Visible and the Invisible. They then go on to argue to this effect, that if it was the
Son who then spake to Moses, He must mean it of Himself that His face was visible to no
one, because He was Himself indeed the invisible Father in the name of the Son.

3 And by this means they will have it that the Visible and the Invisible are one and the
same, just as the Father and the Son are the same; (and this they maintain) because in a
preceding passage, before He had refused (the sight of) His face to Moses, the Scripture
informs us that "the Lord spake face to face with Moses, even as a man speaketh unto his
friend; " just as Jacob also says, "I have seen God face to face. Therefore the Visible
and the Invisible are one and the same; and both being thus the same, it follows that He
is invisible as the Father, and visible as the Son. As if the Scripture, according to our
exposition of it, were inapplicable to the Son, when the Father is set aside in His own
invisibility. We declare, however, that the Son also, considered in Himself (as the Son),
is invisible, in that He is God, and the Word and Spirit of God; but that He was visible
before the days of His flesh, in the way that He says to Aaron and Miriam, "And if there
shall be a prophet amongst you, I will make myself known to him in a vision, and will
speak to him in a dream; not as with Moses, with whom I shall speak mouth to mouth, even
apparently, that is to say, in truth, and not enigmatically" that is to say, in image;

4 as the apostle also expresses it, "Now we see through a glass, darkly (or
enigmatically), but then face to face. Since, therefore, He reserves to some future time
His presence and speech face to face with Moses-a promise which was afterwards fulfilled
in the retirement of the mount (of transfiguration), when as we read in the Gospel," Moses
appeared talking with Jesus" -it is evident that in early times it was always in a glass,
(as it were, )and an enigma, in vision and dream, that God, I mean the Son of God,
appeared-to the prophets and the patriarchs, as also to Moses indeed himself. And even if
the Lord did possibly speak with him face to face, yet it was not as man that he could
behold His face, unless indeed it was in a glass, (as it were, ) and by enigma. Besides,
if the Lord so spake with Moses, that Moses actually discerned His face, eye to eye, how
comes it to pass that immediately afterwards, on the same occasion, he desires to see His
face, which he ought not to have desired, because he had already seen it? And how, in like
manner, does the Lord also Say that His face cannot be seen, because He had shown it, if
indeed He really had, (as our opponents suppose. Or what is that fade of God, the sight of
which is refused, if there was one which was visible to man? "I have seen God," says
Jacob, "face to face, and my life is preserved.

5 There ought to be some other face which kills if it be only seen. Well, then, was the
Son visible? (Certainly not, ) although He was the face of God, except only in vision and
dream, and in a glass and enigma, because the Word and Spirit (of God) cannot be seen
except in an imaginary form. But, (they say, ) He calls the invisible Father His face. For
who is the Father? Must He not be the face of the Son, by reason of that authority which
He obtains as the begotten of the Father? For is there not a natural propriety in saying
of some personage greater (than yourself), That man is my face; he gives me his
countenance? "My Father,"says Christ, "is greater than I. Therefore the Father must be the
face of the Son. For what does the Scripture say? "The Spirit of His person is Christ the
Lord. As therefore Christ is the Spirit of the Father's person, there is good reason why,
in virtue indeed of the unity, the Spirit of Him to whose person He belonged-that is to
say, the Father-pronounced Him to be His "face. Now this, to be sure, is an astonishing
thing, that the Father can be taken to be the face of the Son, when He is His head; for
"the head of Christ is God."

CHAPTER XV.-NEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES QUOTED. THEY ATTEST THE SAME TRUTH OF THE SON'S VISIBILITY CONTRASTED WITH THE FATHER'S INVISIBILITY.

1 If I fail in resolving this article (of our faith) by passages which may admit of
dispute out of the Old Testament, I will take out of the New Testament a confirmation of
our view, that you may not straightway attribute to the Father every possible (relation
and condition) which I ascribe to the Son. Behold, then, I find both in the Gospels and in
the (writings of the) apostles a visible and an invisible God (revealed to us), under a
manifest and personal distinction in the condition of both. There is a certain emphatic
saying by John: "No man hath seen God at any time; " meaning, of course, at any previous
time But he has indeed taken away all question of time, by saying that God had never been
seen. The apostle confirms this statement; for, speaking of God, he says, "Whom no man
hath seen, nor can see; " because the man indeed would die who should see Him. But the
very same apostles testify that they had both seen and "handled" Christ. Now, if Christ is
Himself both the Father and the Son, how can He be both the Visible and the Invisible? In
order, however, to reconcile this diversity between the Visible and the Invisible, will
not some one on the other side argue that the two statements are quite correct: that He
was visible indeed in the flesh, but was invisible before His appearance in the flesh;

2 so that He who as the Father was invisible before the flesh, is the same as the Son who
was visible in the flesh? If, however, He is the same who was invisible before the
incarnation, how comes it that He was actually seen in ancient times before (coming in)
the flesh? And by parity of reasoning, if He is the same who was visible after (coming in)
the flesh, how happens it that He is now declared to be invisible by the apostles? How, I
repeat, can all this be, unless it be that He is one, who anciently was visible only in
mystery and enigma, and became more clearly visible by His incarnation, even the Word who
was also made flesh; whilst He is another whom no man has seen at any time, being none
else than the Father, even Him to whom the Word belongs? Let us, in short, examine who it
is whom the apostles saw. "That," says John, "which we have seen with our eyes, which we
have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life. Now the Word of life
became flesh, and was heard, and was seen, and was handled, because He was flesh who,
before He came in the flesh, was the "Word in the beginning with God" the Father, and not
the Father with the Word. For although the Word was God, yet was He with God, because He
is God of God; and being joined to the Father, is with the Father.

3 "And we have seen His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father; " that is,
of course, (the glory) of the Son, even Him who was visible, and was glorified by the
invisible Father. And therefore, inasmuch as he had said that the Word of God was God, in
order that he might give no help to the presumption of the adversary, (which pretended)
that he had seen the Father Himself and in order to draw a distinction between the
invisible Father and the visible Son, he makes the additional assertion, ex abundanti as
it were: "No man hath seen God at any time. What God does he mean? The Word? But he has
already said: "Him we have seen and heard, and our hands have handled the Word of life.
Well, (I must again ask, ) what God does he mean? It is of course the Father, with whom
was the Word, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has Himself
declared Him. He was both heard and seen and, that He might not be supposed to be a
phantom, was actually handled. Him, too, did Paul behold; but yet he saw not the Father.
"Have I not," he says, "seen Jesus Christ our Lord? " Moreover, he expressly called Christ
God, saying: "Of whom are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all, God blessed for ever.

4 He shows us also that the Son of God, which is the Word of God, is visible, because He
who became flesh was called Christ. Of the Father, however, he says to Timothy: "Whom none
among men hath seen, nor indeed can see; "and he accumulates the description in still
ampler terms: "Who only hath immortality, and dwelleth in the light which no man can
approach unto. It was of Him, too, that he had said in a previous passage: "Now unto the
King eternal, immortal, invisible, to the only God; " so that we might apply even the
contrary qualities to the Son Himself-mortality, accessibility-of whom the apostle
testifies that "He died according to the Scriptures," and that "He was seen by himself
last of all," -by means, of course, of the light which was accessible, although it was not
without imperilling his sight that he experienced that light. A like danger to which also
befell Peter, and John, and James, (who confronted not the same light) without risking the
loss of their reason and mind; and if they, who were unable to endure the glory of the
Son, had only seen the Father, they must have died then and there: "For no man shall see
God, and live. This being the case, it is evident that He was always seen from the
beginning, who became visible in the end; and that He, (on the contrary, ) was not seen in
the end who had never been visible from the beginning;

5 and that accordingly there are two-the Visible and the Invisible. It was the Son,
therefore, who was always seen, and the Son who always conversed with men, and the Son who
has always worked by the authority and will of the Father; because "the Son can do nothing
of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do" -"do" that is, in His mind and thought. For
the Father acts by mind and thought; whilst the Son, who is in the Father's mind and
thought, gives effect and form to what He sees. Thus all things were made by tile Son, and
without Him was not anything made.

CHAPTER XVI.-EARLY MANIFESTATIONS OF THE SON OF GOD, AS RECORDED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT; REHEARSALS OF HIS SUBSEQUENT INCARNATION.

1 But you must not suppose that only the works which relate to the (creation of the) world
were made by the Son, but also whatsoever since that time has been done by God. For "the
Father who loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand," loves Him indeed from
the beginning, and from the very first has handed all things over to Him. Whence it is
written, "From the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God; " to whom "is
given by the Father all power in heaven and on earth. "The Father judgeth no man, but hath
committed all judgment to the Son" -from the very beginning even. For when He speaks of
all power and all judgment, and says that all things were made by Him, and all things have
been delivered into His hand, He allows no exception (in respect) of time, because they
would not be all things unless they were the things of all time. It is the Son, therefore,
who has been from the beginning administering judgment, throwing down the haughty tower,
and dividing the tongues, punishing the whole world by the violence of waters, raining
upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone, as the Lord from the Lord. For He it was who
at all times came down to hold converse with men, from Adam on to the patriarchs and the
prophets, in vision, in dream, in mirror, in dark saying;

2 ever from the beginning laying the foundation of the course of His dispensations, which
He meant to follow out to the very last. Thus was He ever learning even as God to converse
with men upon earth, being no other than the Word which was to be made flesh. But He was
thus learning (or rehearsing), in order to level for us the way of faith, that we might
the more readily believe that the Son of God had come down into the world, if we knew that
in times past also something similar had been done. For as it was on our account and for
our learning that these events are described in the Scriptures, so for our sakes also were
they done-(even ours, I say), "upon whom the ends of the world are come. In this way it
was that even then He knew full well what human feelings and affections were, intending as
He always did to take upon Him man's actual component substances, body and soul, making
inquiry of Adam (as if He were ignorant), "Where art thou, Adam? " -repenting that He had
made man, as if He had lacked foresight; tempting Abraham, as if ignorant of what was in
man; offended with persons, and then reconciled to them;

3 and whatever other (weaknesses and imperfections) the heretics lay hold of (in their
assumptions) as unworthy of God, in order to discredit the Creator, not considering that
these circumstances are suitable enough for the Son, who was one day to experience even
human sufferings-hunger and thirst, and tears, and actual birth and real death, and in
respect of such a dispensation "made by the Father a little less than the angels. But the
heretics, you may be sure, will not allow that those things are suitable even to the Son
of God, which you are imputing to the very Father Himself, when you pretend that He made
Himself less (than the angels) on our account; whereas the Scripture informs us that He
who was made less was so affected by another, and not Himself by Himself. What, again, if
He was One who was "crowned with glory and honour," and He Another by whom He was so
crowned, -the Son, in fact, by the Father? Moreover, how comes it to pass, that the
Almighty Invisible God, "whom no man hath seen nor can see; He who dwelleth in light
unapproachable; " "He who dwelleth not in temples made with hands; " "from before whose
sight the earth trembles, and the mountains melt like wax; " who holdeth the whole world
in His hand "like a nest; " "whose throne is heaven, and earth His footstool; " in whom is
every place, but Himself is in no place;

4 who is the utmost bound of the universe;-how happens it, I say, that He (who, though)
the Most High, should yet have walked in paradise towards the cool of the evening, in
quest of Adam; and should have shut up the ark after Noah had entered it; and at Abraham's
tent should have refreshed Himself under an oak; and have called to Moses out of the
burning bush; and have appeared as "the fourth" in the furnace of the Babylonian monarch
(although He is there called the Son of man),-unless all these events had happened as an
image, as a mirror, as an enigma (of the future incarnation)? Surely even these things
could not have been believed even of the Son of God, unless they had been given us in the
Scriptures; possibly also they could not have been believed of the Father, even if they
had been given in the Scriptures, since these men bring Him down into Mary's womb, and set
Him before Pilate's judgment-seat, and bury Him in the sepulchre of Joseph. Hence,
therefore, their error becomes manifest; for, being ignorant that the entire order of the
divine administration has from the very first had its course through the agency of the
Son, they believe that the Father Himself was actually seen, and held converse with men.
and worked, and was athirst, and suffered hunger (in spite of the prophet who says: "The
everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, shall never thirst at
all, nor be hungry;

5 " much more, shall neither die at any time, nor be buried!), and therefore that it was
uniformly one God, even the Father, who at all times did Himself the things which were
really done by Him through the agency of the Son.

CHAPTER XVII.-SUNDRY AUGUST TITLES, DESCRIPTIVE OF DEITY, APPLIED TO THE SON, NOT, AS PRAXEAS WOULD HAVE IT, ONLY TO THE FATHER.

1 They more readily supposed that the Father acted in the Son's name, than that the Son
acted in the Father's; although the Lord says Himself, "I am come in my Father's name; "
and even to the Father He declares, "I have manifested Thy name unto these men; " whilst
the Scripture likewise says, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord," that is
to say, the Son in the Father's name. And as for the Father's names, God Almighty, the
Most High, the Lord of hosts, the King of Israel, the "One that is," we say (for so much
do the Scriptures teach us) that they belonged suitably to the Son also, and that the Son
came under these designations, and has always acted in them, and has thus manifested them
in Himself to men. "All things," says He, "which the Father hath are mine. Then why not
His names also? When, therefore, you read of Almighty God, and the Most High, and the God
of hosts, and the King of Israel the "One that is," consider whether the Son also be not
indicated by these designations, who in His own right is God Almighty, in that He is the
Word of Almighty God, and has received power over all; is the Most High, in that He is
"exalted at the right hand of God," as Peter declares in the Acts; is the Lord of hosts,
because all things are by the Father made subject to Him;

2 is the King of Israel because to Him has especially been committed the destiny of that
nation; and is likewise "the One that is," because there are many who are called Sons, but
are not. As to the point maintained by them, that the name of Christ belongs also to the
Father, they shall hear (what I have to say) in the proper place. Meanwhile, let this be
my immediate answer to the argument which they adduce from the Revelation of John: "I am
the Lord which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty; " and from all other
passages which in their opinion make the designation of Almighty God unsuitable to the
Son. As if, indeed, He which is to come were not almighty; whereas even the Son of the
Almighty is as much almighty as the Son of God is God.

CHAPTER XVIII.-THE DESIGNATION OF THE ONE GOD IN THE PROPHETIC SCRIPTURES. INTENDED AS A PROTEST AGAINST HEATHEN IDOLATRY, IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE CORRELATIVE IDEA OF THE SON OF GOD. THE SON IS IN THE FATHER.

1 But what hinders them from readily perceiving this community of the Father's titles in
the Son, is the statement of Scripture, whenever it determines God to be but One; as if
the selfsame Scripture had not also set forth Two both as God and Lord, as we have shown
above. Their argument is: Since we find Two and One, therefore Both are One and the Same,
both Father and Son. Now the Scripture is not in danger of requiring the aid of any one's
argument, lest it should seem to be self-contradictory. It has a method of its own, both
when it sets forth one only God, and also when it shows that there are Two, Father and
Son; and is consistent with itself. It is clear that the Son is mentioned by it. For,
without any detriment to the Son, it is quite possible for it to have rightly determined
that God is only One, to whom the Son belongs; since He who has a Son ceases not on that
account to exist,-Himself being One only, that is, on His own account, whenever He is
named without the Son. And He is named without the Son whensoever He is defined as the
principle (of Deity)in the character of "its first Person," which had to be mentioned
before the name of the Son; because it is the Father who is acknowledged in the first
place, and after the Father the Son is named. Therefore "there is one God," the Father,
"and without Him there is none else.

2 And when He Himself makes this declaration, He denies not the Son, but says that there
is no other God; and the Son is not different from the Father. Indeed, if you only look
carefully at the contexts which follow such statements as this, you will find that they
nearly always have distinct reference to the makers of idols and the worshippers thereof,
with a view to the multitude of false gods being expelled by the unity of the Godhead,
which nevertheless has a Son; and inasmuch as this Son is undivided and inseparable from
the Father, so is He to be reckoned as being in the Father, even when He is not named. The
fact is, if He had named Him expressly, He would have separated Him, saying in so many
words: "Beside me there is none else, except my Son. In short He would have made His Son
actually another, after excepting Him from others. Suppose the sun to say, "I am the Sun,
and there is none other besides me, except my ray," would you not have remarked how
useless was such a statement, as if the ray were not itself reckoned in the sun? He says,
then, that there is no God' besides Himself in respect of the idolatry both of the
Gentiles as well as of Israel; nay, even on account of our heretics also, who fabricate
idols with their words, just as the heathen do with their hands; that is to say, they make
another God and another Christ.

3 When, therefore, He attested His own unity, the Father took care of the Son's interests,
that Christ should not be supposed to have come from another God, but from Him who had
already said, "I am God and there is none other beside me," who shows us that He is the
only God, but in company with His Son, with whom "He stretcheth out the heavens alone."

CHAPTER XIX.-THE SON IN UNION WITH THE FATHER IN THE CREATION OF ALL THINGS. THIS UNION OF THE TWO IN CO-OPERATION IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE TRUE UNITY OF GOD. IT IS OPPOSED ONLY TO PRAXEAS' IDENTIFICATION THEORY.

1 But this very declaration of His they will hastily pervert into an argument of His
singleness. "I have," says He, "stretched out the heaven alone. Undoubtedly alone as
regards all other powers; and He thus gives a premonitory evidence against the conjectures
of the heretics, who maintain that the world was constructed by various angels and powers,
who also make the Creator Himself to have been either an angel or some subordinate agent
sent to form external things, such as the constituent parts of the world, but who was at
the same time ignorant of the divine purpose. If, now, it is in this sense that He
stretches out the heavens alone, how is it that these heretics assume their position so
perversely, as to render inadmissible the singleness of that Wisdom which says, "When He
prepared the heaven, I was present with Him? " -even though the apostle asks, "Who hath
known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor? " meaning, of course, to
except that wisdom which was present with Him. In Him, at any rate, and with Him, did
(Wisdom) construct the universe, He not being ignorant of what she was making. "Except
Wisdom," however, is a phrase of the same sense exactly as "except the Son," who is
Christ, "the Wisdom and Power of God," according to the apostle, who only knows the mind
of the Father. "For who knoweth the things that be in God, except the Spirit which is in
Him? " Not, observe, without Him.

2 There was therefore One who caused God to be not alone, except "alone" from all other
gods. But (if we are to follow the heretics), the Gospel itself will have to be rejected,
because it tells us that all things were made by God through the Word, without whom
nothing was made. And if I am not mistaken, there is also another passage in which it is
written: "By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by His
Spirit. Now this Word, the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, must be the very Son of
God. So that, if (He did) all things by the Son, He must have stretched out the heavens by
the Son, and so not have stretched them out alone, except in the sense in which He is
"alone" (and apart) from all other gods. Accordingly He says, concerning the Son,
immediately afterwards: "Who else is it that frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and
maketh diviners mad, turning wise men backward, and making their knowledge foolish, and
confirming the words of His Son? " -as, for instance, when He said, "This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him. By thus attaching the Son to Himself, He
becomes His own interpreter in what sense He stretched out the heavens alone, meaning
alone with His Son, even as He is one with His Son.

3 The utterance, therefore, will be in like manner the Son's, "I have stretched out the
heavens alone," because by the Word were the heavens established. Inasmuch, then, as the
heaven was prepared when Wisdom was present in the Word, and since all things were made by
the Word, it is quite correct to say that even the Son stretched out the heaven alone,
because He alone ministered to the Father's work. It must also be He who says, "I am the
First, and to all futurity I AM. The Word, no doubt, was before all things. "In the
beginning was the Word; " and in that beginning He was sent forth by the Father. The
Father, however, has no beginning, as proceeding from none; nor can He be seen, since He
was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have had order or rank.
Therefore, if they have determined that the Father and the Son must be regarded as one and
the same, for the express purpose of vindicating the unity of God, that unity of His is
preserved intact; for He is one, and yet He has a Son, who is equally with Himself
comprehended in the same Scriptures. Since they are unwilling to allow that the Son is a
distinct Person, second from the Father, lest, being thus second, He should cause two Gods
to be spoken of, we have shown above that Two are actually described in Scripture as God
and Lord.

4 And to prevent their being offended at this fact, we give a reason why they are not said
to be two Gods and two Lords, but that they are two as Father and Son; and this not by
severance of their substance, but from the dispensation wherein we declare the Son to be
undivided and inseparable from the Father,-distinct in degree, not in state. And although,
when named apart, He is called God, He does not thereby constitute two Gods, but one; and
that from the very circumstance that He is entitled to be called God, from His union with
the Father.

CHAPTER XX.-THE SCRIPTURES RELIED ON BY PRAXEAS TO SUPPORT HIS HERESY BUT FEW. THEY ARE MENTIONED BY TERTULLIAN.

But I must take some further pains to rebut their arguments, when they make selections
from the Scriptures in support of their opinion, and refuse to consider the other points,
which obviously maintain the rule of faith without any infraction of the unity of the
Godhead, and with the full admission of the Monarchy. For as in the Old Testament
Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than, "I am God, and beside me there is no God ;
" so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the Lord's answer to Philip, "I and my Father
are one; " and, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and
the Father in me." They would have the entire revelation of both Testaments yield to these
three passages, whereas the only proper course is to understand the few statements in the
light of the many. But in their contention they only act on the principle of all heretics.
For, inasmuch as only a few testimonies are to be found (making for them) in the general
mass, they pertinaciously set off the few against the many, and assume the later against
the earlier. The rule, however, which has been from the beginning established for every
case, gives its prescription against the later assumptions, as indeed it also does against
the fewer.


AGAINST PRAXEAS
===============

AGAINST PRAXEAS continued

CHAPTER XXI.-IN THIS AND THE FOUR FOLLOWING CHAPTERS IT IS SHEWN, BY A MINUTE ANALYSIS OF ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL, THAT THE FATHER AND SON ARE CONSTANTLY SPOKEN OF AS DISTINCT PERSONS.

1 Consider, therefore, how many passages present their prescriptive authority to you in,
this very Gospel before this inquiry of Philip, and previous to any discussion on your
part. And first of all there comes at once to hand the preamble of John to his Gospel,
which shows us what He previously was who had to become flesh. "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God:
all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. Now, since these words may
not be taken otherwise than as they are written, there is without doubt shown to be One
who was from the beginning, and also One with whom He always was: one the Word of God, the
other God although the Word is also God, but God regarded as the Son of God, not as the
Father); One through whom were all things, Another by whom were all things. But in what
sense we call Him Another we have already often described. In that we called Him Another,
we must needs imply that He is not identical-not identical indeed, yet not as if separate;
Other by dispensation, not by division. He, therefore, who became flesh was not the very
same as He from whom the Word came. "His glory was beheld-the glory as of the only-
begotten of the Father; not, (observe, ) as of the Father. He "declared" (what was in)
"the bosom of the Father alone;

2 " the Father did not divulge the secrets of His own bosom. For this is preceded by
another statement: "No man hath seen God at any time. Then, again, when He is designated
by John (the Baptist) as "the Lamb of God," He is not described as Himself the same with
Him of whom He is the beloved Son. He is, no doubt, ever the Son of God, but yet not He
Himself of whom He is the Son. This (divine relationship) Nathanµl at once recognised in
Him, even as Peter did on another occasion: "Thou art the Son of God. And He affirmed
Himself that they were quite right in their convictions; for He answered Nathanµl:
"Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, therefore dose thou believe? And in the
same manner He pronounced Peter to be "blessed," inasmuch as "flesh and blood had not
revealed it to him"-that he had perceived the Father-"but the Father which is in heaven.
By asserting all this, He determined the distinction which is between the two Persons:
that is, the Son then on earth, whom Peter had confessed to be the Son of God; and the
Father in heaven, who had revealed to Peter the discovery which he had made, that Christ
was the Son of God. When He entered the temple, He called it "His Father's house,"
speaking as the Son. In His address to Nicodemus He says:

3 "So God loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. And again: "For God sent not His Son
into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He
that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already,
because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. Moreover, when
John (the Baptist) was asked what he happened to know of Jesus, he said: "The Father
loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand. He that believeth on the Son hath
everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of
God abideth on him. Whom, indeed, did He reveal to the woman of Samaria? Was it not "the
Messias which is called Christ? " And so lie showed, of course, that He was not the
Father, but the Son; and elsewhere He is expressly called "the Christ, the Son of God,"
and not the Father. He says, therefore," My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me,
and to finish His work; " whilst to the Jews He remarks respecting the cure of the
impotent man, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. "My Father and I"-these are the
Son's words.

4 And it was on this very account that "the Jews sought the more intently to kill Him, not
only because He broke the Sabbath, but also because He said that God was His Father, thus
making Himself equal with God. Then indeed did He answer and say unto them, The Son can do
nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth these
also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things
that He Himself doeth; and He will also show Him greater works than these, that ye may
marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son also
quickeneth whom He will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment
unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that
honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent the Son. Verily, verily, I
say unto you, He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath
everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto
life. Verily I say unto you, that the hour is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice
of the Son of God; and when they have heard it, they shall live. For as the Father hath
eternal life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have eternal life in Himself;

5 and He hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man"
-that is, according to the flesh, even as He is also the Son of God through His Spirit.
Afterwards He goes on to say: "But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works
which the Father hath given me to finish-those very works bear witness of me that the
Father hath sent me. And the Father Himself, which hath sent me, hath also borne witness
of me. But He at once adds, "Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His
shape; " thus affirming that in former times it was not the Father, but the Son, who used
to be seen and heard. Then He says at last: "I am come in my Father's name, and ye have
not received me. It was therefore always the Son (of whom we read) under the designation
of the Almighty and Most High God, and King, and Lord. To those also who inquired "what
they should do to work the works of God," He answered, "This is the work of God, that ye
believe on Him whom He hath sent. He also declares Himself to be "the bread which the
Father sent from heaven; " and adds, that "all that the Father gave Him should come to
Him, and that He Himself would not reject them, because He had come down from heaven not
to do His own will, but the will of the Father;

6 and that the will of the Father was that every one who saw the Son, and believed on Him,
should obtain the life (everlasting, ) and the resurrection at the last day. No man indeed
was able to come to Him, except the Father attracted him; whereas every one who had heard
and learnt of the Father came to Him. He goes on then expressly to say, "Not that any man
hath seen the Father; " thus showing us that it was through the Word of the Father that
men were instructed and taught. Then, when many departed from Him, and He turned to the
apostles with the inquiry whether "they also would go away," what was Simon Peter's
answer? "To whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life, and we believe that
Thou art the Christ. (Tell me now, did they believe) Him to be the Father, or the Christ
of the Father?

CHAPTER XXII.-SUNDRY PASSAGES OF ST. JOHN QUOTED, TO SHOW THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE FATHER AND THE SON. EVEN PRAXEAS' CLASSIC TEXT-I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE-SHOWN TO BE AGAINST HIM.

1 Again, whose doctrine does He announce, at which all were astonished? Was it His own or
the Father's? So, when they were in doubt among themselves whether He were the Christ (not
as being the Father, of course but as the Son), He says to them "You are not ignorant
whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but He that sent me is true, whom ye know not;
but I know Him, because I am from Him. He did not say, Because I myself am He; and, I have
sent mine own self: but His words are, "He hath sent me. When, likewise, the Pharisees
sent men to apprehend Him, He says: "Yet a little while am I with you, and (then) I go
unto Him that sent me. When, however, He declares that He is not alone, and uses these
words, "but I and the Father that sent me," does He not show that there are Two-Two, and
yet inseparable? Indeed, this was the sum: and substance of what He was teaching them,
that they were inseparably Two; since, after citing the law when it affirms the truth of
two men's testimony, He adds at once: "I am one who am bearing witness of myself; and the
Father (is another, ) who hath sent me, and beareth witness of me. Now, if He were one-
being at once both the Son and the Father-He certainly would not have quoted the sanction
of the law, which requires not the testimony of one, but of two.

2 Likewise, when they asked Him where His Father was, He answered them, that they had
known neither Himself nor the Father; and in this answer He plainly told them of Two, whom
they were ignorant of. Granted that "if they had known Him, they would have known the
Father also," this certainly does not imply that He was Himself both Father and Son; but
that, by reason of the inseparability of the Two, it was impossible for one of them to be
either acknowledged or unknown without the other. "He that sent me," says He, "is true;
and I am telling the world those things which I have heard of Him. And the Scripture
narrative goes on to explain in an exoteric manner, that "they understood not that He
spake to them concerning the Father," although they ought certainly to have known that the
Father's words were uttered in the Son, because they read in Jeremiah, "And the Lord said
to me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth; " and again in Isaiah, "The Lord hath
given to me the tongue of learning that I should understand when to speak a word in
season. In accordance with which, Christ Himself says: "Then shall ye know that I am He
and that I am saying nothing of my own self; but that, as my Father hath taught me, so I
speak, because He that sent me is with me. This also amounts to a proof that they were
Two, (although) undivided.

3 Likewise, when upbraiding the Jews in His discussion with them, because they wished to
kill Him, He said, "I speak that which I have seen with my Father, and ye do that which ye
have seen with your father; " "but now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the
truth which I have heard of God; " and again, "If God were your Father, ye would love me,
for I proceeded forth and came from God " (still they are not hereby separated, although
He declares that He proceeded forth from the Father. Some persons indeed seize the
opportunity afforded them in these words to propound their heresy of His separation; but
His coming out from God is like the ray's procession from the sun, and the river's from
the fountain, and the tree's from the seed); "I have not a devil, but I honour my Father;
" again, "If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me, of
whom ye say, that He is your God: yet ye have not known Him, but I know Him; and if I
should say, I know Him not, I shall be a liar like unto you; but I know Him, and keep His
saying. But when He goes on to say, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he
saw it, and was glad," He certainly proves that it was not the Father that appeared to
Abraham, but the Son.

4 In like manner He declares, in the case of the man born blind, "that He must do the
works of the Father which had sent Him; " and after He had given the man sight, He said to
him, "Dost thou believe in the Son of God? "Then, upon the man's inquiring who He was, He
proceeded to reveal Himself to him, as that Son of God whom He had announced to him as the
right object of his faith. In a later passage He declares that He is known by the Father,
and the Father by Him; adding that He was so wholly loved by the Father, that He was
laying down His life, because He had received this commandment from the Father. When He
was asked by the Jews if He were the very Christ (meaning, of course, the Christ of God;
for to this day the Jews expect not the Father Himself, but the Christ of God, it being
nowhere said that the Father will come as the Christ), He said to them, "I am telling you,
and yet ye do not believe: the works which I am doing, in my Father's name, they actually
bear witness of me. Witness of what? Of that very thing, to be sure, of which they were
making inquiry-whether He were the Christ of God. Then, again, concerning His sheep, and
(the assurance) that no man should pluck them out of His hand, He says, "My Father, which
gave them to me, is greater than all;

5 " adding immediately, "I am and my Father are one. Here, then, they take their stand,
too infatuated, nay, too blind, to see in the first place that there is in this passage an
intimation of Two Beings-"I and my Father; "then that there is a plural predicate, "are,"
inapplicable to one person only; and lastly, that (the predicate terminates in an
abstract, not a personal noun)-"we are one thing" Unum, not "one person" Unus. For if He
had said "one Person," He might have rendered some assistance to their opinion. Unus, no
doubt, indicates the singular number; but (here we have a case where) "Two" are still the
subject in the masculine gender. He accordingly says Unum, a neuter term, which does not
imply singularity of number, but unity of essence, likeness, conjunction, affection on the
Father's part, who loves the Son, and submission on the Son's, who obeys the Father's
will. When He says, "I and my Father are one" in essence-Unum-He shows that there are Two,
whom He puts on an equality and unites in one. He therefore adds to this very statement,
that He "had showed them many works from the Father," for none of which did He deserve to
be stoned.

6 And to prevent their thinking Him deserving of this fate, as if He had claimed to be
considered as God Himself, that is, the Father, by having said, "I and my Father are One,"
representing Himself as the Father's divine Son, and not as God Himself, He says, "If it
is written in your law, I said, Ye are gods; and if the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye
of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, that He blasphemeth,
because He said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not;
but if I do, even if ye will not believe me, still believe the works; and know that I am
in the Father, and the Father in me. It must therefore be by the works that the Father is
in the Son, and the Son in the Father; and so it is by the works that we understand that
the Father is one with the Son. All along did He therefore strenuously aim at this
conclusion, that while they were of one power and essence, they should still be believed
to be Two; for otherwise, unless they were believed to be Two, the Son could not possibly
be believed to have any existence at all.

CHAPTER XXIII.-MORE PASSAGES FROM THE SAME GOSPEL IN PROOF OF THE SAME PORTION OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH. PRAXEAS' TAUNT OF WORSHIPPING TWO GODS REPUDIATED.

1 Again, when Martha in a later passage acknowledged Him to be the Son of God, she no more
made a mistake than Peter and Nathanµl had; and yet, even if she had made a mistake, she
would at once have learnt the truth: for, behold, when about to raise her brother from the
dead, the Lord looked up to heaven, and, addressing the Father, said-as the Son, of
course: "Father, I thank Thee that Thou always hearest me; it is because of these crowds
that are standing by that I have spoken to Thee, that they may believe that Thou hast sent
me. But in the trouble of His soul, (on a later occasion, ) He said: "What shall I say?
Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause is it that I am come to this hour;
only, O Father, do Thou glorify Thy name" -in which He spake as the Son. (At another time)
He said: "I am come in my Father's name. Accordingly, the Son's voice was indeed alone
sufficient, (when addressed) to the Father. But, behold, with an abundance (of evidence)
the Father from heaven replies, for the purpose of testifying to the Son: "This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him. So, again, in that asseveration, "I
have both glorified, and will glorify again," how many Persons do you discover, obstinate
Praxeas? Are there not as many as there are voices? You have the Son on earth, you have
the Father in heaven.

2 Now this is not a separation; it is nothing but the divine dispensation. We know,
however, that God is in the bottomless depths, and exists everywhere; but then it is by
power and authority. We are also sure that the Son, being indivisible from Him, is
everywhere with Him. Nevertheless, in the Economy or Dispensation itself, the Father
willed that the Son should be regarded as on earth, and Himself in heaven; whither the Son
also Him. self looked up, and prayed, and made supplication of the Father; whither also He
taught us to raise ourselves, and pray, "Our Father which art in heaven," etc., -although,
indeed, He is everywhere present. This heaven the Father willed to be His own throne;
while He made the Son to be "a little lower than the angels," by sending Him down to the
earth, but meaning at the same time to "crown Him with glory and honour," even by taking
Him back to heaven. This He now made good to Him when He said: "I have both glorified
Thee, and will glorify Thee again. The Son offers His request from earth, the Father gives
His promise from heaven. Why, then, do you make liars of both the Father and the Son?

3 If either the Father spake from heaven to the Son when He Himself was the Son on earth,
or the Son prayed to the Father when He was Himself the Son in heaven, how happens it that
the Son made a request of His own very self, by asking it of the Father, since the Son was
the Father? Or, on the other hand, how is it that the Father made a promise to Himself, by
making it to the Son, since the Father was the Son? Were we even to maintain that they are
two separate gods, as you are so fond of throwing out against us, it would be a more
tolerable assertion than the maintenance of so versatile and changeful a God as yours!
Therefore it was that in the passage before us the Lord declared to the people present:
"Not on my own account has this voice addressed me, but for your sakes," that these
likewise may believe both in the Father and in the Son, severally, in their own names and
persons and positions. "Then again, Jesus exclaims, and says, He that believeth on me,
believeth not on me, but on Him that sent me; " because it is through the Son that men
believe in the Father, while the Father also is the authority whence springs belief in the
Son. "And he that seeth me, seeth Him that sent me. How so? Even because, (as He
afterwards declares, ) "I have not spoken from myself, but the Father which sent me:

4 He hath given me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. For "the Lord
God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know when I ought to speak" the
word which I actually speak. "Even as the Father hath said unto me, so do I speak. Now, in
what way these things were said to Him, the evangelist and beloved disciple John knew
better than Praxeas; and therefore he adds concerning i his own meaning: "Now before the
feast of the passover, Jesus knew that the Father had given all things into His hands, and
that He had come from God, and was going to God. Praxeas, however, would have it that it
was the Father who proceeded forth from Himself, and had returned to Himself; so that what
the devil put into the heart of Judas was the betrayal, not of the Son, but of the Father
Himself. But for the matter of that, things have not turned out well either for the devil
or the heretic; because, even in the Son's case, the treason which the devil wrought
against Him contributed nothing to his advantage. It was, then, the Son of God, who was in
the Son of man, that was betrayed, as the Scripture says afterwards: "Now is the Son of
man glorified, and God is glorified in Him. Who is here meant by "God?

5 "Certainly not the Father, but the Word of the Father, who was in the Son of man-that is
in the flesh, in which Jesus had been already glorified by the divine power and word. "And
God," says He, "shall also glorify Him in Himself; " that is to say, the Father shall
glorify the Son, because He has Him within Himself; and even though prostrated to the
earth, and put to death, He would soon glorify Him by His resurrection, and making Him
conqueror over death.

CHAPTER XXIV.-ON ST. PHILIP'S CONVERSATION WITH CHRIST. HE THAT HATH SEEN ME, HATH SEEN THE FATHER. THIS TEXT EXPLAINED IN AN ANTI-PRAXEAN SENSE.

1 But there were some who even then did not understand. For Thomas, who was so long
incredulous, said: "Lord, we know not whither Thou goest; and how can we know the way?
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the
Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye would have known the Father also: but henceforth
ye know Him, and have seen Him. And now we come to Philip, who, roused with the
expectation of seeing the Father, and not understanding in what sense he was to take
"seeing the Father," says: "Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Then the Lord
answered him: "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
" Now whom does He say that they ought to have known?-for this is the sole point of
discussion. Was it as the Father that they ought to have known Him, or as the Son? If it
was as the Father, Praxeas must tell us how Christ, who had been so long time with them,
could have possibly ever been (I will not say understood, but even) supposed to have been
the Father. He is clearly defined to us in all Scriptures-in the Old Testament as the
Christ of God, in the New Testament as the Son of God. In this character was He anciently
predicted, in this was He also declared even by Christ Himself;

2 nay, by the very Father also, who openly confesses Him from heaven as His Son, and as
His Son glorifies Him. "This is my beloved Son; ""I have glorified Him, and I will glorify
Him. In this character, too, was He believed on by His disciples, and rejected by the
Jews. It was, moreover, in this character that He wished to be accepted by them whenever
He named the Father, and gave preference to the Father, and honoured the Father. This,
then, being the case, it was not the Father whom, after His lengthened intercourse with
them, they were ignorant of, but it was the Son; and accordingly the Lord, while
upbraiding Philip for not knowing Himself who was the object of their ignorance, wished
Himself to be acknowledged indeed as that Being whom He had reproached them for being
ignorant of after so long a time-in a word, as the Son. And now it may be seen in what
sense it was said, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," -even in the same in which
it was said in a previous passage, "I and my Father are one. Wherefore? Because "I came
forth from the Father, and am come into the world" and, "I am the way: no man cometh unto
the Father, but by me; " and, "No man can come to me, except the Father draw him; " and,
"All things are delivered unto me by the Father; " and, "As the Father quickeneth (the
dead), so also doth the Son;

3 " and again, "If ye had known me, ye would have known the Father also. For in all these
passages He had shown Himself to be the Father's Commissioner, through whose agency even
the Father could be seen in His works, and heard in His words, and recognised in the Son's
administration of the Father's words and deeds. The Father indeed was invisible, as Philip
had learnt in the law, and ought at the moment to have remembered: "No man shall see God,
and live. So he is reproved for desiring to see the Father, as if He were a visible Being,
and is taught that He only becomes visible in the Son from His mighty works, and not in
the manifestation of His person. If, indeed, He meant the Father to be understood as the
same with the Son, by saying, "He who seeth me seeth the Father," how is it that He adds
immediately afterwards, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?
" He ought rather to have said: "Believest thou not that I am the Father? "With what view
else did He so emphatically dwell on this point, if it Were not to clear up that which He
wished men to understand-namely, that He was the Son?

4 And then, again, by saying, "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father
in me," He laid the greater stress on His question on this very account, that He should
not, because He had said, "He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father," be supposed to be
the Father; because He had never wished Himself to be so regarded, having always professed
Himself to be the Son, and to have come from the Father. And then He also set the
conjunction of the two Persons in the clearest light, in order that no wish might be
entertained of seeing the Father as if He were separately visible, and that the Son might
be regarded as the representative of the Father. And yet He omitted not to explain how the
Father was in the Son and the Son in the Father. "The words," says He, "which I speak unto
you, are not mine," because indeed they were the Father's words; "but the Father that
dwelleth in me, He doeth the works. It is therefore by His mighty works, and by the words
of His doctrine, that the Father who dwells in the Son makes Himself visible-even by those
words and works whereby He abides in Him, and also by Him in whom He abides; the special
properties of Both the Persons being apparent from this very circumstance, that He says,
"I am in the Father, and the Father is in me. Accordingly He adds: "Believe-" What? That I
am the Father?

5 I do not find that it is so written, but rather, "that I am in the Father, and the
Father in me; or else believe me for my works' sake; " meaning those works by which the
Father manifested Himself to be in the Son, not indeed to the sight of man, but to his
intelligence.

CHAPTER XXV.-THE PARACLETE, OR HOLY GHOST. HE IS DISTINCT FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON AS TO THEIR PERSONAL EXISTENCE. ONE AND INSEPARABLE FROM THEM AS TO THEIR DIVINE NATURE. OTHER QUOTATIONS OUT OF ST. JOHN'S GOSPEL.

1 What follows Philip's question, and the Lord's whole treatment of it, to the end of
John's Gospel, continues to furnish us with statements of the same kind, distinguishing
the Father and the Son, with the properties of each. Then there is the Paraclete or
Comforter, also, which He promises to pray for to the Father, and to send from heaven
after He had ascended to the Father. He is called "another Comforter," indeed; but in what
way He is another we have already shown, "He shall receive of mine," says Christ, just as
Christ Himself received of the Father's. Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and
of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One
from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, "I and my
Father are One," in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number. Run through
the whole Gospel, and you will find that He whom you believe to be the Father (described
as acting for the Father, although you, for your part, forsooth, suppose that "the Father,
being the husbandman," must surely have been on earth) is once more recognised by the Son
as in heaven, when, "lifting up His eyes thereto," He commended His disciples to the safe-
keeping of the Father. We have, moreover, in that other Gospel a clear revelation, i.e. of
the Son's distinction from the Father, "My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?

2 " and again, (in the third Gospel, ) "Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit. But
even if (we had not these passages, we meet with satisfactory evidence) after His
resurrection and glorious victory over death. Now that all the restraint of His
humiliation is taken away, He might, if possible, have shown Himself as the Father to so
faithful a woman (as Mary Magdalene) when she approached to touch Him, out of love, not
from curiosity, nor with Thomas' incredulity. But not so; Jesus saith unto her, "Touch me
not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren" (and even in this He
proves Himself to be the Son; for if He had been the Father, He would have called them His
children, (instead of His brethren), "and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your
Father, and to my God and your God. Now, does this mean, I ascend as the Father to the
Father, and as God to God? Or as the Son to the Father, and as the Word to God? Wherefore
also does this Gospel, at its very termination, intimate that these things were ever
written, if it be not, to use its own words, "that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God?

3 " Whenever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel, and apply them to
demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views
therein, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel. For these things
certainly are not written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Father, but the
Son.

CHAPTER XXVI.-A BRIEF REFERENCE TO THE GOSPELS OF ST. MATTHEW AND ST. LUKE. THEIR AGREEMENT WITH ST. JOHN, IN RESPECT TO THE DISTINCT PERSONALITY OF THE FATHER AND THE SON.

1 In addition to Philip's conversation, and the Lord's reply to it, the reader will
observe that we have run through John's Gospel to show that many other passages of a clear
purport, both before and after that chapter, are only in strict accord with that single
and prominent statement, which must be interpreted agreeably to all other places, rather
than in opposition to them, and indeed to its own inherent and natural sense. I will not
here largely use the support of the other Gospels, which confirm our belief by the Lord's
nativity: it is sufficient to remark that He who had to be born of a virgin is announced
in express terms by the angel himself as the Son of God: "The Spirit of God shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also the Holy
Thing that shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. On this passage even they
will wish to raise a cavil; but truth will prevail. Of course, they say, the Son of God is
God, and the power of the highest is the Most High. And they do not hesitate to insinuate
what, if it had been true, would have been written. Whom was he so afraid of as not
plainly to declare, "God shall come upon thee, and the Highest shall overshadow thee?

2 "Now, by saying "the Spirit of God" (although the Spirit of God is God, ) and by not
directly naming God, he wished that portion of the whole Godhead to be understood, which
was about to retire into the designation of "the Son. The Spirit of God in this passage
must be the same as the Word. For just as, when John says, "The Word was made flesh," we
understand the Spirit also in the mention of the Word: so here, too, we acknowledge the
Word likewise in the name of the Spirit. For both the Spirit is the substance of the Word,
and the Word is the operation of the Spirit, and the Two are One (and the same). Now John
must mean One when he speaks of Him as "having been made flesh," and the angel Another
when he announces Him as "about to be born," if the Spirit is not the Word, and the Word
the Spirit. For just as the Word of God is not actually He whose Word He is, so also the
Spirit (although He is called God) is not actually He whose Spirit He is said to be.
Nothing which belongs to something else is actually the very same thing as that to which
it belongs. Clearly, when anything proceeds from a personal subject, and so belongs to
him, since it comes from him, it may possibly be such in quality exactly as the personal
subject himself is from whom it proceeds, and to whom it belongs.

3 And thus the Spirit is God, and the Word is God, because proceeding from God, but yet is
not actually the very same as He from whom He proceeds. Now that which is God of God,
although He is an actually existing thing, yet He cannot be God Himself (exclusively), but
so far God as He is of the same substance as God Himself, and as being an actually
existing thing, and as a portion of the Whole. Much more will "the power of the Highest"
not be the Highest Himself, because It is not an actually existing thing, as being Spirit-
in the same way as the wisdom (of God) and the providence (of God) is not God: these
attributes are not substances, but the accidents of the particular substance. Power is
incidental to the Spirit, but cannot itself be the Spirit. These things, therefore,
whatsoever they are-(I mean) the Spirit of God, and the Word and the Power-having been
conferred on the Virgin, that which is born of her is the Son of God. This He Himself, in
those other Gospels also, testifies Himself to have been from His very boyhood: "Wist ye
not," says He, "that I must be about my Father's business? " Satan likewise knew Him to be
this in his temptations: "Since Thou art the Son of God. This, accordingly, the devils
also acknowledge Him to be: "we know Thee, who Thou art, the Holy Son of God. His "Father"
He Himself adores.

4 When acknowledged by Peter as the "Christ (the Son) of God," He does not deny the
relation. He exults in spirit when He says to the Father, "I thank Thee, O Father, because
Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent. He, moreover, affirms also that to
no man is the Father known, but to His Son; and promises that, as the Son of the Father,
He will confess those who confess Him, and deny those who deny Him, before His Father. He
also introduces a parable of the mission to the vineyard of the Son (not the Father), who
was sent after so many servants, and slain by the husbandmen, and avenged by the Father.
He is also ignorant of the last day and hour, which is known to the Father only. He awards
the kingdom to His disciples, as He says it had been appointed to Himself by the Father.
He has power to ask, if He will, legions of angels from the Father for His help. He
exclaims that God had forsaken Him. He commends His spirit into the hands of the Father.
After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the
promise of His Father; and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son
and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three
times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their
names.

CHAPTER XXVII.-THE DISTINCTION OF THE FATHER AND THE SON, THUS ESTABLISHED, HE NOW PROVES THE DISTINCTION OF THE TWO NATURES, WHICH WERE, WITHOUT CONFUSION, UNITED IN THE PERSON OF THE SON. THE SUBTERFUGES OF PRAXEAS THUS EXPOSED.

1 But why should I linger over matters which are so evident, when I ought to be attacking
points on which they seek to obscure the plainest proof? For, confuted on all sides on the
distinction between the Father and the Son, which we maintain without destroying their
inseparable union-as (by the examples) of the sun and the ray, and the fountain and the
river-yet, by help of (their conceit)an indivisible number, (with issues)of two and three,
they endeavour to interpret this distinction in a way which shall nevertheless tally with
their own opinions: so that, all in one Person, they distinguish two, Father and Son,
understanding the Son to be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be
spirit, that is God, that is Christ. Thus they, while contending that the Father and the
Son are one and the same, do in fact begin by dividing them rather than uniting them. For
if Jesus is one, and Christ is another, then the Son will be different from the Father,
because the Son is Jesus, and the Father is Christ. Such a monarchy as this they learnt, I
suppose, in the school of Valentinus, making two-Jesus and Christ. But this conception of
theirs has been, in fact, already confuted in what we have previously advanced, because
the Word of God or the Spirit of God is also called the power of the Highest, whom they
make the Father;

2 whereas these relations are not themselves the same as He whose relations they are said
to be, but they proceed from Him and appertain to Him. However, another refutation awaits
them on this point of their heresy. See, say they, it was announced by the angel:
"Therefore that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Therefore, (they argue, ) as it was the flesh that was born, it must be the flesh that is
the Son of God. Nay, (I answer, ) this is spoken concerning the Spirit of God. For it was
certainly of the Holy Spirit that the virgin conceived; and that which He conceived, she
brought forth. That, therefore, had to be born which was conceived and was to be brought
forth; that is to say, the Spirit, whose "name should be called Emmanuel which, being
interpreted, is, God with us. Besides, the flesh is not God, so that it could not have
been said concerning it, "That Holy Thing shall be called the Son of God," but only that
Divine Being who was born in the flesh, of whom the psalm also says, "Since God became man
in the midst of it, and established it by the will of the Father. Now what Divine Person
was born in it? The Word, and the Spirit which became incarnate with the Word by the will
of the Father. The Word, therefore, is incarnate; and this must be the point of our
inquiry:

3 How the Word became flesh,-whether it was by having been transfigured, as it were, in
the flesh, or by having really clothed Himself in flesh. Certainly it was by a real
clothing of Himself in flesh. For the rest, we must needs believe God to be unchangeable,
and incapable of form, as being eternal. But transfiguration is the destruction of that
which previously existed. For whatsoever is transfigured into some other thing ceases to
be that which it had been, and begins to be that which it previously was not. God,
however, neither ceases to be what He was, nor can He be any other thing than what He is.
The Word is God, and "the Word of the Lord remaineth for ever,"-even by holding on
unchangeably in His own proper form. Now, if He admits not of being transfigured, it must
follow that He be understood in this sense to have become flesh, when He comes to be in
the flesh, and is manifested, and is seen, and is handled by means of the flesh; since all
the other points likewise require to be thus understood. For if the Word became flesh by a
transfiguration and change of substance, it follows at once that Jesus must be a substance
compounded of two substances-of flesh and spirit,-a kind of mixture, like electrum,
composed of gold and silver; and it begins to be neither gold (that is to say, spirit) nor
silver (that is to say, flesh),-the one being changed by the other, and a third substance
produced.

4 Jesus, therefore, cannot at this rate be God for He has ceased to be the Word, which was
made flesh; nor can He be Man incarnate for He is not properly flesh, and it was flesh
which the Word became. Being compounded, therefore, of both, He actually is neither; He is
rather some third substance, very different from either. But the truth is, we find that He
is expressly set forth as both God and Man; the very psalm which we have quoted intimating
(of the flesh), that "God became Man in the midst of it, He therefore established it by
the will of the Father,"-certainly in all respects as the Son of God and the Son of Man,
being God and Man, differing no doubt according to each substance in its own especial
property, inasmuch as the Word is nothing else but God, and the flesh nothing else but
Man. Thus does the apostle also teach respecting His two substances, saying, "who was made
of the seed of David; " in which words He will be Man and Son of Man. "Who was declared to
be the Son of God, according to the Spirit; " in which words He will be God, and the Word-
the Son of God. We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined
in One Person-Jesus, God and Man. Concerning Christ, indeed, I defer what I have to say.

5 (I remark here), that the property of each nature is so wholly preserved, that the
Spirit on the one hand did all things in Jesus suitable to Itself, such as miracles, and
mighty deeds, and wonders; and the Flesh, on the other hand, exhibited the affections
which belong to it. It was hungry under the devil's temptation, thirsty with the Samaritan
woman, wept over Lazarus, was troubled even unto death, and at last actually died. If,
however, it was only a tertium quid, some composite essence formed out of the Two
substances, like the electrum (which we have mentioned), there would be no distinct proofs
apparent of either nature. But by a transfer of functions, the Spirit would have done
things to be done by the Flesh, and the Flesh such as are effected by the Spirit; or else
such things as are suited neither to the Flesh nor to the Spirit, but confusedly of some
third character. Nay more, on this supposition, either the Word underwent death, or the
flesh did not die, if so be the Word was converted into flesh; because either the flesh
was immortal, or the Word was modal. Forasmuch, however, as the two substances acted
distinctly, each in its own character, there necessarily accrued to them severally their
own operations, and their own issues. Learn then, together with Nicodemus, that "that
which is born in the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.
Neither the flesh becomes Spirit, nor the Spirit flesh.

6 In one Person they no doubt are well able to be co-existent. Of them Jesus consists-Man.
of the flesh; of the Spirit, God-and the angel designated Him as "the Son of God," in
respect of that nature, in which He was Spirit, reserving for the flesh the appellation
"Son of Man. In like manner, again, the apostle calls Him "the Mediator between God and
Men," and so affirmed His participation of both substances. Now, to end the matter, will
you, who interpret the Son of God to be flesh, be so good as as to show us what the Son of
Man is? Will He then, I want to know, be the Spirit? But you insist upon it that the
Father Himself is the Spirit, on the ground that "God is a Spirit," just as if we did not
read also that there is "the Spirit of God; "in the same manner as we find that as "the
Word was God," so also there is "the Word of God."

CHAPTER XXVIII.-CHRIST NOT THE FATHER, AS PRAXEAS SAID. THE INCONSISTENCY OF THIS OPINION, NO LESS THAN ITS ABSURDITY, EXPOSED. THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO ST. PAUL, WHO AGREES WITH OTHER SACRED WRITERS.

1 And so, most foolish heretic, you make Christ to be the Father, without once considering
the actual force of this name, if indeed Christ is a name, and not rather a surname, or
designation; for it signifies "Anointed. But Anointed is no more a proper name than
Clothed or Shod; it is only an accessory to a name. Suppose now that by some means Jesus
were also called Vestitus (Clothed), as He is actually called Christ from the mystery of
His anointing, would you in like manner say that Jesus was the Son of God, and at the same
time suppose that Vestitus was the Father? Now then, concerning Christ, if Christ is the
Father, the Father is an Anointed One, and receives the unction of course from another.
Else if it is from Himself that He receives it, then you must prove it to us. But we learn
no such fact from the Acts of the Apostles in that ejaculation of the Church to God, "Of a
truth, Lord, against Thy Holy Child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius
Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together. These then
testified both that Jesus was the Son of God, and that being the Son, He was anointed by
the Father. Christ therefore must be the same as Jesus who was anointed by the Father, and
not the Father, who anointed the Son. To the same effect are the words of Peter:

2 "Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye
have crucified, both Lord and Christ," that is, Anointed. John, moreover, brands that man
as "a liar" who "denieth that Jesus is the Christ; "whilst on the other hand he declares
that "every one is born of God who believeth that Jesus is the Christ. Wherefore he also
exhorts us to believe in the name of His (the Father's, ) Son Jesus Christ, that "our
fellowship may be with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. Paul, in like manner,
everywhere speaks of "God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ. When writing to the
Romans, he gives thanks to God through our Lord Jesus Christ. To the Galatians he declares
himself to be "an apostle not of men, neither by man, but through Jesus Christ and God the
Father. You possess indeed all his writings, which testify plainly to the same effect, and
set forth Two-God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. (They also
testify) that Jesus is Himself the Christ, and under one or the other designation the Son
of God. For precisely by the same right as both names belong to the same Person, even the
Son of God, does either name alone without the other belong to the same Person.
Consequently, whether it be the name Jesus which occurs alone, Christ is also understood,
because Jesus is the Anointed One;

3 or if the name Christ is the only one given, then Jesus is identified with Him, because
the Anointed One is Jesus. Now, of these two names Jesus Christ, the former is the proper
one, which was given to Him by the angel; and the latter is only an adjunct, predicable of
Him from His anointing,-thussuggesting the proviso that Christ must be the Son, not the
Father. How blind, to be sure, is the man who fails to perceive that by the name of Christ
some other God is implied, if he ascribes to the Father this name of Christ! For if Christ
is God the Father, when He says, "I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God
and your God," He of course shows plainly enough that there is above Himself another
Father and another God. If, again, the Father is Christ, He must be some other Being who
"strengtheneth the thunder, and createth the wind, and declareth unto men His Christ. And
if "the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the
Lord and against His Christ," that Lord must be another Being, against whose Christ were
gathered together the kings and the rulers. And if, to quote another passage, "Thus saith
the Lord to my Lord Christ," the Lord who speaks to the Father of Christ must be a
distinct Being.

4 Moreover, when the apostle in his epistle prays, "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ
may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and of knowledge," He must be other (than Christ),
who is the God of Jesus Christ, the bestower of spiritual gifts. And once for all, that we
may not wander through every passage, He "who raised up Christ from the dead, and is also
to raise up our mortal bodies," must certainly be, as the quickener, different from the
dead Father, or even from the quickened Father, if Christ who died is the Father.

CHAPTER XXIX.-IT WAS CHRIST THAT DIED, THE FATHER IS INCAPABLE OF SUFFERING EITHER SOLELY OR WITH ANOTHER. BLASPHEMOUS CONCLUSIONS SPRING FROM PRAXEAS' PREMISES,

1 Silence! Silence on such blasphemy. Let us be content with saving that Christ died, the
Son of the Father; and let this suffice, because the Scriptures have told us so much. For
even the apostle, to his declaration-which he makes not without feeling the weight of it-
that "Christ died," immediately adds, "according to the Scriptures," in order that he may
alleviate the harshness of the statement by the authority of the Scriptures, and so remove
offence from the reader. Now, although when two substances are alleged to be in Christ-
namely, the divine and the human- it plainly follows that the divine nature is immortal,
and that which is human is mortal, it is manifest in what sense he declares "Christ
died"-even in the sense in which He was flesh and Man and the Son of Man, not as being the
Spirit and the Word and the Son of God. In short, since he says that it was Christ (that
is, the Anointed One) that died, he shows us that that which died was the nature which was
anointed; in a word, the flesh. Very well, say you; since we on our side affirm our
doctrine in precisely the same terms which you use on your side respecting the Son, we are
not guilty of blasphemy against the Lord God, for we do not maintain that He died after
the divine nature, but only after the human. Nay, but you do blaspheme; because you allege
not only that the Father died, but that He died the death of the cross.

2 For "cursed are they which are hanged on a tree," -a curse which, after the law, is
compatible to the Son (inasmuch as "Christ has been made a curse for us," but certainly
not the Father); since, however, you convert Christ into the Father, you are chargeable
with blasphemy against the Father. But when we assert that Christ was crucified, we do not
malign Him with a curse; we only re-affirm the curse pronounced by the law: nor indeed did
the apostle utter blasphemy when he said the same thing as we. Besides, as there is no
blasphemy in predicating of the subject that which is fairly applicable to it; so, on the
other hand, it is blasphemy when that is alleged concerning the subject which is
unsuitable to it. On this principle, too, the Father was not associated in suffering with
the Son. The heretics, indeed, fearing to incur direct blasphemy against the Father, hope
to diminish it by this expedient: they grant us so far that the Father and the Son are
Two; adding that, since it iS the Son indeed who suffers, the Father is only His fellow-
sufferer. But how absurd are they even in this conceit! For what is the meaning of
"fellow-suffering," but the endurance of suffering along with another? Now if the Father
is incapable of suffering, He. is incapable of suffering in company with another;
otherwise, if He can suffer with another, He is of course capable of suffering. You, in
fact, yield Him nothing by this subterfuge of your fears.

3 You are afraid to say that He is capable of suffering whom you make to be capable of
fellow-suffering. Then, again, the Father is as incapable of fellow-suffering as the Son
even is of suffering under the conditions of His existence as God. Well, but how could the
Son suffer, if the Father did not suffer with Him? My answer is, The Father is separate
from the Son, though not from Him as God. For even if a river be soiled with mire and mud,
although it flows from the fountain identical in nature with it, and is not separated from
the fountain, yet the injury which affects the stream reaches not to the fountain; and
although it is the water of the fountain which suffers down the stream, still, since it is
not affected at the fountain, but only in the river, the fountain suffers nothing, but
only the river which issues from the fountain. So likewise the Spirit of God, whatever
suffering it might be capable of in the Son, yet, inasmuch as it could not suffer in the
Father, the fountain of the Godhead, but only in the Son, it evidently could not have
suffered, as the Father. But it is enough for me that the Spirit of God suffered nothing
as the Spirit of God, since all that It suffered It suffered in the Son. It was quite
another matter for the Father to suffer with the Son in the flesh. This likewise has been
treated by us.

4 Nor will any one deny this, since even we are ourselves unable to suffer for God, unless
the Spirit of God be in us, who also utters by our instrumentality whatever pertains to
our own conduct and suffering; not, however, that He Himself suffers in our suffering,
only He bestows on us the power and capacity of suffering.

CHAPTER XXX.-HOW THE SON WAS FORSAKEN BY THE FATHER UPON THE CROSS. THE TRUE MEANING THEREOF FATAL TO PRAXEAS. SO TOO, THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, HIS ASCENSION, SESSION AT THE FATHER'S RIGHT HAND, AND MISSION OF THE HOLY GHOST.

1 However, if you persist in pushing your views further, I shall find means of answering
you with greater stringency, and of meeting you with the exclamation of the Lord Himself,
so as to challenge you with the question, What is your inquiry and reasoning about that?
You have Him exclaiming in the midst of His passion: "My God, my God, why hast Thou
forsaken me? " Either, then, the Son suffered, being "forsaken" by the Father, and the
Father consequently suffered nothing, inasmuch as He forsook the Son; or else, if it was
the Father who suffered, then to what God was it that He addressed His cry? But this was
the voice of flesh and soul, that is to say, of man-not of the Word and Spirit, that is to
say, not of God; and it was uttered so as to prove the impassibility of God, who "forsook"
His Son, so far as He handed over His human substance to the suffering of death. This
verity the apostle also perceived, when he writes to this effect: "If the Father spa. red
not His own Son. This did Isaiah before him likewise perceive, when he declared: "And the
Lord hath delivered Him up for our offences. In this manner He "forsook" Him, in not
sparing Him; "forsook" Him, in delivering Him up. In all other respects the Father did not
forsake the Son, for it was into His Father's hands that the Son commended His. spirit.
Indeed, after so commending it, He instantly died;

2 and as the Spirit remained with the flesh, the flesh cannot undergo the full extent of
death, i.e., in corruption and decay. For the Son, therefore, to die, amounted to His
being forsaken by the Father. The Son, then, both dies and rises again, according to the
Scriptures. It is the Son, too, who ascends to the heights of heaven, and also descends to
the inner parts of the earth. "He sitteth at the Father's right hand " -not the Father at
His own. He is seen by Stephen, at his martyrdom by stoning, still sitting at the right
hand of God where He will continue to sit, until the Father shall make His enemies His
footstool. He will come again on the clouds of heaven, just as He appeared when He
ascended into heaven. Meanwhile He has received from the Father the promised gift, and has
shed it forth, even the Holy Spirit-the Third Name in the Godhead, and the Third Degree of
the Divine Majesty; the Declarer of the One Monarchy of God, but at the same time the
Interpreter of the Economy, to every one who hears and receives the words of the new
prophecy; and "the Leader into all truth," such as is in the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, according to the mystery of the doctrine of Christ.

CHAPTER XXXI.-RETROGRADE CHARACTER OF THE HERESY OF PRAXEAS. THE DOCTRINE OF THE BLESSED TRINITY CONSTITUTES THE GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY.

1 But, (this doctrine of yours bears a likeness) to the Jewish faith, of which this is the
substance-so to believe in One God as to refuse to reckon the Son besides Him, and after
the Son the Spirit. Now, what difference would there be between us and them, if there were
not this distinction which you are for breaking down? What need would there be of the
gospel, which is the substance of the New Covenant, laying down (as it does) that the Law
anti the Prophets lasted until John the Baptist, if thenceforward the Father, the Son, and
the Spirit are not both believed in as Three, and as making One Only God? God was pleased
to renew His covenant with man in such a way as that His Unity might be believed in, after
a new manner, through the Son and the Spirit, in order that God might now be known openly,
in His proper Names and Persons, who in ancient times was not plainly understood, though
declared through the Son and the Spirit. Away, then, with those "Antichrists who deny the
Father and the Son." For they deny the Father, when they say that He is the same as the
Son; and they deny the Son, when they suppose Him to be the same as the Father, by
assigning to Them things which are not Theirs, and taking away from Them things which are
Theirs. But "whosoever shall confess that (Jesus) Christ is the Son of God" (not the
Father), "God dwelleth in him, and he in God. " We believe not the testimony of God in
which He testifies to us of His Son. "He that hath not the Son, hath not life." And that
man has not the Son, who believes Him to be any other than the Son.

Postscript.

2 The learned Dr. Holmes, the translator of the Second volume of the Edinburgh series, to
which our arrangement has given another position, furnished it with a Preface as follows:
"This volume contains all Tertullian's polemical works (placed in his second volume by
Oehler, whose text we have followed), with the exception of the long treatise Against
Marcion, which has already formed a volume of this series, and the Adversus Judµos, which,
not to increase the bulk of the present volume, appears among the Miscellaneous Tracts.
"For the scanty facts connected with our author's life, and for some general remarks on
the importance and style of his writings, the reader is referred to the Introduction of my
translation of the Five Books against Marcion. "The treatises which comprise this volume
will be found replete with the vigorous thought and terse expression which always
characterize Tertullian. "Brief synopses are prefixed to the several treatises, and
headings are supplied to the chapters: these, with occasional notes on difficult passages
and obscure allusions, will, it is hoped, afford sufficient aid for an intelligent perusal
of these ancient writings, which cannot fail to be interesting alike to the theologian and
the general reader,-full as they are of reverence for revealed truth, and at the same time
of independence of judgment, adorned with admirable variety and fulness of knowledge,
genial humour, and cultivated imagination."

3 Dr. Holmes further adorned this same volume with a dedication to a valued friend, in the
following words: "The Right Rev. Father in God, W. I. Trower, D.D., late Lord Bishop of
Gibraltar, and formerly Bishop of Glasgow and Galway: My Dear Lord, In one of our
conversations last summer, you were kind enough to express an interest in this
publication, and to favour me with some valuable hints on my own share in it. It gives me
therefore great pleasure to inscribe your honoured name on the first page of this volume.
I avail myself of this public opportunity of endorsing, on my own account, the high
opinion which has long been entertained of your excellent volumes on The Epistles and The
Gospels. Recalling to mind, as I often do, our pleasant days at Pennycross and Mannamead,
I remain, my dear Lord, very faithfully yours, Peter Holmes." Mannamead, March 10, 1870.


AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS
=====================

AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS Tertullian

c. AD 155–220

North African lawyer and the first great Latin theologian.

INTRODUCTION

Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.

CHAPTER I.-OCCASION OF WRITING. RELATIVE POSITION OF JEWS AND GENTILES ILLUSTRATED.

1 It happened very recently a dispute was held between a Christian and a Jewish proselyte.
Alternately with contentious cable they each spun out the day until evening. By the
opposing din, moreover, of some partisans of the individuals, truth began to be overcast
by a sort of cloud. It was therefore our pleasure that that which, owing to the confused
noise of disputation, could be less fully elucidated point by point, should be more
carefully looked into, and that the pen should determine, for reading purposes, the
questions handled 2 For the occasion, indeed, of claiming Divine grace even for the
Gentiles derived a pre-eminent fitness from this fact, that the man who set up to
vindicate CoWs Law as his own was of the Gentiles, and not a Jew "of the stock of the
Israelites. For this fact-that Gentiles are admissible to God's Law-is enough to prevent
Israel from priding himself on the notion that "the Gentiles are accounted as a little
drop of a bucket," or else as "dust out of a threshing-floor: " although we have God
Himself as an adequate engager and faithful promiser, in that He promised to Abraham that
"in his seed should be blest all nations of the earth; " and that out of the womb of
Rebecca "two peoples and two nations were about to proceed," -of course those of the Jews,
that is, of Israel; and of the Gentiles, that is ours. Each, then, was called a people and
a nation; lest, from the nuncupative appellation, any should dare to claim for himself the
privilege of grace. For God ordained "two peoples and two nations" as about to proceed out
of the womb of one woman: nor did grace make distinction in the nuncupative appellation,
but in the order of birth; to the effect that, which ever was to be prior in proceeding
from the womb, should be subjected to "the less," that is, the posterior. For thus unto
Rebecca did God speak: "Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be divided from
thy bowels;

3 and people shall overcome people, and the greater shall serve the less. Accordingly,
since the people or nation of the Jews is anterior in time, and "greater" through the
grace of primary favour in the Law, whereas ours is understood to be "less" in the age of
times, as having in the last era of the world attained the knowledge of divine mercy:
beyond doubt, through the edict of the divine utterance, the prior and "greater" people-
that is, the Jewish-must necessarily serve the "less; "and the "less" people-that is, the
Christian-overcome the "greater. For, withal, according to the memorial records of the
divine Scriptures, the people of the Jews-that is, the more ancient-quite forsook God, and
did degrading service to idols, and, abandoning the Divinity, was surrendered to images;
while "the people" said to Aaron, "Make us gods to go before us. And when the gold out of
the necklaces of the women and the rings of the men had been wholly smelted by fire, and
there had come forth a calf-like head, to this figment Israel with one consent (abandoning
God) gave honour, saying, "These are the gods who brought us from the land of Egypt. For
thus, in the later times in which kings were governing them, did they again, in
conjunction with Jeroboam, worship golden kine, and groves, and enslave themselves to
Baal. Whence is proved that they have ever been depicted, out of the volume of the divine
Scriptures, as guilty of the crime of idolatry;

4 whereas our "less"-that is, posterior-people, quitting the idols which formerly it used
slavishly to serve, has been converted to the same God from whom Israel, as we have above
related, had departed. For thus has the "less"-that is, posterior-people overcome
the"greater people," while it attains the grace of divine favour, from which Israel has
been divorced.

CHAPTER II.-THE LAW ANTERIOR TO MOSES.

1 Stand we, therefore, foot to foot, and determine we the sum and substance of the actual
question within definite lists. 2 For why should God, the founder of the universe, the
Governor of the whole world, the Fashioner of humanity, the Sower of universal nations be
believed to have given a law through Moses to one people, and not be said to have assigned
it to all nations? For unless He had given it to all by no means would He have habitually
permitted even proselytes out of the nations to have access to it. But-as is congruous
with the goodness of God, and with His equity, as the Fashioner of mankind-He gave to all
nations the selfsame law, which at definite and stated times He enjoined should be
observed, when He willed, and through whom He willed, and as He willed. For in the
beginning of the world He gave to Adam himself and Eve a law, that they were not to eat of
the fruit of the tree planted in the midst of paradise; but that, if they did
contrariwise, by death they were to die. Which law had continued enough for them, had it
been kept. For in this law given to Adam we recognise in embryo all the precepts which
afterwards sprouted forth when given through Moses; that is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God from thy whole heart and out of thy whole soul; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself; Thou shalt not kill; Thou shall not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; False
witness thou shall not utter; Honour thy father and mother; and, That which is another's,
shall thou not covet.

3 For the primordial law was given to Adam and Eve in paradise, as the womb of all the
precepts of God. In short, if they had loved the Lord their God, they would not have
contravened His precept; if they had habitually loved their neighbour-that is, themselves
-they would not have believed the persuasion of the serpent, and thus would not have
committed murder upon themselves, by falling from immortality, by contravening God's
precept; from theft also they would have abstained, if they had not stealthily tasted of
the fruit of the tree, nor had been anxious to skulk beneath a tree to escape the view of
the Lord their God; nor would they have been made partners with the falsehood-asseverating
devil, by believing him that they would be "like God; "and thus they would not have
offended God either, as their Father, who had fashioned them from clay of the earth, as
out of the womb of a mother; if they had not coveted another's, they would not have tasted
of the unlawful fruit. Therefore, in this general and primordial law of God, the
observance of which, in the case of the tree's fruit, He had sanctioned, we recognise
enclosed all the precepts specially of the posterior Law, which germinated when disclosed
at their proper times. For the subsequent superinduction of a law is the work of the same
Being who had before premised a precept; since it is His province withal subsequently to
train, who had before resolved to form, righteous creatures.

4 For what wonder if He extends a discipline who institutes it? if He advances who begins?
In short, before the Law of Moses, written in stone-tables, I contend that there was a law
unwritten, which was habitually understood naturally, and by the fathers was habitually
kept. For whence was Noah "found righteous," if in his case the righteousness of a natural
law had not preceded? Whence was Abraham accounted "a friend of God," if not on the ground
of equity and righteousness, (in the observance) of a natural law? Whence was Melchizedek
named "priest of the most high God," if, before the priesthood of the Levitical law, there
were not levites who were wont to offer sacrifices to God? For thus, after the above-
mentioned patriarchs, was the Law given to Moses, at that (well-known) time after their
exode from Egypt, after the interval and spaces of four hundred years. In fact, it was
after Abraham's "four hundred and thirty years" that the Law was given. Whence we
understand that God's law was anterior even to Moses, and was not first (given) in Horeb,
nor in Sinai and in the desert, but was more ancient; (existing) first in paradise,
subsequently reformed for the patriarchs, and so again for the Jews, at definite periods:

5 so that we are not to give heed to Moses' Law as to the primitive law, but as to a
subsequent, which at a definite period God has set forth to the Gentiles too and, after
repeatedly promising so to do through the prophets, has reformed for the better; and has
premonished that it should come to pass that, just as "the law was given through Moses" at
a definite time, so it should be believed to have been temporarily observed and kept. And
let us not annul this power which God has, which reforms the law's precepts answerably to
the circumstances of the times, with a view to man's salvation. In fine, let him who
contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision
on the eighth day because of the threat of death, teach us that, for the time past,
righteous men kept the Sabbath, or practised circumcision, and were thus rendered "friends
of God. For if circumcision purges a man since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did He not
circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? At all events, in settling
him in paradise, He appointed one uncircumcised as colonist of paradise. Therefore, since
God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his
offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the
Sabbath, was by Him commended;

6 while He accepted what he was offering in simplicity of heart, and reprobated the
sacrifice of his brother Cain, who was not rightly dividing what he was offering. Noah
also, uncircumcised-yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath-God freed from the deluge. For
Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and in-observant of the Sabbath, He
translated from this world; who did not first taste death, in order that, being a
candidate for eternal life, he might by this time show us that we also may, without the
burden of the law of Moses, please God. Melchizedek also, "the priest of the most high
God," uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was chosen to the priesthood of God.
Lot, withal, the brother of Abraham, proves that it was for the merits of righteousness,
without observance of the law, that he was freed from the conflagration of the Sodomites.

CHAPTER III.-OF CIRCUMCISION AND THE SUPERCESSION OF THE OLD LAW.

1 But Abraham, (you say, ) was circumcised. Yes, but he pleased God before his
circumcision; nor yet did he observe the Sabbath. For he had "accepted" circumcision; but
such as was to be for "a sign" of that time, not for a prerogative title to salvation. In
fact, subsequent patriarchs were uncircumcised, like Melchizedek, who, uncircumcised,
offered to Abraham himself, already circumcised, on his return from battle, bread and
wine. "But again," (you say) "the son of Moses would upon one occasion have been choked by
an angel, if Zipporah, had not circumcised the foreskin of the infant with a pebble;
whence, "there is the greatest peril if any fail to circumcise the foreskin of his flesh.
Nay, but if circumcision altogether brought salvation, even Moses himself, in the case of
his own son, would not have omitted to circumcise him on the eighth day; whereas it is
agreed that Zipporah did it on the journey, at the compulsion of the angel. Consider we,
accordingly, that one single infant's compulsory circumcision cannot have prescribed to
every people, and rounded, as it were, a law for keeping this precept. For God, foreseeing
that He was about to give this circumcision to the people of Israel for "a sign," not for
salvation, urges the circumcision of the son of Moses, their future leader, for this
reason; that, since He had begun, through him, to give the People the precept of
circumcision, the people should not despise it, from seeing this example (of neglect)
already exhibited conspicuously in their leader's son.

2 For circumcision had to be given; but as "a sign," whence Israel in the last time would
have to be distinguished, when, in accordance with their deserts, they should be
prohibited from entering the holy city, as we see through the words of the prophets,
saying, "Your land is desert; your cities utterly burnt with fire; your country, in your
sight, strangers shall eat up; and, deserted and subverted by strange peoples, the
daughter of Zion shall be derelict, like a shed in a vineyard, and like a watchhouse in a
cucumber-field, and as it were a city which is being stormed. Why so? Because the
subsequent discourse of the prophet reproaches them, saying, "Sons have I begotten and
upraised, but they have reprobated me; " and again, "And if ye shall have outstretched
hands, I will avert my face from you; and if ye shall have multiplied prayers, I will not
hear you: for your hands are full of blood; " and again, "Woe! sinful nation; a people
full of sins; wicked sons; ye have quite forsaken God, and have provoked unto indignation
the Holy One of Israel. This, therefore, was God's foresight,-that of giving circumcision
to Israel, for a sign whence they might be distinguished when the time should arrive
wherein their above-mentioned deserts should prohibit their admission into Jerusalem:
which circumstance, because it was to be, used to be announced; and, because we see it
accomplished, is recognised by us.

3 For, as the carnal circumcision, which was temporary, was in wrought for "a sign" in a
contumacious people, so the spiritual has been given for salvation to an obedient people;
while the prophet Jeremiah says, "Make a renewal for you, and sow not in thorns; be
circumcised to God, and circumcise the foreskin of your heart: " and in another place he
says, "Behold, days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will draw up, for the house of Judah
and for the house of Jacob, a new testament; not such as I once gave their fathers in the
day wherein I led them out from the land of Egypt. Whence we understand that the coming
cessation of the former circumcision l then given, and the coming procession of a new law
(not such as He had already given to the fathers), are announced: just as Isaiah foretold,
saying that in the last days the mount of the Lord and the house of God were to be
manifest above the tops of the mounts: "And it shall be exalted," he says, "above the
hills; and there shall come over it all nations; and many shall walk, and say, Come,
ascend we unto the mount of the Lord, and unto the house of the God of Jacob," -not of
Esau, the former son, but of Jacob, the second; that is, of our "people," whose "mount" is
Christ, "prµcised without concisors' hands, filling every land," shown in the book of
Daniel.

4 In short, the coming procession of a new law out of this "house of the God of Jacob"
Isaiah in the ensuing words announces, saying, "For from Zion shall go out a law, and the
word of the Lord out of Jerusalem, and shall judge among the nations,"-that is, among us,
who have been called out of the nations,-"and they shall join to beat their glaives into
ploughs, and their lances into sickles; and nations shall not take up glaive against
nation, and they shall no more learn to fight. Who else, therefore, are understood but we,
who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices,-the old law being obliterated,
the coming of whose abolition the action itself demonstrates? For the wont of the old law
was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the glaive, and to pluck out "eye for eye," and
to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. But the new law's wont was to point to
clemency, and to convert to tranquillity the pristine ferocity of "glaives" and "lances,"
and to remodel the pristine execution of "war" upon the rivals and foes of the law into
the pacific actions of "ploughing" and "tilling" the land. Therefore as we have shown
above that the coming cessation of the old law and of the carnal circumcision was
declared, so, too, the observance of the new law and the spiritual circumcision has shone
out into the voluntary obediences of peace. For "a people," he says, "whom I knew not hath
served me;

5 in obedience of the ear it hath obeyed me. Prophets made the announcement. But what is
the "people" which was ignorant of God, but ours, who in days bygone knew not God? and
who, in the hearing of the ear, gave heed to Him, but we, who, forsaking idols, have been
converted to God? For Israel-who had been known to God, and who had by Him been "upraised"
in Egypt, and was transported through the Red Sea, and who in the desert, fed forty years
with manna, was wrought to the semblance of eternity, and not contaminated with human
passions, or fed on this world's meats, but fed on "angel's loaves" -the manna-and
sufficiently bound to God by His benefits-forgot his Lord and God, saying to Aaron: "Make
us gods, to go before us: for that Moses, who ejected us from the land of Egypt, hath
quite forsaken us; and what hath befallen him we know not. And accordingly we, who "were
not the people of God" in days bygone, have been made His people, by accepting the new law
above mentioned, and the new circumcision before foretold.

CHAPTER IV.-OF THE OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.

1 It follows, accordingly, that, in so far as the abolition of carnal circumcision and of
the old law is demonstrated as having been consummated at its specific times, so also the
observance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been temporary. 2 For the Jews say, that
from the beginning God sanctified the seventh day, by resting on it from all His works
which He made; and that thence it was, likewise, that Moses said to the People: "Remember
the day of the sabbaths, to sanctify it: every servile work ye shall not do therein,
except what pertaineth unto life. Whence we (Christians) understand that we still more
ought to observe a sabbath from all "servile work" always, and not only every seventh day,
but through all time. And through this arises the question for us, what sabbath God willed
us to keep? For the Scriptures point to a sabbath eternal and a sabbath temporal. For
Isaiah the prophet says, "Your sabbaths my soul hateth; " and in another place he says,
"My sabbaths ye have profaned. Whence we discern that the temporal sabbath is human, and
the eternal sabbath is accounted divine; concerning which He predicts through Isaiah: "And
there shall be," He says, "month after month, and day after day, and sabbath after
sabbath; and all flesh shall come to adore in Jerusalem, saith the Lord; " which we
understand to have been fulfilled in the times of Christ, when "all flesh"-that is, every
nation-"came to adore in Jerusalem" God the Father, through Jesus Christ His Son, as was
predicted through the prophet: "Behold, proselytes through me shall go unto Thee. Thus,
therefore, before this temporal sabbath, there was withal an eternal sabbath foreshown and
foretold; just as before the carnal circumcision there was withal a spiritual circumcision
foreshown.

3 In short, let them teach us, as we have already premised, that Adam observed the
sabbath; or that Abel, when offering to God a holy victim, pleased Him by a religious
reverence for the sabbath; or that Enoch, when translated, had been a keeper of the
sabbath; or that Noah the ark-builder observed, on account of the deluge, an immense
sabbath; or that Abraham, in observance of the sabbath, offered Isaac his son; or that
Melchizedek in his priesthood received the law of the sabbath. 4 But the Jews are sure to
say, that ever since this precept was given through Moses, the observance has been
binding. Manifest accordingly it is, that the precept was not eternal nor spiritual, but
temporary, which would one day cease. In short, so true is it that it is not in the
exemption from work of the sabbath-that is, of the seventh day-that the celebration of
this solemnity is to consist, that Joshua the son of Nun, at the time that he was reducing
the city Jericho by war. stated that he had received from God a precept to order the
People that priests should carry the ark of the testament of God seven days, making the
circuit of the city; and thus, when the seventh day's circuit had been performed, the
walls of the city would spontaneously fall. Which was so done; and when the space of the
seventh day was finished, just as was predicted, down fell the walls of the city. Whence
it is manifestly shown, that in the number of the seven days there intervened a sabbath-
day. For seven days, whencesoever they may have commenced, must necessarily include within
them a sabbath-day; on which day not only must the priests have worked, but the city must
have been made a prey by the edge of the sword by all the people of Israel. Nor is it
doubtful that they "wrought servile work," when, in obedience to God's precept, they drave
the preys of war. For in the times of the Maccabees, too, they did bravely in fighting on
the sabbaths, and routed their foreign foes, and recalled the law of their fathers to the
primitive style of life by fighting on the sabbaths. Nor should I think it was any other
law which they thus vindicated, than the one in which they remembered the existence of the
prescript touching "the day of the sabbaths."

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

CHAPTER V.-OF SACRIFICES.

1 So, again, we show that sacrifices of earthly oblations and of spiritual sacrifices were
predicted; and, moreover, that from the beginning the earthly were foreshown, in the
person of Cain, to be those of the "elder son," that is, of Israel; and the opposite
sacrifices demonstrated to be those of the "younger son," Abel, that is, of our people.
For the elder, Cain, offered gifts to God from the fruit of the earth; but the younger
son, Abel, from the fruit of his ewes. "God had respect unto Abel, and unto his gifts; but
unto Cain and unto his gifts He had not respect. And God said unto Cain, Why is thy
countenance fallen? hast thou not-if thou offerest indeed aright, but dost not divide
aright-sinned? Hold thy peace. For unto thee shall thy conversion be and he shall lord it
over thee. And then Cain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go into the field: and he went
away with him thither, and he slew him. And then God said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy
brother? And he said, I know not: am I my brother's keeper? To whom God said, The voice of
the blood of thy brother crieth forth unto me from the earth. Wherefore cursed is the
earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive the blood of thy brother. Groaning and
trembling shalt thou be upon the earth, and every one who shall have found thee shall slay
thee.

2 From this proceeding we gather that the twofold sacrifices of "the peoples" were even
from the very beginning foreshown. In short, when the sacerdotal law was being drawn up,
through Moses, in Leviticus, we find it prescribed to the people of Israel that sacrifices
should in no other place be offered to God than in the land of promise; which the Lord God
was about to give to "the people" Israel and to their brethren, in order that, on Israel's
introduction thither, there should there be celebrated sacrifices and holocausts, as well
for sins as for souls; and nowhere else but in the holy land. Why, accordingly, does the
Spirit afterwards predict, through the prophets, that it should come to pass that in every
place and in every land there should be offered sacrifices to God? as He says through the
angel Malachi, one of the twelve prophets: "I will not receive sacrifice from your hands;
for from the rising sun unto the setting my Name hath been made famous among all the
nations, saith the Lord Almighty: and in every place they offer clean sacrifices to my
Name. Again, in the Pslams, David says: "Bring to God, ye countries of the
nations"-undoubtedly because "unto every land" the preaching of the apostles had to "go
out" -"bring to God fame and honour; bring to God the sacrifices of His name: take up
victims and enter into His courts.

3 For that it is not by earthly sacrifices, but by spiritual, that offering is to be made
to God, we thus read, as it is written, An heart contribulate and humbled is a victim for
God; " and elsewhere, "Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and render to the Highest
thy vows. Thus, accordingly, the spiritual "sacrifices of praise" are pointed to, and "an
heart contribulate" is demonstrated an acceptable sacrifice to God. And thus, as carnal
sacrifices are understood to be reprobated-of which Isaiah withal speaks, saying, "To what
end is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? saith the Lord" -so spiritual sacrifices
are predicted as accepted, as the prophets announce. For, "even if ye shall have brought
me," He says, "the finest wheat flour, it is a vain supplicatory gift: a thing execrable
to me; "and again He says, "Your holocausts and sacrifices, and the fat of goats, and
blood of bulls, I will not, not even if ye come to be seen by me: for who hath required
these things from your hands? " for "from the rising sun unto the setting, my Name hath
been made famous among all the nations, saith the Lord. But of the spiritual sacrifices He
adds, saying, "And in every place they offer dean sacrifices to my Name, saith the Lord."

CHAPTER VI.-OF THE ABOLITION AND THE ABOLISHER OF THE OLD LAW.

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

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

CHAPTER VII.-THE QUESTION WHETHER CHRIST BE COME TAKEN UP.

1 Therefore upon this issue plant we foot to foot, whether the Christ who was constantly
announced as to come be already come, or whether His coming be yet a subject of hope. For
proof of which question itself, the times likewise must be examined by us when the
prophets announced that the Christ would come; that, if we succeed in recognising that He
has come within the limits of those times, we may without doubt believe Him to be the very
one whose future coming was ever the theme of prophetic song, upon whom we-the nations, to
wit-were ever announced as destined to believe; and that, when it shall have been agreed
that He is come, we may undoubtedly likewise believe that the new law has by Him been
given, and not disavow the new testament in Him and through Him drawn up for us. For that
Christ was to come we know that even the Jews do not attempt to disprove, inasmuch as it
is to His advent that they are directing their hope. Nor need we inquire at more length
concerning that matter, since in days bygone all the prophets have prophesied of it; as
Isaiah: "Thus saith the Lord God to my Christ (the) Lord, whose right hand I have holden,
that the nations may hear Him: the powers of kings will I burst asunder; I will open
before Him the gates, and the cities shall not be closed to Him. Which very thing we see
fulfilled.

2 For whose right hand does God the Father hold but Christ's, His Son?-whom all nations
have heard, that is, whom all nations have believed,-whose preachers, withal, the
apostles, are pointed to in the Psalms of David: "Into the universal earth," says he, "is
gone out their sound, and unto the ends of the earth their words. For upon whom else have
the universal nations believed, but upon the Christ who is already come? For whom have the
nations believed,-Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and they who inhabit Mesopotamia, Armenia,
Phrygia, Cappadocia, and they who dwell in Pontus, and Asia, and Pamphylia, tarriers in
Egypt, and inhabiters of the region of Africa which is beyond Cyrene, Romans and
sojourners, yes, and in Jerusalem Jews, and all other nations; as, for instance, by this
time, the varied races of the Gµtulians, and manifold confines of the Moors, all the
limits of the Spains, and the diverse nations of the Gauls, and the haunts of the Britons-
inaccessible to the Romans, but subjugated to Christ, and of the Sarmatians, and Dacians,
and Germans, and Scythians, and of many remote nations, and of provinces and islands many,
to us unknown, and which we can scarce enumerate? In all which places the name of the
Christ who is already come reigns, as of Him before whom the gates of all cities have been
opened, and to whom none are closed, before whom iron bars have been crumbled, and brazen
gates opened.

3 Although there be withal a spiritual sense to be affixed to these expressions,-that the
hearts of individuals, blockaded in various ways by the devil, are unbarred by the faith
of Christ,-still they have been evidently fulfilled, inasmuch as in all these places
dwells the "people" of the Name of Christ. For who could have reigned over all nations but
Christ, God's Son, who was ever announced as destined to reign over all to eternity? For
if Solomon "reigned," why, it was within the confines of Judea merely: "from Beersheba
unto Dan" the boundaries of his kingdom are marked. If, moreover, Darius "reigned" over
the Babylonians and Parthians, he had not power over all nations; if Pharaoh, or whoever
succeeded him in his hereditary kingdom, over the Egyptians, in that country merely did he
possess his kingdom's dominion; if Nebuchadnezzar with his petty kings, "from India unto
Ethiopia" he had his kingdom's boundaries; if Alexander the Macedonian he did not hold
more than universal Asia, and other regions, after he had quite conquered them; if the
Germans, to this day they are not suffered to cross their own limits; the Britons are shut
within the circuit of their own ocean; the nations of the Moors, and the barbarism of the
Gµtulians, are blockaded by the Romans, lest they exceed the confines of their own
regions. What shall I say of the Romans themselves, who fortify their own empire with
garrisons of their own legions, nor can extend the might of their kingdom beyond these
nations?

4 But Christ's Name is extending everywhere, believed everywhere, worshipped by all the
above-enumerated nations, reigning everywhere, adored everywhere, conferred equally
everywhere upon all. No king, with Him, finds greater favour, no barbarian lesser joy; no
dignities or pedigrees enjoy distinctions of merit; to all He is equal, to all King, to
all Judge, to all "God and Lord. Nor would you hesitate to believe what we asseverate,
since you see it taking place.

CHAPTER VIII.-OF THE TIMES OF CHRIST'S BIRTH AND PASSION, AND OF JERUSALEM'S DESTRUCTION.

1 Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the
Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is,
its devastation. For Daniel says, that "both the holy city and the holy place are
exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto
ruin." And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we
shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the
ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His. Which
matters we prove, again, on the ground of the consequences which were ever announced as to
follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as
foreseen. 2 In such wise, therefore, did Daniel predict concerning Him, as to show both
when and in what time He was to set the nations free; and how, after the passion of the
Christ, that city had to be exterminated. For he says thus: "In the first year under
Darius, son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who reigned over the kingdom of the
Chaldees, I Daniel understood in the books the number of the years.... And while I was yet
speaking in my prayer, behold, the man Gabriel, whom I saw in the vision in the beginning,
flying; and he touched me, as it were, at the hour of the evening sacrifice, and made me
understand, and spake with me, and said, Daniel I am now come out to imbue thee with
understanding; in the beginning of thy supplication went out a word. And I am come to
announce to thee, because thou art a man of desires; and ponder thou on the word, and
understand in the vision. Seventy hebdomads have been abridged upon thy commonalty, and
upon the holy city, until delinquency be made inveterate, and sins sealed, and
righteousness obtained by entreaty, and righteousness eternal introduced; and in order
that vision and prophet may be sealed, and an holy one of holy ones anointed. And thou
shalt know, and thoroughly see, and understand, from the going forth of a word for
restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem unto the Christ, the Leader, hebdomads (seven and an
half, and ) lxii and an half:

3 and it shall convert, and shall be built into height and entrenchment, and the times
shall be renewed: and after these lxii hebdomads shall the anointing be exterminated, and
shall not be; and the city and the holy place shall he exterminate together with the
Leader, who is making His advent; and they shall be cut short as in a deluge, until (the)
end of a war, which shall be cut short unto ruin. And he shall confirm a testament in
many. In one hebdomad and the half of the hebdomad shall be taken away my sacrifice and
libation, and in the holy place the execration of devastation, (and ) until the end of
(the) time consummation shall be given with regard to this devastation." 4 Observe we,
therefore, the limit,-how, in truth, he predicts that there are to be lxx hebdomads,
within which if they receive Him, "it shall be built into height and entrenchment, and the
times shall be renewed." But God, foreseeing what was to be-that they will not merely not
receive Him, but will both persecute and deliver Him to death-both recapitulated, and
said, that in lx and ii and an half of an hebdomad He is born, and an holy one of holy
ones is anointed; but that when vii hebdomads and an half were fulfilling, He had to
suffer, and the holy city had to be exterminated after one and an half hebdomad-whereby
namely, the seven and an half hebdomads have been completed. For he says thus: "And the
city and the holy place to be exterminated together with the leader who is to come; and
they shall be cut short as in a deluge; and he shall destroy the pinnacle unto ruin."
Whence, therefore, do we showy that the Christ came within the lxii and an half hebdomads?
We shall count, moreover, from the first year of Darius, as at this particular time is
shown to Daniel this particular vision; for he says, "And understand and conjecture that
at the completion of thy word I make thee these answers." Whence we are bound to compute
from the first year of Darius, when Daniel saw this vision.

5 Let us see, therefore, how the years are filled up until the advent of the Christ:- For
Darius reigned xviiii years (19). Artaxerxes reigned xl and i years (41). Then King Ochus
(who is also called Cyrus) reigned xxiiii years (24). Argus one year. Another Darius, who
is also named Melas xxi years (21). Alexander the Macedonian xii years (12 Then, after
Alexander, who had reigned over both Medes and Persians, whom he had reconquered, and had
established his kingdom firmly in Alexandria, when withal he called that (city) by his own
name; after him reigned, (there, in Alexandria, ) Soter xxxv years (35). To whom succeeds
Philadelphus, reigning xxx and viii years (38). To him succeeds Euergetes xxv years (25).
Then Philopator xvii years (17). After him Epiphanes xxiiii years (24). Then another
Euergetes xxviiii years (29). Then another Soter xxxviii years (38). Ptolemy xxxvii years
(37). Cleopatra xx years v months (20 5-12).

6 Yet again Cleopatra reigned jointly with Augustus xiii years (13). After Cleopatra,
Augustus reigned other xliii years (43). For all the years of the empire of Augustus were
lvi yea 7 Let us see, moreover, how in the forty-first year of the empire of Augustus,
when he has been reigning for xx and viii years after the death of Cleopatra, the Christ
is born. (And the same Augustus survived, after Christ is born, xv years; and the
remaining times of years to the day of the birth of Christ will bring us to the xl first
year, which is the xx and viiith of Augustus after the death of Cleopatra. There are,
(then, ) made up cccxxx and vii years, v months: (whence are filled up lxii hebdomads and
an half: which make up ccccxxxvii years, vi months: ) on the day of the birth of Christ.
And (then) "righteousness eternal" was manifested, and "an Holy One of holy ones was
anointed"-that is, Christ-and "sealed was vision and prophet," and "sins" were remitted,
which, through faith in the name of Christ, are washed away for all who believe on Him.
But what does he mean by saying that "vision and prophecy are sealed? "That all prophets
ever announced of Him that He was to come and had to suffer. Therefore, since the prophecy
was fulfilled through His advent, for that reason he said that "vision and prophecy were
sealed; "inasmuch as He is the signet of all prophets, fulfilling all things which in days
bygone they had announced of Him. For after the advent of Christ and His passion there is
no longer "vision or prophet" to announce Him as to come.

8 In short, if this is not so, let the Jews exhibit, subsequently to Christ, any volumes
of prophets, visible miracles wrought by any angels, (such as those) which in bygone days
the patriarchs saw until the advent of Christ, who is now come; since which event "sealed
is vision and prophecy," that is, confirmed. And justly does the evangelist write, "The
law and the prophets (were) until John" the Baptist. For, on Christ's being baptized, that
is, on His sanctifying the waters in His own baptism, all the plenitude of bygone
spiritual grace-gifts ceased in Christ, sealing as He did all vision and prophecies, which
by His advent He fulfilled. Whence most firmly does he assert that His advent "seals
visions and prophecy." 9 Accordingly, showing, (as we have done, ) both the number of the
years, and the time of the lx two and an half fulfilled hebdomads, on completion of which,
(we have shown) that Christ is come, that is, has been born, let us see what (mean) other
"vii and an half hebdomads," which have been subdivided in the abscision of the former
hebdomads; (let us see, namely, ) in what event they have been fulfilled:- For, after
Augustus who survived after the birth of Christ, are made up xv years (15). To whom
succeeded Tiberius Caesar, and held the empire xx years, vii months, xxviii days (20
etc.). (In the fiftieth year of his empire Christ suffered. being about xxx years of age
when he suffered.) Place Your Advertisement Here Again Caius Caesar, also called Caligula
iii years, viii months, xiii days (3 etc.). Nero Caesar xi years, ix months, xiii days (11
etc.).

10 Galba vii months, vi days. (7 etc.). Otho iii days. Vitellius viii mos., xxvii days (8
mos.). Vespasian, in the first year of his empire, subdues the Jews in war; and there are
made lii years, vi months. For he reigned xi years. And thus, in the day of their
storming, the Jews fulfilled the lxx hebdomads predicted in Dan Therefore, when these
times also were completed, and the Jews subdued, there afterwards ceased in that place
"libations and sacrifices," which thenceforward have not been able to be in that place
celebrated; for "the unction," too, was "exterminated" in that place after the passion of
Christ. For it had been predicted that the unction should be exterminated in that place;
as in the Psalms it is prophesied, "They exterminated my hands and feet." And the
suffering of this "extermination" was perfected within the times of the lxx hebdomads,
under Tiberius Caesar, in the consulate of Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, in the
month of March, at the times of the passover, on the eighth day before the calends of
April, on the first day of unleavened bread, on which they slew the lamb at even, just as
had been enjoined by Moses. Accordingly, all the synagogue of Israel did slay Him, saying
to Pilate, when he was desirous to dismiss Him, "His blood be upon us, and upon our
children; " and, "If thou dismiss him, thou art not a friend of Caesar; " in order that
all things might be fulfilled which had been written of Him.

CHAPTER IX.-OF THE PROPHECIES OF THE BIRTH AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF CHRIST.

1 Begin we, therefore, to prove that the Birth of Christ was announced by prophets; as
Isaiah (e.g., ) foretells, "Hear ye, house of David; no petty contest have ye with men,
since God is proposing a struggle. Therefore God Himself will give you a sign; Behold, the
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and ye shall call his name Emmanuel" (which is,
interpreted, "God with us" ): "butter and honey shall he eat; " : "since, ere the child
learn to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of
Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians." Accordingly the Jews say: Let us
challenge that prediction of Isaiah, and let us institute a comparison whether, in the
case of the Christ who is already come, there be applicable to Him, firstly, the name
which Isaiah foretold, and (secondly) the signs of it which he announced of Him.

2 Well, then, Isaiah foretells that it behoves Him to be called Emmanuel; and that
subsequently He is to take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition
to the king of the Assyrians. "Now," say they, "that (Christ) of yours, who is come,
neither was called by that name, nor engaged in warfare. But we, on the contrary, have
thought they ought to be admonished to recall to mind the context of this passage as well.
For subjoined is withal the interpretation of Emmanuel-"God with us" -in order that you
may regard not the sound only of the name, but the sense too. For the Hebrew sound, which
is Emmanuel, has an interpretation, which is, God with us. Inquire, then, whether this
speech, "God with us" (which is Emmanuel), be commonly applied to Christ ever since
Christ's light has dawned, and I think you will not deny it. For they who out of Judaism
believe in Christ, ever since their believing on Him, do, whenever they shall wish to say
Emmanuel, signify that God is with us: and thus it is agreed that He who was ever
predicted as Emmanuel is already come, because that which Emmanuel signifies is come-that
is, "God with us. Equally are they led by the sound of the name when they so understand
"the power of Damascus," and "the spoils of Samaria," and "the kingdom of the Assyrians,"
as if they portended Christ as a warrior;

3 not observing that Scripture premises, "since, ere the child learn to call father or
mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to
the king of the Assyrians. For the first step is to look at the demonstration of His age,
to see whether the age there indicated can possibly exhibit the Christ as already a man,
not to say a general. Forsooth, by His babyish cry the infant would summon men to arms,
and would give the signal of war not with clarion, but with rattle, and point out the foe,
not from His charger's back or from a rampart, but from the back or neck of His suckler
and nurse, and thus subdue Damascus and Samaria in place of the breast. (It is another
matter if, among you, infants rush out into battle,-oiled first, I suppose, to dry in the
sun, and then armed with satchels and rationed on butter,-who are to know how to lance
sooner than how to lacerate the bosom! Certainly, if nature nowhere allows this,-(namely,
) to serve as a soldier before developing into manhood, to take "the power of Damascus"
before knowing your father,-it follows that the pronouncement is visibly figurative. "But
again," say they, "nature suffers not a 'virgin' to be a parent; and yet the prophet must
be believed. And deservedly so; for he bespoke credit for a thing incredible, by saying
that it was to be a sign. "Therefore," he says, "shall A Sign be given you.

4 Behold, a virgin shall conceive in womb, and bear a son. But a sign from God, unless it
had consisted in some portentous novelty, would not have appeared a sign. In a word, if,
when you are anxious to cast any down from (a belief in) this divine prediction, or to
convert whoever are simple, you have the audacity to lie, as if the Scripture contained
(the announcement), that not "a virgin," but "a young female," was to conceive and bring
forth; you are refuted even by this fact, that a daily occurrence-the pregnancy and
parturition of a young female, namely-cannot possibly seem anything of a sign. And the
setting before us, then, of a virgin-mother is deservedly believed to be a sign; but not
equally so a warrior-infant. For there would not in this case again be involved the
question of a sign; but, the sign of a novel birth having been awarded, the next step
after the sign is, that there is enunciated a different ensuing ordering of the infant,
who is to eat "honey and butter. Nor is this, of course, for a sign. It is natural to
infancy. But that he is to receives "the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria in
opposition to the king of the Assyrians," this is a wondrous sign. Keep to the limit of
(the infant's) age, and inquire into the sense of the prediction; nay, rather, repay to
truth what you are unwilling to credit her with, and the prophecy becomes intelligible by
the relation of its fulfilment.

5 Let those Eastern magi be believed, dowering with gold and incense the infancy of Christ
as a king; and the infant has received "the power of Damascus" without battle and arms.
For, besides the fact that it is known to all that the "power"-for that is the
"strength"-of the East is wont to abound in gold and odours, certain it is that the divine
Scriptures regard "gold" as constituting the "power" also of all other nations; as it says
through Zechariah: "And Judah keepeth guard at Jerusalem, and shall amass all the vigour
of the surrounding peoples, gold and silver. For of this gift of "gold" David likewise
says, "And to Him shall be given of the gold of Arabia; " and again, "The kings of the
Arabs and Saba shall bring Him gifts. For the East, on the one hand, generally held the
magi (to be) kings; and Damascus, on the other hand, used formerly to be reckoned to
Arabia before it was transferred into Syrophoenicia on the division of the Syrias: the
"power" whereof Christ then "received" in receiving its ensigns,-gold, to wit, and odours.
"The spoils," moreover, "of Samaria" (He received in receiving) the magi themselves, who,
on recognising Him, and honouring Him with gifts, and adoring Him on bonded knee as Lord
and King, on the evidence of the guiding and indicating star, became "the spoils of
Samaria," that is, of idolatry-by believing, namely, on Christ. For (Scripture) denoted
idolatry by the name of "Samaria," Samaria being ignominious on the score of idolatry;

6 for she had at that time revolted from God under King Jeroboam. For this, again, is no
novelty to the Divine Scriptures, figuratively to use a transference of name grounded on
parallelism of crimes. For it calls your rulers "rulers of Sodom," and your people the
"people of Gomorrha," when those dries had already long been extinct. And elsewhere it
says, through a prophet, to the people of Israel, "Thy father (was) an Amorite, and thy
mother an Hittite; " of whose race they were not begotten, but (were called their sons) by
reason of their consimilarity in impiety, whom of old (God) had called His own sons
through Isaiah the prophet: "I have generated and exalted sons. So, too, Egypt is
sometimes understood to mean the whole world in that prophet, on the count of superstition
and malediction. So, again, Babylon, in our own John, is a figure of the city Rome, as
being equally great and proud of her sway, and triumphant over the saints. On this wise,
accordingly, (Scripture) entitled the magi also with the appellation of
"Samaritans,"-"despoiled" (of that) which they had had in common with the Samaritans, as
we have said-idolatry in opposition to the Lord. (It adds), "in opposition," moreover, "to
the king of the Assyrians,"-in opposition to the devil, who to this hour thinks himself to
be reigning, if he detrudes the saints from the religion of God.

7 Moreover, this our interpretation will be supported while (we find that) elsewhere as
well the Scriptures designate Christ a warrior, as we gather from the names of certain
weapons, and words of that kind. But by a comparison of the remaining senses the Jews
shall be convicted. "Gird thee," says David, "the sword upon the thigh. But what do you
read above concerning the Christ? "Blooming in beauty above the sons of men; grace is
outpoured in thy lips. But very absurd it is if he was complimenting on the bloom of his
beauty and the grace of his lips, one whom he was girding for war with a sword; of whom he
proceeds subjunctively to say, "Outstretch and prosper, advance and reign! And he has
added, "because of thy lenity and justice. Who will ply the sword without practising the
contraries to lenity and justice; that is, guile, and asperity, and injustice, proper (of
course) to the business of battles? See we, then, whether that which has another action be
not another sword,-that is, the Divine word of God, doubly sharpened with the two
Testaments of the ancient law and the new law; sharpened by the equity of its own wisdom;
rendering to each one according to his own action. Lawful , then, it was for the Christ of
God to be precinct, in the Psalms, without warlike achievements, with the figurative sword
of the word of God; to which sword is congruous the predicated "bloom," together with the
"grace of the lips;

8 "with which sword He was then "girt upon the thigh," in the eye of David, when He was
announced as about to come to earth in obedience to God the Father's decree. "The
greatness of thy right hand, he says, "shall conduct thee" -the virtue to wit, of the
spiritual grace from which the recognition of Christ is deduced. "Thine arrows," he says,
"are sharp," -God's everywhere-flying precepts (arrows) threatening the exposure of every
heart, and carrying compunction and transfixion to each conscience: "peoples shall fall
beneath thee," -of course, in adoration. Thus mighty in war and weapon-bearing is Christ;
thus will He "receive the spoils," not of "Samaria" alone, but of all nations as well.
Acknowledge that His "spoils" are figurative whose weapons you have learnt to be
allegorical. And thus, so far, the Christ who is come was not a warrior, because He was
not predicted as such by Isaiah.

9 "But if the Christ," say they, "who is believed to be coming is not called Jesus, why is
he who is come called Jesus Christ? "Well, each name will meet in the Christ of God, in
whom is found likewise the appellation Jesus. Learn the habitual character of your error.
In the course of the appointing of a successor to Moses, Oshea the son of Nun is certainly
transferred from his pristine name, and begins to be called Jesus. Certainly, you say.
This we first assert to have been a figure of the future. For, because Jesus Christ was to
introduce the second people (which is composed of us nations, lingering deserted in the
world aforetime) into the land of promise, "flowing with milk and honey" (that is, into
the possession of eternal life, than which nought is sweeter); and this had to come about,
not through Moses (that is, not through the Law's discipline), but through Joshua (that
is, through the new law's grace), after our circumcision with "a knife of rock" (that is,
with Christ's precepts, for Christ is in many ways and figures predicted as a rock );
therefore the man who was being prepared to act as images of this sacrament was
inaugurated under the figure of the Lord's name, even so as to be named Jesus. For He who
ever spake to Moses was the Son of God Himself; who, too, was always seen. For God the
Father none ever saw, and lived.

10 And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to
the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"-that is, the people's-"face, to guard
thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend
to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped thy notice, since my name
is upon him. For Joshua was to introduce the people into the land of promise, not Moses.
Now He called him an "angel," on account of the magnitude of the mighty deeds which he was
to achieve (which mighty deeds Joshua the son of Nun did, and you yourselves read), and on
account of his office of prophet announcing (to wit) the divine will; just as withal the
Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a
future "angel," through the prophet: "Behold, I send mine angel before Thy"-that is,
Christ's-"face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee. Nor is it a novel practice to the
Holy Spirit to call those "angels" whom God has appointed as ministers of His power. For
the same John is called not merely an "angel" of Christ, but withal a "lamp" shining
before Christ: for David predicts, "I have prepared the lamp for my Christ; " and him
Christ Himself, coming "to fulfil the prophets," called so to the Jews. "He was," He says,
"the burning and shining lamp;

11 " as being he who not merely "prepared His ways in the desert," but withal, by pointing
out "the Lamb of God," illumined the minds of men by his heralding, so that they
understood Him to be that Lamb whom Moses was wont to announce as destined to suffer.
Thus, too, (was the son of Nun called) Joshua, on account of the future mystery of his
name: for that name (He who spake with Moses) confirmed as His own which Himself had
conferred on him, because He had bidden him thenceforth be called, not "angel" nor
"Oshea," but "Joshua. Thus, therefore, each name is appropriate to the Christ of God-that
He should be called Jesus as well (as Christ). 12 And that the virgin of whom it behoved
Christ to be born (as we have above mentioned) must derive her lineage of the seed of
David, the prophet in subsequent passages evidently asserts. "And there shall be born," he
says, "a rod from the root of Jesse"-which rod is Mary-"and a flower shall ascend from his
root: and there shall rest upon him the Spirit of God, the spirit of wisdom and
understanding, the spirit of discernment and piety, the spirit of counsel and truth; the
spirit of God's fear shall fill Him." For to none of men was the universal aggregation of
spiritual credentials appropriate, except to Christ; paralleled as He is to a "flower" by
reason of glory, by reason of grace; but accounted "of the root of Jesse," whence His
origin is to be deduced,-to wit, through Mary. For He was from the native soil of
Bethlehem, and from the house of David; as, among the Romans, Mary is described in the
census, of whom is born Christ.

13 I demand, again-granting that He who was ever predicted by prophets as destined to come
out of Jesse's race, was withal to exhibit all humility, patience, and tranquillity-
whether He be come? Equally so (in this case as in the former), the man who is shown to
bear that character will be the very Christ who is come. For of Him the prophet says, "A
man set in a plague, and knowing how to bear infirmity; "who "was led as a sheep for a
victim; and, as a lamb before him who sheareth him, opened not His mouth. If He "neither
did contend nor shout, nor was His voice heard abroad," who "crushed not the bruised
reed"-Israel's faith, who "quenched not the burning flax" -that is, the momentary glow of
the Gentiles-but made it shine more by the rising of His own light,-He can be none other
than He who was predicted. The action, therefore, of the Christ who is come must be
examined by being placed side by side with the rule of the Scriptures. For, if I mistake
not, we find Him distinguished by a twofold operation,-that of preaching and that of
power. Now, let each count be disposed of summarily. Accordingly, let us work out the
order we have set down, teaching that Christ was announced as a preacher; as, through
Isaiah: "Cry out," he says, "in vigour, and spare not; lift up, as with a trumpet, thy
voice, and announce to my commonalty their crimes, and to the house of Jacob their sins.

14 Me from day to day they seek, and to learn my ways they covet, as a people which hath
done righteousness, and hath not forsaken the judgment of God," and so forth: that,
moreover, He was to do acts of power from the Father: "Behold, our God will deal
retributive judgment; Himself will come and save us: then shall the infirm be healed, and
the eyes of the blind shall see, and the ears of the deaf shall hear, and the mutes'
tongues shall be loosed, and the lame shall leap as an hart," and so on; which works not
even you deny that Christ did, inasmuch as you were wont to say that, "on account of the
works ye stoned Him not, but because He did them on the Sabbaths."

CHAPTER X.-CONCERNING THE PASSION OF CHRIST, AND ITS OLD TESTAMENT PREDICTIONS AND ADUMBRATIONS.

1 Concerning the last step, plainly, of His passion you raise a doubt; affirming that the
passion of the cross was not predicted with reference to Christ, and urging, besides, that
it is not credible that God should have exposed His own Son to that kind of death; because
Himself said, "Cursed is every one who shall have hung on a tree. But the reason of the
case antecedently explains the sense of this malediction; for He says in Deuteronomy: "If,
moreover, (a man) shall have been (involved) in some sin incurring the judgment of death,
and shall die, and ye shall suspend him on a tree, his body shall not remain on the tree,
but with burial ye shall bury him on the very day; because cursed by God is every one who
shall have been suspended on a tree; and ye shall not defile the land which the Lord thy
God shall give thee for (thy) lot. Therefore He did not maledictively adjudge Christ to
this passion, but drew a distinction, that whoever, in any sin, had incurred the judgment
of death, and died suspended on a tree, he should be "cursed by God," because his own sins
were the cause of his suspension on the tree.

2 On the other hand, Christ, who spoke not guile from His mouth, and who exhibited all
righteousness and humility, not only (as we have above recorded it predicted of Him) was
not exposed to that kind of death for his own deserts, but (was so exposed) in order that
what was predicted by the prophets as destined to come upon Him through your means might
be fulfilled; just as, in the Psalms, the Spirit Himself of Christ was already singing,
saying, "They were repaying me evil for good; " and, "What I had not seized I was then
paying in full; " They exterminated my hands and feet; " and, "They put into my drink
gall, and in my thirst they slaked me with vinegar; " "Upon my vesture they did cast (the)
lot; " just as the other (outrages) which you were to commit on Him were foretold,-all
which He, actually and thoroughly suffering, suffered not for any evil action of His own,
but "that the Scriptures from the mouth of the prophets might be fulfilled."

3 And, of course, it had been meet that the mystery of the passion itself should be
figuratively set forth in predictions; and the more incredible (that mystery), the more
likely to be "a stumbling-stone," if it had been nakedly predicted; and the more
magnificent, the more to be adumbrated, that the difficulty of its intelligence might seek
(help from) the grace of God. Accordingly, to begin with, Isaac, when led by his father as
a victim, and himself bearing his own "wood," was even at that early period pointing to
Christ's death; conceded, as He was, as a victim by the Father; carrying, as He did, the
"wood" of His own passion. 4 Joseph, again, himself was made a figure of Christ in this
point alone (to name no more, not to delay my own course), that he suffered persecution at
the hands of his brethren, and was sold into Egypt, on account of the favour of God; just
as Christ was sold by Israel-(and therefore, ) "according to the flesh," by His "brethren"
-when He is betrayed by Judas. For Joseph is withal blest by his father after this form:
"His glory (is that) of a bull; his horns, the horns of an unicorn; on them shall he toss
nations alike unto the very extremity of the earth." Of course no one-horned rhinoceros
was there pointed to, nor any two-horned minotaur. But Christ was therein signified:
"bull," by reason of each of His two characters,-to some fierce, as Judge; to others
gentle, as Saviour; whose "horns" were to be the extremities of the cross. For even in a
ship's yard-which is part of a cross-this is the name by which the extremities are called;
while the central pole of the mast is a "unicorn." By this power, in fact, of the cross,
and in this manner horned, He does now, on the one hand, "toss" universal nations through
faith, wafting them away from earth to heaven; and will one day, on the other, "toss" them
through judgment, casting them down from heaven to earth.

5 He, again, will be the" bull" elsewhere too in the same scripture. When Jacob pronounced
a blessing on Simeon and Levi, he prophesies of the scribes and Pharisees; for from them
is derived their origin. For (his blessing) interprets spiritually thus: "Simeon and Levi
perfected iniquity out of their sect," -whereby, to wit, they persecuted Christ: "into
their counsel come not my soul! and upon their station rest not my heart! because in their
indignation they slew men"-that is, prophets-"and in their concupiscence they hamstrung a
bull!" -that is, Christ, whom-after the slaughter of prophets-they slew, and exhausted
their savagery by transfixing His sinews with nails. Else it is idle if, after the murder
already committed by them, he upbraids others, and not them, with butchery. 6 But, to come
now to Moses, why, I wonder, did he merely at the time when Joshua was battling against
Amalek, pray sitting with hands expanded, when, in circumstances so critical, he ought
rather, surely, to have commended his prayer by knees bended, and hands beating his
breast, and a face prostrate on the ground; except it was that there, where the name of
the Lord Jesus was the theme of speech-destined as He was to enter the lists one day
singly against the devil-the figure of the cross was also necessary, (that figure) through
which Jesus was to win the victory? Why, again, did the same Moses, after the prohibition
of any "likeness of anything," set forth a brazen serpent, placed on a "tree," in a
hanging posture, for a spectacle of healing to Israel, at the time when, after their
idolatry, they were suffering extermination by serpents, except that in this case he was
exhibiting the Lord's cross on which the "serpent" the devil was "made a show of," and,
for every one hurt by such snakes-that is, his angels -on turning intently from the
peccancy of sins to the sacraments of Christ's cross, salvation was outwrought? For he who
then gazed upon that (cross) was freed from the bite of the serpents.

7 Come, now, if you have read in the utterance of the prophet in the Psalms, "God hath
reigned from the tree," I wait to hear what you understand thereby; for fear you may
perhaps think some carpenter-king is signified, and not Christ, who has reigned from that
time onward when he overcame the death which ensued from His passion of "the tree." 8
Similarly, again, Isaiah says: "For a child is born to us, and to us is given a son. What
novelty is that, unless he is speaking of the "Son" of God?-and one is born to us the
beginning of whose government has been made "on His shoulder. What king in the world wears
the ensign of his power on his shoulder, and does not bear either diadem on his head, or
else sceptre in his hand, or else some mark of distinctive vesture? But the novel "King of
ages," Christ Jesus, alone reared "on His shoulder" His own novel glory, and power, and
sublimity,-the cross, to wit; that, according to the former prophecy, the Lord thenceforth
"might reign from the tree. For of this tree likewise it is that God hints, through
Jeremiah, that you would say, "Come, let us put wood into his bread, and let us wear him
away out of the land of the living; and his name shall no more be remembered. Of course on
His body that "wood" was put; for so Christ has revealed, calling His body "bread," whose
body the prophet in bygone days announced under the term "bread. If you shall still seek
for predictions of the Lord's cross, the twenty-first Psalm will at length be able to
satisfy you, containing as it does the whole passion of Christ; singing, as He does, even
at so early a date, His own glory. "They dug," He says, "my hands and feet" -which is the
peculiar atrocity of the cross;

9 and again when He implores the aid of the Father, "Save me," He says, out of the mouth
of the lion"-of course, of death-"and from the horn of the unicorns my humility," -from
the ends, to wit, of the cross, as we have above shown; which cross neither David himself
suffered, nor any of the kings of the Jews: that you may not think the passion of some
other particular man is here prophesied than His who alone was so signally crucified by
the People. 10 Now, if the hardness of your heart shall persist in rejecting and deriding
all these interpretations, we will prove that it may suffice that the death of the Christ
had been prophesied, in order that, from the fact that the nature of the death had not
been specified, it may be understood to have been affected by means of the cross and that
the passion of the cross is not to be ascribed to any but Him whose death was constantly
being predicted. For I desire to show, in one utterance of Isaiah, His death, and passion,
and sepulture. "By the crimes," he says, "of my people was He led unto death; and I will
give the evil for His sepulture, and the rich for His death, because He did not
wickedness, nor was guile found in his mouth; and God willed to redeem His soul from
death," and so forth. He says again, moreover: "His sepulture hath been taken away from
the midst. For neither was He buried except He were dead, nor was His sepulture removed
from the midst except through His resurrection. Finally, he subjoins: "Therefore He shall
have many for an heritage, and of many shall He divide spoils: " who else (shall so do)
but He who "was born," as we have above shown?-"in return for the fact that His soul was
delivered unto death?

11 "For, the cause of the favour accorded Him being shown,-in return, to wit, for the
injury of a death which had to be recompensed,-it is likewise shown that He, destined to
attain these rewards because of death, was to attain them after death-of course after
resurrection. For that which happened at His passion, that mid-day grew dark, the prophet
Amos announces, saying, "And it shall be," he says, "in that day, saith the Lord, the sun
shall set at mid-day, and the day of light shall grow dark over the land: and I will
convert your festive days into grief, and all your canticles into lamentation; and I will
lay upon your loins sackcloth, and upon every head baldness; and I will make the grief
like that for a beloved (son), and them that are with him like a day of mourning. For that
you would do thus at the beginning of the first month of your new (years) even Moses
prophesied, when he was foretelling that all the community of the sons of lsrµl was to
immolate at eventide a lamb, and were to eat this solemn sacrifice of this day (that is,
of the passover of unleavened bread) with bitterness; "and added that "it was the passover
of the Lord," that is, the passion of Christ. Which prediction was thus also fulfilled,
that "on the first day of unleavened bread" you slew Christ; and (that the prophecies
might be fulfilled) the day hasted to make an "eventide,"-that is, to cause darkness,
which was made at mid-day;

12 and thus "your festive days God converted into grief, and your canticles into
lamentation. For after the passion of Christ there overtook you even captivity and
dispersion, predicted before through the Holy Spirit.

CHAPTER XI.-FURTHER PROOFS, FROM EZEKIEL. SUMMARY OF THE PROPHETIC ARGUMENT THUS FAR.

1 For, again, it is for these deserts of yours that Ezekiel announces your ruin as about
to come: and not only in this age -a ruin which has already befallen-but in the "day of
retribution," which will be subsequent. From which ruin none will be freed but he who
shall have been frontally sealed with the passion of the Christ whom you have rejected.
For thus it is written: "And the Lord said unto me, Son of man, thou hast seen what the
elders of Israel do, each one of them in darkness, each in a hidden bed-chamber: because
they have said, The Lord seeth us not; the Lord hath derelinquished the earth. And He said
unto me, Turn thee again, and thou shall see greater enormities which these do. And He
introduced me unto the thresholds of the gate of the house of the Lord which looketh unto
the north; and, behold, there, women sitting and bewailing Thammuz. And the Lord said unto
me, Son of man, hast thou seen? Is the house of Judah moderate, to do the enormities which
they have done? And yet thou art about to see greater affections of theirs. And He
introduced me into the inner shrine of the house of the Lord; and, behold, on the
thresholds of the house of the Lord, between the midst of the porch and between the midst
of the altar, as it were twenty and five men have turned their backs unto the temple of
the Lord, and their faces over against the east;

2 these were adoring the sun. And He said unto me, Seest thou, son of man? Are such deeds
trifles to the house of Judah, that they should do the enormities which these have done?
because they have filled up (the measure of) their impieties, and, behold, are themselves,
as it were, grimacing; I will deal with mine indignation, mine eye shall not spare,
neither will I pity; they shall cry out unto mine ears with a loud voice, and I will not
hear them, nay, I will not pity. And He cried into mine ears with a loud voice, saying,
The vengeance of this city is at hand; and each one had vessels of extermination in his
hand. And, behold, six men were coming toward the way of the high gate which was looking
toward the north, and each one's double-axe of dispersion was in his hand: and one man in
the midst of them, clothed with a garment reaching to the feet, and a girdle of sapphire
about his loins: and they entered, and took their stand close to the brazen altar. And the
glory of the God of Israel, which was over the house, in the open court of it, ascended
from the cherubim: and the Lord called the man who was clothed with the garment reaching
to the feet, who had upon his loins the girdle;

3 and said unto him, Pass through the midst of Jerusalem, and write the sign Tau on the
foreheads of the men who groan and grieve over all the enormities which are done in their
midst. And while these things were doing, He said unto an hearer, Go ye after him into the
city, and cut short; and spare not with your eyes, and pity not elder or youth or virgin;
and little ones and women slay ye all, that they may be thoroughly wiped away; but all
upon whom is the sign Tau approach ye not; and begin with my saints. Now the mystery of
this "sign" was in various ways predicted; (a "sign") in which the foundation of life was
forelaid for mankind; (a "sign") in which the Jews were not to believe: just as Moses
beforetime kept on announcing in Exodus, saying, "Ye shall be ejected from the land into
which ye shall enter; and in those nations ye shall not be able to rest: and there shall
be instabilityof the print of thy foot: and God shall give thee a wearying heart, and a
pining soul, and failing eyes, that they see not: and thy life shall hang on the tree
before thine eyes; and thou shalt not trust thy life."

4 And so, since prophecy has been fulfilled through His advent-that is, through the
nativity, which we have above commemorated, and the passion, which we have evidently
explained-that is the reason withal why Daniel said, "Vision and prophet were sealed;
"because Christ is the "signet" of all prophets, fulfilling all that had in days bygone
been announced concerning Him: for, since His advent and personal passion, there is no
longer "vision" or "prophet; "whence most emphatically he says that His advent "seals
vision and prophecy." And thus, by showing "the number of the years, and the time of the
lxii and an half fulfilled hebdomads," we have proved that at that specified time Christ
came, that is, was born; and, (by showing the time) of the "seven and an half hebdomads,"
which are subdivided so as to be cut off from the former hebdomads, within which times we
have shown Christ to have suffered, and by the consequent conclusion of the "lxx
hebdomads," and the extermination of the city, (we have proved) that "sacrifice and
unction" thenceforth cease.

5 Sufficient it is thus far, on these points, to have meantime traced the course of the
ordained path of Christ, by which He is proved to be such as He used to be announced, even
on the ground of that agreement of Scriptures, which has enabled us to speak out, in
opposition to the Jews, on the ground of the prejudgment of the major part. For let them
not question or deny the writings we produce; that the fact also that things which were
foretold as destined to happen after Christ are being recognised as fulfilled may make it
impossible for them to deny (these writings) to be on a par with divine Scriptures. Else,
unless He were come after whom the things which were wont to be announced had to be
accomplished, would such as have been completed be proved?

CHAPTER XII.-FURTHER PROOFS FROM THE CALLING OF THE GENTILES.

Look at the universal nations thenceforth emerging from the vortex of human error to the
Lord God the Creator and His Christ; and if you dare to deny that this was prophesied,
forthwith occurs to you the promise of the Father in the Psalms, which says, "My Son art
Thou; to-day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee Gentiles as Thine
heritage, and as Thy possession the bounds of the earth." For you will not be able to
affirm that "son" to be David rather than Christ; or the "bounds of the earth" to have
been promised rather to David, who reigned within the single (country of) Judea, than to
Christ, who has already taken captive the whole orb with the faith of His gospel; as He
says through Isaiah: "Behold, I have given Thee for a covenant of my family, for a light
of Gentiles, that Thou mayst open the eyes of the blind"-of course, such as err-"to
outloose from bonds the bound"-that is, to free them from sins-"and from the house of
prison"-that is, of death-"such as sit in darkness" -of ignorance, to wit. And if these
blessings accrue through Christ, they will not have been prophesied of another than Him
through whom we consider them to have been accomplished.


AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS
=====================

AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS continued

CHAPTER XIII.-ARGUMENT FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND DESOLATION OF JUDEA.

1 Therefore, since the sons of Israel affirm that we err in receiving the Christ, who is
already come, let us put in a demurrer against them out of the Scriptures themselves, to
the effect that the Christ who was the theme of prediction is come; albeit by the times of
Daniel's prediction we have proved that the Christ is come already who was the theme of
announcement. Now it behoved Him to be born in Bethlehem of Judah. For thus it is written
in the prophet: "And thou, Bethlehem, are not the least in the leaders of Judah: for out
of thee shall issue a Leader who shall feed my People lsrµl. But if hitherto he has not
been born, what "leader" was it who was thus announced as to proceed from the tribe of
Judah, out of Bethlehem? For it behoves him to proceed from the tribe of Judah and from
Bethlehem. But we perceive that now none of the race of Israel has remained in Bethlehem;
and (so it has been) ever since the interdict was issued forbidding any one of the Jews to
linger in the confines of the very district, in order that this prophetic utterance also
should be perfectly fulfilled: "Your land is desert, your cities burnt up by fire,"-that
is, (he is foretelling) what will have happened to them in time of war "your region
strangers shall eat up in your sight, and it shall be desert and subverted by alien
peoples. And in another place it is thus said through the prophet:

2 "The King with His glory ye shall see,"-that is, Christ, doing deeds of power in the
glory of God the Father; "and your eyes shall see the land from afar," -which is what you
do, being prohibited, in reward of your deserts, since the storming of Jerusalem, to enter
into your land; it is permitted you merely to see it with your eyes from afar: "your
soul," he says, "shall meditate terror," -namely, at the time when they suffered the ruin
of themselves. How, therefore, will a "leader" be born from Judea, and how far will he
"proceed from Bethlehem," as the divine volumes of the prophets do plainly announce; since
none at all is left there to this day of (the house of) Israel, of whose stock Christ
could be born? 3 Now, if (according to the Jews) He is hitherto not come, when He begins
to come whence will He be anointed? For the Law enjoined that, in captivity, it was not
lawful for the unction of the royal chrism to be compounded. But, if there is no longer
"unction" there as Daniel prophesied (for he says, "Unction shall be exterminated"), it
follows that they no longer have it, because neither have they a temple where was the
"horn" from which kings were wont to be anointed. If, then, there is no unction, whence
shall be anointed the "leader" who shall be born in Bethlehem? or how shall he proceed
"from Bethlehem," seeing that of the seed of Israel none at all exists in Bethlehem.

4 A second time, in fact, let us show that Christ is already come, (as foretold) through
the prophets, and has suffered, and is already received back in the heavens, and thence is
to come accordingly as the predictions prophesied. For, after His advent, we read,
according to Daniel, that the city itself had to be exterminated; and we recognise that so
it has befallen. For the Scripture says thus, that "the city and the holy place are
simultaneously exterminated together with the leader," -undoubtedly (that Leader) who was
to proceed "from Bethlehem," and from the tribe of "Judah. Whence, again, it is manifest
that "the city must simultaneously be exterminated" at the time when its "Leader" had to
suffer in it, (as foretold) through the Scriptures of the prophets, who say: "I have
outstretched my hands the whole day unto a People contumacious and gainsaying Me, who
walketh in a way not good, but after their own sins. And in the Psalms, David says: "They
exterminated my hands and feet: they counted all my bones; they themselves, moreover,
contemplated and saw me, and in my thirst slaked me with vinegar. These things David did
not suffer, so as to seem justly to have spoken of himself; but the Christ who was
crucified. Moreover, the "hands and feet," are not "exterminated," except His who is
suspended on a "tree. Whence, again, David said that "the Lord would reign from the tree:

5 " for elsewhere, too, the prophet predicts the fruit of this "tree," saying "The earth
hath given her blessings," -of course that virgin-earth, not yet irrigated with rains, nor
fertilized by showers, out of which man was of yore first formed, out of which now Christ
through the flesh has been born of a virgin; "and the tree," he says, "hath brought his
fruit," -not that "tree" in paradise which yielded death to the protoplasts, but the
"tree" of the passion of Christ, whence life, hanging, was by you not believed! For this
"tree" in a mystery, it was of yore wherewith Moses sweetened the bitter water; whence the
People, which was perishing of thirst in the desert, drank and revived; just as we do,
who, drawn out from the calamities of the heathendom in which we were tarrying perishing
with thirst (that is, deprived of the divine word), drinking, "by the faith which is on
Him," the baptismal water of the "tree" of the passion of Christ, have revived,-a faith
from which Israel has fallen away, (as foretold) through Jeremiah, who says, "Send, and
ask exceedingly whether such things have been done, whether nations will change their gods
(and these are not gods!). But My People hath changed their glory: whence no profit shall
accrue to them: the heaven turned pale thereat" (and when did it turn pale? undoubtedly
when Christ suffered), "and shuddered," he says, "most exceedingly; " and "the sun grew
dark at mid-day:

6 " (and when did it "shudder exceedingly" except at the passion of Christ, when the earth
also trembled to her centre, and the veil of the temple was rent, and the tombs were burst
asunder? "because these two evils hath My People done; Me," He says, "they have quite
forsaken, the fount of water of life, and they have digged for themselves worn-out tanks,
which will not be able to contain water. Undoubtedly, by not receiving Christ, the "fount
of water of life," they have begun to have "worn-out tanks," that is, synagogues for the
use of the "dispersions of the Gentiles," in which the Holy Spirit no longer lingers, as
for the time past He was wont to tarry in the temple before the advent of Christ, who is
the true temple of God. For, that they should withal suffer this thirst of the Divine
Spirit, the prophet Isaiah had said, saying: "Behold, they who serve Me shall eat, but ye
shall be hungry; they who serve Me shall drink, but ye shall thirst, and from general
tribulation of spirit shall howl: for ye shall transmit your name for a satiety to Mine
elect, but you the Lord shall slay; but for them who serve Me shall be named a new name,
which shall be blessed in the lands."

7 Again, the mystery of this "tree" we read as being celebrated even in the Books of the
Reigns. For when the sons of the prophets were cutting "wood" with axes on the bank of the
river Jordan, the iron flew off and sank in the stream; and so, on Elisha the prophet's
coming up, the sons of the prophets beg of him to extract from the stream the iron which
had sunk. And accordingly Elisha, having taken "wood," and cast it into that place where
the iron had been submerged, forthwith it rose and swam on the surface, and the "wood"
sank, which the sons of the prophets recovered. Whence they understood that Elijah's
spirit was presently conferred upon him. What is more manifest than the mystery of this
"wood,"-that the obduracy of this world had been sunk in the profundity of error, and is
freed in baptism by the "wood" of Christ, that is, of His passion; in order that what had
formerly perished through the "tree" in Adam, should be restored through the "tree" in
Christ? while we, of course, who have succeeded to, and occupy, the room of the prophets,
at the present day sustain in the world that treatment which the prophets always suffered
on account of divine religion: for some they stoned, some they banished; more, however,
they delivered to mortal slaughter, -a fact which they cannot deny.

8 This "wood," again, Isaac the son of Abraham personally carried for his own sacrifice,
when God had enjoined that he should be made a victim to Himself. But, because these had
been mysteries which were being kept for perfect fulfilment in the times of Christ, Isaac,
on the one hand, with his "wood," was reserved, the ram being offered which was caught by
the horns in the bramble; Christ, on the other hand, in His times, carried His "wood" on
His own shoulders, adhering to the horns of the cross, with a thorny crown encircling His
head. For Him it behoved to be made a sacrifice on behalf of all Gentiles, who "was led as
a sheep for a victim, and, like a lamb voiceless before his shearer, so opened not His
mouth" (for He, when Pilate interrogated Him, spake nothing ); for "in humility His
judgment was taken away: His nativity, moreover, who shall declare? "Because no one at all
of human beings was conscious of the nativity of Christ at His conception, when as the
Virgin Mary was found pregnant by the word of God; and because "His life was to be taken
from the land. Why, accordingly, after His resurrection from the dead, which was effected
on the third day, did the heavens receive Him back? It was in accordance with a prophecy
of Hosea, uttered on this wise: "Before daybreak shall they arise unto Me, saying, Let us
go and return unto the Lord our God, because Himself will draw us out and free us.

9 After a space of two days, on the third day" -which is His glorious resurrection-He
received back into the heavens (whence withal the Spirit Himself had come to the Virgin )
Him whose nativity and passion alike the Jews have failed to acknowledge. Therefore, since
the Jews still contend that the Christ is not yet come, whom we have in so many ways
approved to be come, let the Jews recognise their own fate, -a fate which they were
constantly foretold as destined to incur after the advent of the Christ, on account of the
impiety with which they despised and slew Him. For first, from the day when, according to
the saying of Isaiah, "a man cast forth his abominations of gold and silver, which they
made to adore with vain and hurtful (rites)," -that is, ever since we Gentiles, with our
breast doubly enlightened through Christ's truth, cast forth (let the Jews see it) our
idols,-what follows has likewise been fulfilled. For "the Lord of Sabaoth hath taken away,
among the Jews from Jerusalem," among the other things named, "the wise architect" too,
who builds the church, God's temple, and the holy city, and the house of the Lord. For
thenceforth God's grace desisted (from working) among them. And "the clouds were commanded
not to rain a shower upon the vineyard of Sorek," -the clouds being celestial benefits,
which were commanded not to be forthcoming to the house of Israel;

10 for it "had borne thorns"-whereof that house of Israel had wrought a crown for Christ-
and not "righteousness, but a clamour,"-the clamour whereby it had extorted His surrender
to the cross. And thus, the former gifts of grace being withdrawn, "the law and the
prophets were until John," and the fishpool of Bethsaida until the advent of Christ:
thereafter it ceased curatively to remove from Israel infirmities of health; since, as the
result of their perseverance in their frenzy, the name of the Lord was through them
blasphemed, as it is written: "On your account the name of God is blasphemed among the
Gentiles: " for it is from them that the infamy (attached to that name) began, and (was
propagated during) the interval from Tiberius to Vespasian. And because they had committed
these crimes, and had failed to understand that Christ "was to be found" in "the time of
their visitation," their land has been made "desert, and their cities utterly burnt with
fire, while strangers devour their region in their sight: the daughter of Sion is
derelict, as a watch-tower in a vineyard, or as a shed in a cucumber garden,"-ever since
the time, to wit, when "Israel knew not" the Lord, and "the People understood Him not;
"but rather "quite forsook, and provoked unto indignation, the Holy One of Israel. So,
again, we find a conditional threat of the sword: "If ye shall have been unwilling, and
shall not have been obedient, the glaive shall eat you up.

11 Whence we prove that the sword was Christ, by not hearing whom they perished; who,
again, in the Psalm, demands of the Father their dispersion, saying, "Disperse them in Thy
power; " who, withal, again through Isaiah prays for their utter burning. "On My account,"
He says, "have these things happened to you; in anxiety shall ye sleep." 12 Since,
therefore, the Jews were predicted as destined to suffer these calamities on Christ's
account, and we find that they have suffered them, and see them sent into dispersion and
abiding in it, manifest it is that it is on Christ's account that these things have
befallen the Jews, the sense of the Scriptures harmonizing with the issue of events and of
the order of the times. Or else, if Christ is not yet come, on whose account they were
predicted as destined thus to suffer, when He shall have come it follows that they will
thus suffer. And where will then be a daughter of Sion to be derelict, who now has no
existence? where the cities to be exust, which are already exust and in heaps? where the
dispersion of a race which is now in exile? Restore to Judea the condition which Christ is
to find; and (then, if you will), contend that some other (Christ) is coming.

CHAPTER XIV.-CONCLUSION. CLUE TO THE ERROR OF THE JEWS.

1 Learn now (over and above the immediate question) the clue to your error. We affirm, two
characters of the Christ demonstrated by the prophets, and as many advents of His
forenoted: one, in humility (of course the first), when He has to be led "as a sheep for a
victim; and, as a lamb voiceless before the shearer, so He opened not His mouth," not even
in His aspect comely. For "we have announced," says the prophet, "concerning Him, (He is)
as a little child, as a root in a thirsty land; and there was not in Him attractiveness or
glory. And we saw Him, and He had not attractiveness or grace; but His mien was
unhonoured, deficient in comparison of the sons of men," "a man set in the plague, and
knowing how to bear infirmity: "to wit as having been set by the Father "for a stone of
offence," and "made a little lower" by Him "than angels," He pronounces Himself "a worm,
and not a man, an ignominy of man, and the refuse of the People. Which evidences of
ignobility suit the First Advent, just as those of sublimity do the Second; when He shall
be made no longer "a stone of offence nor a rock of scandal," but "the highest corner-
stone," after reprobation (on earth) taken up (into heaven) and raised sublime for the
purpose of consummation, and that "rock"-so we must admit-which is read of in Daniel as
forecut from a mount, which shall crush and crumble the image of secular kingdoms.

2 Of which second advent of the same (Christ) Daniel has said: "And, behold, as it were a
Son of man, coming with the clouds of the heaven, came unto the Ancient of days, and was
present in His sight; and they who were standing by led (Him) unto Him. And there was
given Him royal power; and all nations of the earth, according to their race, and all
glory, shall serve Him: and His power is eternal, which shall not be taken away, and His
kingdom one which shall not be corrupted. Then, assuredly, is He to have an honourable
mien, and a grace not "deficient more than the sons of men; "for (He will then be)
"blooming in beauty in comparison with the sons of men. "Grace," says the Psalmist, "hath
been outpoured in Thy lips: wherefore God hath blessed Thee unto eternity. Gird Thee Thy
sword around Thy thigh, most potent in Thy bloom and beauty! while the Father withal
afterwards, after making Him somewhat lower than angels, "crowned Him with glory and
honour and subjected all things beneath His feet. And then shall they "learn to know Him
whom they pierced, and shall beat their breasts tribe by tribe; " of course because in
days bygone they did not know Him when conditionedin the humility of human estate.
Jeremiah says: "He is a human being, and who will learn to know Him? " because, "His
nativity," says Isaiah, "who shall declare?

3 "So, too, in Zechariah, in His own person, nay, in the very mystery of His name withal,
the most true Priest of the Father, His own Christ, is delineated in a twofold garb with
reference to the Two Advents. First, He was clad in "sordid attire," that is, in the
indignity of passible and mortal flesh, when the devil, withal, was opposing himself to
Him-the instigator, to wit, of Judas the traitor -who even after His baptism had tempted
Him. In the next place, He was stripped of His former sordid raiment, and adorned with a
garment down to the foot, and with a turban and a clean mitre, that is, (with the garb) of
the Second Advent; since He is demonstrated as having attained "glory and honour. Nor will
you be able to say that the man (there depicted) is "the son of Jozadak," who was never at
all clad in a sordid garment, but was always adorned with the sacerdotal garment, nor ever
deprived of the sacerdotal function. But the "Jesus" there alluded to is Christ, the
Priest of God the most high Father; who at His First Advent came in humility, in human
form, and passible, even up to the period of His passion; being Himself likewise made,
through all (stages of suffering) a victim for us all; who after His resurrection was"clad
with a garment down to the foot," and named the Priest of God the Father unto eternity.

4 So, again, I will make an interpretation of the two goats which were habitually offered
on the fast-day. Do not they, too, point to each successive stage in the character of the
Christ who is already come? A pair, on the one hand, and consimilar (they were), because
of the identity of the Lord's general appearance, inasmuch as He is not to come in some
other form, seeing that He has to be recognised by those by whom He was once hurt. But the
one of them, begirt with scarlet, amid cursing and universal spitting, and tearing, and
piercing, was cast away by the People outside the city into perdition, marked with
manifest tokens of Christ's passion; who, after being begirt with scarlet garment, and
subjected to universal spitting, and afflicted with all contumelies, was crucified outside
the city. The other, however: offered for sins, and given as food to the priests merely of
the temple, gave signal evidences of the second appearance; in so far as, after the
expiation of all sins, the priests of the spiritual temple, that is, of the church, were
to enjoy a spiritual public distribution (as it were) of the Lord's grace, while all
others are fasting from salvation.

5 Therefore, since the vaticinations of the First Advent obscured it with manifold
figures, and debased it with every dishonour, while the Second (was foretold as) manifest
and wholly worthy of God, it has resulted therefrom, that, by fixing their gaze on that
one alone which they could easily understand and believe (that is, the Second, which is in
honour and glory), they have been (not undeservedly) deceived as to the more obscure-at
all events, the more unworthy-that is, the First. And thus to the present moment they
affirm that their Christ is not come, because He is not come in majesty; while they are
ignorant of the fact that He was first to come in humility. 6 Enough it is, meantime, to
have thus far followed the stream downward of the order of Christ's course, whereby He is
proved such as He was habitually announced: in order that, as a result of this harmony of
the Divine Scriptures, we may understand; and that the events which used to be predicted
as destined to take place after Christ may be believed to have been accomplished as the
result of a divine arrangement. For unless He come after whom they had to be accomplished,
by no means would the events, the future occurrence whereof was predictively assigned to
His advent, have come to pass. Therefore, if you see universal nations thenceforth
emerging from the profundity of human error to God the Creator and His Christ (which you
dare not assert to have not been prophesied, because, albeit you were so to assert, there
would forthwith-as we have already premised -occur to you the promise of the Father
saying, "My Son art Thou; I this day have begotten Thee; ask of Me, and I will give Thee
Gentiles as Thine heritage, and as Thy possession the boundaries of the earth. Nor will
you be able to vindicate, as the subject of that prediction, rather the son of David,
Solomon, than Christ, God's Son; nor "the boundaries of the earth," as promised rather to
David's son, who reigned within the single land of Judea, than to Christ the Son of God,
who has already illumined the whole world with the rays of His gospel.

7 In short, again, a throne "unto the age" is more suitable to Christ, God's Son, than to
Solomon,-a temporal king, to wit, who reigned over Israel alone. For at the present day
nations are invoking Christ which used not to know Him; and peoples at the present day are
fleeing in a body to the Christ of whom in days bygone they were ignorant ), you cannot
contend that is future which you see taking place. Either deny that these events were
prophesied, while they are seen before your eyes; or else have been fulfilled, while you
hear them read: or, on the other hand, if you fail to deny each position, they will have
their fulfilment in Him with respect to whom they were prophesied.


SOURCES AND CREDITS
===================

Where each text comes from, and the licence under which it may be reused.

THE PRESCRIPTION AGAINST HERETICS English translation: an older public-domain translation
as collected in the Writings-Database (HistoricalChristianFaith), mostly from the Ante-
Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers and similar nineteenth-century editions.
SermonIndex has only divided it into chapters and short sections; the wording is the
translator’s own. No Greek or Latin text is shown beside it yet, and no modern English
version has been made. Licence: Public domain.

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION English translation: an older public-domain translation as
collected in the Writings-Database (HistoricalChristianFaith), mostly from the Ante-
Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers and similar nineteenth-century editions.
SermonIndex has only divided it into chapters and short sections; the wording is the
translator’s own. No Greek or Latin text is shown beside it yet, and no modern English
version has been made. Licence: Public domain.

AGAINST HERMOGENES English translation: an older public-domain translation as collected in
the Writings-Database (HistoricalChristianFaith), mostly from the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers and similar nineteenth-century editions. SermonIndex has only divided
it into chapters and short sections; the wording is the translator’s own. No Greek or
Latin text is shown beside it yet, and no modern English version has been made. Licence:
Public domain.

AGAINST THE VALENTINIANS English translation: an older public-domain translation as
collected in the Writings-Database (HistoricalChristianFaith), mostly from the Ante-
Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers and similar nineteenth-century editions.
SermonIndex has only divided it into chapters and short sections; the wording is the
translator’s own. No Greek or Latin text is shown beside it yet, and no modern English
version has been made. Licence: Public domain.

AGAINST PRAXEAS English translation: an older public-domain translation as collected in
the Writings-Database (HistoricalChristianFaith), mostly from the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers and similar nineteenth-century editions. SermonIndex has only divided
it into chapters and short sections; the wording is the translator’s own. No Greek or
Latin text is shown beside it yet, and no modern English version has been made. Licence:
Public domain.

AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS English translation: an older public-domain translation as collected
in the Writings-Database (HistoricalChristianFaith), mostly from the Ante-Nicene, Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers and similar nineteenth-century editions. SermonIndex has only
divided it into chapters and short sections; the wording is the translator’s own. No Greek
or Latin text is shown beside it yet, and no modern English version has been made.
Licence: Public domain.