The Five Books Against Marcion - Book V - Tertullian
Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall, Late Scholar of Christ's
Text edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson and
first published by T&T Clark in Edinburgh in 1867. Additional
introductionary material and notes provided for the American
edition by A. Cleveland Coxe, 1886.
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
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; 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! 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. 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? 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; 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. 
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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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; 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. 
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.
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."  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.  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. 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. For of course he would have bestowed no labour on
severing faith from the law, when the difference of the god would, if there
had only been any, have of itself produced such a severance. Justly,
therefore, did he refuse to "build up again (the structure of the law) which
he had overthrown."  The law, indeed, had to be overthrown, from
the moment when John "cried in the wilderness, Prepare ye the ways of the
Lord," that valleys  and hills and mountains may be filled up and
levelled, and the crooked and the rough ways be made straight and smooth
 'in other words, that the difficulties of the law might be changed
into the facilities of the gospel.
For he remembered that the time was come of which the Psalm spake, "Let us
break their bands asunder, and cast off their yoke from us; " 
since the time when "the nations became tumultuous, and the people imagined
vain counsels; "when "the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were
gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ,"  in
order that thenceforward man might be justified by the liberty of faith, not
by servitude to the law,  "because the just shall live by his
faith."  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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
"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;
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."  That we may have, therefore the assurance that we are the
children of God, "He hath sent forth His Spirit into our hearts, crying,
Abba, Father."  For "in the last days," saith He," I will pour out
of my Spirit upon all flesh." 
Now, from whom comes this grace, but from Him who proclaimed the promise
thereof? 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."  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); "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. 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.
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)? "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."
 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.
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.
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.  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
Isreal) 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: "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 Isreal 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: "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; 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; "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.
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.
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 Isreal; 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? 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. For it is wholly inconsistent in him to be
so forward in planning purposes, who is so backward in revealing them.
In the Creator, however, the two courses were perfectly compatible'both the
predestination before the ages and the revelation at the end thereof,
because that which He both fore-ordained and revealed He also in the
intermediate space of time announced by the pre-ministration of figures, and
symbols, and allegories. But because (the apostle) subjoins, on the subject
of our glory, that "none of the princes of this world knew it for had they
known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory,"  the
heretic argues that the princes of this world crucified the Lord (that is,
the Christ of the rival god) in order that this blow might even recoil
 on the Creator Himself. 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. 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." 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; 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? 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). 
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
"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. 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."  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. 
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. 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! 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 Isreal) 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? 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.  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.
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.
"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.
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.  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. 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; "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."  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;  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.
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.
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. 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; 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."  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
(Isreal), "I have begotten  children,"  yet He added not
"from the womb." Now, why should He have added so superfluously this phrase
"from the womb" (as if there could be any doubt about any one's having been
born from the womb), unless the Holy Ghost had wished the words to be with
especial care  understood of Christ? "I have begotten Thee from the
womb," that is to say, from a womb only, without a man's seed, making it a
condition of a fleshly body  that it should come out of a womb.
What is here added (in the Psalm), "Thou art a priest for ever," 
relates to (Christ) Himself. Hezekiah was no priest; and even if he had been
one, he would not have been a priest for ever. "After the order," says He,
"of Melchizedek." Now what had Hezekiah to do with Melchizedek, the priest
of the most high God, and him uncircumcised too, who blessed the circumcised
Abraham, after receiving from him the offering of tithes? To Christ,
however, "the order of Melchizedek" will be very suitable; for Christ is the
proper and legitimate High Priest of God. He is the Pontiff of the
priesthood of the uncircumcision, constituted such, even then, for the
Gentiles, by whom He was to be more fully received, although at His last
coming He will favour with His acceptance and blessing the circumcision
also, even the race of Abraham, which by and by is to acknowledge Him. Well,
then, there is also another Psalm, which begins with these words: "Give Thy
judgments, O God, to the King," that is, to Christ who was to come as King,
"and Thy righteousness unto the King's son,"  that is, to Christ's
people; 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."  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 Isreal, 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.
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.
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? 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; 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."
 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;
"  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; 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? "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. 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? 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.
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.
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." 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: "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 Isreal." 
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 Isreal he says, Even unto this day the same veil is upon their
heart; "  showing that the veil which was on the face of Moses was
a figure of the veil which is on the heart of the nation still; because even
now Moses is not seen by them in heart, just as he was not then seen by them
in eye. 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? 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."  "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."  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." 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) Isreal, 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. 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.  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.
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.
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; 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. 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. "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.  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!"  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!
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
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. 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. 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.  (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; 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."  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."  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.
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.
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." 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; 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; 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 Isreal "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: "Isreal hath not known me; my people have
not understood me; "  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: "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.) 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. 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.
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.
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
Isreal commit against him in slaying those whom he too has reprobated, since
he was the first to pass a hostile sentence on them? But Isreal 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.  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. 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. 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.  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
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.
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. 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; 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. 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; 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." 
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.
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? 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. 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."  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. 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; 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: "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
Isreal, 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 Isreal 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 Isreal, 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 Isreal, which comprises the religion of the divine Creator,
and to the covenants and to the promise, yea to their very God Himself, it
is quite ridiculous (to suppose that) the Christ of the other god has
brought us to this proximity to the Creator from afar. The apostle had in
mind that it had been predicted concerning the call of the Gentiles from
their distant alienation in words like these: "They who were far off from me
have come to my righteousness."  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: "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?
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.
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. 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: "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;
"  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."  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. 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."  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? 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? 
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.
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."  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? 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.
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;  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. 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. 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.
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.
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. 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."  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."  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."  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.
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. 
Soul and Spirit, cap. xv. and notes 1 and 2, p. 463.
Dr. Holmes, in the learned note which follows, affords me a valuable
addition to my scanty remarks on this subject in former volumes. See (Vol.
I. pp. 387, 532) references to the great work of Professor Delitzsch, in
notes on Irenæus. In Vol. II. p. 102, I have also mentioned M. Heard's work,
on the Tripartite Nature of Man.With reference to the disagreement of the
learned on this great matter, let me ask is it not less real than apparent?
The dichotomy to which Tertullian objected, and the trichotomy which Dr.
Holmes makes a name of "the triple nature," are terms which rather suggest a
process of "dividing asunder of soul and spirit," and which involve an
ambiguity that confuses the inquiry. Now, while the gravest objections may
be imagined, or even demonstrated, against a process which seems to destroy
the unity and individuality of a Man, does not every theologian accept the
analytical formula of the apostle and recognize the bodily, the animal and
the spiritual in the life of man? If so is there not fundamental agreement
as to 1 Thessalonians 5:23, and difference only, relatively, as to functions
and processes, or as to the way in which truth on these three points ought
to be stated? On this subject there are good remarks in the Speaker's
Commentary on the text aforesaid, but the exhaustive work of Delitzsch
Man's whole nature in Christ, seems to be sanctified by the Holy Spirit's
suffusion of man's spirit; this rules and governs the psychic nature and
through it the body.
The entire work, cap. xxi. p. 474.
He who has followed Tertullian through the mazes in which Marcion, in spite
of shifts and turnings innumerable, has been hunted down, and defeated, must
recognize the great work performed by this author in behalf of Christian
Orthodoxy. It seems to have been the plan of Christ's watchful care over His
Church, that, in the earliest stages of its existence the enemy should be
allowed to display his utmost malice and to bring out all his forces against
Truth. Thus, before the meeting of Church-councils the language of faith had
grown up, and dear views and precise statements of doctrine had been
committed to the idioms of human thought. But, the labours of Tertullian are
not confined to these diverse purposes. With all the faults of his acute and
forensic mind, how powerfully he illuminates the Scriptures and glorifies
them as containing the whole system of the Faith. How rich are his
quotations, and how penetrating his conceptions of their uses. Besides all
this, what an introduction he gives us to the modes of thought which were
becoming familiar in the West, and which were convening the Latin tongue to
new uses, and making it capable of expressing Augustine's mind and so of
creating new domains of Learning among the nations of Europe.
If I have treated tenderly the reputation of this great Master, in my notes
upon his Marcion, it is with a twofold purpose. (1.) It seems to me due to
truth that his name should be less associated with his deplorable lapse than
with his long and faithful services to the Church, and (2.) that the student
should thus follow his career with a pleasure and with a confidence the lack
of which perpetually annoys us when we give the first place to the Montanist
and not to the Catholic. Let this be our spirit in accompanying him into his
fresh campaigns against "the grievous wolves" foreseen by St. Paul with
tears. Acts 20:29, 30.
But as our Author invokes a careful examination of his "entire work," let
the student recur to Irenæus (Vol. I. p. 352, etc.) and observe how
formidable, from the beginning, was the irreligion of Marcion. His doctrines
did truly "eat like a canker," assailing the Scriptures by mutilations and
corruptions of the text itself. No marvel that Tertullian shows him no
quarter, though we must often regret the forensic violence of his retort. As
to the Dualism which, through Marcion, thus threatened the first article of
the Creed, consult the valuable remarks of the Encyc. Britannica,
("Mithras"). Mithras became known to the Romans circa b.c. 70, and his
worship flourished under Trajan and his successors. An able writer remarks
that it was natural "Dualism should develop itself out of primitive
Zoroastrianism. The human mind has ever been struck with a certain
antagonism of which it has sought to discover the cause. Evil seems most
easily accounted for by the supposition of an evil Person; and the
continuance of an equal struggle, without advantage to either side, seems to
imply the equality of that evil Person with the author of all good. Thus
Dualism had its birth. Many came to believe in the existence of two
co-eternal and co-equal Persons, one good and the other evil, between whom
there has been from all eternity a perpetual conflict, and between whom the
same conflict must continue to rage through all coming time."
 Cum cognoveris unde sit.
 We have already more than once referred to Marcion's preference for
St. Paul. "The reason of the preference thus given to that apostle was his
constant and strenuous opposition to the Judaizing Christians, who wished to
reimpose the yoke of the Jewish ceremonies on the necks of their brethren.
This opposition the Marcionites wished to construe into a direct denial of
the authority of the Mosaic law. They contended also from St. Paul's
assertion, that he received his appointment to the apostolic office not from
man, but from Christ, that he alone delivered the genuine doctrines of the
gospel. This deference for St. Paul accounts also for Marcion's accepting
St. Luke's Gospel as the only authentic one, as we saw in the last book of
this treatise; it was because that evangelist had been the companion of St.
Paul" (Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian, 3d edition, pp. 474-475).
 Novus aliqui discipulus.
 Ad sollicitudinem.
 In albo.
 Ex incursu: in allusion to St. Paul's sudden conversion, Acts ix.
3-8. [On St. Paul's Epistles, see p. 324, supra.]
 Marcion is frequently called "Ponticus Nauclerus," probably less
on account of his own connection with a seafaring life, than that of his
countrymen, who were great sailors. Comp. book. i. 18. (sub fin.) and book
iii. 6. [pp. 284, 325.]
 In acatos tuas.
 Quo symbolo.
 Quis illum tituli charactere percusserit.
 Quis transmiserit tibi.
 Quis imposuerit.
 Ne illius probetur, i.e., to the Catholic, for Marcion did not
admit all St. Paul's espistles (Semler).
 Omnia apostolatus ejus instrumenta.
 Gal. i. 1.
 Actis refert.
 Luke xxi. 8.
 Jam hinc.
 Gen. xlix. 27, Septuagint, the latter clause being
 Non aliud portendebat quam.
 Secundum Virginis censum.
 Figurarum sacramenta.
 Although St. Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles, Marcion does not
seem to have admitted this book into his New Testament. "It is clearly
excluded from his catalogue, as given by Epiphanius. The same thing appears
from the more ancient authority of Tertullian, who begins his Book v.
against Marcion with showing the absurdity of his conduct in rejecting the
history and acts of the apostles, and yet receiving St. Paul as the chief of
the apostles, whose name is never mentioned in the Gospel with the other
apostles, and yet receiving St. Paul as the chief of the apostles,
especially since the account given by Paul himself in Gal. i.-ii. confirms
the account which we have in the Acts. But the reason why he rejected this
book is (As Tertullian says) very evident, since from it we can plainly show
that the God of the Christians and the God of the Jews, or the Creator, was
the same being and that Christ was sent by Him, and by no other" (Lardner's
Works, Hist. of Heretics, chap. x. sec. 41).
 Gal. i. 1.
 Inde te a defensione ejus expello.
 An insinuation that Marcion's defence of Paul was, in fact, a
calumny of the apostle.
 Praestruant cam.
 Qualis es.
 Habe nunc de meo.
 In ipso gradu praescriptionis.
 Oportere doceresaperevelle.
 ne non haberetur.
 Nullum alium deum circumlatum.
 Praejudicasse debebit.
 Marcion only received ten of St. Paul's epistles, and these
altered by himself.
 See above, in book l. chap. xx., also in book iv. chap. i.
 Comp. Isa. xliii. 18, 19, and lxv. 17, with 2 Cor. v. 17.
 Luke xvi. 16.
 Apud quem.
 Immo quia.
 Ut adhuc suggeremus.
 Gal. i. 6, 7.
 Moverat illos a.
 Gal. i. 7.
 Isa. xl. 9. (Septuagint).
 Isa. lii. 7.
 We have here an instance of the high authority of the Septuagint
version. It comes from the Seventy: (Isa. xlii. 4.) From this Tertullian, as usual, quoted it. But
what is much more important, St. Matthew has adopted it; see chap. xii. ver.
21. This beautiful promise of the Creator does not occur in its well-known
form in the Hebrew original.
 Isa. xlii. 6.
 Apud: "administered by."
 Gal. i. 7.
 Cum sit.
 Gal. i. 8.
 Gal. i. 8.
 A similar remark occurs in Proescript. Hoeretic. c. xxiii. p. 253.
 Ipsa materia.
 See Gal. i. 11-24, compared with Acts xv. 5-29.
 "The Acts of the Apostles" is always a plural phrase in
 Ut non secutus sit.
 Dedocendae legis; i.e., of Moses.
 Ad patrocinium.
 Scribit often takes the place of inquit; naturally enough as
referring to the epistles.
 Gal. ii. 1, 2.
 Si quando.
 Gal. ii. 3.
 Ex defensione.
 Gal. ii. 4.
 Interpolatione Scripturae.
 Que effingerent.
 Gal. ii. 4, 5.
 Gal. ii. 3, 4.
 Incipit reddere rationem.
 Contrarii utique facti. [Farrar, St. Paul, pp. 232 and 261.]
 See Conybeare and Howson, in loc.
 Fuerunt propter quos crederetur.
 The following statement will throw light upon the character of the
two classes of Jewish professors of Christianity referred to by Tertullian:
"A pharisaic section was sheltered in its bosom (of the church at
Jerusalem), which continually strove to turn Christianity into a sect of
Judaism. These men were restless agitators, animated by the bitterest
sectarian spirit; and although they were numerically a small party, yet we
know the power of the turbulent minority. But besides these Judaizing
zealots, there was a large proportion of the Christians at Jerusalem, whose
Christianity, though more sincere than that of those just mentioned, was yet
very weak and imperfectMany of them still only knew of a Christ after the
flesh'a Saviour of Israel'a Jewish Messiah. Their minds were in a state of
transition between the law and the gospel; and it was of great consequence
not to shock their prejudices too rudely; lest they should be tempted to
make shipwreck of their faith and renounce their Christianity altogether."
These were they whose prejudices required to be wisely consulted in things
which did not touch the foundation of the gospel. (Conybeare and Howson's
St. Paul, People's Edition, vol. ii. pp. 259, 260.)
 Gal. ii. 2.
 Ex. censu eorum: see Gal. ii. 9, 10.
 Acts xvi. 3.
 Acts xxi. 23-26.
 1 Cor. ix. 20, 22.
 Gal. ii. 9.
 Gal. ii. 10.
 See above, book iv. chap. xiv. p. 365.
 Victus: see Gal. ii. 12; or, living, see ver. 14.
 Gal. ii. 12.
 Gal. ii. 16.
 Gal. ii. 18 (see Conybeare and Howson).
 Rivi: the wadys of the East.
 Luke iii. 4, 5.
 Ps. ii. 3.
 Ps. ii. 1, 2.
 Gal. ii. 16 and iii. 11.
 Hab. ii. 4.
 Deut. xi. 26.
 Gal. iii. 13.
 The LXX. version of Deut. xxi. 23 is quoted by St. Paul in Gal.
 Apud te.
 According to the promise of a prophet of the Creator. See Hab.
 Gal. iii. 26.
 Gal. iii. 7, 9, 29.
 Gal. iii. 6.
 Magis proinde: as sharing in the faith he had, "being yet
uncircumcised." See Rom. iv. 11.
 Patris fidei.
 In integritate carnis.
 Formam: "plan" or "arrangement."
 Alterius deidei alterius.
 Ipso sensu.
 This apparent quotation is in fact a patching together of two
sentences from Gal. iii. 15 and iv. 3. (Fr. Junius). "If I may be allwed to
guess from the manner in which Tertullian expresseth himself, I should
imagine that Marcion erased the whole of chap. iii. after the word in
ver. 15, and the beginning of chap. iv., until you come to the word hote in
ver. 3. Then the words will be connected thus: 'Brethren, I speak after the
manner of menwhen we were children we were in bondage under the elements of
the world ; but when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His
Son._0' This is precisely what the argument of Tertullian requires, and they
are the very words which he connects together" (Lardner, Hist. of Heretics,
x. 43). Dr. Lardner, touching Marcion's omissions in this chap. iii. of the
Epistle to the Galatians, says: "He omitted vers. 6, 7, 8, in order to get
rid of the mention of Abraham, and of the gospel having been preached to
him." This he said after St. Jerome, and then adds: "He ought also to have
omitted part of ver. 9, which seems to have been
the case, according to T.'s manner of stating the argument against him"
(Works, History of Heretics, x. 43).
 Gal. iii. 15. This, of course, is consistent in St. Paul's
argument. Marcion, however, by erasing all the intervening verses, and
affixing the phrase "after the manner of men" to the plain assertion of Gal.
iv. 3, reduces the whole statement to an absurdity.
 Gal. iii. 16.
 So, instead of pursuing the contents of chap. iii., he proceeds
to such a chap. iv. as Marcion reserved.
 Gal. iv. 4.
 In extremitatem temporum.
 Isa. ii. 2 (Sept).
 Joel iii. 28, as quoted by St. Peter, Acts ii. 17.
 Gal. iv. 5.
 Isa. xl. 4.
 Isa. ii. 3.
 Gal. iv. 5.
 Isa. xlii. 4, 6.
 Gal. iv. 6.
 Joel iii. 28, as given in Acts ii. 17.
 Gal. iv. 9.
 Gal. iv. 8.
 Nec sic taxans.
 Gal. iv. 10.
 Coenas puras: probably the mentioned in John xix. 31.
 See also John xix. 31.
 Isa. i. 13, 14.
 Amos v. 21.
 Hos. ii. 11.
 In other words, Marcion has indeed tampered with the passage,
omitting some things; but (strange to say) he has left untouched the
statement which, from his point of view, most required suppression.
 Allegorica: on the importance of rendering by this
participle rather than by the noun "an allegory," as in A.V., see Bp.
Marsh's Lectures on the Interpretation of the Bible, pp. 351-354.
 Ostensiones: revelationes perhaps.
 Gal. iv. 21-26, 31.
 Apud quem.
 Gal. v. 1.
 Tertullian, in his terse style, takes the case of the emperor, as
the highest potentate, who, if any, might make free with his power. He
seizes the moment when Galba was saluted emperor on Nero's death, and was
the means of delivering so many out of the hands of the tyrant, in order to
sharpen the point of his illustration.
 Gal. v. 1.
 Ps. ii. 3, 2.
 Jer. iv. 4.
 Deut. x. 16.
 Gal. v. 6.
 Utraque vacabat.
 Isa. xlii. 4.
 Gal. v. 6.
 Deut. vi. 5.
 Lev. xix. 18.
 Gal. v. 10.
 Gal. v. 14.
 Compendium: the terseness of the original cannot be preserved in
 Gal. vi. 2.
 Erratis: literally, "ye are deceived."
 Gal. vi. 7.
 Gal. vi. 7.
 Gal. vi. 9.
 Gal. vi. 10.
 Gal. vi. 9.
 Eccles. iii. 17.
 Gal. vi. 14.
 See Gal. vi. 17, "let no one
 Stigmata: the scars not of circumcision, but of wounds suffered
for His sake (Conybeare and Howson).
 1 Cor. i. 3.
 Isa. lii. 7.
 Pacem quam praeferendam.
 1 Cor. i. 3.
 Competentibus nostro quoque sacramento.
 Nisi ex accedentibus cui magis competant.
 Per naturae dissimulationem. This Fr. Junius explains by in the sense of "original sin" ( seems
to point to sin requiring expiation).
 1 Cor. i. 18.
 1 Cor. i. 19, from Isa. xxix. 14.
 Aut si: introducing a Marcionite cavil.
 Apud dominum.
 1 Cor. i. 20.
 Boni duxit Deus,
 1 Cor. i. 21.
 Hix vel maxime.
 That is, "man who lives in the world, not God who made the
 1 Cor. i. 22.
 Causae: the reasons of His retributive providence.
 1 Cor. i. 23.
 Isa. viii. 14.
 Isa. xxviii. 16.
 "Etiam Marcion servat." These words cannot mean, as they have
been translated, that "Marcion even retains these words" of prophecy; for
whenever Marcion fell in with any traces of this prophecy of Christ, he
seems to have expunged them. In Luke ii. 34 holy Simeon referred to it, but
Marcion rejected this chapter of the evangelist; and although he admitted
much of chap. xx., it is remarkable that he erased the ten verses thereof
from the end of the eighth to the end of the eighteenth. Now in vers. 17,
18, Marcion found the prophecy again referred to. See Epiphanius, Adv.
Hoeres. xlii. Schol. 55.
 1 Cor. i. 25.
 1 Cor. i. 27.
 Apud Creatorem etiam vetera: (vetera, i.e.) "Veteris testamenti
 Lev. xv. passim.
 Lev. xiii. 2-6.
 1 Cor. i. 29, 31.
 By Jeremiah, chap. ix. 23, 24.
 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7.
 Isa. xlii. 6.
 Isa. xlv. 3 (Septuagint)
 Palam decurrentia.
 1 Cor. ii. 7.
 Gen. i. 14, inexactly quoted.
 Introductione saesculi.
 Paene jam totis saeculis prodactis.
 1 Cor. ii. 8.
 Ut et hoc recidat.
 Sed jam nec mihi competit.
 Matt. iv. 1-11.
 Luke iv. 34.
 In Creatoris accipitur apud Marcionem.
 Considered, in the hypothesis, as Marcion's god.
 Apud me.
 Luke xxii. 3.
 1 Cor. ii. 8.
 Et quo.
 Isa. xl. 13.
 1 Cor. iii. 10.
 So the A.V. of Isa. iii. 3; but the Septuagint and St. Paul use
the self-same term,
 1 Cor. iii. 11.
 Isa. xxviii. 16.
 We add the original of this sentence: "Nisi si structorem se
terreni operis Deus profitebatur, ut non de suo Christo significaret, qui
futurus esset fundamentum credentium in eum, super quod prout quisque
superstruxerit, dignam scilicet vel indignam doctrinam si opus ejus per
ignem probabitur, si merces illi per ignem rependetur, creatoris est, quia
per ignem judicatur vestra superaedificatio, utique sui fundamenti, id est
sui Christi." Tertullian is arguing upon an hypothesis suggested by
Marcion's withdrawal of his Christ from everything "terrene." Such a process
as is described by St. Paul in this passage, 1 Cor. i. 12-15, must be left
to the Creator and His Christ.
 1 Cor. iii. 16.
 The text has vitiabitur, "shall be defiled."
 1 Cor. iii. 17.
 1 Cor. iii. 18.
 1 Cor. iii. 19.
 The older reading, "adhuc sensum pristina praejudicaverunt," we
have preferred to Oehler's "Ad hunc sensum," etc.
 1 Cor. iii. 19, 20; Job v. 13; Ps. xciv. 11.
 Si non illi doceret.
 1 Cor. iii. 21.
 Jer. xvii. 5.
 Ps. cxviii. 8.
 Ps. cxviii. 9.
 1 Cor. iv. 5.
 Isa. xlii. 6.
 Ps. vii. 9.
 1 Cor. iv. 5.
 1 Cor. iv. 9.
 Our author's version is no doubt right. The Greek does not admit
the co-ordinate, triple conjunction of the A.V.:
 Nimirum: introducing a strong ironical sentence against
 Nisi exserte.
 Lev. xviii. 8.
 1 Cor. v. 1.
 Secutus sit.
 1 Cor. v. 5.
 1 Cor. v. 5.
 1 Cor. v. 13.
 1 Cor. v. 7.
 1 Cor. v. 7.
 Ex. xii.
 1 Cor. vi. 13.
 1 Cor. vi. 14.
 1 Cor. vi. 15.
 1 Cor. vi. 20.
 1 Cor. vi. 20.
 Constantior: ironically predicated.
 1 Cor. vii. 7, 8.
 1 Cor. vii. 9, 13, 14.
 1 Cor. vii. 27.
 One of Marcion's Antitheses.
 Et Christus: Pamelius and Rigaltius here read "Christi
apostolus." Oehler defends the text as the author's phrase suggested (as Fr.
Junius says) by the preceding words. "Moses or Christ." To which we may add,
that in this paticular place St. Paul mentions his injunction as Christ's
especially, 1 Cor. vii. 10.
 1 Cor. vii. 10, 11.
 1 Cor. vii. 29.
 1 Cor. vii. 39.
 1 Cor. viii. 5.
 1 Cor. viii. 4.
 1 Cor. viii. 6.
 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22.
 1 Cor. iii. 23.
 1 Cor. ix. 13.
 1 Cor. ix. 7.
 He turns to Marcion's god.
 1 Cor. ix. 9 and Deut. xxv. 4.
 1 Cor. xi. 10.
 Comp. I Cor. ix. 13, 14, with Deut. xviii. 1, 2.
 1 Cor. ix. 15.
 1 Cor. x. 4.
 Figuram extranei sacramenti.
 1 Cor. x. 6.
 Me terret sibi.
 1 Cor. x. 7-10.
 Magis quam foveat.
 1 Cor. x. 11.
 1 Cor. x. 25-27.
 1 Cor. xi. 3.
 1 Cor. xi. 7.
 Gen. i. 26.
 1 Cor. xi. 10.
 1 Cor. xi. 9.
 1 Cor. xi. 10.
 See more concerning these in chap. xviii. of this book. Comp.
Gen. vi. 1-4.
 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19.
 Probabiles: "approved."
 See above, in book iv. chap. xl.
 Luke xxii. 15-20 and 1 Cor. xi. 23-29.
 1 Cor. xii. 1.
 Flos: Sept. anthos.
 Religionis: Sept.
 Timor Dei: Sept.
 Isa. xi. 1-3.
 We have more than one shown that by Tertullian and other ancient
fathers, the divine nature of Christ was frequently designated "Spirit."
 Floruisset in carne.
 See Isa. iii. 2, 3.
 Luke xvi. 16.
 1 Cor. xii. 4-11; Eph. iv. 8, and Ps. lxviii. 18.
 He argues from his own reading, filiis hominum.
 1 Cor. iv. 15.
 Gal. iv. 19.
 Joel. ii. 28, 29, applied by St. Peter, Acts ii. 17, 18.
 Gal. iv. 4.
 1 Cor. vii. 29. [The verse filled out by the translator.]
 Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 8-11 and Isa. xi. 1-3.
 1 Cor. xii. 12-30, compared with Eph. iv. 16.
 This seems to be the force of the subjunctive verb noluerit.
 They are spiritual gifts, not endowments of body.
 De dilectione praeferenda.
 Comape 1 Cor. xii. 31, xiii. 1, 13.
 Totis praecordiis.
 Luke x. 27.
 "Here, as in John x. 34, xii. 34, xv. 25, 'the law_0' is used for
the Old Testament generally, instead of being, as usual, continued to the
Pentateuch. The passage is from Isa. xxviii. 11. (Dean Stanley, On the
Corinthians, in loc.).
 1 Cor. xiv. 21.
 Duntaxat gratia.
 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35.
 1 Cor. xi. 5, 6. [See Kaye, p. 228.]
 1 Cor. xiv. 34, where Gen. iii. 16 is referred to.
 Et si: These words introduce the Marcionite theory.
 1 Cor. xiv. 25.
 1 Cor. xiv. 26.
 Duntaxat spiritalem: These words refer to the previous ones, "not
spoken by human sense, but with the Spirit of God." [Of course here is a
touch of his fanaticism; but, he bases it on (1 Cor. xiv.) a mere question
of fact: had these charismata ceased?]
 He here argues, as it will be readily observed, from the
Marcionite theory alluded to, near the end of the last chapter.
 1 Cor. xv. 12.
 See his treatise, De Resur. Carnis, chap. i. (Oehler).
 An allusion to the deaths of martyrs.
 The reader will readily see how the English fails to complete the
illustration with the ease of the Latin, "surgere," "iterum surgere,"
 Gen. iii. 19. [Was not said unto the Soul 'says our own
Longfellow, in corresponding words.]
 1 Cor. xv. 21.
 Interposuit aliquid.
 1 Cor. xv. 25, 27.
 Jam quidem.
 Ps. cx. 1, 2, and viii. 6.
 Ps. cx.
 In Ezechiam cecinisse.
 2 Kings xix. 14; but the words are, "quia is sederit ad dexteram
templi," a sentence which occurs neither in the LXX. nor the original.
 Tertullian, as usual, argues from the Septuagint, which in the
latter clause of Ps. cx. 3 has
and so the Vulgate version has it. This Psalm has been variously applied by
the Jews. Raschi (or Rabbi Sol. Jarchi) thinks it is most suitable to
Abraham, and possibly to David, in which the best application; but more
frequently is Hezekiah thought to be the subject of the Psalm, as Tertullian
observes. Justin Martyr (in Dial. cum Tryph.) also notices this application
of the Psalm. But Tertullian in the next sentence appears to recognize the
sounder opinion of the older Jews, who saw in this Ps. cx. a prediction of
Messiah. This opinion occurs in the Jerusalem Talmud, in the tract
Berachoth, 5. Amongst the more recent Jews who also hold the sounder view,
may be mentioned Rabbi Saadias Gaon, on Dan. vii. 13, and R. Moses Hadarsan
[singularly enough quoted by Raschi in another part of his commentary (Gen.
xxxv. 8)], with others who are mentioned by Wetstein, On the New Testament,
Matt. xxii. 44. Modern Jews, such as Moses Mendelsohn, reject the Messianic
sense; and they are followed by the commentators of the Rationalist school
amongst ourselves and in Germany. J. Olshausen, after Hitzig, comes down in
his interpretation of the Psalm as late as the Maccabees, and sees a
suitable accomplishment of its words in the honours heaped upon Jonathan by
Alexander son of Antiochus Epiphanes (see 1 Macc. x. 20). For the refutation
of so inadequate a commentary, the reader is referred to Delitzch on Ps. cx.
The variations of opinion, however, in this school, are as remarkable as the
fluctuations of the Jewish writers. The latest work on the Psalms which has
ppeared amongst us (Psalms, chronologically arranged, by four Friends),
after Ewald, places the accomplishment of Ps. cx. in what may be allowed to
have been its occasion'David's victories over the neighboring heathen.
 Istos: that is, the Jews (Rigalt.).
 Utique jam in tanto opere.
 Natum esse quum maxime.
 Generavi: Sept.
 Isa. i. 2.
 Deputans carni: a note against Docetism.
 Ps. cx. 4.
 Ps. lxxii. 1.
 Super vellus: so Sept.
 Ps. lxxii. 6.
 Similarly the Rabbis Saadias Gaon and Hadarsan, above mentioned
in our note, beautifully applied to Messiah's placid birth, "without a human
father," the figures of Ps. cx. 3, "womb of the morning," "dew of thy
 Ps. lxx. 8.
 Ps. lxx. 11.
 Ps. lxx. 17.
 Ps. lxx. 17.
 Ps. lxx. 18.
 Ps. lxx. 19.
 Ps. lxx. 9.
 1 Cor. xv. 25, 27.
 He refers to his De Resurrect. Carnis. See chap. xlviii.
 1 Cor. xv. 29.
 Kalendae Februariae. The great expiation or lustration,
celebrated at Rome in the month which received its name from the festival,
is described by Ovid, Fasti, book ii., lines 19-28, and 267-452, in which
latter passage the same feast is called Lupercalia. OF course as the rites
were held on the 15th of the month, the word kalendae here has not its more
usual meaning (Paley's edition of the Fasti, pp. 52-76). Oehler refers also
to Macrobius, Saturn. i. 13; Cicero, De Legibus, ii. 21; Plutarch, Numa, p.
132. He well remarks (note in loc.), that Tertullian, by intimating that the
heathen rites of the Februa will afford quite as satisfactory an answer to
the apostle's question, as the Christian superstition alluded to, not only
means no authorization of the said superstition for himself, but expresses
his belief that St. Paul's only object was to gather some evidence for the
great doctine of the resurrection from the faith which underlay the practice
alluded to. In this respect, however, the heathen festival would afford a
much less pointed illustration; for though it was indeed a lustration for
the dead, and had for its object their happiness and welfare,
it went no further than a vague notion of an indefinite immortality, and it
touched not the recovery of the body. There is therefore force in
Tertullian's si forte.
 Si forte.
 Eph. iv. 5.
 Pro corporibus.
 Eph. iv. 5.
 Ut, with the subjunctive verb induxerit.
 1 Cor. xv. 35.
 Consequens erat.
 1 Cor. xv. 37, 38.
 1 Cor. xv. 38.
 1 Cor. xv. 39-41.
 1 Cor. xv. 42.
 1 Cor. xv. 42, 43.
 1 Cor. xv. 44.
 Anima: we will call it soul in the context.
 Possit videri.
 Non ideo.
 Animale. The terseness of his argument, by his use of the same
radical terms Anima and Animale, is lost in the English. [See Cap. 15 infra.
Also, Kaye p. 180. St. Augustine seems to tolerate our author's views of a
corporal spirit in his treatise de Hoeresibus.]
 1 Cor. xv. 46.
 1 Cor. xv. 45.
 ho eschatos
 Vel auctoris.
 1 Cor. xv. 47.
 Marcion seems to have changed man into Lord, or rather to have
omitted the anthrōpos of the second cluase ,letting the verse run this:
Anything to cut off all connection with the Creator.
 The the "de coelo homines," of this ver. 48 are
Christ's risen people; comp. Phil. iii. 20, 21 (Alford).
 Secundum exitum.
 1 Cor. xv. 49. T. argues from the reading (instead of
), which indeed was read by many of the fathers, and (what is
still more iportant) is found in the Codex Sinaiticus. We add the critical
note of Dean Alford on this reading: "ACDFKL rel latt copt goth, Theodotus,
Basil, Caesarius, Cyril, Macarius, Methodius (who prefixes hena),
Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Ps. Athanasius, Damascene, Irenaeus (int),
Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Jerome." Alford retains the usual
on the strength chiefly of the Codex Vaticanus.
 1 Cor. xv. 50.
 Gal. v. 19-21.
 Rom. viii. 8.
 1 Cor. xv. 52.
 1 Cor. xv. 53.
 Matt. xxii. 30 and Luke xx. 36.
 Sed resuscitatae.
 Aut si.
 1 Cor. xv. 50.
 Suggested by the ischusas of Sept. in Isa. xxv. 8.
 1 Cor. xv. 55.
 Isa. xxv. 8 and (especially) Hos. xiii. 14.
 The Septuagint version of the passage in Hosea is, which is very like the form of
the apostrophe in 1 Cor. xv. 55.
 1 Cor. viii. 5.
 2 Cor. i. 3.
 Gen. i. 22.
 Dan. ii. 19, 20, iii. 28, 29, iv. 34, 37.
 2 Cor. i. 3.
 Ps. lxxxvi. 15, cxii. 4, cxlv. 8; Jonah iv. 2.
 Jonah iii. 8.
 2 Kings xx. 3, 5.
 1 Kings xxi. 27, 29.
 2 Sam. xii. 13.
 Ezek. xxxiii. 11.
 Atquin et nos.
 The Contingent qualities in logic.
 2 Cor. iii. 6.
 Joel ii. 28.
 2 Cor. iii. 6.
 Deut. xxxii. 39.
 See above in book ii. [cap. xi. p. 306.]
 Apud unum recenseri praevenerunt.
 2 Cor. iii. 7, 13.
 2 Cor. iii. 7, 8.
 Obtunsi: "blunted," 2 Cor. iii. 14.
 He seems to have read the clause as applying to the world, but
St. Paul certainly refers only to the obdurate Jews. The text is: "Sed
obtunsi sunt sensus mundi.
 2 Cor. iii. 15.
 2 Cor. iii. 16.
 2 Cor. iii. 18.
 2 Cor. iii. 18, but T.'s reading is "tanquam a domino
spirituum" ("even as by the Lord of the Spirits," probably the sevenfold
Spirit.). The original is, "by the Lord the
 Moysi ordinem totum.
 2 Cor. iv. 4.
 He would stop off the phrase from
and remove it to the end of the sentence as a qualification of He adds another interpretation just afterwards, which, we need not
say, is both more consistent with the sense of the passage and with the
consensus of Christian writers of all ages, although "it is historically
curious" (as Dean Alford has remarked) "that Irenaeus [Haeres. iv. 48,
Origen, Tertullian (v. 11, contra Marcion)], Chrysostom, Oecumenius,
Theodoret, Theophylact, all repudiate, in their zeal against the
Manichaeans, the grammatical rendering, and take together" (Greek Testament, in loc.). [I have corrected Alford's
reference to Tertullian which he makes B. iv. 11.]
 Isa. xxix. 13.
 Isa. vi. 10 (only adapted).
 Isa. vii. 9, Sept.
 Sept. krupsō, "will hide."
 Said concessively, in reference to M,'s position above mentioned.
 Marcion's "God of this world" being the God of the Old Testament.
 Hactenus: pro non amplius (Oehler) tractasse.
 "A fuller criticism on this slight matter might give his opponent
the advantage, as apparently betraying a penury of weightier and more
certain arguments" (Oehler).
 Isa. xiv. 14.
 Mancipata est illi.
 2 Cor. iv. 6.
 Gen. i. 3.
 Isa. xlix. 6 (Sept. quoted in Acts xiii. 47).
 Isa. ix. 2 and Matt. iv. 16.
 Ps. iv. 7 (Sept.).
 Persona: the of the Septuagint.
 2 Cor. iv. 4.
 Eph. ii. 12.
 2 Cor. iv. 7.
 2 Cor. iv. 8-12.
 Oehler, after Fr. Junius, defends the reading "mortificationem
dei," instead of Domini, in reference to Marcion, who seems to have so
corrupted the reading.
 2 Cor. iv. 10.
 2 Cor. iv. 10.
 2 Cor. iv. 16-18.
 2 Cor. iv. 11.
 2 Cor. iv. 14.
 2 Cor. iv. 16.
 2 Cor. iv. 16.
 2 Cor. v. 1.
 As Marcion would have men believe.
 2 Cor. v. 2, 3.
 2 Cor. v. 4.
 1 Cor. xv. 52.
 Superinduti magis quod de coelo quam exuti corpus.
 Utique et mortui.
 De coelo.
 1 Cor. xv. 53.
 2 Cor. v. 4.
 Vita praeveniri.
 2 Cor. v. 4; and see his treatise, De Resurrect. Carnis, cap.
 2 Cor. v. 5.
 2 Cor. v. 6.
 Boni ducere.
 2 Cor. v. 8.
 2 Cor. v. 10.
 Deputari cum.
 2 Cor. v. 10.
 Per id, per quod, i.e., corpus.
 2 Cor. v. 17.
 Isa. xliii. 19.
 His reading of 2 Cor. vii. 1.
 1 Cor. xv. 50.
 2 Cor. xi. 2.
 Utique ut sponsam sponso.
 2 Cor. xi. 13.
 Praedicationis adulteratae.
 A reference to Marcion's other god of the New Testament, of which
he tortured the epistles (And this passage among them) to produce the
 2 Cor. xi. 14.
 Patitur. The work here referred to is not extant; it is, however,
referred to in the De Anima, c. lv.
 Precario; "that which one must beg for." See, however, above,
book iv. chap. xxii. p. 384, note 8, for a different turn to this word.
 2 Kings ii. 11.
 2 Cor. xii. 7, 8.
 1 Sam. ii. 7, 8; Ps. cxlvii. 6; Luke i. 52.
 Job i. 12 and 2 Cor. xii. 9.
 Gal. i. 6-9.
 2 Cor. xiii. 1.
 2 Cor. xiii. 2.
 2 Cor. xiii. 10.
 Apud Creatorem.
 Rom. i. 16, 17.
 Rom. i. 18.
 Rom. ii. 2.
 Aliud est si.
 Nostri instrumenti.
 Rom. ii. 12-16.
 Instar legis: "which is as good as a law to them," etc.
 Rom. ii. 16.
 Rom. ii. 2.
 Rom. i. 18.
 See the remarks on verses 16 and 17 above.
 Rom. ii. 21.
 Ut homo.
 Ex. iii. 22.
 Ex. xx. 15; see above, book iv. chap. xxiv. p. 387.
 Scilicet verebatur.
 Rom. ii. 24.
 Rom. ii. 29.
 Jer. iv. 4.
 Deut. x. 16 (Sept.).
 Rom. ii. 28.
 Rom. iii. 21, 22.
 Tertullian, by the word "enjoins" (monet), seems to have read the
passage in Rom. v. 1 in the hortatory sense with echōmen, "let us have peace
with God." If so, his authority must be added to that exceedingly strong ms.
authority which Dean Alford (Greek Test. in loc.) regrets to find
overpowering the received reading of echomen, "we have," etc. We subjoin
Alford's critical note in support of the echōmen, which (with Lachmann) he
yet admits into his more recent text: "AB (originally) CDKLfh (originally) m
17 latt (cincluding F-lat); of the versions the older Syriac (Peschito)( and
Copy; of the fathers, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Damascene, Thephylact,
Oecumenius, Rufinus, Pelagius, Orotullian, and the Codex Sinaiticus, in its
original state; although, like its great rival in authority, the Codex
Vaticanus, it afterwards received the reading echomen. These second readings
of these mss., and the later Syriac (Philoxenian), with Epiphanius, Didymus,
and Sedulius, are the almos only authorities quoted for the received text.
[Dr. H. over-estimates the "rival" Codices.]
 Rom. v. 20.
 Rom. v. 20.
 Nisi si: an ironical particle.
 Ideo ut.
 Apud ipsum.
 Rom. v. 21.
 Gal. iii. 22.
 Rom. iii. 19.
 Rom. vii. 4, also Gal. ii. 19. This (although a quotation) is
here a Marcionite argument; but there is no need to suppose, with Pamelius,
that Marcion tampers with Rom. vi. 2. Oehler also supposes that this is the
passage quoted. But no doubt it is a correct quotation from the seventh
chapter, as we have indicated.
 Statim (or, perhaps, in respect of the derivation), "firmly" or
 Rom. vii. 4.
 In this argument Tertullian applies with good effect the terms
"flesh" and "body," making the first [which he elsewhere calls the "terrena
materia" of our nature (Ad Uxor. i. 4)] the proof of the reality of the
second, in opposition to Marcion's Docetic error. " but
as in John i. 14, the material of which man is in the body compounded"
 Compare the first part of ver. 4 with vers. 5 and 6 and viii. 2,
 Rom. vii. 7.
 This, which is really the second clause of Rom. vii. 7, seems to
be here put as a Marcionite argument of disparagement to the law.
 Per quam liquuit delictum latere: a playful paradox, in the
manner of our author, between liquere and latere.
 Rom. vii. 8.
 Rom. vii. 13.
 Rom. vii. 14.
 Rom. viii. 3.
 Sensus in Rom. vii. 23.
 This vindiction of these terms of the apostle from Docetism is
important. The word which our A.V. has translated sinful is a stronger term
in the original. It is not the adjective but the substantive
amounting to "flesh of sin," i.e. (as Dean Alford interprets it)
"the flesh whose attribute and character is sin." "The words De Wette observes, appear almost to border on Docetism,
but in reality contain a perfectly true and consistent sentiment; is flesh, or human nature, possessed with sin.The likeness,
predicated in Rom. viii. 3, must be referred not only to but also to
the epithet " (Greek Testament, in loc.).
 Carnis peccati.
 Puta nunc.
 Censu: perhaps "birth." This word, which originally means the
censor's registration, is by our author often used for origo and natura,
because in the registers were inserted the birthdays and the parent's names
 It is better that we should give the original of this sentence.
Its structure is characteristcally difficult, although the general sense, as
Oehler suggests, is clear enough: "Quia vera quidem, sed non ex semine de
statu simili (similis, Latinius and Junius and Semler), sed vera de censu
non vero dissimili (dissimilis, the older reading and Semler's)." We add the
note of Fr. Junius: "The meaning is, the Christ's flesh is true indeed, in
what they call the identity of its substance, although not of its origin
(ortus) and qualities'not of its original, because not of a (father's) seed,
as in the case of ourselves; not of qualities, because these have not in Him
the like condition which they have in us."
 Dum alterius par est.
 Qua hoc tantum est.
 See Rom. viii. 5-13.
 1 Cor. xv. 50.
 Non ad reatum substantiae sed ad conversationis pertinebunt.
 Rom. viii. 10.
 Understand "corpus" (Oehler).
 Rom. viii. 11.
 Dici capit: capit, like the Greek means, "is capable
or susceptible; " often so in Tertullian.
 We do not know from either Tertullian or Epiphanius what
mutilations Marcion made in this epistle. This particular gap did not extend
further than from Rom. viii. 11 to x. 2. "However, we are informed by Origen
(or rather Rufinus in his edition of Origen's commentary on this epistle, on
xiv. 23) that Marcion omitted the last two chapters as spurious, ending this
epistle of his Apostolicon with the 23d verse of chap. xiv. It is also
observable that Tertullian quotes no passage from chaps. xv., xvi. in his
confutation of Marcion from this espistle" (Lardner).
 Rom. x. 2-4.
 The god of the New Testament, according to Marcion.
 Isa. i. 3.
 Isa. xxix. 13 (Sept.)
 Ps. ii. 2.
 Rom. xi. 33.
 In fidem Christi ex lege venientem. By "the law" he means the Old
Testament in general, and probably refers to Rom. x. 17.
 Rigaltius (after Fulvius Ursinus) read "non erasit," but with
insufficient authority; besides, the context shows that he was referring to
the large erasure which he had already mentioned, so that the non is
inadmissible. Marcion must, of course, be understood to have retained Rom.
xi. 33; hence the argument in this sentence.
 Isa. xlv. 3.
 Isa. xl. 13, quoted (According to the Sept.) by the apostle in
Rom. xi. 34, 35.
 Plane: ironically.
 Rom. xii. 9.
 Ps. xxxiv. 14
 Rom. xii. 10.
 Lev. xix. 18.
 Rom. xii. 12.
 Ps. cxviii. 9.
 Rom. xii. 12.
 Ps. xx. 1.
 Rom. xii. 12.
 Rom. xii. 16.
 Isa. v. 21.
 Rom. xii. 17.
 Lev. xix. 17, 18.
 Rom. xii. 19.
 Rom. xii. 19, quoted from Deut. xxxii. 25.
 Rom. xii. 18.
 Rom. xiii. 9.
 Ironically said. He has been quoting all along from Marcion's
text of St. Paul, turning its testimony against Marcion.
 Matt. v. 17.
 For although he rejected St. Matthew's Gospel, which contains the
statement, he retained St. Paul's epistle, from which the statement is
 Sapor. We have here a characteristic touch of his diligent and
also intrepid spirit. Epiphanius says this shotr epistle "was so entirely
correupted by Marcion, that he had himself selected nothing from it whereon
to found any refutations of him or of his doctine." Tertullian, however, was
of a different mind; for he has made it evident, that though there were
alterations made by Marcion, yet sufficient was left untouched by him to
show the absurdity of his opinions. Epiphanius and Tertullian entertained,
respectively, similar opinions of Marcion's treatment of the second epistle,
which the latter discusses in the next chapter (Larder).
 1 Thess. ii. 15.
 All the best mss., including the Codices Alex., Vat., and
Sinait., omit the as do Tertullian and Origen. Marcion has
Chrysostom and the recevied text, followed by our A.V., with him.
 Status exaggerationis.
 Ergo exaggerari non potuit nisi.
 Ex utroque titulo.
 1 Thess. iv. 3, 4.
 1 Thess. iv. 5.
 The rule of Gentile life.
 We have here followed Oehler's reading, which is more
intelligible than the four or five others given by him.
 1 Thess. iv. 15-17.
 Gal. iv. 26.
 Isa. lx. 8.
 Oehler and Fr. Junius here read Amos, but all the other readings
gave Hosea; but see above, book iii. chap. xxiv., where Amos was read by
 Amos. ix. 6.
 1 Thess. v. 19, 20.
 Nihil fecit. This is precisely St. Paul's "to
annihilate" (A.V. "despise"), in 1 Thess. v. 20.
 Si quando corpus in hujus modi praenominatur.
 1 Thess. v. 23. For a like application of this passage, see also
our author's treatise, De Resurrect. Carnis, cap. xlvii. [Elucidation I.]
 It is remarkable that our author quotes this text of the three
principles, in defence only of two of them. But he was strongly opposed to
the idea of any absolute division between the soul and the spirit. A
distinction between these united parts, he might, under limitations, have
admitted; but all idea of an actual seperation and division he opposed and
denied. See his De Anima, cap. x. St. Augustine more fully still maintained
a similar opinion. See also his De Anima, iv. 32. Bp. Ellicott, in his
interesting sermon On the Threefold Nature of Man, has given these
references, and also a sketch of patristic opinion of this subject. The
early fathers, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alex., Origen, as well as Didymus
of Alex., Gregory Nyssen., and Basil, held distinctly the threefold nature.
Our own divines, as is natural, are also divided in views. Bp. Bull,
Hammond, and Jackson hold the trichotomy, as a triple nature is called;
others, like Bp. Butler, deny the possibility of dividing our immaterial
nature into two parts. This variation of opinion seems to have still
representatives among our most recent commentators: while Dean Alford holds
the triplicity of our nature literally with St. Paul, Archdeacon Wordsworth
seems to agree with Bp. Butler in regarding soul and spirit as component
parts of one principle. See also Bp. Ellicott's Destiny of the Creature,
sermon v. and notes.
 On this paradox, that souls are corporeal, see his treatise De
Anima, v., and following chapters (Oehler). [See also cap. x. supra.]
 Quae = caro.
 Utriusque meriti: "of both the eternal sentences."
 2 Thess. i. 6-8.
 2 Thess. i. 8, 9.
 Crematoris Dei.
 2 Thess. i. 8.
 Non omnibus scibilis.
 2 Thess. i. 8.
 Isa. ii. 19. The whole verse is to the point.
 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.
 The prophets of the Old and the New Testament.
 1 John iv. 1-3.
 Solventes Jesum. This expression receives some explanation from
the Vulgate version of 1 John iv. 3: "Et omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum
Christum ex Deo non est." From Irenaeus, Vol. I., 443 (Harvey, ii. 89), we
learn that the Gnostics divided Jesus from Christ: "Alterum quidem Jesum
intelligunt, alterum autem Christum,"'an error which was met in the clause
of the creed expressing faith in "One Lord Jesus Christ." Grabe, after
Socrates, Hist. Eccles. vii. 32, says that the oldest mss. of St. John's
epistle read If so, Tertullian must be
regarded as combining the two readings, viz., that which we find in the
received text and this just quoted. Thus Grabe. It would be better to say
that T. read ver. 2 as we have it, only omitting and in ver. 3
read the old lection to which Socrates refers instead of
 2 Thess. ii. 9.
 Instinctum fallaciae.
 2 Thess. ii. 10-12.
 Summissu erroris.
 Marcion, or rather his Christ, who on the hypothesis absurdly
employs the Creator's Christ on the flagrantly inconsistent mission of
avenging his truth, i.e. Marcionism.
 Habens fungiCreatori.
 Angelum: the Antichrist sent by the Creator.
 2 Thess. ii. 11.
 Plagis: "heavy strokes," in opposition to the previous
 Praedicationibus: see Rom. i. 20.
 Productus est.
 2 Thess. iii. 10.
 Deut. xxv. 4.
 Titulum interpolare gestiit: or, "or corrupting its title."
 Certe tamen.
 "to sum up into a head."
 Eph. i. 9, 10.
 Eph. i. 12.
 He explains "praesperasse by ante sperasse."
 Eph. i. 13.
 Joel ii. 28.
 Eph. ii. 17.
 Ps. xxiv. 10.
 Eph. i. 17.
 Isa. xi. 2.
 Eph. i. 18.
 Isa. xlii. 19 (Sept.).
 Eph. i. 18.
 Ps. ii. 8.
 Eph. i. 19-22.
 Ps. cx. 1.
 Ps. viii. 7.
 Eph. ii. 1, 2.
 Deo mundi: i.e. the God who made the world.
 Operator: in reference to the expression in ver. 2, "who now
 Sufficit igitur si.
 Isa. xiv. 13, 14. An inexact quotation from the Septuagint.
 On this and another meaning given to the phrase in 2 Cor. iv. 4,
see above, chap. xi.
 Plane: an ironical particle here.
 Eph. ii. 3.
 Eph. ii. 3.
 In Marcion's sense.
 Eph. ii. 3.
 Eph. ii. 10.
 Literally, "the covenants and their promise."
 Eph. ii. 11, 12.
 Conversatio: rather, "intercourse with Israel."
 Eph. ii. 13.
 This is rather an allusion to, than a quotation of, Isa. xlvi.
 Eph. ii. 14.
 Eph. ii. 15.
 "The law of commandments contained in ordinances."
 He expresses the proverbial adage very tersely, "non Marrucine,
 Vacuam fecit.
 Ex adjutore.
 Conderet: "create," to keep up the distinction between this and
facere, "to make."
 Eph. ii. 10.
 Eph. ii. 15-16.
 Eph. ii. 16.
 Eph. ii. 17-20.
 "Because, if our building as Christians rested in part upon that
foundation, our God, and the God of the Jews must be the same, which Marcion
 Eph. ii. 20.
 Ps. cxviii. 22.
 Eph. iii. 8, 9.
 The passage of St. Paul, as Tertullian expresses it, "QUae
dispensatio sacramenti occulti ab aevis in Deo, qui omnia condidit."
According to Marcion's alteration, the latter part runs, "Occulti ab aevis
Deo, qui omnia condidit." The original is, (compare
Col. iii. 3) Marcion's removal of the en has no
warrant of ms. authority; it upsets St. Paul's doctrine, as attested in
other passages, and destroys the grammatical structure.
 Eph. iii. 10.
 Isa. xl. 13.
 Marcion's god, of course.
 Eph. iv. 8 and Ps. lxviii. 19.
 Ps. xlv. 3.
 Isa. viii. 4.
 See above, book iii. chap. xiii. and xiv. p. 332.
 Eph. iv. 25.
 Ps. iv. 4.
 Eph. iv. 26.
 Eph. iv. 26.
 Eph. v. 11.
 Ps. xviii. 26.
 Deut. xxi. 21, quoted also in 1 Cor. v. 13.
 Isa. lii. 11, quoted in 2 Cor. vi. 17.
 Eph. v. 18.
 Amos. ii. 12.
 Lev. x. 9.
 Eph. v. 19.
 Isa. v. 11, 12.
 Eph. v. 22, 24.
 Eph. v. 23.
 Eph. v. 23.
 Eph. v. 25, 28.
 Eph. v. 29.
 Eph. v. 31, 32.
 Inter ista.
 Magna sacramenta.
 Eph. v. 32.
 Eph. vi. i.
 Eph. vi. 2. "He did this (says Lardner) in order that the Mosaic
law might not be thought to be thus established."
 Ex. xx. 12.
 Eph. vi. 4.
 Ex. x. 2.
 Eph. vi. 12.
 An ironical allusion to Marcion's interpretation, which he has
considered in a former chpater, of the title God of this world.
 Eph. vi. 11.
 Eph. vi. 12.
 Apud Creatorem.
 Ex qua delatura.
 Illius arbusculae.
 Spiritalia nequitiae: "wicked spirits."
 Eph vi. 12.
 Gen. vi. 1-4. See also Tertullian, De Idol. 9; De Habit. Mul. 2;
De Cultu Femin. 10; De Vel. Virg. 7; Apolog. 22. See also Augustin, De
Civit. Dei. xv. 23.
 Ut taxaret. Of course he alludes to Marcion's absurd exposition
of the 12th verse, in applying St. Paul's description of wicked spirits to
 Eph. vi. 19, 20.
 Compendium figere.
 Col. i. 5, 6.
 Antoniniani Marcionis: see above in book i. chap. xix.
 Ps. xix. 4.
 Col. i. 15.
 Ex. xxxiii. 20.
 Col. i. 15. Our author's "primogenitus conditionis" is St.
Paul's for the meaning of which see Bp.
Ellicott, in loc.
 John i. 3.
 Ante omnes.
 Ante amina.
 Creatoris is our author's word.
 Col. i. 19.
 Aut si.
 Ceterum quale.
 Col. i. 20.
 "Una ipsa" is Oehler's reading instead of universa.
 Cujus novissime fuerant.
 Col. i. 21.
 Eph. i. 23.
 Col. i. 24.
 Col. i. 22.
 As if only in a metaphorical body, in which sense the Church is
 Col. ii. 8.
 "Dominum inferens hebetem;" with which may be compared Cicero (De
Divin. ii. 50, 103): "Videsne Epicurum quem hebetem et rudem dicere solent
Stoiciqui negat, quidquam deos nec alieni curare, nec sui." The otiose and
inert character of the god of Epicurus is referred to by Tertullian not
unfrequently; see above, in book iv. chap. xv.; Apolog. 47, and Ad Nationes,
ii. 2; whilst in De Anima, 3, he characterizes the philosophy of Epicurus by
a similar term: "Prout aut Platonis honor, aut Zenonis vigor, aut
Aristotelis tenor, aut Epicuri stupor, aut Heracliti maeror, aut Empedoclis
 The Stoical dogma of the eternity of matter and its equality with
God was also held by Hermogenes; see his Adv. Hermogenem, c. 4, "Materiam
parem Deo infert."
 Pliny, Nat. Hist. vii. 55, refers to the peculiar opinion of
Democritus on this subject (Fr. Junius).
 1 Cor. i. 27.
 Isa. xxix. 14, quoted 1 Cor. i. 19; comp. Jer. viii. 9 and Job v.
 Col. ii. 13.
 Col. ii. 16, 17.
 Col. ii. 18, 19, 21.
 Col. ii. 22.
 Recensentur: Eph. i. 10.
 Contained in Vol. iii. and iv.
 In the Epistle to the Laodiceans or Ephesians; see his remarks in
the preceding chapter of this book v.
 Isa. xliii. 18, 19, and lxv. 17; 2 Cor. v. 17.
 Jer. iv. 3. This and the passage of Isaiah just quoted are also
cited together above, book iv. chap. i. and ii. p. 345.
 Phil. i. 14-17.
 Regulas sacramentorum.
 Phil. i. 18.
 Compare the treatise, De Resur. Carnis, c. vi. (Oehler).
 Phil. ii. 6, 7.
 Col. i. 15.
 Inventum ratione.
 Phil. ii. 8.
 Phil. ii. 8.
 Non enim exaggeraret.
 Virtutem: perhaps the power.
 See the preceding note.
 Candidae pharisaeae: see Phil. iii. 4-6.
 Phil. iii. 7.
 Phil. iii. 8.
 Phil. iii. 9.
 Phil. iii. 20.
 Gen. xxii. 17.
 1 Cor. xv. 41.
 Phil. iii. 21. [I have adhered to the original Greek by a
trifling verbal change, because Tertullian's argument requires it.]
 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.
 Deputari, which is an old reading, should certainly be demutari,
and so say the best authorities. Oehler reads the former, but contends for
 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.
 Inspector: perhaps critic.
 Retro: in the former portions of this treatise.
 Qua eruimus ipsa ista.
 [Elucidation II.]
Also, see links to 3500 other Manuscripts:
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet