[a.d. 145–220.] When our Lord repulsed the woman of Canaan (Matt. xv. 22) with apparent harshness, he applied to her people the epithet dogs, with which the children of Israel had thought it piety to reproach them. When He accepted her faith and caused it to be recorded for our learning, He did something more: He reversed the curse of the Canaanite and showed that the Church was designed “for all people;” Catholic alike for all time and for all sorts and conditions of men.

See Judg. ix. 2 sqq.

and perhaps, too, to the “thistle” of Jehoash’s.31

31 See 2 Kings (4 Kings in LXX. and Vulg.) xiv. 9.

If this be so, the date would be at least approximately fixed, as Plautianus did not marry his daughter to Caracalla till a.d. 203, and was himself put to death in the following year, 204, while Geta, as we have seen, was made Augustus in 208.

It looks strange to see Tertullian’s works referred to as consisting of “about thirty short treatises” in Murdock’s note on Moshiem. See the ed. of the Eccl. Hist. by Dr. J. Seaton Reid, p. 65, n. 2, Lond. and Bel. 1852.

must have been subsequent to his lamented secession. I think the best way to give the reader means for forming his own judgment will be, as I have said, to lay before him in parallel columns a tabular view of the disposition of the books by Dr. Neander and Bishop Kaye. These two modern writers, having given particular care to the subject, bringing to bear upon it all the advantages derived from wide reading, eminent abilities, and a diligent study of the works of preceding writers on the same questions,36

36 This last qualification is very specially observable in Dr. Kaye.

have a special right to be heard upon the matter in hand; and I think, if I may be allowed to say so, that, for calm judgment, and minute acquaintance with his author, I shall not be accused of undue partiality if I express my opinion that, as far as my own observation goes, the palm must be awarded to the Bishop. In this view I am supported by the fact that the accomplished Professor Ramsay,37

37 In his article on Tertullian in Smith’s Dict. of Biog. and Myth.

follows Dr. Kaye’s arrangement. I premise that Dr. Neander adopts a threefold division, into:

Catal. Scrippt. Eccles. c. 18.

and on Ezek. xxxvi.;55

55 P. 952, tom. iii. Opp. ed. Bened.

and by Gennadius of Marseilles.56

56 De Ecclesiæ dogmatibus, c. 55.

Isa. vi. 10.

As, then, under the force of their pre-judgment, they had convinced themselves from His lowly guise that Christ was no more than man, it followed from that, as a necessary consequence, that they should hold Him a magician from the powers which He displayed,—expelling devils from men by a word, restoring vision to the blind, cleansing the leprous, reinvigorating the paralytic, summoning the dead to life again, making the very elements of nature obey Him, stilling the storms and walking on the sea; proving that He was the Logos of God, that primordial first-begotten Word, accompanied by power and reason, and based on Spirit,—that He who was now doing all things by His word, and He who had done that of old, were one and the same. But the Jews were so exasperated by His teaching, by which their rulers and chiefs were convicted of the truth, chiefly because so many turned aside to Him, that at last they brought Him before Pontius Pilate, at that time Roman governor of Syria; and, by the violence of their outcries against Him, extorted a sentence giving Him up to them to be crucified. He Himself had predicted this; which, however, would have signified little had not the prophets of old done it as well. And yet, nailed upon the cross, He exhibited many notable signs, by which His death was distinguished from all others. At His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner’s work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives.107

107 Elucidation V.

Then, when His body was taken down from the cross and placed in a sepulchre, the Jews in their eager watchfulness surrounded it with a large military guard, lest, as He had predicted His resurrection from the dead on the third day, His disciples might remove by stealth His body, and deceive even the incredulous. But, lo, on the third day there a was a sudden shock of earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulchre was rolled away, and the guard fled off in terror:  without a single disciple near, the grave was found empty of all but the clothes of the buried One. But nevertheless, the leaders of the Jews, whom it nearly concerned both to spread abroad a lie, and keep back a people tributary and submissive to them from the faith, gave it out that the body of Christ had been stolen by His followers. For the Lord, you see, did not go forth into the public gaze, lest the wicked should be delivered from their error; that faith also, destined to a great reward, might hold its ground in difficulty. But He spent forty days with some of His disciples down in Galilee, a region of Judea, instructing them in the doctrines they were to teach to others.  Thereafter, having given them commission to preach the gospel through the world, He was encompassed with a cloud and taken up to heaven,—a fact more certain far than the assertions of your Proculi concerning Romulus.108

108 Proculus was a Roman senator who affirmed that Romulus had appeared to him after his death.

All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Cæsar, who was at the time Tiberius.  Yes, and the Cæsars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Cæsars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Cæsars. His disciples also, spreading over the world, did as their Divine Master bade them; and after suffering greatly themselves from the persecutions of the Jews, and with no unwilling heart, as having faith undoubting in the truth, at last by Nero’s cruel sword sowed the seed of Christian blood at Rome.109

109 [Chapter l. at close. “The blood of Christians is the seed of the Church.”]

Yes, and we shall prove that even your own gods are effective witnesses for Christ.  It is a great matter if, to give you faith in Christians, I can bring forward the authority of the very beings on account of whom you refuse them credit. Thus far we have carried out the plan we laid down. We have set forth this origin of our sect and name, with this account of the Founder of Christianity. Let no one henceforth charge us with infamous wickedness; let no one think that it is otherwise than we have represented, for none may give a false account of his religion. For in the very fact that he says he worships another god than he really does, he is guilty of denying the object of his worship, and transferring his worship and homage to another; and, in the transference, he ceases to worship the god he has repudiated. We say, and before all men we say, and torn and bleeding under your tortures, we cry out, “We worship God through Christ.” Count Christ a man, if you please; by Him and in Him God would be known and be adored.  If the Jews object, we answer that Moses, who was but a man, taught them their religion; against the Greeks we urge that Orpheus at Pieria, Musæus at Athens, Melampus at Argos, Trophonius in Bœotia, imposed religious rites; turning to yourselves, who exercise sway over the nations, it was the man Numa Pompilius who laid on the Romans a heavy load of costly superstitions. Surely Christ, then, had a right to reveal Deity, which was in fact His own essential possession, not with the object of bringing boors and savages by the dread of multitudinous gods, whose favour must be won into some civilization, as was the case with Numa; but as one who aimed to enlighten men already civilized, and under illusions from their very culture, that they might come to the knowledge of the truth. Search, then, and see if that divinity of Christ be true. If it be of such a nature that the acceptance of it transforms a man, and makes him truly good, there is implied in that the duty of renouncing what is opposed to it as false; especially and on every ground that which, hiding itself under the names and images of dead, the labours to convince men of its divinity by certain signs, and miracles, and oracles.
Heb. x. 22. [See cap. xlii. infra. p. 49.]

despatched from the chaste body, an unstained soul, a sanctified spirit, not the few grains of incense a farthing buys118

118 [Once more this reflection on the use of material incense, which is common to early Christians, as in former volumes noted.]

—tears of an Arabian tree,—not a few drops of wine,—not the blood of some worthless ox to which death is a relief, and, in addition to other offensive things, a polluted conscience, so that one wonders, when your victims are examined by these vile priests, why the examination is not rather of the sacrificers than the sacrifices. With our hands thus stretched out and up to God, rend us with your iron claws, hang us up on crosses, wrap us in flames, take our heads from us with the sword, let loose the wild beasts on us,—the very attitude of a Christian praying is one of preparation for all punishment.119

119 [A reference to kneeling, which see the de Corona cap. 3, infra. Christians are represented as standing at prayer, in the delineations of the Catacombs.  But, see Nicene Canon, xx.]

Let this, good rulers, be your work: wring from us the soul, beseeching God on the emperor’s behalf. Upon the truth of God, and devotion to His name, put the brand of crime. Matt. v. 44.

Who, then, are greater enemies and persecutors of Christians, than the very parties with treason against whom we are charged? Nay, even in terms, and most clearly, the Scripture says, “Pray for kings, and rulers, and powers, that all may be peace with you.”121

121 1 Tim. ii. 2.

For when there is disturbance in the empire, if the commotion is felt by its other members, surely we too, though we are not thought to be given to disorder, are to be found in some place or other which the calamity affects. [John xxi. 19. A pious habit which long survived among Christians, when learning that death was at hand: as in Shakespeare’s Henry IV., “Laud be to God, ev’n there my life must end.” See 1 Thess. v. 18.]

If the comparison be made in regard to trustworthiness, Anaxagoras denied the deposit of his enemies: the Christian is noted for his fidelity even among those who are not of his religion.  If the matter of sincerity is to be brought to trial, Aristotle basely thrust his friend Hermias from his place:  the Christian does no harm even to his foe. With equal baseness does Aristotle play the sycophant to Alexander, instead of exercising to keep him in the right way, and Plato allows himself to be bought by Dionysius for his belly’s sake. Aristippus in the purple, with all his great show of gravity, gives way to extravagance; and Hippias is put to death laying plots against the state: no Christian ever attempted such a thing in behalf of his brethren, even when persecution was scattering them abroad with every atrocity.  But it will be said that some of us, too, depart from the rules of our discipline. In that case, however, we count them no longer Christians; but the philosophers who do such things retain still the name and the honour of wisdom.  So, then, where is there any likeness between the Christian and the philosopher? between the disciple of Greece and of heaven? between the man whose object is fame, and whose object is life? between the talker and the doer? between the man who builds up and the man who pulls down? between the friend and the foe of error? between one who corrupts the truth, and one who restores and teaches it? between its chief and its custodier?
From these facts, we may readily conclude that the mass of Tertullian’s writings is Orthodox.  Some of them are to be read with caution; others, again, must be rejected for their heresy; but yet all are most instructive historically, and as defining even by errors “the faith once delivered to the Saints.” I propose to note those which require caution as we pass them in review. Those written against the Church are classed by themselves, at the end of the list, and all the rest may be read with confidence. A most interesting inquiry arises in connection with the quotations from Scripture to be found in our author. Did a Latin version exist in his day, or does he translate from the Greek of the New Testament and the LXX? A paradoxical writer (Semler) contends that Tertullian “never used a Greek ms.” (see Kaye, p. 106.) But Tertullian’s rugged Latin betrays everywhere his familiarity with Greek idioms and forms of thought. He wrote, also, in Greek, and there is no reason to doubt that he knew the Greek Scriptures primarily, if he knew any Greek whatever. Possibly we owe to Tertullian the primordia of the Old African Latin Versions, some of which seem to have contained the disputed text 1 John v. 7; of which more when we come to the Praxeas. For the present in the absence of definite evidence we must infer that Tertullian usually translated from the LXX, and from the originals of the New Testament. But Mosheim thinks the progress of the Gospel in the West was now facilitated by the existence of Latin Versions.  Observe, also, Kaye’s important note, p. 293, and his reference to Lardner, Cred. xxvii. 19.

In his edition of The Decline and Fall, Vol. I., p. 589, American reprint.

at the close of Gibbon’s fifteenth chapter, I must express my own preference for another view. This will be found candidly summed up and stated, in the Speaker’s Commentary, in the concise note on St. Matt. xxvii. 45.

A candid review of the matters discussed in this chapter will be found in Kaye (pp. 146, 209.) The important fact is there clearly stated that “the primitive Christians scrupulously complied with the decree pronounced by the Apostles at Jerusalem in abstaining from things strangled and from blood” (Acts xv. 20). On this subject consult the references given in the Speaker’s Commentary, ad locum. The Greeks, to their honour, still maintain this prohibition, but St. Augustine’s great authority relaxed the Western scruples on this matter, for he regarded it as a decree of temporary obligation, while the Hebrew and Gentile Christians were in peril of misunderstanding and estrangement.159

159 Ep. ad Faust. xxxii. 13. and see Conybeare and Howson.

See Kaye, p. 248. Our author seems not always consistent with himself in his references to the Places of departed spirits. Kaye thinks he identifies Paradise with the Heaven of the Most High, in one place (the De Exhort. Cast., xiii.) where he probably confuses the Apostle’s ideas, in Galatians v. 12, and Ephesians v. 5. Commonly, however, though he is not consistent with himself, this would be his scheme:—

Oehler refers to Ezek. xxiii.; but many other references might be given—in the Pentateuch and Psalms, for instance.

use the designation of fornication in their upbraiding of idolatry. The essence of fraud, I take it, is, that any should seize what is another’s, or refuse to another his due; and, of course, fraud done toward man is a name of greatest crime. Well, but idolatry does fraud to God, by refusing to Him, and conferring on others, His honours; so that to fraud it also conjoins contumely. But if fraud, just as much as fornication and adultery, entails death, then, in these cases, equally with the former, idolatry stands unacquitted of the impeachment of murder. After such crimes, so pernicious, so devouring of salvation, all other crimes also, after some manner, and separately disposed in order, find their own essence represented in idolatry. In it also are the concupiscences of the world. For what solemnity of idolatry is without the circumstance of dress and ornament? In it are lasciviousnesses and drunkennesses; since it is, for the most part, for the sake of food, and stomach, and appetite, that these solemnities are frequented. In it is unrighteousness. For what more unrighteous than it, which knows not the Father of righteousness?  In it also is vanity, since its whole system is vain. In it is mendacity, for its whole substance is false. Thus it comes to pass, that in idolatry all crimes are detected, and in all crimes idolatry. Even otherwise, since all faults savour of opposition to God, and there is nothing which savours of opposition to God which is not assigned to demons and unclean spirits, whose property idols are; doubtless, whoever commits a fault is chargeable with idolatry, for he does that which pertains to the proprietors of idols.
Matt. v. 28.

“if one shall have cast an eye lustfully on,” and stirred his soul with immodest commotion; when He judges murder169

169 Matt. v. 22.

to consist even in a word of curse or of reproach, and in every impulse of anger, and in the neglect of charity toward a brother just as John teaches,170

170 1 John. iii. 15.

that he who hates his brother is a murderer.  Else, both the devil’s ingenuity in malice, and God the Lord’s in the Discipline by which He fortifies us against the devil’s depths,171

171 Rev. ii. 24.

would have but limited scope, if we were judged only in such faults as even the heathen nations have decreed punishable.  How will our “righteousness abound above that of the Scribes and Pharisees,” as the Lord has prescribed,172

172 Matt. v. 20.

unless we shall have seen through the abundance of that adversary quality, that is, of unrighteousness? But if the head of unrighteousness is idolatry, the first point is, that we be fore-fortified against the abundance of idolatry, while we recognise it not only in its palpable manifestations.
See Ex. xxxii.; and compare 1 Cor. x. 7, where the latter part of Ex. xxxii. 6 is quoted.


God prohibits an idol as much to be made as to be worshipped. In so far as the making what may be worshipped is the prior act, so far is the prohibition to make (if the worship is unlawful) the prior prohibition. For this cause—the eradicating, namely, of the material of idolatry—the divine law proclaims, “Thou shalt make no idol;”179

179 Lev. xxvi. 1; Ex. xx. 4; Deut. v. 8. It must of course be borne in mind that Tertullian has defined the meaning of the word idol in the former chapter, and speaks with reference to that definition.

and by conjoining, “Nor a similitude of the things which are in the heaven, and which are in the earth, and which are in the sea,” has interdicted the servants of God from acts of that kind all the universe over. Enoch had preceded, predicting that “the demons, and the spirits of the angelic apostates,180

180 Compare de Oratione, c. 23, and de Virg. Vel. c. 7.

would turn into idolatry all the elements, all the garniture of the universe, all things contained in the heaven, in the sea, in the earth, that they might be consecrated as God, in opposition to God.” All things, therefore, does human error worship, except the Founder of all Himself.  The images of those things are idols; the consecration of the images is idolatry. Whatever guilt idolatry incurs, must necessarily be imputed to every artificer of every idol. In short, the same Enoch fore-condemns in general menace both idol-worshippers and idol-makers together. And again:  “I swear to you, sinners, that against the day of perdition of blood181

181 “Sanguinis perditionis:” such is the reading of Oehler and others. If it be correct, probably the phrase “perdition of blood” must be taken as equivalent to “bloody perdition,” after the Hebrew fashion. Compare, for similar instances, Bible:Ezek.22.2">2 Sam. xvi. 7; Ps. v. 6; xxvi. 9; lv. 23; Ezek. xxii. 2, with the marginal readings. But Fr. Junius would read, “Of blood and of perdition”—sanguinis et perditionis. Oehler’s own interpretation of the reading he gives—“blood-shedding”—appears unsatisfactory.

repentance is being prepared. Ye who serve stones, and ye who make images of gold, and silver, and wood, and stones and clay, and serve phantoms, and demons, and spirits in fanes,182

182 “In fanis.” This is Oehler’s reading on conjecture. Other readings are—infamis, infamibus, insanis, infernis.

and all errors not according to knowledge, shall find no help from them.” But Isaiah183

183 Isa. xliv. 8 et seqq.

says, “Ye are witnesses whether there is a God except Me.” “And they who mould and carve out at that time were not: all vain! who do that which liketh them, which shall not profit them!” And that whole ensuing discourse sets a ban as well on the artificers as the worshippers:  the close of which is, “Learn that their heart is ashes and earth, and that none can free his own soul.” In which sentence David equally includes the makers too. “Such,” says he, “let them become who make them.”184

184 Ps. cxv. 8. In our version, “They that make them are like unto them.” Tertullian again agrees with the LXX.

And why should I, a man of limited memory, suggest anything further? Why recall anything more from the Scriptures? As if either the voice of the Holy Spirit were not sufficient; or else any further deliberation were needful, whether the Lord cursed and condemned by priority the artificers of those things, of which He curses and condemns the worshippers!
1 Cor. vii. 20. In Eng. ver., “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.”

We may all, therefore, persevere in sins, as the result of that interpretation! for there is not any one of us who has not been found as a sinner, since no other cause was the source of Christ’s descent than that of setting sinners free. Again, they say the same apostle has left a precept, according to his own example, “That each one work with his own hands for a living.”189

189 1 Thess. iv. 11; 2 Thess. iii. 6–; 12.

If this precept is maintained in respect to all hands, I believe even the bath-thieves190

190 i.e., thieves who frequented the public baths, which were a favorite resort at Rome.

live by their hands, and robbers themselves gain the means to live by their hands; forgers, again, execute their evil handwritings, not of course with their feet, but hands; actors, however, achieve a livelihood not with hands alone, but with their entire limbs. Let the Church, therefore, stand open to all who are supported by their hands and by their own work; if there is no exception of arts which the Discipline of God receives not. But some one says, in opposition to our proposition of “similitude being interdicted,” “Why, then, did Moses in the desert make a likeness of a serpent out of bronze?” The figures, which used to be laid as a groundwork for some secret future dispensation, not with a view to the repeal of the law, but as a type of their own final cause, stand in a class by themselves. Otherwise, if we should interpret these things as the adversaries of the law do, do we, too, as the Marcionites do, ascribe inconsistency to the Almighty, whom they191

191 The Marcionites.

in this manner destroy as being mutable, while in one place He forbids, in another commands? But if any feigns ignorance of the fact that that effigy of the serpent of bronze, after the manner of one uphung, denoted the shape of the Lord’s cross,192

192 [The argument amounts to this, that symbols were not idols:  yet even so, God only could ordain symbols that were innocent. The Nehushtan of King Hezekiah teaches us the “peril of Idolatry” (2 Kings xviii. 4) and that even a divine symbol may be destroyed justly if it be turned to a violation of the Second Commandment.]

which was to free us from serpents—that is, from the devil’s angels—while, through itself, it hanged up the devil slain; or whatever other exposition of that figure has been revealed to worthier men193

193 [On which see Dr. Smith, Dict. of the Bible, ad vocem “Serpent.”]

no matter, provided we remember the apostle affirms that all things happened at that time to the People194

194 i.e., the Jewish people, who are generally meant by the expression “the People” in the singular number in Scripture. We shall endeavour to mark that distinction by writing the word, as here, with a capital.

figuratively.195

195 See 1 Cor. x. 6; 11.

It is enough that the same God, as by law He forbade the making of similitude, did, by the extraordinary precept in the case of the serpent, interdict similitude.196

196 On the principle that the exception proves the rule. As Oehler explains it: “By the fact of the extraordinary precept in that particular case, God gave an indication that likeness-making had before been forbidden and interdicted by Him.”

If you reverence the same God, you have His law, “Thou shalt make no similitude.”197

197 Ex. xx. 4, etc. [The absurd “brazen serpent” which I have seen in the Church of St. Ambrose, in Milan, is with brazen hardihood affirmed to be the identical serpent which Moses lifted up in the wilderness. But it lacks all symbolic character, as it is not set upon a pole nor in any way fitted to a cross. It greatly resembles a vane set upon a pivot.]

If you look back, too, to the precept enjoining the subsequently made similitude, do you, too, imitate Moses: make not any likeness in opposition to the law, unless to you, too, God have bidden it.198

198 [Elucidation I.]

Matt. xviii. 8.

see to it whether it were uttered by way of similitude merely. What hands more to be amputated than those in which scandal is done to the Lord’s body?
Alterius = ἑτέρον which in the New Testament is = to “neighbour” in Rom. xiii. 8, etc. [Our author must have borne in mind Cicero’s beautiful words—“Etenim omnes artes quæ ad humanitatem pertinent habent quoddam commune vinculum,” etc. Pro Archia, i. tom. x. p. 10. Ed. Paris, 1817.]

art: nothing is independent of its neighbour. The veins of the arts are many as are the concupiscences of men.  “But there is difference in wages and the rewards of handicraft;” therefore there is difference, too, in the labour required. Smaller wages are compensated by more frequent earning. How many are the party-walls which require statues? How many the temples and shrines which are built for idols? But houses, and official residences, and baths, and tenements, how many are they?  Shoe- and slipper-gilding is daily work; not so the gilding of Mercury and Serapis. Let that suffice for the gain205

205 Quæstum. Another reading is “questum,” which would require us to translate “plaint.”

of handicrafts. Luxury and ostentation have more votaries than all superstition.  Ostentation will require dishes and cups more easily than superstition. Luxury deals in wreaths, also, more than ceremony. When, therefore, we urge men generally to such kinds of handicrafts as do not come in contact with an idol indeed and with the things which are appropriate to an idol; since, moreover, the things which are common to idols are often common to men too; of this also we ought to beware that nothing be, with our knowledge, demanded by any person from our idols’ service.  For if we shall have made that concession, and shall not have had recourse to the remedies so often used, I think we are not free of the contagion of idolatry, we whose (not unwitting) hands206

206 “Quorum manus non ignorantium,” i.e., “the hands of whom not unwitting;” which may be rendered as above, because in English, as in the Latin, in adjective “unwitting” belongs to the “whose,” not to the “hands.”

are found busied in the tendence, or in the honour and service, of demons.
See Eph. v. 11, 12, and similar passages.

but since one in these days has challenged us, defending on his own behalf perseverance in that profession, I will use a few words. I allege not that he honours idols, whose names he has inscribed on the heaven,209

209 i.e., by naming the stars after them.

to whom he has attributed all God’s power; because men, presuming that we are disposed of by the immutable arbitrament of the stars, think on that account that God is not to be sought after. One proposition I lay down: that those angels, the deserters from God, the lovers of women,210

210 Comp. chap. iv., and the references there given. The idea seems founded on an ancient reading found in the Codex Alexandrinus of the LXX. in Gen. vi. 2, “angels of God,” for “sons of God.”

were likewise the discoverers of this curious art, on that account also condemned by God. Oh divine sentence, reaching even unto the earth in its vigour, whereto the unwitting render testimony! The astrologers are expelled just like their angels. The city and Italy are interdicted to the astrologers, just as heaven to their angels.211

211 See Tac. Ann. ii. 31, etc. (Oehler.)

There is the same penalty of exclusion for disciples and masters. “But Magi and astrologers came from the east.”212

212 See Matt. ii.

We know the mutual alliance of magic and astrology. The interpreters of the stars, then, were the first to announce Christ’s birth the first to present Him “gifts.” By this bond, [must] I imagine, they put Christ under obligation to themselves?  What then? Shall therefore the religion of those Magi act as patron now also to astrologers? Astrology now-a-days, forsooth, treats of Christ—is the science of the stars of Christ; not of Saturn, or Mars, and whomsoever else out of the same class of the dead213

213 Because the names of the heathen divinities, which used to be given to the stars, were in many cases only names of dead men deified.

it pays observance to and preaches? But, however, that science has been allowed until the Gospel, in order that after Christ’s birth no one should thence forward interpret any one’s nativity by the heaven. For they therefore offered to the then infant Lord that frankincense and myrrh and gold, to be, as it were, the close of worldly214

214 Or, heathenish.

sacrifice and glory, which Christ was about to do away. What, then?  The dream—sent, doubtless, of the will of God—suggested to the same Magi, namely, that they should go home, but by another way, not that by which they came. It means this: that they should not walk in their ancient path.215

215 Or, sect.

Not that Herod should not pursue them, who in fact did not pursue them; unwitting even that they had departed by another way, since he was withal unwitting by what way they came. Just so we ought to understand by it the right Way and Discipline. And so the precept was rather, that thence forward they should walk otherwise. So, too, that other species of magic which operates by miracles, emulous even in opposition to Moses,216

216 See Ex. vii., viii.; and comp. 2 Tim. iii. 8.

tried God’s patience until the Gospel.  For thenceforward Simon Magus, just turned believer, (since he was still thinking somewhat of his juggling sect; to wit, that among the miracles of his profession he might buy even the gift of the Holy Spirit through imposition of hands) was cursed by the apostles, and ejected from the faith.217

217 See Acts viii. 9–24.

Both he and that other magician, who was with Sergius Paulus, (since he began opposing himself to the same apostles) was mulcted with loss of eyes.218

218 See Acts xiii. 6–11.

The same fate, I believe, would astrologers, too, have met, if any had fallen in the way of the apostles. But yet, when magic is punished, of which astrology is a species, of course the species is condemned in the genus. After the Gospel, you will nowhere find either sophists, Chaldeans, enchanters, diviners, or magicians, except as clearly punished. “Where is the wise, where the grammarian, where the disputer of this age? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this age?”219

219 1 Cor. i. 20.

You know nothing, astrologer, if you know not that you should be a Christian. If you did know it, you ought to have known this also, that you should have nothing more to do with that profession of yours which, of itself, fore-chants the climacterics of others, and might instruct you of its own danger. There is no part nor lot for you in that system of yours.220

220 See Acts viii. 21.

He cannot hope for the kingdom of the heavens, whose finger or wand abuses221

221 See 1 Cor. vii. 31, “They that use this world as not abusing it.” The astrologer abuses the heavens by putting the heavenly bodies to a sinful use.

the heaven.
i.e., the seven planets.

will yet frequent the Quinquatria? The very first payment of every pupil he consecrates both to the honour and to the name of Minerva; so that, even though he be not said “to eat of that which is sacrificed to idols”223

223 See 1 Cor. viii. 10.

nominally (not being dedicated to any particular idol), he is shunned as an idolater.  What less of defilement does he recur on that ground,224

224 i.e., because “he does not nominally eat,” etc.

than a business brings which, both nominally and virtually, is consecrated publicly to an idol? The Minervalia are as much Minerva’s, as the Saturnalia Saturn’s; Saturn’s, which must necessarily be celebrated even by little slaves at the time of the Saturnalia. New-year’s gifts likewise must be caught at, and the Septimontium kept; and all the presents of Midwinter and the feast of Dear Kinsmanship must be exacted; the schools must be wreathed with flowers; the flamens’ wives and the ædiles sacrifice; the school is honoured on the appointed holy-days. The same thing takes place on an idol’s birthday; every pomp of the devil is frequented. Who will think that these things are befitting to a Christian master,225

225 [Note the Christian Schoolmaster, already distinguished as such, implying the existence and the character of Christian schools. Of which, learn more from the Emperor Julian, afterwards.]

unless it be he who shall think them suitable likewise to one who is not a master?  We know it may be said, “If teaching literature is not lawful to God’s servants, neither will learning be likewise;” and, “How could one be trained unto ordinary human intelligence, or unto any sense or action whatever, since literature is the means of training for all life? How do we repudiate secular studies, without which divine studies cannot be pursued?”  Let us see, then, the necessity of literary erudition; let us reflect that partly it cannot be admitted, partly cannot be avoided. Learning literature is allowable for believers, rather than teaching; for the principle of learning and of teaching is different. If a believer teach literature, while he is teaching doubtless he commends, while he delivers he affirms, while he recalls he bears testimony to, the praises of idols interspersed therein. He seals the gods themselves with this name;226

226 i.e., the name of gods.

whereas the Law, as we have said, prohibits “the names of gods to be pronounced,”227

227 Bible:Zech.13.2">Ex. xxiii. 13; Josh. xxiii. 7; Ps. xvi. 4; Hos. ii. 17; Zech. xiii. 2.

and this name228

228 i.e., the name of God.

to be conferred on vanity.229

229 i.e., on an idol, which, as Isaiah says, is “vanity.”

Hence the devil gets men’s early faith built up from the beginnings of their erudition.  Inquire whether he who catechizes about idols commit idolatry. But when a believer learns these things, if he is already capable of understanding what idolatry is, he neither receives nor allows them; much more if he is not yet capable. Or, when he begins to understand, it behoves him first to understand what he has previously learned, that is, touching God and the faith. Therefore he will reject those things, and will not receive them; and will be as safe as one who from one who knows it not, knowingly accepts poison, but does not drink it. To him necessity is attributed as an excuse, because he has no other way to learn. Moreover, the not teaching literature is as much easier than the not learning, as it is easier, too, for the pupil not to attend, than for the master not to frequent, the rest of the defilements incident to the schools from public and scholastic solemnities.
1 Tim. vi. 10.

wherewith, indeed, some having been ensnared, “have suffered shipwreck about faith.”231

231 1 Tim. i. 19.

Albeit covetousness is by the same apostle called idolatry.232

232 Col. iii. 5. It has been suggested that for “quamvis” we should read “quum bis;” i.e., “seeing covetousness is twice called,” etc. The two places are Col. iii. 5; and Eph. v. 5.

In the next place proceeding to mendacity, the minister of covetousness (of false swearing I am silent, since even swearing is not lawful233

233 Matt. v. 34–37; Jas. v. 12.

)—is trade adapted for a servant of God? But, covetousness apart, what is the motive for acquiring? When the motive for acquiring ceases, there will be no necessity for trading. Grant now that there be some righteousness in business, secure from the duty of watchfulness against covetousness and mendacity; I take it that that trade which pertains to the very soul and spirit of idols, which pampers every demon, falls under the charge of idolatry. Rather, is not that the principal idolatry? If the selfsame merchandises—frankincense, I mean, and all other foreign productions—used as sacrifice to idols, are of use likewise to men for medicinal ointments, to us Christians also, over and above, for solaces of sepulture, let them see to it. At all events, while the pomps, while the priesthoods, while the sacrifices of idols, are furnished by dangers, by losses, by inconveniences, by cogitations, by runnings to and fro, or trades, what else are you demonstrated to be but an idols’ agent? Let none contend that, in this way, exception may be taken to all trades. All graver faults extend the sphere for diligence in watchfulness proportionably to the magnitude of the danger; in order that we may withdraw not only from the faults, but from the means through which they have being. For although the fault be done by others, it makes no difference if it be by my means. In no case ought I to be necessary to another, while he is doing what to me is unlawful.  Hence I ought to understand that care must be taken by me, lest what I am forbidden to do be done by my means. In short, in another cause of no lighter guilt I observe that fore-judgment. In that I am interdicted from fornication, I furnish nothing of help or connivance to others for that purpose; in that I have separated my own flesh itself from stews, I acknowledge that I cannot exercise the trade of pandering, or keep that kind of places for my neighbour’s behoof.  So, too, the interdiction of murder shows me that a trainer of gladiators also is excluded from the Church; nor will any one fail to be the means of doing what he subministers to another to do. Behold, here is a more kindred fore-judgment: if a purveyor of the public victims come over to the faith, will you permit him to remain permanently in that trade? or if one who is already a believer shall have undertaken that business, will you think that he is to be retained in the Church?  No, I take it; unless any one will dissemble in the case of a frankincense-seller too. In sooth, the agency of blood pertains to some, that of odours to others. If, before idols were in the world, idolatry, hitherto shapeless, used to be transacted by these wares; if, even now, the work of idolatry is perpetrated, for the most part, without the idol, by burnings of odours; the frankincense-seller is a something even more serviceable even toward demons, for idolatry is more easily carried on without the idol, than without the ware of the frankincense-seller.234

234 [The aversion of the early Christian Fathers passim to the ceremonial use of incense finds one explanation here.]

Let us interrogate thoroughly the conscience of the faith itself. With what mouth will a Christian frankincense-seller, if he shall pass through temples, with what mouth will he spit down upon and blow out the smoking altars, for which himself has made provision? With what consistency will he exorcise his own foster-children,235

235 i.e., the demons, or idols, to whom incense is burned.

to whom he affords his own house as store-room?  Indeed, if he shall have ejected a demon,236

236 i.e., from one possessed.

let him not congratulate himself on his faith, for he has not ejected an enemy; he ought to have had his prayer easily granted by one whom he is daily feeding.237

237 i.e., The demon, in gratitude for the incense which the man daily feeds him with, ought to depart out of the possessed at his request.

No art, then, no profession, no trade, which administers either to equipping or forming idols, can be free from the title of idolatry; unless we interpret idolatry to be altogether something else than the service of idol-tendence.
See Luke xiv. 28–30.

who first computes the costs of the work, together with his own means, lest, when he has begun, he afterwards blush to find himself spent, deliberation should have been made before. But even now you have the Lord’s sayings, as examples taking away from you all excuse.  For what is it you say? “I shall be in need.” But the Lord calls the needy “happy.”241

241 Luke vi. 20.

“I shall have no food.” But “think not,” says He, “about food;”242

242 Matt. vi. 25, 31, etc.; Luke xii. 22–24.

and as an example of clothing we have the lilies.243

243 Matt. vi. 28; Luke xii. 28.

“My work was my subsistence.” Nay, but “all things are to be sold, and divided to the needy.”244

244 Matt. xix. 21; Luke xviii. 22.

“But provision must be made for children and posterity.” “None, putting his hand on the plough, and looking back, is fit” for work.245

245 Luke ix. 62, where the words are, “is fit for the kingdom of God.”

“But I was under contract.” “None can serve two lords.”246

246 Matt. vi. 24; Luke xvi. 13.

If you wish to be the Lord’s disciple, it is necessary you “take your cross, and follow the Lord:”247

247 Matt. xvi. 24; Mark viii. 34; Luke ix. 23; xiv. 27.

your cross; that is, your own straits and tortures, or your body only, which is after the manner of a cross. Parents, wives, children, will have to be left behind, for God’s sake.248

248 Luke xiv. 26; Mark x. 29, 30; Matt. xix. 27–30. Compare these texts with Tertullian’s words, and see the testimony he thus gives to the deity of Christ.

Do you hesitate about arts, and trades, and about professions likewise, for the sake of children and parents? Even there was it demonstrated to us, that both “dear pledges,”249

249 i.e., any dear relations.

and handicrafts, and trades, are to be quite left behind for the Lord’s sake; while James and John, called by the Lord, do leave quite behind both father and ship;250

250 Matt. iv. 21, 22; Mark i. 19, 20; Luke v. 10, 11.

while Matthew is roused up from the toll-booth;251

251 Matt. ix. 9; Mark ii. 14; Luke v. 29.

while even burying a father was too tardy a business for faith.252

252 Luke ix. 59, 60.

None of them whom the Lord chose to Him said, “I have no means to live.” Faith fears not famine. It knows, likewise, that hunger is no less to be contemned by it for God’s sake, than every kind of death. It has learnt not to respect life; how much more food? [You ask] “How many have fulfilled these conditions?” But what with men is difficult, with God is easy.253

253 Matt. xix. 26; Luke i. 37; xviii. 27.

Let us, however, comfort ourselves about the gentleness and clemency of God in such wise, as not to indulge our “necessities” up to the point of affinities with idolatry, but to avoid even from afar every breath of it, as of a pestilence. [And this] not merely in the cases forementioned, but in the universal series of human superstition; whether appropriated to its gods, or to the defunct, or to kings, as pertaining to the selfsame unclean spirits, sometimes through sacrifices and priesthoods, sometimes through spectacles and the like, sometimes through holy-days.
Rom. xii. 15.

is said about brethren by the apostle when exhorting to unanimity. But, for these purposes, “There is nought of communion between light and darkness,”256

256 See 2 Cor. vi. 14. In the De Spect. xxvi. Tertullian has the same quotation (Oehler). And there, too, he adds, as here, “between life and death.”

between life and death or else we rescind what is written, “The world shall rejoice, but ye shall grieve.”257

257 John xvi. 20. It is observable that Tertullian here translates κόσμον by “seculum.”

If we rejoice with the world, there is reason to fear that with the world we shall grieve too. But when the world rejoices, let us grieve; and when the world afterward grieves, we shall rejoice. Thus, too, Eleazar258

258 i.e., Lazarus, Luke xvi. 19–31.

in Hades,259

259 “Apud inferos,” used clearly here by Tertullian of a place of happiness. Augustine says he never finds it so used in Scripture. See Ussher’s “Answer to a Jesuit” on the Article, “He descended into hell.” [See Elucid. X. p. 59, supra.]

(attaining refreshment in Abraham’s bosom) and the rich man, (on the other hand, set in the torment of fire) compensate, by an answerable retribution, their alternate vicissitudes of evil and good.  There are certain gift-days, which with some adjust the claim of honour, with others the debt of wages. “Now, then,” you say, “I shall receive back what is mine, or pay back what is another’s.” If men have consecrated for themselves this custom from superstition, why do you, estranged as you are from all their vanity, participate in solemnities consecrated to idols; as if for you also there were some prescript about a day, short of the observance of a particular day, to prevent your paying or receiving what you owe a man, or what is owed you by a man? Give me the form after which you wish to be dealt with.  For why should you skulk withal, when you contaminate your own conscience by your neighbour’s ignorance?  If you are not unknown to be a Christian, you are tempted, and you act as if you were not a Christian against your neighbour’s conscience; if, however, you shall be disguised withal,260

260 i.e., if you are unknown to be a Christian: “dissimulaberis.” This is Oehler’s reading; but Latinius and Fr. Junis would read “Dissimulaveris,” ="if you dissemble the fact” of being a Christian, which perhaps is better.

you are the slave of the temptation. At all events, whether in the latter or the former way, you are guilty of being “ashamed of God.”261

261 So Mr. Dodgson renders very well.

But “whosoever shall be ashamed of Me in the presence of men, of him will I too be ashamed,” says He, “in the presence of my Father who is in the heavens.”262

262 Matt. x. 33; Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 26; 2 Tim. ii. 12.


But, however, the majority (of Christians) have by this time induced the belief in their mind that it is pardonable if at any time they do what the heathen do, for fear “the Name be blasphemed.” Now the blasphemy which must quite be shunned by us in every way is, I take it, this: If any of us lead a heathen into blasphemy with good cause, either by fraud, or by injury, or by contumely, or any other matter of worthy complaint, in which “the Name” is deservedly impugned, so that the Lord, too, be deservedly angry.  Else, if of all blasphemy it has been said, “By your means My Name is blasphemed,”263

263 Isa. lii. 5; Ezek. xxxvi. 20, 23. Cf. 2 Sam. xii. 14; Rom. ii. 24.

we all perish at once; since the whole circus, with no desert of ours, assails “the Name” with wicked suffrages. Let us cease (to be Christians) and it will not be blasphemed! On the contrary, while we are, let it be blasphemed: in the observance, not the overstepping, of discipline; while we are being approved, not while we are being reprobated. Oh blasphemy, bordering on martyrdom, which now attests me to be a Christian,264

264 [This play on the words is literally copied from the original—“quæ tunc me testatur Christianum, cum propter ea me detestatur.”]

while for that very account it detests me! The cursing of well-maintained Discipline is a blessing of the Name.  “If,” says he, “I wished to please men, I should not be Christ’s servant.”265

265 St. Paul. Gal. i. 10.

But the same apostle elsewhere bids us take care to please all: “As I,” he says, “please all by all means.”266

266 1 Cor. x. 32, 33.

No doubt he used to please them by celebrating the Saturnalia and New-year’s day!  [Was it so] or was it by moderation and patience? by gravity, by kindness, by integrity? In like manner, when he is saying, “I have become all things to all, that I may gain all,”267

267 1 Cor. ix. 22.

does he mean “to idolaters an idolater?” “to heathens a heathen?” “to the worldly worldly?” But albeit he does not prohibit us from having our conversation with idolaters and adulterers, and the other criminals, saying, “Otherwise ye would go out from the world,”268

268 1 Cor. v. 10.

of course he does not so slacken those reins of conversation that, since it is necessary for us both to live and to mingle with sinners, we may be able to sin with them too. Where there is the intercourse of life, which the apostle concedes, there is sinning, which no one permits. To live with heathens is lawful, to die with them269

269 i.e., by sinning (Oehler), for “the wages of sin is death.”

is not. Let us live with all;270

270 There seems to be a play on the word “convivere” (whence “convivium,” etc.), as in Cic. de Sen. xiii.

let us be glad with them, out of community of nature, not of superstition. We are peers in soul, not in discipline; fellow-possessors of the world, not of error.  But if we have no right of communion in matters of this kind with strangers, how far more wicked to celebrate them among brethren! Who can maintain or defend this? The Holy Spirit upbraids the Jews with their holy-days. “Your Sabbaths, and new moons, and ceremonies,” says He, “My soul hateth.”271

271 Isa. i. 14, etc.

By us, to whom Sabbaths are strange,272

272 [This is noteworthy. In the earlier days sabbaths (Saturdays) were not unobserved, but, it was a concession pro tempore, to Hebrew Christians.]

and the new moons and festivals formerly beloved by God, the Saturnalia and New-year’s and Midwinter’s festivals and Matronalia are frequented—presents come and go—New-year’s gifts—games join their noise—banquets join their din! Oh better fidelity of the nations to their own sect, which claims no solemnity of the Christians for itself! Not the Lord’s day, not Pentecost, even it they had known them, would they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they should seem to be Christians. We are not apprehensive lest we seem to be heathens! If any indulgence is to be granted to the flesh, you have it. I will not say your own days,273

273 i.e., perhaps your own birthdays. [See cap. xvi. infra.]  Oehler seems to think it means, “all other Christian festivals beside Sunday.”

but more too; for to the heathens each festive day occurs but once annually:  you have a festive day every eighth day.274

274 [“An Easter Day in every week.”—Keble.]

Call out the individual solemnities of the nations, and set them out into a row, they will not be able to make up a Pentecost.275

275 i.e., a space of fifty days, see Deut. xvi. 10; and comp. Hooker, Ecc. Pol. iv. 13, 7, ed. Keble.


Matt. v. 16.

but now all our shops and gates shine!  You will now-a-days find more doors of heathens without lamps and laurel-wreaths than of Christians. What does the case seem to be with regard to that species (of ceremony) also? If it is an idol’s honour, without doubt an idol’s honour is idolatry. If it is for a man’s sake, let us again consider that all idolatry is for man’s sake;277

277 See chap. ix. p. 152, note 4.

let us again consider that all idolatry is a worship done to men, since it is generally agreed even among their worshippers that aforetime the gods themselves of the nations were men; and so it makes no difference whether that superstitious homage be rendered to men of a former age or of this. Idolatry is condemned, not on account of the persons which are set up for worship, but on account of those its observances, which pertain to demons. “The things which are Cæsar’s are to be rendered to Cæsar.”278

278 Matt. xxii. 21; Mark xii. 17; Luke xx. 25.

It is enough that He set in apposition thereto, “and to God the things which are God’s.” What things, then, are Cæsar’s? Those, to wit, about which the consultation was then held, whether the poll-tax should be furnished to Cæsar or no. Therefore, too, the Lord demanded that the money should be shown Him, and inquired about the image, whose it was; and when He had heard it was Cæsar’s, said, “Render to Cæsar what are Cæsar’s, and what are God’s to God;” that is, the image of Cæsar, which is on the coin, to Cæsar, and the image of God, which is on man,279

279 See Gen. i. 26, 27; ix. 6; and comp. 1 Cor. xi. 7.

to God; so as to render to Cæsar indeed money, to God yourself. Otherwise, what will be God’s, if all things are Cæsar’s? “Then,” do you say, “the lamps before my doors, and the laurels on my posts are an honour to God?” They are there of course, not because they are an honour to God, but to him who is honour in God’s stead by ceremonial observances of that kind, so far as is manifest, saving the religious performance, which is in secret appertaining to demons. For we ought to be sure if there are any whose notice it escapes through ignorance of this world’s literature, that there are among the Romans even gods of entrances; Cardea (Hinge-goddess), called after hinges, and Forculus (Door-god) after doors, and Limentinus (Threshold-god) after the threshold, and Janus himself (Gate-god) after the gate: and of course we know that, though names be empty and feigned, yet, when they are drawn down into superstition, demons and every unclean spirit seize them for themselves, through the bond of consecration. Otherwise demons have no name individually, but they there find a name where they find also a token. Among the Greeks likewise we read of Apollo Thyræus, i.e. of the door, and the Antelii, or Anthelii, demons, as presiders over entrances. These things, therefore, the Holy Spirit foreseeing from the beginning, fore-chanted, through the most ancient prophet Enoch, that even entrances would come into superstitious use. For we see too that other entrances280

280 The word is the same as that for “the mouth” of a river, etc. Hence Oehler supposes the “entrances” or “mouths” here referred to to be the mouths of fountains, where nymphs were supposed to dwell. Nympha is supposed to be the same word as Lympha. See Hor. Sat. i. 5, 97; and Macleane’s note.

are adored in the baths. But if there are beings which are adored in entrances, it is to them that both the lamps and the laurels will pertain. To an idol you will have done whatever you shall have done to an entrance. In this place I call a witness on the authority also of God; because it is not safe to suppress whatever may have been shown to one, of course for the sake of all. I know that a brother was severely chastised, the same night, through a vision, because on the sudden announcement of public rejoicings his servants had wreathed his gates.  And yet himself had not wreathed, or commanded them to be wreathed; for he had gone forth from home before, and on his return had reprehended the deed.  So strictly are we appraised with God in matters of this kind, even with regard to the discipline of our family.281

281 [He seems to refer to some Providential event, perhaps announced in a dream, not necessarily out of the course of common occurrences.]

Therefore, as to what relates to the honours due to kings or emperors, we have a prescript sufficient, that it behoves us to be in all obedience, according to the apostle’s precept,282

282 Rom. xiii. 1, etc.; 1 Pet. ii, 13, 14.

“subject to magistrates, and princes, and powers;”283

283 Tit. iii. 1.

but within the limits of discipline, so long as we keep ourselves separate from idolatry. For it is for this reason, too, that that example of the three brethren has forerun us, who, in other respects obedient toward king Nebuchodonosor rejected with all constancy the honour to his image,284

284 Dan. iii.

proving that whatever is extolled beyond the measure of human honour, unto the resemblance of divine sublimity, is idolatry.  So too, Daniel, in all other points submissive to Darius, remained in his duty so long as it was free from danger to his religion;285

285 Dan. vi.

for, to avoid undergoing that danger, he feared the royal lions no more than they the royal fires. Let, therefore, them who have no light, light their lamps daily; let them over whom the fires of hell are imminent, affix to their posts, laurels doomed presently to burn:  to them the testimonies of darkness and the omens of their penalties are suitable. You are a light of the world,286

286 Matt. v. 14; Phil. ii. 15.

and a tree ever green.287

287 Ps. i. 1–3; xcii. 12–; 15.

If you have renounced temples, make not your own gate a temple. I have said too little. If you have renounced stews, clothe not your own house with the appearance of a new brothel.
Tertullian should have added, “and a man’s on a woman.” See Deut. xxii. 5. Moreover, the word “cursed” is not used there, but “abomination” is.

for “cursed,” saith He, “is every man who clothes himself in woman’s attire.” The toga, however, is a dress of manly name as well as of manly use.289

289 Because it was called toga virilis—“the manly toga.”

God no more prohibits nuptials to be celebrated than a name to be given. “But there are sacrifices appropriated to these occasions.” Let me be invited, and let not the title of the ceremony be “assistance at a sacrifice,” and the discharge of my good offices is at the service of my friends. Would that it were “at their service” indeed, and that we could escape seeing what is unlawful for us to do.  But since the evil one has so surrounded the world with idolatry, it will be lawful for us to be present at some ceremonies which see us doing service to a man, not to an idol.  Clearly, if invited unto priestly function and sacrifice, I will not go, for that is service peculiar to an idol; but neither will I furnish advice, or expense, or any other good office in a matter of that kind. If it is on account of the sacrifice that I be invited, and stand by, I shall be partaker of idolatry; if any other cause conjoins me to the sacrificer, I shall be merely a spectator of the sacrifice.290

290 [1 Cor. viii. The law of the inspired apostle seems as rigorous here and in 1 Cor. x. 27–29.]


Majores. Of course the word may be rendered simply “ancients;” but I have kept the common meaning “forefathers.”

who obeyed idolatrous kings up to the confine of idolatry. Hence arose, very lately, a dispute whether a servant of God should take the administration of any dignity or power, if he be able, whether by some special grace, or by adroitness, to keep himself intact from every species of idolatry; after the example that both Joseph and Daniel, clean from idolatry, administered both dignity and power in the livery and purple of the prefecture of entire Egypt or Babylonia. And so let us grant that it is possible for any one to succeed in moving, in whatsoever office, under the mere name of the office, neither sacrificing nor lending his authority to sacrifices; not farming out victims; not assigning to others the care of temples; not looking after their tributes; not giving spectacles at his own or the public charge, or presiding over the giving them; making proclamation or edict for no solemnity; not even taking oaths: moreover (what comes under the head of power), neither sitting in judgment on any one’s life or character, for you might bear with his judging about money; neither condemning nor fore-condemning;293

293 “The judge condemns, the legislator fore-condemns.”—Rigaltius (Oehler.)

binding no one, imprisoning or torturing no one—if it is credible that all this is possible.
See 1 Cor. ix. 19.

in so far as you are the slave of Christ alone,304

304 St. Paul in his epistle glories in the title, “Paul, a slave,” or “bondman,” “of Christ Jesus.”

who has freed you likewise from the captivity of the world, will incur the duty of acting after your Lord’s pattern.  That Lord walked in humility and obscurity, with no definite home: for “the Son of man,” said He, “hath not where to lay His head;”305

305 Luke ix. 58; Matt. viii. 20.

unadorned in dress, for else He had not said, “Behold, they who are clad in soft raiment are in kings’ houses:”306

306 Matt. xi. 8; Luke vii. 25.

in short, inglorious in countenance and aspect, just as Isaiah withal had fore-announced.307

307 Isa. liii. 2.

If, also, He exercised no right of power even over His own followers, to whom He discharged menial ministry;308

308 See John xiii. 1–17.

if, in short, though conscious of His own kingdom,309

309 See John xviii. 36.

He shrank back from being made a king,310

310 John vi. 15.

He in the fullest manner gave His own an example for turning coldly from all the pride and garb, as well of dignity as of power. For if they were to be used, who would rather have used them than the Son of God? What kind and what number of fasces would escort Him? what kind of purple would bloom from His shoulders? what kind of gold would beam from His head, had He not judged the glory of the world to be alien both to Himself and to His? Therefore what He was unwilling to accept, He has rejected; what He rejected, He has condemned; what He condemned, He has counted as part of the devil’s pomp.  For He would not have condemned things, except such as were not His; but things which are not God’s, can be no other’s but the devil’s. If you have forsworn “the devil’s pomp,”311

311 In baptism.

know that whatever there you touch is idolatry.  Let even this fact help to remind you that all the powers and dignities of this world are not only alien to, but enemies of, God; that through them punishments have been determined against God’s servants; through them, too, penalties prepared for the impious are ignored.  But “both your birth and your substance are troublesome to you in resisting idolatry.”312

312 i.e., From your birth and means, you will be expected to fill offices which are in some way connected with idolatry.

For avoiding it, remedies cannot be lacking; since, even if they be lacking, there remains that one by which you will be made a happier magistrate, not in the earth, but in the heavens.313

313 i.e., Martyrdom (La Cerda, quoted by Oehler).  For the idea of being “a magistrate in the heavens,” [sitting on a throne] compare such passages as Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 28, 30; 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3; Rev. ii. 26, 27; iii. 21.


Matt. xxvi. 52; 2 Cor. x. 4; John xviii. 36.

For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule;320

320 See Luke iii. 12, 13.

albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed;321

321 Matt. viii. 5, etc.; Luke vii. 1, etc.

still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbe**d every soldier.  No dress is lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action.
Matt. xii. 37.

), we ought to remember that, even in words, also the inroad of idolatry must be foreguarded against, either from the defect of custom or of timidity. The law prohibits the gods of the nations from being named,324

324 Ex. xxiii. 13. [St. Luke, nevertheless, names Castor and Pollux, Acts xxviii. 2., on our author’s principle.]

not of course that we are not to pronounce their names, the speaking of which common intercourse extorts from us: for this must very frequently be said, “You find him in the temple of Æsculapius;” and, “I live in Isis Street;” and, “He has been made priest of Jupiter;” and much else after this manner, since even on men names of this kind are bestowed. I do not honour Saturnus if I call a man so, by his own name. I honour him no more than I do Marcus, if I call a man Marcus. But it says, “Make not mention of the name of other gods, neither be it heard from thy mouth.”325

325 Ex. xxiii. 13.

The precept it gives is this, that we do not call them gods. For in the first part of the law, too, “Thou shalt not,” saith He, “use the name of the Lord thy God in a vain thing,”326

326 Ex. xx. 7.

that is, in an idol.327

327 Because Scripture calls idols “vanities” and “vain things.” See 2 Kings xvii. 15, Ps. xxiv. 4, Isa. lix. 4, Deut. xxxii. 21, etc.

Whoever, therefore, honours an idol with the name of God, has fallen into idolatry.  But if I speak of them as gods, something must be added to make it appear that I do not call them gods. For even the Scripture names “gods,” but adds “their,” viz. “of the nations:” just as David does when he had named “gods,” where he says, “But the gods of the nations are demons.”328

328 Ps. xcvi. 5. The LXX. in whose version ed. Tisch. it is Ps. xcv. read δαιμόνια, like Tertullian. Our version has “idols.”

But this has been laid by me rather as a foundation for ensuing observations.  However, it is a defect of custom to say, “By Hercules, So help me the god of faith;”329

329 Mehercule. Medius Fidius. I have given the rendering of the latter, which seems preferred by Paley (Ov. Fast. vi. 213, note), who considers it = me dius (i.e., Deus) fidius juvet.  Smith (Lat. Dict. s.v.) agrees with him, and explains it, me deus fidius servet. White and Riddle (s.v.) take the me (which appears to be short) as a “demonstrative” particle or prefix, and explain, “By the God of truth!” “As true as heaven,” “Most certainly.”

while to the custom is added the ignorance of some, who are ignorant that it is an oath by Hercules. Further, what will an oath be, in the name of gods whom you have forsworn, but a collusion of faith with idolatry? For who does not honour them in whose name he swears?
See Matt. v. 44; 1 Pet. iii. 9, etc.

not to return a curse in the name of God even, but dearly to bless in the name of God, that you may both demolish idols and preach God, and fulfil discipline. See Matt. v. 28.

You therefore have given a guarantee; which clearly has “ascended into your heart,” which you can neither contend you were ignorant of nor unwilling; for when you gave the guarantee, you knew that you did it; when you knew, of course you were willing: you did it as well in act as in thought; nor can you by the lighter charge exclude the heavier,338

338 Oehler understands “the lighter crime” or “charge” to be “swearing;” the “heavier,” to be “denying the Lord Christ.”

so as to say that it is clearly rendered false, by giving a guarantee for what you do not actually perform. “Yet I have not denied, because I have not sworn.” But you have sworn, since, even if you had done no such thing, you would still be said to swear, if you have even consented to so doing. Silence of voice is an unavailing plea in a case of writing; and muteness of sound in a case of letters. For Zacharias, when punished with a temporary privation of voice, holds colloquy with his mind, and, passing by his bootless tongue, with the help of his hands dictates from his heart, and without his mouth pronounces the name of his son.339

339 See Luke i. 20, 22, 62, 63.

Thus, in his pen there speaks a hand clearer than every sound, in his waxen tablet there is heard a letter more vocal that every mouth.340

340 This is how Mr. Dodgson renders, and the rendering agrees with Oehler’s punctuation. [So obscure however, is Dodgson’s rendering that I have slightly changed the punctuation, to clarify it, and subjoin Oehler’s text.] But perhaps we may read thus: “He speaks in his pen; he is heard in his waxen tablet: the hand is clearer than every sound; the letter is more vocal than every mouth.” [Oehler reads thus: “Cum manibus suis a corde dictat et nomen filii sine ore pronuntiat:  loquitur in stilo, auditur in cera manus omni sono clarior, littera omni ore vocalior.” I see no difficulty here.]

Inquire whether a man have spoken who is understood to have spoken.341

341 Elucidation IV.

Pray we the Lord that no necessity for that kind of contract may ever encompass us; and if it should so fall out, may He give our brethren the means of helping us, or give us constancy to break off all such necessity, lest those denying letters, the substitutes for our mouth, be brought forward against us in the day of judgment, sealed with the seals, not now of witnesses, but of angels!
1 Cor. v. 10.

As if it were not as well worth while to go out, as to stand in the world as an idolater!  Nothing can be easier than caution against idolatry, if the fear of it be our leading fear; any “necessity” whatever is too trifling compared to such a peril. The reason why the Holy Spirit did, when the apostles at that time were consulting, relax the bond and yoke for us,343

343 Acts xv. 1–31.

was that we might be free to devote ourselves to the shunning of idolatry. This shall be our Law, the more fully to be administered the more ready it is to hand; (a Law) peculiar to Christians, by means whereof we are recognised and examined by heathens. This Law must be set before such as approach unto the Faith, and inculcated on such as are entering it; that, in approaching, they may deliberate; observing it, may persevere; not observing it, may renounce their name.344

344 i.e., cease to be Christians (Rigalt., referred to by Oehler).

We will see to it, if, after the type of the Ark, there shall be in the Church raven, kite, dog, and serpent. At all events, an idolater is not found in the type of the Ark: no animal has been fashioned to represent an idolater. Let not that be in the Church which was not in the Ark.345

345 [General references to Kaye (3d edition), which will be useful to those consulting that author’s Tertullian, for Elucidations of the De Idololatria, are as follows: Preface, p. xxiii. Then, pp. 56, 141, 206, 231, 300, 360, 343, 360 and 362.]


Ex. xx. 14.

But we find that that first word of David bears on this very sort of thing:  “Blessed,” he says, “is the man who has not gone into the assembly of the impious, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of scorners.”353

353 Ps. i. 1. [Kaye’s censure of this use of the text, (p. 366) seems to me gratuitous.]

Though he seems to have predicted beforehand of that just man, that he took no part in the meetings and deliberations of the Jews, taking counsel about the slaying of our Lord, yet divine Scripture has ever far-reaching applications: after the immediate sense has been exhausted, in all directions it fortifies the practice of the religious life, so that here also you have an utterance which is not far from a plain interdicting of the shows. If he called those few Jews an assembly of the wicked, how much more will he so designate so vast a gathering of heathens! Are the heathens less impious, less sinners, less enemies of Christ, than the Jews were then? And see, too, how other things agree. For at the shows they also stand in the way. For they call the spaces between the seats going round the amphitheatre, and the passages which separate the people running down, ways. The place in the curve where the matrons sit is called a chair. Therefore, on the contrary, it holds, unblessed is he who has entered any council of wicked men, and has stood in any way of sinners, and has sat in any chair of scorners. We may understand a thing as spoken generally, even when it requires a certain special interpretation to be given to it. For some things spoken with a special reference contain in them general truth. When God admonishes the Israelites of their duty, or sharply reproves them, He has surely a reference to all men; when He threatens destruction to Egypt and Ethiopia, He surely pre-condemns every sinning nation, whatever. If, reasoning from species to genus, every nation that sins against them is an Egypt and Ethiopia; so also, reasoning from genus to species, with reference to the origin of shows, every show is an assembly of the wicked. 1 Cor. viii. 4.

as the apostle says, but that the homage they render is to demons, who are the real occupants of these consecrated images, whether of dead men or (as they think) of gods. On this account, therefore, because they have a common source—for their dead and their deities are one—we abstain from both idolatries.  Nor do we dislike the temples less than the monuments: we have nothing to do with either altar, we adore neither image; we do not offer sacrifices to the gods, and we make no funeral oblations to the departed; nay, we do not partake of what is offered either in the one case or the other, for we cannot partake of God’s feast and the feast of devils.362

362 1 Cor. x. 21.

If, then, we keep throat and belly free from such defilements, how much more do we withhold our nobler parts, our ears and eyes, from the idolatrous and funereal enjoyments, which are not passed through the body, but are digested in the very spirit and soul, whose purity, much more than that of our bodily organs, God has a right to claim from us. Ps. xlix. 18. [This chapter bears on modern theatres.]

Would that we did not even inhabit the same world with these wicked men! But though that wish cannot be realized, yet even now we are separate from them in what is of the world; for the world is God’s, but the worldly is the devil’s. Matt. vi. 27.

His desire is to make Christ a liar. And in regard to the wearing of masks, I ask is that according to the mind of God, who forbids the making of every likeness, and especially then the likeness of man who is His own image? The Author of truth hates all the false; He regards as adultery all that is unreal.  Condemning, therefore, as He does hypocrisy in every form, He never will approve any putting on of voice, or sex, or age; He never will approve pretended loves, and wraths, and groans, and tears. Then, too, as in His law it is declared that the man is cursed who attires himself in female garments,367

367 Deut. xxii.

what must be His judgment of the pantomime, who is even brought up to play the woman! And will the boxer go unpunished? I suppose he received these cæstus-scars, and the thick skin of his fists, and these growths upon his ears, at his creation! God, too, gave him eyes for no other end than that they might be knocked out in fighting! I say nothing of him who, to save himself, thrusts another in the lion’s way, that he may not be too little of a murderer when he puts to death that very same man on the arena. See Neander’s explanation in Kaye, p. xxiii. But, let us observe the entire simplicity with which our author narrates a sort of incident known to the apostles. Acts xvi. 16.]

“And in truth I did it most righteously, for I found her in my domain.” Another case, too, is well known, in which a woman had been hearing a tragedian, and on the very night she saw in her sleep a linen cloth—the actor’s name being mentioned at the same time with strong disapproval—and five days after that woman was no more. How many other undoubted proofs we have had in the case of persons who, by keeping company with the devil in the shows, have fallen from the Lord! For no one can serve two masters.371

371 Matt. vi. 24.

What fellowship has light with darkness, life with death?372

372 2 Cor. iv. 14.

John xvi. 20.

Let us mourn, then, while the heathen are merry, that in the day of their sorrow we may rejoice; lest, sharing now in their gladness, we share then also in their grief. Thou art too dainty, Christian, if thou wouldst have pleasure in this life as well as in the next; nay, a fool thou art, if thou thinkest this life’s pleasures to be really pleasures. The philosophers, for instance, give the name of pleasure to quietness and repose; in that they have their bliss; in that they find entertainment: they even glory in it. You long for the goal, and the stage, and the dust, and the place of combat!  I would have you answer me this question: Can we not live without pleasure, who cannot but with pleasure die? For what is our wish but the apostle’s, to leave the world, and be taken up into the fellowship of our Lord?375

375 Phil. i. 23.

You have your joys where you have your longings.
Vulgate, Dan. xiii. 32. [See Apocrypha, Hist. of Susanna, v. 32.]

furnishes an argument for the veiling of women, I can say here also, the veil was a voluntary thing. She had come accused, ashamed of the disgrace she had brought on herself, properly concealing her beauty, even because now she feared to please. But I should not suppose that, when it was her aim to please, she took walks with a veil on in her husband’s avenue. Grant, now, that she was always veiled. In this particular case, too, or, in fact, in that of any other, I demand the dress-law.  If I nowhere find a law, it follows that tradition has given the fashion in question to custom, to find subsequently (its authorization in) the apostle’s sanction, from the true interpretation of reason. This instances, therefore, will make it sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition established by custom; the proper witness for tradition when demonstrated by long-continued observance.392

392 [Observe it must (1.) be based on Apostolic grounds; (2.) must not be a novelty, but derived from a time “to which the memory of men runneth not contrary.”]

But even in civil matters custom is accepted as law, when positive legal enactment is wanting; and it is the same thing whether it depends on writing or on reason, since reason is, in fact, the basis of law. But, (you say), if reason is the ground of law, all will now henceforth have to be counted law, whoever brings it forward, which shall have reason as its ground.393

393 [I slightly amend the translation to bring out the force of an objection to which our author gives a Montanistic reply.]

Or do you think that every believer is entitled to originate and establish a law, if only it be such as is agreeable to God, as is helpful to discipline, as promotes salvation, when the Lord says, “But why do you not even of your own selves judge what is right?”394

394 Luke xii. 27.

And not merely in regard to a judicial sentence, but in regard to every decision in matters we are called on to consider, the apostle also says, “If of anything you are ignorant, God shall reveal it unto you;”395

395 Phil. iii. 15.

he himself, too, being accustomed to afford counsel though he had not the command of the Lord, and to dictate of himself396

396 [See luminous remarks in Kaye, pp. 371–373.]

as possessing the Spirit of God who guides into all truth. Therefore his advice has, by the warrant of divine reason, become equivalent to nothing less than a divine command. Earnestly now inquire of this teacher,397

397 [This teacher, i.e., right reason, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.  He is here foisting in a plea for the “New Prophecy,” apparently, and this is one of the most decided instances in the treatise.]

keeping intact your regard for tradition, from whomsoever it originally sprang; nor have regard to the author, but to the authority, and especially that of custom itself, which on this very account we should revere, that we may not want an interpreter; so that if reason too is God’s gift, you may then learn, not whether custom has to be followed by you, but why.
1 Cor. xi. 14.

—as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires,400

400 Rom. ii. 14.

he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural,401

401 Rom. i. 26.

by way of penal retribution for their error.  We first of all indeed know God Himself by the teaching of Nature, calling Him God of gods, taking for granted that He is good, and invoking Him as Judge. Is it a question with you whether for the enjoyment of His creatures, Nature should be our guide, that we may not be carried away in the direction in which the rival of God has corrupted, along with man himself, the entire creation which had been made over to our race for certain uses, whence the apostle says that it too unwillingly became subject to vanity, completely bereft of its original character, first by vain, then by base, unrighteous, and ungodly uses? It is thus, accordingly, in the pleasures of the shows, that the creature is dishonoured by those who by nature indeed perceive that all the materials of which shows are got up belong to God, but lack the knowledge to perceive as well that they have all been changed by the devil. But with this topic we have, for the sake of our own play-lovers, sufficiently dealt, and that, too, in a work in Greek.402

402 [Plays were regarded as pomps renounced in Baptism.]


Isa. xxxviii. 21.

mentions that he ordered Hezekiah medicine when he was sick. Paul, too, knows that a little wine does the stomach good.404

404 1 Tim. v. 23.

Let Minerva have been the first who built a ship: I shall see Jonah and the apostles sailing. Nay, there is more than this: for even Christ, we shall find, has ordinary raiment; Paul, too, has his cloak.405

405 2 Tim. iv. 13. [This is a useful comment as showing what this φαιλόνη was. Our author translates it by pænula. Of which more when we reach the De Pallio.]

If at once, of every article of furniture and each household vessel, you name some god of the world as the originator, well, I must recognise Christ, both as He reclines on a couch, and when He presents a basin for the feet of His disciples, and when He pours water into it from a ewer, and when He is girt about with a linen towel406

406 John xiii. 1–5.

—a garment specially sacred to Osiris. It is thus in general I reply upon the point, admitting indeed that we use along with others these articles, but challenging that this be judged in the light of the distinction between things agreeable and things opposed to reason, because the promiscuous employment of them is deceptive, concealing the corruption of the creature, by which it has been made subject to vanity. For we affirm that those things only are proper to be used, whether by ourselves or by those who lived before us, and alone befit the service of God and Christ Himself, which to meet the necessities of human life supply what is simply; useful and affords real assistance and honourable comfort, so that they may be well believed to have come from God’s own inspiration, who first of all no doubt provided for and taught and ministered to the enjoyment, I should suppose, of His own man. As for the things which are out of this class, they are not fit to be used among us, especially those which on that account indeed are not to be found either with the world, or in the ways of Christ.
Isa. v. 12.

would have added “with crowns,” if this practice had ever had place in the things of God.
Ps. cxv. 4–8.

By means of these organs, indeed, we are to enjoy flowers; but if he declares that those who make idols will be like them, they already are so who use anything after the style of idol adornings. “To the pure all things are pure: so, likewise, all things to the impure are impure;”411

411 Tit. i. 15.

but nothing is more impure than idols.  The substances are themselves as creatures of God without impurity, and in this their native state are free to the use of all; but the ministries to which in their use they are devoted, makes all the difference; for I, too, kill a cock for myself, just as Socrates did for Æsculapius; and if the smell of some place or other offends me, I burn the Arabian product myself, but not with the same ceremony, nor in the same dress, nor with the same pomp, with which it is done to idols.412

412 [He seems to know no use for incense except for burials and for fumigation.]

If the creature is defiled by a mere word, as the apostle teaches, “But if any one say, This is offered in sacrifice to idols, you must not touch it,”413

413 1 Cor. x. 28.

much more when it is polluted by the dress, and rites, and pomp of what is offered to the gods. Thus the crown also is made out to be an offering to idols;414

414 [Kaye (p. 362) defends our author against Barbeyrac’s animadversions, by the maxim, “put yourself in his place” i.e. among the abominations of Paganism.]

for with this ceremony, and dress, and pomp, it is presented in sacrifice to idols, its originators, to whom its use is specially given over, and chiefly on this account, that what has no place among the things of God may not be admitted into use with us as with others.  Wherefore the apostle exclaims, “Flee idolatry:”415

415 1 Cor. x. 14.

certainly idolatry whole and entire he means. Reflect on what a thicket it is, and how many thorns lie hid in it.  Nothing must be given to an idol, and so nothing must be taken from one. If it is inconsistent with faith to recline in an idol temple, what is it to appear in an idol dress? What communion have Christ and Belial? Therefore flee from it; for he enjoins us to keep at a distance from idolatry—to have no close dealings with it of any kind. Even an earthly serpent sucks in men at some distance with its breath.  Going still further, John says, “My little children, keep yourselves from idols,”416

416 1 John v. 21.

—not now from idolatry, as if from the service of it, but from idols—that is, from any resemblance to them: for it is an unworthy thing that you, the image of the living God, should become the likeness of an idol and a dead man. Thus far we assert, that this attire belongs to idols, both from the history of its origin, and from its use by false religion; on this ground, besides, that while it is not mentioned as connected with the worship of God, it is more and more given over to those in whose antiquities, as well as festivals and services, it is found. In a word, the very doors, the very victims and altars, the very servants and priests, are crowned. You have, in Claudius, the crowns of all the various colleges of priests. We have added also that distinction between things altogether different from each other—things, namely, agreeable, and things contrary to reason—in answer to those who, because there happens to be the use of some things in common, maintain the right of participation in all things. With reference to this part of the subject, therefore, it now remains that the special grounds for wearing crowns should be examined, that while we show these to be foreign, nay, even opposed to our Christian discipline, we may demonstrate that none of them have any plea of reason to support it, on the basis of which this article of dress might be vindicated as one in whose use we can participate, as even some others may whose instances are cast up to us.
1 Cor. viii. 10.

And shall he diligently protect by night those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms, leaning and resting on the spear the while with which Christ’s side was pierced? Shall he carry a flag,419

419 [Vexillum. Such words as these prepared for the Labarum.]

too, hostile to Christ? And shall he ask a watchword from the emperor who has already received one from God? Shall he be disturbed in death by the trumpet of the trumpeter, who expects to be aroused by the angel’s trump? And shall the Christian be burned according to camp rule, when he was not permitted to burn incense to an idol, when to him Christ remitted the punishment of fire?  Then how many other offences there are involved in the performances of camp offices, which we must hold to involve a transgression of God’s law, you may see by a slight survey. The very carrying of the name over from the camp of light to the camp of darkness is a violation of it. Of course, if faith comes later, and finds any preoccupied with military service, their case is different, as in the instance of those whom John used to receive for baptism, and of those most faithful centurions, I mean the centurion whom Christ approves, and the centurion whom Peter instructs; yet, at the same time, when a man has become a believer, and faith has been sealed, there must be either an immediate abandonment of it, which has been the course with many; or all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to in order to avoid offending God, and that is not allowed even outside of military service;420

420 “Outside of the military service.” By substituting ex militia for the corresponding words extra militiam, as has been proposed by Rigaltius, the sentence acquires a meaning such that desertion from the army is suggested as one of the methods by which a soldier who has become a Christian may continue faithful to Jesus. But the words extra militiam are a genuine part of the text. There is no good ground, therefore, for the statement of Gibbon:  “Tertullian (de Corona Militis, c. xi.) suggests to them the expedient of deserting; a counsel which, if it had been generally known, was not very proper to conciliate the favour of the emperors toward the Christian sect.”—Tr.

or, last of all, for God the fate must be endured which a citizen-faith has been no less ready to accept. Neither does military service hold out escape from punishment of sins, or exemption from martyrdom. Nowhere does the Christian change his character. There is one gospel, and the same Jesus, who will one day deny every one who denies, and acknowledge every one who acknowledges God,—who will save, too, the life which has been lost for His sake; but, on the other hand, destroy that which for gain has been saved to His dishonour. With Him the faithful citizen is a soldier, just as the faithful soldier is a citizen.421

421 “The faithful,” etc.; i.e., the kind of occupation which any one has cannot be pleaded by him as a reason for not doing all that Christ has enjoined upon His people.—Tr.

A state of faith admits no plea of necessity; they are under no necessity to sin, whose one necessity is, that they do not sin. For if one is pressed to the offering of sacrifice and the sheer denial of Christ by the necessity of torture or of punishment, yet discipline does not connive even at that necessity; because there is a higher necessity to dread denying and to undergo martyrdom, than to escape from suffering, and to render the homage required. In fact, an excuse of this sort overturns the entire essence of our sacrament, removing even the obstacle to voluntary sins; for it will be possible also to maintain that inclination is a necessity, as involving in it, forsooth, a sort of compulsion. I have, in fact, disposed of this very allegation of necessity with reference to the pleas by which crowns connected with official position are vindicated, in support of which it is in common use, since for this very reason offices must be either refused, that we may not fall into acts of sin, or martyrdoms endured that we may get quit of offices. Touching this primary aspect of the question, as to the unlawfulness even of a military life itself, I shall not add more, that the secondary question may be restored to its place. Indeed, if, putting my strength to the question, I banish from us the military life, I should now to no purpose issue a challenge on the matter of the military crown. Suppose, then, that the military service is lawful, as far as the plea for the crown is concerned.422

422 [He was not yet quite a Montanist.]


Matt. vi. 24.

to devote your energies to mammon, and to depart from God? Will it be “Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things which are God’s,”425

425 Matt. xxii. 21.

not only not to render the human being to God, but even to take the denarius from Cæsar? Is the laurel of the triumph made of leaves, or of corpses? Is it adorned with ribbons, or with tombs? Is it bedewed with ointments, or with the tears of wives and mothers? It may be of some Christians too;426

426 [Such considerations may account for our author’s abandonment of what he says in the Apology; which compare in capp. xlii. and xxxix.]

for Christ is also among the barbarians.427

427 [Et apud barbaros enim Christus. See Kaye’s argument, p. 87.]

Has not he who has carried (a crown for) this cause on his head, fought even against himself?  Another son of service belongs to the royal guards. And indeed crowns are called (Castrenses), as belonging to the camp; Munificæ likewise, from the Cæsarean functions they perform. But even then you are still the soldier and the servant of another; and if of two masters, of God and Cæsar: but assuredly then not of Cæsar, when you owe yourself to God, as having higher claims, I should think, even in matters in which both have an interest.
Phil. iv. 3.

There the blood of the Lord serves for your purple robe, and your broad stripe is His own cross; there the axe is already laid to the trunk of the tree;429

429 Matt. iii. 10.

there is the branch out of the root of Jesse.430

430 Isa. xi. 1.

Never mind the state horses with their crown. Your Lord, when, according to the Scripture, He would enter Jerusalem in triumph, had not even an ass of His own. These (put their trust) in chariots, and these in horses; but we will seek our help in the name of the Lord our God.431

431 Ps. xx. 7.

From so much as a dwelling in that Babylon of John’s Revelation432

432 Rev. xviii. 4. [He understands this of Rome.]

we are called away; much more then from its pomp. The rabble, too, are crowned, at one time because of some great rejoicing for the success of the emperors; at another, on account of some custom belonging to municipal festivals. For luxury strives to make her own every occasion of public gladness. But as for you, you are a foreigner in this world, a citizen of Jerusalem, the city above. Our citizenship, the apostle says, is in heaven.433

433 Phil. iii. 20.

You have your own registers, your own calendar; you have nothing to do with the joys of the world; nay, you are called to the very opposite, for “the world shall rejoice, but ye shall mourn.”434

434 John xvi. 20.

And I think the Lord affirms, that those who mourn are happy, not those who are crowned.  Marriage, too, decks the bridegroom with its crown; and therefore we will not have heathen brides, lest they seduce us even to the idolatry with which among them marriage is initiated.  You have the law from the patriarchs indeed; you have the apostle enjoining people to marry in the Lord.435

435 1 Cor. vii. 39.

You have a crowning also on the making of a freeman; but you have been already ransomed by Christ, and that at a great price.  How shall the world manumit the servant of another? Though it seems to be liberty, yet it will come to be found bondage. In the world everything is nominal, and nothing real.  For even then, as ransomed by Christ, you were under no bondage to man; and now, though man has given you liberty, you are the servant of Christ. If you think freedom of the world to be real, so that you even seal it with a crown, you have returned to the slavery of man, imagining it to be freedom; you have lost the freedom of Christ, fancying it is slavery. Will there be any dispute as to the cause of crown-wearing, which contests in the games in their turn supply, and which, both as sacred to the gods and in honour of the dead, their own reason at once condemns? It only remains, that the Olympian Jupiter, and the Nemean Hercules, and the wretched little Archemorus, and the hapless Antinous, should be crowned in a Christian, that he himself may become a spectacle disgusting to behold. We have recounted, as I think, all the various causes of the wearing of the crown, and there is not one which has any place with us: all are foreign to us, unholy, unlawful, having been abjured already once for all in the solemn declaration of the sacrament. For they were of the pomp of the devil and his angels, offices of the world,436

436 [A suggestive interpretation of the baptismal vow, of which see Bunsen, Hippol., Vol. III., p. 20.]

honours, festivals, popularity huntings, false vows, exhibitions of human servility, empty praises, base glories, and in them all idolatry, even in respect of the origin of the crowns alone, with which they are all wreathed. Claudius will tell us in his preface, indeed, that in the poems of Homer the heaven also is crowned with constellations, and that no doubt by God, no doubt for man; therefore man himself, too, should be crowned by God.  But the world crowns brothels, and baths, and bakehouses, and prisons, and schools, and the very amphitheatres, and the chambers where the clothes are stripped from dead gladiators, and the very biers of the dead. How sacred and holy, how venerable and pure is this article of dress, determine not from the heaven of poetry alone, but from the traffickings of the whole world.  But indeed a Christian will not even dishonour his own gate with laurel crowns, if so be he knows how many gods the devil has attached to doors; Janus so-called from gate, Limentinus from threshold, Forcus and Carna from leaves and hinges; among the Greeks, too, the Thyræan Apollo, and the evil spirits, the Antelii.
1 Cor. xi. 10. [Does he here play on the use of the word angels in the Revelation? He seems to make it = elders.]

much more with a crown on it will she offend those (elders) who perhaps are then wearing crowns above.438

438 Rev. iv. 4.

For what is a crown on the head of a woman, but beauty made seductive, but mark of utter wantonness,—a notable casting away of modesty, a setting temptation on fire?  Therefore a woman, taking counsel from the apostles’ foresight,439

439 1 Tim. ii. 9; 1 Pet. iii. 3.

will not too elaborately adorn herself, that she may not either be crowned with any exquisite arrangement of her hair.  What sort of garland, however, I pray you, did He who is the Head of the man and the glory of the woman, Christ Jesus, the Husband of the church, submit to in behalf of both sexes? Of thorns, I think, and thistles,—a figure of the sins which the soil of the flesh brought forth for us, but which the power of the cross removed, blunting, in its endurance by the head of our Lord, death’s every sting. Yes, and besides the figure, there is contumely with ready lip, and dishonour, and infamy, and the ferocity involved in the cruel things which then disfigured and lacerated the temples of the Lord, that you may now be crowned with laurel, and myrtle, and olive, and any famous branch, and which is of more use, with hundred-leaved roses too, culled from the garden of Midas, and with both kinds of lily, and with violets of all sorts, perhaps also with gems and gold, so as even to rival that crown of Christ which He afterwards obtained. For it was after the gall He tasted the honeycomb440

440 [A very striking collocation of Matt. xxvii. 34; and Luke xxiv. 42.]

and He was not greeted as King of Glory in heavenly places till He had been condemned to the cross as King of the Jews, having first been made by the Father for a time a little less than the angels, and so crowned with glory and honour. If for these things, you owe your own head to Him, repay it if you can, such as He presented His for yours; or be not crowned with flowers at all, if you cannot be with thorns, because you may not be with flowers.
Rev. ii. 10; Jas. i. 22.

Be you, too, faithful unto death, and fight you, too, the good fight, whose crown the apostle442

442 2 Tim. iv. 8.

feels so justly confident has been laid up for him. The angel443

443 Rev. vi. 2.

also, as he goes forth on a white horse, conquering and to conquer, receives a crown of victory; and another444

444 Rev. x. 1.

is adorned with an encircling rainbow (as it were in its fair colours)—a celestial meadow. In like manner, the elders sit crowned around, crowned too with a crown of gold, and the Son of Man Himself flashes out above the clouds. If such are the appearances in the vision of the seer, of what sort will be the realities in the actual manifestation?  Look at those crowns. Inhale those odours. Why condemn you to a little chaplet, or a twisted headband, the brow which has been destined for a diadem? For Christ Jesus has made us even kings to God and His Father. What have you in common with the flower which is to die? You have a flower in the Branch of Jesse, upon which the grace of the Divine Spirit in all its fulness rested—a flower undefiled, unfading, everlasting, by choosing which the good soldier, too, has got promotion in the heavenly ranks.  Blush, ye fellow-soldiers of his, henceforth not to be condemned even by him, but by some soldier of Mithras, who, at his initiation in the gloomy cavern, in the camp, it may well be said, of darkness, when at the sword’s point a crown is presented to him, as though in mimicry of martyrdom, and thereupon put upon his head, is admonished to resist and cast it off, and, if you like, transfer it to his shoulder, saying that Mithras is his crown. And thenceforth he is never crowned; and he has that for a mark to show who he is, if anywhere he be subjected to trial in respect of his religion; and he is at once believed to be a soldier of Mithras if he throws the crown away—if he say that in his god he has his crown. Let us take note of the devices of the devil, who is wont to ape some of God’s things with no other design than, by the faithfulness of his servants, to put us to shame, and to condemn us.
[See Elucidation I. Written late in our author’s life, this tract contains no trace of Montanism, and shows that his heart was with the common cause of all Christians. Who can give up such an Ephraim without recalling the words of inspired love for the erring?— Jer. xxxi. 20; Hos. xi. 8.]

[Christians remembered Herod (Acts xii. 23) very naturally; but we may reserve remarks on such instances till we come to Lactantius. But see Kaye (p. 102) who speaks unfavourably of them.]

Vigellius Saturninus, who first here used the sword against us, lost his eyesight.  Claudius Lucius Herminianus in Cappadocia, enraged that his wife had become a Christian, had treated the Christians with great cruelty: well, left alone in his palace, suffering under a contagious malady, he boiled out in living worms, and was heard exclaiming, “Let nobody know of it, lest the Christians rejoice, and Christian wives take encouragement.” Afterwards he came to see his error in having tempted so many from their stedfastness by the tortures he inflicted, and died almost a Christian himself. In that doom which overtook Byzantium,452

452 [Notes of the time when this was written. See Kaye, p. 57.]

Cæcilius Capella could not help crying out, “Christians, rejoice!” Yes, and the persecutors who seem to themselves to have acted with impunity shall not escape the day of judgment. For you we sincerely wish it may prove to have been a warning only, that, immediately after you had condemned Mavilus of Adrumetum to the wild beasts, you were overtaken by those troubles, and that even now for the same reason you are called to a blood-reckoning. But do not forget the future.
[Our author uses the Greek (μὴ θεομαχεῖν) but not textually of Acts v. 39.]

You may perform the duties of your charge, and yet remember the claims of humanity; if on no other ground than that you are liable to punishment yourself, (you ought to do so). For is not your commission simply to condemn those who confess their guilt, and to give over to the torture those who deny? You see, then, how you trespass yourselves against your instructions to wring from the confessing a denial. It is, in fact, an acknowledgment of our innocence that you refuse to condemn us at once when we confess. In doing your utmost to extirpate us, if that is your object, it is innocence you assail.  But how many rulers, men more resolute and more cruel than you are, have contrived to get quit of such causes altogether,—as Cincius Severus, who himself suggested the remedy at Thysdris, pointing out how the Christians should answer that they might secure an acquittal; as Vespronius Candidus, who dismissed from his bar a Christian, on the ground that to satisfy his fellow-citizens would break the peace of the community; as Asper, who, in the case of a man who gave up his faith under slight infliction of the torture, did not compel the offering of sacrifice, having owned before, among the advocates and assessors of court, that he was annoyed at having had to meddle with such a case. Pudens, too, at once dismissed a Christian who was brought before him, perceiving from the indictment that it was a case of vexatious accusation; tearing the document in pieces, he refused so much as to hear him without the presence of his accuser, as not being consistent with the imperial commands.  All this might be officially brought under your notice, and by the very advocates, who are themselves also under obligations to us, although in court they give their voice as it suits them.  The clerk of one of them who was liable to be thrown upon the ground by an evil spirit, was set free from his affliction; as was also the relative of another, and the little boy of a third.  How many men of rank (to say nothing of common people) have been delivered from devils, and healed of diseases!  Even Severus himself, the father of Antonine, was graciously mindful of the Christians; for he sought out the Christian Proculus, surnamed Torpacion, the steward of Euhodias, and in gratitude for his having once cured him by anointing, he kept him in his palace till the day of his death.454

454 [Another note of time. a.d. 211. See Kaye, as before.]

Antonine, too, brought up as he was on Christian milk, was intimately acquainted with this man. Both women and men of highest rank, whom Severus knew well to be Christians, were not merely permitted by him to remain uninjured; but he even bore distinguished testimony in their favour, and gave them publicly back to us from the hands of a raging populace. Marcus Aurelius also, in his expedition to Germany, by the prayers his Christian soldiers offered to God, got rain in that well-known thirst.455

455 [Compare Vol. I., p. 187, this Series.]

When, indeed, have not droughts been put away by our kneelings and our fastings? At times like these, moreover, the people crying to “the God of gods, the alone Omnipotent,” under the name of Jupiter, have borne witness to our God. Then we never deny the deposit placed in our hands; we never pollute the marriage bed; we deal faithfully with our wards; we give aid to the needy; we render to none evil for evil. As for those who falsely pretend to belong to us, and whom we, too, repudiate, let them answer for themselves. In a word, who has complaint to make against us on other grounds? To what else does the Christian devote himself, save the affairs of his own community, which during all the long period of its existence no one has ever proved guilty of the incest or the cruelty charged against it?  It is for freedom from crime so singular, for a probity so great, for righteousness, for purity, for faithfulness, for truth, for the living God, that we are consigned to the flames; for this is a punishment you are not wont to inflict either on the sacrilegious, or on undoubted public enemies, or on the treason-tainted, of whom you have so many.  Nay, even now our people are enduring persecution from the governors of Legio and Mauritania; but it is only with the sword, as from the first it was ordained that we should suffer. But the greater our conflicts, the greater our rewards.
(Caractacus, cap. ii., note 2, p. 105.)

 See Lev. xxiv. 2; also 2 Chron. xiii. 11. Witsius (Ægyptiaca, ii. 16, 17) compares the Jewish with the Egyptian “ritus lucernarum.”

and the fasts of unleavened bread, and the “littoral prayers,”678

678 Tertullian, in his tract de Jejun. xvi., speaks of the Jews praying (after the loss of their temple, and in their dispersion) in the open air, “per omne litus.”

all which institutions and practices are of course foreign from your gods. Wherefore, that I may return from this digression, you who reproach us with the sun and Sunday should consider your proximity to us. We are not far off from your Saturn and your days of rest.
Prov. ix. 10; Ps. cxi. 10.

But801

801 Porro.

fear has its origin in knowledge; for how will a man fear that of which he knows nothing? Therefore he who shall have the fear of God, even if he be ignorant of all things else, if he has attained to the knowledge and truth of God,802

802 Deum omnium notititam et veritatem adsecutus, i.e., “following the God of all as knowledge and truth.”

will possess full and perfect wisdom.  This, however, is what philosophy has not clearly realized. For although, in their inquisitive disposition to search into all kinds of learning, the philosophers may seem to have investigated the sacred Scriptures themselves for their antiquity, and to have derived thence some of their opinions; yet because they have interpolated these deductions they prove that they have either despised them wholly or have not fully believed them, for in other cases also the simplicity of truth is shaken803

803 Nutat.

by the over-scrupulousness of an irregular belief,804

804 Passivæ fidei.

and that they therefore changed them, as their desire of glory grew, into products of their own mind. The consequence of this is, that even that which they had discovered degenerated into uncertainty, and there arose from one or two drops of truth a perfect flood of argumentation. For after they had simply805

805 Solummodo.

found God, they did not expound Him as they found Him, but rather disputed about His quality, and His nature, and even about His abode. The Platonists, indeed, (held) Him to care about worldly things, both as the disposer and judge thereof. The Epicureans regarded Him as apathetic806

806 Otiosum.

and inert, and (so to say) a non-entity.807

807 “A nobody.”

The Stoics believed Him to be outside of the world; the Platonists, within the world.  The God whom they had so imperfectly admitted, they could neither know nor fear; and therefore they could not be wise, since they wandered away indeed from the beginning of wisdom,” that is, “the fear of God.” Proofs are not wanting that among the philosophers there was not only an ignorance, but actual doubt, about the divinity. Diogenes, when asked what was taking place in heaven, answered by saying, “I have never been up there.” Again, whether there were any gods, he replied, “I do not know; only there ought to be gods.”808

808 Nisi ut sint expedire.

When Crœsus inquired of Thales of Miletus what he thought of the gods, the latter having taken some time809

809 Aliquot commeatus.

to consider, answered by the word “Nothing.”  Even Socrates denied with an air of certainty810

810 Quasi certus.

those gods of yours.811

811 Istos deos.

Yet he with a like certainty requested that a cock should be sacrificed to Æsculapius.  And therefore when philosophy, in its practice of defining about God, is detected in such uncertainty and inconsistency, what “fear” could it possibly have had of Him whom it was not competent812

812 Non tenebat.

clearly to determine? We have been taught to believe of the world that it is god.813

813 De mundo deo didicimus.

For such the physical class of theologizers conclude it to be, since they have handed down such views about the gods that Dionysius the Stoic divides them into three kinds. The first, he supposes, includes those gods which are most obvious, as the Sun, Moon, and Stars; the next, those which are not apparent, as Neptune; the remaining one, those which are said to have passed from the human state to the divine, as Hercules and Amphiaraus. In like manner, Arcesilaus makes a threefold form of the divinity—the Olympian, the Astral, the Titanian—sprung from Cœlus and Terra; from which through Saturn and Ops came Neptune, Jupiter, and Orcus, and their entire progeny. Xenocrates, of the Academy, makes a twofold division—the Olympian and the Titanian, which descend from Cœlus and Terra. Most of the Egyptians believe that there are four gods—the Sun and the Moon, the Heaven and the Earth. Along with all the supernal fire Democritus conjectures that the gods arose. Zeno, too, will have it that their nature resembles it. Whence Varro also makes fire to be the soul of the world, that in the world fire governs all things, just as the soul does in ourselves. But all this is most absurd. For he says, Whilst it is in us, we have existence; but as soon as it has left us, we die. Therefore, when fire quits the world in lightning, the world comes to its end.
Ignotis Deis. Comp. Acts xvii. 23.

Does, then, a man worship that which he knows nothing of? Then, again, as they had certain gods, they ought to have been contented with them, without requiring select ones. In this want they are even found to be irreligious! For if gods are selected as onions are,925

925 Ut bulbi. This is the passage which Augustine quotes (de Civit. Dei, vii. 1) as “too facetious.”

then such as are not chosen are declared to be worthless. Now we on our part allow that the Romans had two sets of gods, common and proper; in other words, those which they had in common with other nations, and those which they themselves devised. And were not these called the public and the foreign926

926 Adventicii, “coming from abroad.”

gods? Their altars tell us so; there is (a specimen) of the foreign gods at the fane of Carna, of the public gods in the Palatium. Now, since their common gods are comprehended in both the physical and the mythic classes, we have already said enough concerning them. I should like to speak of their particular kinds of deity. We ought then to admire the Romans for that third set of the gods of their enemies,927

927 Touching these gods of the vanquished nations, compare The Apology, xxv.; below, c. xvii.; Minucius Felix, Octav. xxv.

because no other nation ever discovered for itself so large a mass of superstition. Their other deities we arrange in two classes: those which have become gods from human beings, and those which have had their origin in some other way. Now, since there is advanced the same colourable pretext for the deification of the dead, that their lives were meritorious, we are compelled to urge the same reply against them, that no one of them was worth so much pains.  Their fond928

928 Diligentem.

father Æneas, in whom they believed, was never glorious, and was felled with a stone929

929 See Homer, Il. v. 300.

—a vulgar weapon, to pelt a dog withal, inflicting a wound no less ignoble! But this Æneas turns out930

930 Invenitur.

a traitor to his country; yes, quite as much as Antenor. And if they will not believe this to be true of him, he at any rate deserted his companions when his country was in flames, and must be held inferior to that woman of Carthage,931

931 Referred to also above, i. 18.

who, when her husband Hasdrubal supplicated the enemy with the mild pusillanimity of our Æneas, refused to accompany him, but hurrying her children along with her, disdained to take her beautiful self and father’s noble heart932

932 The obscure “formam et patrem” is by Oehler rendered “pulchritudinem et generis nobilitatem.”

into exile, but plunged into the flames of the burning Carthage, as if rushing into the embraces of her (dear but) ruined country. Is he “pious Æneas” for (rescuing) his young only son and decrepit old father, but deserting Priam and Astyanax? But the Romans ought rather to detest him; for in defence of their princes and their royal933

933 The word is “eorum” (possessive of “principum”), not “suæ.”

house, they surrender934

934 Dejerant adversus.

even children and wives, and every dearest pledge.935

935 What Tertullian himself thinks on this point, see his de Corona, xi.

They deify the son of Venus, and this with the full knowledge and consent of her husband Vulcan, and without opposition from even Juno. Now, if sons have seats in heaven owing to their piety to their parents, why are not those noble youths936

936 Cleobis and Biton; see Herodotus i. 31.

of Argos rather accounted gods, because they, to save their mother from guilt in the performance of some sacred rites, with a devotion more than human, yoked themselves to her car and dragged her to the temple? Why not make a goddess, for her exceeding piety, of that daughter937

937 See Valerius Maximus, v. 4, 1.

who from her own breasts nourished her father who was famishing in prison? What other glorious achievement can be related of Æneas, but that he was nowhere seen in the fight on the field of Laurentum? Following his bent, perhaps he fled a second time as a fugitive from the battle.938

938 We need not stay to point out the unfairness of this statement, in contrast with the exploits of Æneas against Turnus, as detailed in the last books of the Æneid.

In like manner, Romulus posthumously becomes a god. Was it because he founded the city? Then why not others also, who have built cities, counting even939

939 Usque in.

women? To be sure, Romulus slew his brother in the bargain, and trickishly ravished some foreign virgins. Therefore of course he becomes a god, and therefore a Quirinus (“god of the spear”), because then their fathers had to use the spear940

940 We have thus rendered “quiritatem est,” to preserve as far as one could the pun on the deified hero of the Quirites.

on his account. What did Sterculus do to merit deification? If he worked hard to enrich the fields stercoribus,941

941 We insert the Latin, to show the pun on Sterculus; see The Apology, c. xxv. [See p. 40, supra.]

(with manure,) Augias had more dung than he to bestow on them. If Faunus, the son of Picus, used to do violence to law and right, because struck with madness, it was more fit that he should be doctored than deified.942

942 Curaria quam consecrari.

If the daughter of Faunus so excelled in chastity, that she would hold no conversation with men, it was perhaps from rudeness, or a consciousness of deformity, or shame for her father’s insanity. How much worthier of divine honour than this “good goddess”943

943 Bona Dea, i.e., the daughter of Faunus just mentioned.

was Penelope, who, although dwelling among so many suitors of the vilest character, preserved with delicate tact the purity which they assailed! There is Sanctus, too,944

944 See Livy, viii. 20, xxxii. 1; Ovid, Fasti, vi. 213, etc. Compare also Augustine, de Civ. Dei, xviii. 19.  [Tom, vii. p. 576.]

who for his hospitality had a temple consecrated to him by king Plotius; and even Ulysses had it in his power to have bestowed one more god upon you in the person of the most refined Alcinous.
The ill-fame of the Cretans is noted by St. Paul, Tit. i. 12.

Afterwards, when full-grown, he dethrones his own father, who, whatever his parental character may have been, was most prosperous in his reign, king as he was of the golden age. Under him, a stranger to toil and want, peace maintained its joyous and gentle sway; under him—

See Acts xxvi. 26.

And yet, had he been a god, nothing ought to have escaped him. But that he whom the Italians call Saturnus did lurk there, is clearly evidenced on the face of it, from the fact that from his lurking1111

1111 Latitatio.

the Hesperian1112

1112 i.e., Western: here=Italian, as being west of Greece.

tongue is to this day called Latin,1113

1113 Latina.

as likewise their author Virgil relates.1114

1114 See Virg. Æn. viii. 319–323: see also Ov. Fast. i. 234–238.

(Jupiter,) then, is said to have been born on earth, while (Saturnus his father) fears lest he be driven by him from his kingdom, and seeks to kill him as being his own rival, and knows not that he has been stealthily carried off, and is in hiding; and afterwards the son-god pursues his father, immortal seeks to slay immortal (is it credible?1115

1115 Oehler does not mark this as a question. If we follow him, we may render, “this can find belief.”  Above, it seemed necessary to introduce the parenthetical words to make some sense. The Latin is throughout very clumsy and incoherent.

), and is disappointed by an interval of sea, and is ignorant of (his quarry’s) flight; and while all this is going on between two gods on earth, heaven is deserted. No one dispensed the rains, no one thundered, no one governed all this mass of world.1116

1116 Orbis.

For they cannot even say that their action and wars took place in heaven; for all this was going on on Mount Olympus in Greece. Well, but heaven is not called Olympus, for heaven is heaven.

Comp. Phil. iii. 5.

For this fact—that Gentiles are admissible to God’s Law—is enough to prevent Israel from priding himself on the notion that “the Gentiles are accounted as a little drop of a bucket,” or else as “dust out of a threshing-floor:”1128

1128 See Isa. xl. 15: “dust of the balance,” Eng. Ver.; ῥοπὴ ζυγοῦ LXX. For the expression “dust out of a threshing-floor,” however, see Dan. ii. 35" id="iv.ix.i-p10.3" parsed="|Ps|1|4|0|0;|Dan|2|35|0|0" osisRef="Bible:Ps.1.4 Bible:Dan.2.35">Ps. i. 4, Dan. ii. 35.

although we have God Himself as an adequate engager and faithful promiser, in that He promised to Abraham that “in his seed should be blest all nations of the earth;”1129

1129 See Gen. xxii. 18; and comp. Gal. iii. 16, and the reference in both places.

and that1130

1130 This promise may be said to have been given “to Abraham,” because (of course) he was still living at the time; as we see by comparing Gen. xxi. 5 with xxv. 7 and 26. See, too, Heb. xi. 9.

out of the womb of Rebecca “two peoples and two nations were about to proceed,”1131

1131 Or, “nor did He make, by grace, a distinction.”

—of course those of the Jews, that is, of Israel; and of the Gentiles, that is ours. Each, then, was called a people and a nation; lest, from the nuncupative appellation, any should dare to claim for himself the privilege of grace.  For God ordained “two peoples and two nations” as about to proceed out of the womb of one woman: nor did grace1132

1132 Or, “nor did He make, by grace, a distinction.”

make distinction in the nuncupative appellation, but in the order of birth; to the effect that, which ever was to be prior in proceeding from the womb, should be subjected to “the less,” that is, the posterior. For thus unto Rebecca did God speak: “Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be divided from thy bowels; and people shall overcome people, and the greater shall serve the less.”1133

1133 See Gen. xxv. 21–23, especially in the LXX.; and comp. Rom. ix. 10–13.

Accordingly, since the people or nation of the Jews is anterior in time, and “greater” through the grace of primary favour in the Law, whereas ours is understood to be “less” in the age of times, as having in the last era of the world1134

1134 Sæculi.

attained the knowledge of divine mercy:  beyond doubt, through the edict of the divine utterance, the prior and “greater” people—that is, the Jewish—must necessarily serve the “less;” and the “less” people—that is, the Christian—overcome the “greater.” For, withal, according to the memorial records of the divine Scriptures, the people of the Jews—that is, the more ancient—quite forsook God, and did degrading service to idols, and, abandoning the Divinity, was surrendered to images; while “the people” said to Aaron, “Make us gods to go before us.”1135

1135 Ex. xxxii. 1, 23; Acts vii. 39, 40.

And when the gold out of the necklaces of the women and the rings of the men had been wholly smelted by fire, and there had come forth a calf-like head, to this figment Israel with one consent (abandoning God) gave honour, saying, “These are the gods who brought us from the land of Egypt.”1136

1136 Ex. xxxii. 4: comp. Acts vii. 38–41; 1 Cor. x. 7; Ps. cvi. 19–22.

For thus, in the later times in which kings were governing them, did they again, in conjunction with Jeroboam, worship golden kine, and groves, and enslave themselves to Baal.1137

1137 Comp. 1 Kings xii. 25–33; 2 Kings xvii. 7–; 17 (in LXX. 3 and 4 Kings). The Eng. ver. speaks of “calves;” the LXX. call them “heifers.”

Whence is proved that they have ever been depicted, out of the volume of the divine Scriptures, as guilty of the crime of idolatry; whereas our “less”—that is, posterior—people, quitting the idols which formerly it used slavishly to serve, has been converted to the same God from whom Israel, as we have above related, had departed.1138

1138 Comp. 1 Thess. i. 9, 10.

For thus has the “less”—that is, posterior—people overcome the “greater people,” while it attains the grace of divine favour, from which Israel has been divorced.
Comp. Jer. xxxi. 27 (in LXX. it is xxxviii. 27); Hos. ii. 23; Zech. x. 9; Matt. xiii. 31–43.

of universal nations be believed to have given a law through Moses to one people, and not be said to have assigned it to all nations? For unless He had given it to all by no means would He have habitually permitted even proselytes out of the nations to have access to it. But—as is congruous with the goodness of God, and with His equity, as the Fashioner of mankind—He gave to all nations the selfsame law, which at definite and stated times He enjoined should be observed, when He willed, and through whom He willed, and as He willed. For in the beginning of the world He gave to Adam himself and Eve a law, that they were not to eat of the fruit of the tree planted in the midst of paradise; but that, if they did contrariwise, by death they were to die.1141

1141 See Gen. ii. 16, 17; iii. 2, 3.

Which law had continued enough for them, had it been kept. For in this law given to Adam we recognise in embryo1142

1142 Condita.

all the precepts which afterwards sprouted forth when given through Moses; that is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God from thy whole heart and out of thy whole soul; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;1143

1143 Deut. vi. 4, 5; Lev. xix. 18; comp. Matt. xxii. 34–40; Mark xii. 28–34; Luke x. 25–28; and for the rest, Ex. xx. 12–17; Deut. v. 16–21; Rom. xiii. 9.

Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; False witness thou shalt not utter; Honour thy father and mother; and, That which is another’s, shalt thou not covet.  For the primordial law was given to Adam and Eve in paradise, as the womb of all the precepts of God. In short, if they had loved the Lord their God, they would not have contravened His precept; if they had habitually loved their neighbour—that is, themselves1144

1144 Semetipsos. ? Each other.

—they would not have believed the persuasion of the serpent, and thus would not have committed murder upon themselves,1145

1145 Semetipsos. ? Each other.

by falling1146

1146 Excidendo; or, perhaps, “by self-excision,” or “mutual excision.”

from immortality, by contravening God’s precept; from theft also they would have abstained, if they had not stealthily tasted of the fruit of the tree, nor had been anxious to skulk beneath a tree to escape the view of the Lord their God; nor would they have been made partners with the falsehood-asseverating devil, by believing him that they would be “like God;” and thus they would not have offended God either, as their Father, who had fashioned them from clay of the earth, as out of the womb of a mother; if they had not coveted another’s, they would not have tasted of the unlawful fruit.

Gen. vi. 9; vii. 1; comp. Heb. xi. 7.

if in his case the righteousness of a natural law had not preceded? Whence was Abraham accounted “a friend of God,”1149

1149 See Isa. xli. 8; Jas. ii. 23.

if not on the ground of equity and righteousness, (in the observance) of a natural law? Whence was Melchizedek named “priest of the most high God,”1150

1150 Bible:Heb.7.10 Bible:Heb.7.15 Bible:Heb.7.17">Gen. xiv. 18, Ps. cx. (cix. in. LXX.) 4; Heb. v. 10, vii. 1–3, 10, 15, 17.

if, before the priesthood of the Levitical law, there were not levites who were wont to offer sacrifices to God?  For thus, after the above-mentioned patriarchs, was the Law given to Moses, at that (well-known) time after their exode from Egypt, after the interval and spaces of four hundred years.  In fact, it was after Abraham’s “four hundred and thirty years”1151

1151 Comp. Gen. xv. 13 with Ex. xii. 40–42 and Acts vii. 6.

that the Law was given. Whence we understand that God’s law was anterior even to Moses, and was not first (given) in Horeb, nor in Sinai and in the desert, but was more ancient; (existing) first in paradise, subsequently reformed for the patriarchs, and so again for the Jews, at definite periods: so that we are not to give heed to Moses’ Law as to the primitive law, but as to a subsequent, which at a definite period God has set forth to the Gentiles too and, after repeatedly promising so to do through the prophets, has reformed for the better; and has premonished that it should come to pass that, just as “the law was given through Moses”1152

1152 John i. 17.

at a definite time, so it should be believed to have been temporarily observed and kept. And let us not annul this power which God has, which reforms the law’s precepts answerably to the circumstances of the times, with a view to man’s salvation. In fine, let him who contends that the Sabbath is still to be observed as a balm of salvation, and circumcision on the eighth day because of the threat of death, teach us that, for the time past, righteous men kept the Sabbath, or practised circumcision, and were thus rendered “friends of God.” For if circumcision purges a man since God made Adam uncircumcised, why did He not circumcise him, even after his sinning, if circumcision purges? At all events, in settling him in paradise, He appointed one uncircumcised as colonist of paradise. Therefore, since God originated Adam uncircumcised, and inobservant of the Sabbath, consequently his offspring also, Abel, offering Him sacrifices, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was by Him commended; while He accepted1153

1153 Or, “credited him with.”

what he was offering in simplicity of heart, and reprobated the sacrifice of his brother Cain, who was not rightly dividing what he was offering.1154

1154 Gen. iv. 1–7, especially in the LXX.; comp. Heb. xi. 4.

Noah also, uncircumcised—yes, and inobservant of the Sabbath—God freed from the deluge.1155

1155 Gen. vi. 18; vii. 23; 2 Pet. ii. 5.

For Enoch, too, most righteous man, uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, He translated from this world;1156

1156 See Gen. v. 22, 24; Heb. xi. 5.

who did not first taste1157

1157 Or, perhaps, “has not yet tasted.”

death, in order that, being a candidate for eternal life,1158

1158 Æternitatis candidatus. Comp. ad Ux. l. i. c. vii., and note 3 there.

he might by this time show us that we also may, without the burden of the law of Moses, please God. Melchizedek also, “the priest of the most high God,” uncircumcised and inobservant of the Sabbath, was chosen to the priesthood of God.1159

1159 See above.

Lot, withal, the brother1160

1160 i.e., nephew. See Gen. xi. 31; xii. 5.

of Abraham, proves that it was for the merits of righteousness, without observance of the law, that he was freed from the conflagration of the Sodomites.1161

1161 See Gen. xix. 1–29; and comp. 2 Pet. ii. 6–9.


See Gen. xii.–xv. compared with xvii. and Rom. iv.

nor yet did he observe the Sabbath. For he had “accepted”1163

1163 Acceperat. So Tertullian renders, as it appears to me, the ἔλαβε of St. Paul in Rom. iv. 11. q. v.

circumcision; but such as was to be for “a sign” of that time, not for a prerogative title to salvation. In fact, subsequent patriarchs were uncircumcised, like Melchizedek, who, uncircumcised, offered to Abraham himself, already circumcised, on his return from battle, bread and wine.1164

1164 There is, if the text be genuine, some confusion here.  Melchizedek does not appear to have been, in any sense, “subsequent” to Abraham, for he probably was senior to him; and, moreover, Abraham does not appear to have been “already circumcised” carnally when Melchizedek met him. Comp. Gen. xiv. with Gen. xvii.

“But again,” (you say) “the son of Moses would upon one occasion have been choked by an angel, if Zipporah,1165

1165 Tertullian writes Seffora; the LXX. in loco, Σεπφώρα Ex. iv. 24–26, where the Eng. ver. says, “the Lord met him,” etc.; the LXX ἄγγελος Κυρίου.

had not circumcised the foreskin of the infant with a pebble; whence, “there is the greatest peril if any fail to circumcise the foreskin of his flesh.” Nay, but if circumcision altogether brought salvation, even Moses himself, in the case of his own son, would not have omitted to circumcise him on the eighth day; whereas it is agreed that Zipporah did it on the journey, at the compulsion of the angel. Consider we, accordingly, that one single infant’s compulsory circumcision cannot have prescribed to every people, and founded, as it were, a law for keeping this precept. For God, foreseeing that He was about to give this circumcision to the people of Israel for “a sign,” not for salvation, urges the circumcision of the son of Moses, their future leader, for this reason; that, since He had begun, through him, to give the People the precept of circumcision, the people should not despise it, from seeing this example (of neglect) already exhibited conspicuously in their leader’s son. For circumcision had to be given; but as “a sign,” whence Israel in the last time would have to be distinguished, when, in accordance with their deserts, they should be prohibited from entering the holy city, as we see through the words of the prophets, saying, “Your land is desert; your cities utterly burnt with fire; your country, in your sight, strangers shall eat up; and, deserted and subverted by strange peoples, the daughter of Zion shall be derelict, like a shed in a vineyard, and like a watchhouse in a cucumber-field, and as it were a city which is being stormed.”1166

1166 Isa. i. 7, 8. See c. xiii. sub fin.

Why so?  Because the subsequent discourse of the prophet reproaches them, saying, “Sons have I begotten and upraised, but they have reprobated me;”1167

1167 Again an error; for these words precede the others. These are found in Isa. i. 2.

and again, “And if ye shall have outstretched hands, I will avert my face from you; and if ye shall have multiplied prayers, I will not hear you: for your hands are full of blood;”1168

1168 Isa. i. 15.

and again, “Woe! sinful nation; a people full of sins; wicked sons; ye have quite forsaken God, and have provoked unto indignation the Holy One of Israel.”1169

1169 Isa. i. 4.

This, therefore, was God’s foresight,—that of giving circumcision to Israel, for a sign whence they might be distinguished when the time should arrive wherein their above-mentioned deserts should prohibit their admission into Jerusalem:  which circumstance, because it was to be, used to be announced; and, because we see it accomplished, is recognised by us. For, as the carnal circumcision, which was temporary, was in wrought for “a sign” in a contumacious people, so the spiritual has been given for salvation to an obedient people; while the prophet Jeremiah says, “Make a renewal for you, and sow not in thorns; be circumcised to God, and circumcise the foreskin of your heart:”1170

1170 Jer. iv. 3, 4. In Eng. ver., “break up your fallow ground;” but comp. de Pu. c. vi. ad init.

and in another place he says, “Behold, days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will draw up, for the house of Judah and for the house of Jacob,1171

1171 So Tertullian. In Jer. ibid. “Israel and…Judah.”

a new testament; not such as I once gave their fathers in the day wherein I led them out from the land of Egypt.”1172

1172 Jer. xxxi. 31, 32 (in LXX. ibid. xxxviii. 31, 32); comp. Heb. viii. 8–13.

Whence we understand that the coming cessation of the former circumcision then given, and the coming procession of a new law (not such as He had already given to the fathers), are announced: just as Isaiah foretold, saying that in the last days the mount of the Lord and the house of God were to be manifest above the tops of the mounts: “And it shall be exalted,” he says, “above the hills; and there shall come over it all nations; and many shall walk, and say, Come, ascend we unto the mount of the Lord, and unto the house of the God of Jacob,”1173

1173 Isa. ii. 2, 3.

—not of Esau, the former son, but of Jacob, the second; that is, of our “people,” whose “mount” is Christ, “præcised without concisors’ hands,1174

1174 Perhaps an allusion to Phil. iii. 1, 2.

filling every land,” shown in the book of Daniel.1175

1175 See Dan. ii. 34, 35, 44, 45" id="iv.ix.iii-p16.1" parsed="|Dan|2|34|2|35;|Dan|2|44|0|0;|Dan|2|45|0|0" osisRef="Bible:Dan.2.34-Dan.2.35 Bible:Dan.2.44 Bible:Dan.2.45">Dan. ii. 34, 35, 44, 45. See c. xiv. below.

In short, the coming procession of a new law out of this “house of the God of Jacob” Isaiah in the ensuing words announces, saying, “For from Zion shall go out a law, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem, and shall judge among the nations,”—that is, among us, who have been called out of the nations,—“and they shall join to beat their glaives into ploughs, and their lances into sickles; and nations shall not take up glaive against nation, and they shall no more learn to fight.”1176

1176 Isa. ii. 3, 4.

Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices,—the old law being obliterated, the coming of whose abolition the action itself1177

1177 i.e., of beating swords into ploughs, etc.

demonstrates? For the wont of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the glaive, and to pluck out “eye for eye,” and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury.1178

1178 Comp. Ex. xxi. 24, 25; Lev. xxiv. 17–22; Deut. xix. 11–21; Matt. v. 38.

But the new law’s wont was to point to clemency, and to convert to tranquillity the pristine ferocity of “glaives” and “lances,” and to remodel the pristine execution of “war” upon the rivals and foes of the law into the pacific actions of “ploughing” and “tilling” the land.1179

1179 Especially spiritually. Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 6–9; ix. 9, 10, and similar passages.

Therefore as we have shown above that the coming cessation of the old law and of the carnal circumcision was declared, so, too, the observance of the new law and the spiritual circumcision has shone out into the voluntary obediences1180

1180 Obsequia. See de Pa. c. iv. note 1.

of peace. For “a people,” he says, “whom I knew not hath served me; in obedience of the ear it hath obeyed me.”1181

1181 See Ps. xviii. 43, 44 (xvii. 44, 45 in LXX.), where the Eng. ver. has the future; the LXX., like Tertullian, the past. Comp. 2 Sam. (in LXX. 2 Kings) xxii. 44, 45, and Rom. x. 14–; 17.

Prophets made the announcement. But what is the “people” which was ignorant of God, but ours, who in days bygone knew not God? and who, in the hearing of the ear, gave heed to Him, but we, who, forsaking idols, have been converted to God? For Israel—who had been known to God, and who had by Him been “upraised”1182

1182 Comp. Isa. i. 2 as above, and Acts xiii. 17.

in Egypt, and was transported through the Red Sea, and who in the desert, fed forty years with manna, was wrought to the semblance of eternity, and not contaminated with human passions,1183

1183 Sæculi.

or fed on this world’s1184

1184 Or, perhaps, “not affected, as a body, with human sufferings;” in allusion to such passages as Deut. viii. 4; xxix. 5; Neh. ix. 21.

meats, but fed on “angel’s loaves”1185

1185 Ps. lxxviii. (lxxvii. in LXX.) 25; comp. John vi. 31, 32.

—the manna—and sufficiently bound to God by His benefits—forgot his Lord and God, saying to Aaron: “Make us gods, to go before us: for that Moses, who ejected us from the land of Egypt, hath quite forsaken us; and what hath befallen him we know not.” And accordingly we, who “were not the people of God” in days bygone, have been made His people,1186

1186 See Hos. i. 10; 1 Pet. ii. 10.

by accepting the new law above mentioned, and the new circumcision before foretold.
Comp. Gal. v. 1; iv. 8, 9.

Whence we (Christians) understand that we still more ought to observe a sabbath from all “servile work”1188

1188 See Ex. xx. 8–; 11 and xii. 16 (especially in the LXX.).

always, and not only every seventh day, but through all time. And through this arises the question for us, what sabbath God willed us to keep? For the Scriptures point to a sabbath eternal and a sabbath temporal. For Isaiah the prophet says, “Your sabbaths my soul hateth;”1189

1189 Isa. i. 13.

and in another place he says, “My sabbaths ye have profaned.”1190

1190 This is not said by Isaiah; it is found in substance in Ezek. xxii. 8.

Whence we discern that the temporal sabbath is human, and the eternal sabbath is accounted divine; concerning which He predicts through Isaiah: “And there shall be,” He says, “month after month, and day after day, and sabbath after sabbath; and all flesh shall come to adore in Jerusalem, saith the Lord;”1191

1191 Isa. lxvi. 23 in LXX.

which we understand to have been fulfilled in the times of Christ, when “all flesh”—that is, every nation—“came to adore in Jerusalem” God the Father, through Jesus Christ His Son, as was predicted through the prophet: “Behold, proselytes through me shall go unto Thee.”1192

1192 I am not acquainted with any such passage. Oehler refers to Isa. xlix. in his margin, but gives no verse, and omits to notice this passage of the present treatise in his index.

Thus, therefore, before this temporal sabbath, there was withal an eternal sabbath foreshown and foretold; just as before the carnal circumcision there was withal a spiritual circumcision foreshown. In short, let them teach us, as we have already premised, that Adam observed the sabbath; or that Abel, when offering to God a holy victim, pleased Him by a religious reverence for the sabbath; or that Enoch, when translated, had been a keeper of the sabbath; or that Noah the ark-builder observed, on account of the deluge, an immense sabbath; or that Abraham, in observance of the sabbath, offered Isaac his son; or that Melchizedek in his priesthood received the law of the sabbath.

Josh. vi. 1–20.

Which was so done; and when the space of the seventh day was finished, just as was predicted, down fell the walls of the city. Whence it is manifestly shown, that in the number of the seven days there intervened a sabbath-day. For seven days, whencesoever they may have commenced, must necessarily include within them a sabbath-day; on which day not only must the priests have worked, but the city must have been made a prey by the edge of the sword by all the people of Israel. Nor is it doubtful that they “wrought servile work,” when, in obedience to God’s precept, they drave the preys of war. For in the times of the Maccabees, too, they did bravely in fighting on the sabbaths, and routed their foreign foes, and recalled the law of their fathers to the primitive style of life by fighting on the sabbaths.1195

1195 See 1 Macc. ii. 41, etc.

Nor should I think it was any other law which they thus vindicated, than the one in which they remembered the existence of the prescript touching “the day of the sabbaths.”1196

1196 See Ex. xx. 8; Deut. v. 12, 15: in LXX.

See Gen. iv. 2–14. But it is to be observed that the version given in our author differs widely in some particulars from the Heb. and the LXX.

From this proceeding we gather that the twofold sacrifices of “the peoples” were even from the very beginning foreshown. In short, when the sacerdotal law was being drawn up, through Moses, in Leviticus, we find it prescribed to the people of Israel that sacrifices should in no other place be offered to God than in the land of promise; which the Lord God was about to give to “the people” Israel and to their brethren, in order that, on Israel’s introduction thither, there should there be celebrated sacrifices and holocausts, as well for sins as for souls; and nowhere else but in the holy land.1199

1199 See Lev. xvii. 1–9; Deut. xii. 1–; 26.

Why, accordingly, does the Spirit afterwards predict, through the prophets, that it should come to pass that in every place and in every land there should be offered sacrifices to God? as He says through the angel Malachi, one of the twelve prophets:  “I will not receive sacrifice from your hands; for from the rising sun unto the setting my Name hath been made famous among all the nations, saith the Lord Almighty: and in every place they offer clean sacrifices to my Name.”1200

1200 See Mal. i. 10, 11, in LXX.

Again, in the Psalms, David says: “Bring to God, ye countries of the nations”—undoubtedly because “unto every land” the preaching of the apostles had to “go out”1201

1201 Comp. Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, Mark xvi. 15, 16, Luke xxiv. 45–48, with Ps. xix. 4 (xviii. 5 in LXX.), as explained in Rom. x. 18.

—“bring to God fame and honour; bring to God the sacrifices of His name: take up1202

1202 Tollite = Gr. ἄρατε. Perhaps ="away with.”

victims and enter into His courts.”1203

1203 See Ps. xcvi. (xcv. in LXX.) 7, 8; and comp. xxix. (xxviii. in LXX.) 1, 2.

For that it is not by earthly sacrifices, but by spiritual, that offering is to be made to God, we thus read, as it is written, An heart contribulate and humbled is a victim for God;”1204

1204 See Ps. li. 17 (in LXX. l. 19).

and elsewhere, “Sacrifice to God a sacrifice of praise, and render to the Highest thy vows.”1205

1205 Ps. l. (xlix. in LXX.) 14.

Thus, accordingly, the spiritual “sacrifices of praise” are pointed to, and “an heart contribulate” is demonstrated an acceptable sacrifice to God. And thus, as carnal sacrifices are understood to be reprobated—of which Isaiah withal speaks, saying, “To what end is the multitude of your sacrifices to me? saith the Lord”1206

1206 Isa. i. 11.

—so spiritual sacrifices are predicted1207

1207 Or, “foretold.”

as accepted, as the prophets announce.  For, “even if ye shall have brought me,” He says, “the finest wheat flour, it is a vain supplicatory gift: a thing execrable to me;” and again He says, “Your holocausts and sacrifices, and the fat of goats, and blood of bulls, I will not, not even if ye come to be seen by me: for who hath required these things from your hands?”1208

1208 Comp. Isa. i. 11–14, especially in the LXX.

for “from the rising sun unto the setting, my Name hath been made famous among all the nations, saith the Lord.”1209

1209 See Mal. i. as above.

But of the spiritual sacrifices He adds, saying, “And in every place they offer clean sacrifices to my Name, saith the Lord.”1210

1210 See Mal. i. as above.


Comp. Luke i. 78, 79, Isa. ix. 1; 2, with Matt. iv. 12–16.

And so there is incumbent on us a necessity1214

1214 Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 16.

binding us, since we have premised that a new law was predicted by the prophets, and that not such as had been already given to their fathers at the time when He led them forth from the land of Egypt,1215

1215 See ch. iii. above.

to show and prove, on the one hand, that that old Law has ceased, and on the other, that the promised new law is now in operation.

The reference is to Isa. xlv. 1. A glance at the LXX. will at once explain the difference between the reading of our author and the genuine reading. One letter—an “ι”—makes all the difference. For Κύρῳ has been read Κυρίῳ. In the Eng. ver. we read “His Anointed.”

whose right hand I have holden, that the nations may hear Him: the powers of kings will I burst asunder; I will open before Him the gates, and the cities shall not be closed to Him.” Which very thing we see fulfilled. For whose right hand does God the Father hold but Christ’s, His Son?—whom all nations have heard, that is, whom all nations have believed,—whose preachers, withal, the apostles, are pointed to in the Psalms of David: “Into the universal earth,” says he, “is gone out their sound, and unto the ends of the earth their words.”1219

1219 Ps. xix. 4 (xviii. 5. in LXX.) and Rom. x. 18.

For upon whom else have the universal nations believed, but upon the Christ who is already come? For whom have the nations believed,—Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and they who inhabit Mesopotamia, Armenia, Phrygia, Cappadocia, and they who dwell in Pontus, and Asia, and Pamphylia, tarriers in Egypt, and inhabiters of the region of Africa which is beyond Cyrene, Romans and sojourners, yes, and in Jerusalem Jews,1220

1220 See Acts ii. 9, 10; but comp. ver. 5.

and all other nations; as, for instance, by this time, the varied races of the Gætulians, and manifold confines of the Moors, all the limits of the Spains, and the diverse nations of the Gauls, and the haunts of the Britons—inaccessible to the Romans, but subjugated to Christ, and of the Sarmatians, and Dacians, and Germans, and Scythians, and of many remote nations, and of provinces and islands many, to us unknown, and which we can scarce enumerate? In all which places the name of the Christ who is already come reigns, as of Him before whom the gates of all cities have been opened, and to whom none are closed, before whom iron bars have been crumbled, and brazen gates1221

1221 See Isa. xlv. 1, 2 (especially in Lowth’s version and the LXX.).

opened. Although there be withal a spiritual sense to be affixed to these expressions,—that the hearts of individuals, blockaded in various ways by the devil, are unbarred by the faith of Christ,—still they have been evidently fulfilled, inasmuch as in all these places dwells the “people” of the Name of Christ. For who could have reigned over all nations but Christ, God’s Son, who was ever announced as destined to reign over all to eternity? For if Solomon “reigned,” why, it was within the confines of Judea merely:  “from Beersheba unto Dan” the boundaries of his kingdom are marked.1222

1222 See 1 Kings iv. 25. (In the LXX. it is 3 Kings iv. 25; but the verse is omitted in Tischendorf’s text, ed. Lips. 1860, though given in his footnotes there.) The statement in the text differs slightly from Oehler’s reading; where I suspect there is a transposition of a syllable, and that for “in finibus Judæ tantum, a Bersabeæ,” we ought to read “in finibus Judææ tantum, a Bersabe.” See de Jej. c. ix.

If, moreover, Darius “reigned” over the Babylonians and Parthians, he had not power over all nations; if Pharaoh, or whoever succeeded him in his hereditary kingdom, over the Egyptians, in that country merely did he possess his kingdom’s dominion; if Nebuchadnezzar with his petty kings, “from India unto Ethiopia” he had his kingdom’s boundaries;1223

1223 See Esth. i. 1; viii. 9.

if Alexander the Macedonian he did not hold more than universal Asia, and other regions, after he had quite conquered them; if the Germans, to this day they are not suffered to cross their own limits; the Britons are shut within the circuit of their own ocean; the nations of the Moors, and the barbarism of the Gætulians, are blockaded by the Romans, lest they exceed the confines of their own regions. What shall I say of the Romans themselves,1224

1224 [Dr. Allix thinks these statements define the Empire after Severus, and hence accepts the date we have mentioned, for this treatise.]

who fortify their own empire with garrisons of their own legions, nor can extend the might of their kingdom beyond these nations? But Christ’s Name is extending everywhere, believed everywhere, worshipped by all the above-enumerated nations, reigning everywhere, adored everywhere, conferred equally everywhere upon all. No king, with Him, finds greater favour, no barbarian lesser joy; no dignities or pedigrees enjoy distinctions of merit; to all He is equal, to all King, to all Judge, to all “God and Lord.”1225

1225 Comp. John xx. 28.

Nor would you hesitate to believe what we asseverate, since you see it taking place.
See Dan. ix. 26 (especially in the LXX.).

And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader,1227

1227 Comp. Isa. lv. 4.

must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His.  Which matters we prove, again, on the ground of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen.

See Dan. ix . 24–; 27. It seemed best to render with the strictest literality, without regard to anything else; as an idea will thus then be given of the condition of the text, which, as it stands, differs widely, as will be seen, from the Hebrew and also from the LXX., as it stands in the ed. Tisch. Lips. 1860, to which I always adapt my references.

Or, “speech.” The reference seems to be to ver. 23, but there is no such statement in Daniel.

I make thee these answers.” Whence we are bound to compute from the first year of Darius, when Daniel saw this vision.

Comp. Ps. xlix. 11 (in LXX. Ps. xlviii. 12).

after him reigned, (there, in Alexandria,)

Or rather, our Lord Himself. See Matt. xi. 13; Luke xvi. 16.

write, “The law and the prophets (were) until John” the Baptist. For, on Christ’s being baptized, that is, on His sanctifying the waters in His own baptism,1241

1241 Comp. the very obscure passage in de Pu. c. vi., towards the end, on which this expression appears to cast some light.

all the plenitude of bygone spiritual grace-gifts ceased in Christ, sealing as He did all vision and prophecies, which by His advent He fulfilled. Whence most firmly does he assert that His advent “seals visions and prophecy.”

See Ps. xxii. 16 (xxi. 17 in LXX.)

And the suffering of this “extermination” was perfected within the times of the lxx hebdomads, under Tiberius Cæsar, in the consulate of Rubellius Geminus and Fufius Geminus, in the month of March, at the times of the passover, on the eighth day before the calends of April,1245

1245 i.e., March 25.

on the first day of unleavened bread, on which they slew the lamb at even, just as had been enjoined by Moses.1246

1246 Comp. Ex. xii. 6 with Mark xiv. 12, Luke xxii. 7.

Accordingly, all the synagogue of Israel did slay Him, saying to Pilate, when he was desirous to dismiss Him, “His blood be upon us, and upon our children;”1247

1247 See Matt. xxvii. 24, 25, with John xix. 12 and Acts iii. 13.

and, “If thou dismiss him, thou art not a friend of Cæsar;”1248

1248 John xix. 12.

in order that all things might be fulfilled which had been written of Him.1249

1249 Comp. Luke xxiv. 44, etc.


See Isa. vii. 13, 14.

(which is, interpreted, “God with us”1252

1252 See Matt. i. 23.

): “butter and honey shall he eat;”1253

1253 See Isa vii. 15.

: “since, ere the child learn to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians.”1254

1254 See Isa. viii. 4. (All these passages should be read in the LXX.)

In Isa. viii. 8; 10, compared with vii. 14 in the Eng. ver. and the LXX., and also Lowth, introductory remarks on ch. viii.

—in order that you may regard not the sound only of the name, but the sense too. For the Hebrew sound, which is Emmanuel, has an interpretation, which is, God with us. Inquire, then, whether this speech, “God with us” (which is Emmanuel), be commonly applied to Christ ever since Christ’s light has dawned, and I think you will not deny it. For they who out of Judaism believe in Christ, ever since their believing on Him, do, whenever they shall wish to say1257

1257 Or, “to call him.”

Emmanuel, signify that God is with us:  and thus it is agreed that He who was ever predicted as Emmanuel is already come, because that which Emmanuel signifies is come—that is, “God with us.” Equally are they led by the sound of the name when they so understand “the power of Damascus,” and “the spoils of Samaria,” and “the kingdom of the Assyrians,” as if they portended Christ as a warrior; not observing that Scripture premises, “since, ere the child learn to call father or mother, he shall receive the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria, in opposition to the king of the Assyrians.” For the first step is to look at the demonstration of His age, to see whether the age there indicated can possibly exhibit the Christ as already a man, not to say a general. Forsooth, by His babyish cry the infant would summon men to arms, and would give the signal of war not with clarion, but with rattle, and point out the foe, not from His charger’s back or from a rampart, but from the back or neck of His suckler and nurse, and thus subdue Damascus and Samaria in place of the breast. (It is another matter if, among you, infants rush out into battle,—oiled first, I suppose, to dry in the sun, and then armed with satchels and rationed on butter,—who are to know how to lance sooner than how to lacerate the bosom!)1258

1258 See adv. Marc. l. iii. c. xiii., which, with the preceding chapter, should be compared throughout with the chapter before us.

Certainly, if nature nowhere allows this,—(namely,) to serve as a soldier before developing into manhood, to take “the power of Damascus” before knowing your father,—it follows that the pronouncement is visibly figurative.  “But again,” say they, “nature suffers not a ‘virgin’ to be a parent; and yet the prophet must be believed.”  And deservedly so; for he bespoke credit for a thing incredible, by saying that it was to be a sign. “Therefore,” he says, “shall a sign be given you. Behold, a virgin shall conceive in womb, and bear a son.” But a sign from God, unless it had consisted in some portentous novelty, would not have appeared a sign. In a word, if, when you are anxious to cast any down from (a belief in) this divine prediction, or to convert whoever are simple, you have the audacity to lie, as if the Scripture contained (the announcement), that not “a virgin,” but “a young female,” was to conceive and bring forth; you are refuted even by this fact, that a daily occurrence—the pregnancy and parturition of a young female, namely—cannot possibly seem anything of a sign. And the setting before us, then, of a virgin-mother is deservedly believed to be a sign; but not equally so a warrior-infant.  For there would not in this case again be involved the question of a sign; but, the sign of a novel birth having been awarded, the next step after the sign is, that there is enunciated a different ensuing ordering1259

1259 Comp. Judg. xiii. 12; Eng. ver. “How shall we order the child?”

of the infant, who is to eat “honey and butter.” Nor is this, of course, for a sign.  It is natural to infancy. But that he is to receive1260

1260 Or, “accept.”

“the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria in opposition to the king of the Assyrians,” this is a wondrous sign. Keep to the limit of (the infant’s) age, and inquire into the sense of the prediction; nay, rather, repay to truth what you are unwilling to credit her with, and the prophecy becomes intelligible by the relation of its fulfilment. Let those Eastern magi be believed, dowering with gold and incense the infancy of Christ as a king;1261

1261 See Matt. ii. 1–12.

and the infant has received “the power of Damascus” without battle and arms. For, besides the fact that it is known to all that the “power”—for that is the “strength”—of the East is wont to abound in gold and odours, certain it is that the divine Scriptures regard “gold” as constituting the “power” also of all other nations; as it says1262

1262 Of course he ought to have said, “they say.”

through Zechariah: “And Judah keepeth guard at Jerusalem, and shall amass all the vigour of the surrounding peoples, gold and silver.”1263

1263 Zech. xiv. 14, omitting the last clause.

For of this gift of “gold” David likewise says, “And to Him shall be given of the gold of Arabia;”1264

1264 Ps. lxxii. 15 (lxxi. 15 in LXX.): “Sheba” in Eng. ver.; “Arabia” in the “Great Bible” of 1539; and so the LXX.

and again, “The kings of the Arabs and Saba shall bring Him gifts.”1265

1265 Ps. lxxii. 10, in LXX, and “Great Bible;” “Sheba and Seba,” Eng. ver.

For the East, on the one hand, generally held the magi (to be) kings; and Damascus, on the other hand, used formerly to be reckoned to Arabia before it was transferred into Syrophœnicia on the division of the Syrias: the “power” whereof Christ then “received” in receiving its ensigns,—gold, to wit, and odours. “The spoils,” moreover, “of Samaria” (He received in receiving) the magi themselves, who, on recognising Him, and honouring Him with gifts, and adoring Him on bended knee as Lord and King, on the evidence of the guiding and indicating star, became “the spoils of Samaria,” that is, of idolatry—by believing, namely, on Christ.  For (Scripture) denoted idolatry by the name of “Samaria,” Samaria being ignominious on the score of idolatry; for she had at that time revolted from God under King Jeroboam. For this, again, is no novelty to the Divine Scriptures, figuratively to use a transference of name grounded on parallelism of crimes. For it1266

1266 Strictly, Tertullian ought to have said “they call,” having above said “Divine scriptures;” as above on the preceding page.

calls your rulers “rulers of Sodom,” and your people the “people of Gomorrha,”1267

1267 Isa. i. 10.

when those cities had already long been extinct.1268

1268 See Gen. xix. 23–29.

And elsewhere it says, through a prophet, to the people of Israel, “Thy father (was) an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite;”1269

1269 Ezek. xvi. 3; 45.

of whose race they were not begotten, but (were called their sons) by reason of their consimilarity in impiety, whom of old (God) had called His own sons through Isaiah the prophet: “I have generated and exalted sons.”1270

1270 Isa. i. 2, as before.

So, too, Egypt is sometimes understood to mean the whole world1271

1271 Orbis.

in that prophet, on the count of superstition and malediction.1272

1272 Oehler refers to Isa. xix. 1. See, too, Isa. xxx. and xxxi.

So, again, Babylon, in our own John, is a figure of the city Rome, as being equally great and proud of her sway, and triumphant over the saints.1273

1273 See Rev. xvii., etc.

On this wise, accordingly, (Scripture)1274

1274 Or we may supply here [“Isaiah”].

entitled the magi also with the appellation of “Samaritans,”—“despoiled” (of that) which they had had in common with the Samaritans, as we have said—idolatry in opposition to the Lord.  (It1275

1275 Or, “he.”

adds), “in opposition,” moreover, “to the king of the Assyrians,”—in opposition to the devil, who to this hour thinks himself to be reigning, if he detrudes the saints from the religion of God.

Ps. xlv. 3, clause 1 (in LXX. Ps. xliv. 4).

But what do you read above concerning the Christ? “Blooming in beauty above the sons of men; grace is outpoured in thy lips.”1277

1277 See Ps. xlv. 2 (xliv. 3 in LXX.).

But very absurd it is if he was complimenting on the bloom of his beauty and the grace of his lips, one whom he was girding for war with a sword; of whom he proceeds subjunctively to say, “Outstretch and prosper, advance and reign!” And he has added, “because of thy lenity and justice.”1278

1278 Ps. xlv. 4 (xliv. 5 in LXX.).

Who will ply the sword without practising the contraries to lenity and justice; that is, guile, and asperity, and injustice, proper (of course) to the business of battles?  See we, then, whether that which has another action be not another sword,—that is, the Divine word of God, doubly sharpened1279

1279 Comp. Bible:Rev.19.21">Heb. iv. 12; Rev. i. 16; ii. 12; xix. 15, 21; also Eph. vi. 17.

with the two Testaments of the ancient law and the new law; sharpened by the equity of its own wisdom; rendering to each one according to his own action.1280

1280 Comp. Ps. lxii. 12 (lxi. 13 in LXX.); Rom. ii. 6.

Lawful , then, it was for the Christ of God to be precinct, in the Psalms, without warlike achievements, with the figurative sword of the word of God; to which sword is congruous the predicated “bloom,” together with the “grace of the lips;” with which sword He was then “girt upon the thigh,” in the eye of David, when He was announced as about to come to earth in obedience to God the Father’s decree. “The greatness of thy right hand,” he says, “shall conduct thee”1281

1281 See Ps. xlv. 5 (xliv. in LXX.).

—the virtue to wit, of the spiritual grace from which the recognition of Christ is deduced. “Thine arrows,” he says, “are sharp,”1282

1282 Ps. xlv. 5 (xliv. 6 in LXX.).

—God’s everywhere-flying precepts (arrows) threatening the exposure1283

1283 Traductionem (comp. Heb. iv. 13).

of every heart, and carrying compunction and transfixion to each conscience: “peoples shall fall beneath thee,”1284

1284 Ps. xlv. 5.

—of course, in adoration. Thus mighty in war and weapon-bearing is Christ; thus will He “receive the spoils,” not of “Samaria” alone, but of all nations as well.  Acknowledge that His “spoils” are figurative whose weapons you have learnt to be allegorical. And thus, so far, the Christ who is come was not a warrior, because He was not predicted as such by Isaiah.

Jehoshua, Joshua, Jeshua, Jesus, are all forms of the same name.  But the change from Oshea or Hoshea to Jehoshua appears to have been made when he was sent to spy the land.  See Num. xiii. 16 (17 in LXX., who call it a surnaming).

Certainly, you say. This we first assert to have been a figure of the future. For, because Jesus Christ was to introduce the second people (which is composed of us nations, lingering deserted in the world1289

1289 If Oehler’s “in sæculo desertæ” is to be retained, this appears to be the construction. But this passage, like others above noted, is but a reproduction of parts of the third book in answer to Marcion; and there the reading is “in sæculi desertis”="in the desert places of the world,” or “of heathendom.”

aforetime) into the land of promise, “flowing with milk and honey”1290

1290 See Ex. iii. 8, and the references there.

(that is, into the possession of eternal life, than which nought is sweeter); and this had to come about, not through Moses (that is, not through the Law’s discipline), but through Joshua (that is, through the new law’s grace), after our circumcision with “a knife of rock”1291

1291 See Josh. v. 2–9, especially in LXX. Comp. the margin in the Eng. ver. in ver. 2, “flint knives,” and Wordsworth in loc., who refers to Ex. iv. 25, for which see ch. iii. above.

(that is, with Christ’s precepts, for Christ is in many ways and figures predicted as a rock1292

1292 See especially 1 Cor. x. 4.

); therefore the man who was being prepared to act as images of this sacrament was inaugurated under the figure of the Lord’s name, even so as to be named Jesus.1293

1293 Or, “Joshua.”

For He who ever spake to Moses was the Son of God Himself; who, too, was always seen.1294

1294 Comp. Num. xii. 5–8.

For God the Father none ever saw, and lived.1295

1295 Comp. Bible:Heb.1.3">Ex. xxxiii. 20; John i. 18; xiv. 9; Col. i. 15; Heb. i. 3.

And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, “Behold, I send mine angel before thy”—that is, the people’s—“face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped1296

1296 Oehler and others read “celavit”; but the correction of Fr. Junius and Rig., “celabit,” is certainly more agreeable to the LXX. and the Eng. ver.

thy notice, since my name is upon him.”1297

1297 Ex. xxiii. 20, 21.

For Joshua was to introduce the people into the land of promise, not Moses. Now He called him an “angel,” on account of the magnitude of the mighty deeds which he was to achieve (which mighty deeds Joshua the son of Nun did, and you yourselves read), and on account of his office of prophet announcing (to wit) the divine will; just as withal the Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a future “angel,” through the prophet: “Behold, I send mine angel before Thy”—that is, Christ’s—“face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee.”1298

1298 Mal. iii. 1: comp. Matt. xi. 10; Mark i. 2; Luke vii. 27.

Nor is it a novel practice to the Holy Spirit to call those “angels” whom God has appointed as ministers of His power. For the same John is called not merely an “angel” of Christ, but withal a “lamp” shining before Christ: for David predicts, “I have prepared the lamp for my Christ;”1299

1299 See Ps. cxxxii. 17 (cxxi. 17 in LXX.).

and him Christ Himself, coming “to fulfil the prophets,”1300

1300 Matt. v. 17, briefly; a very favourite reference with Tertullian.

called so to the Jews. “He was,” He says, “the burning and shining lamp;”1301

1301 John v. 35, ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων.

as being he who not merely “prepared His ways in the desert,”1302

1302 Comp. reference 8, p. 232; and Isa. xl. 3; John i. 23.

but withal, by pointing out “the Lamb of God,”1303

1303 See John i. 29; 36.

illumined the minds of men by his heralding, so that they understood Him to be that Lamb whom Moses was wont to announce as destined to suffer.  Thus, too, (was the son of Nun called) Joshua, on account of the future mystery1304

1304 Sacramentum.

of his name: for that name (He who spake with Moses) confirmed as His own which Himself had conferred on him, because He had bidden him thenceforth be called, not “angel” nor “Oshea,” but “Joshua.” Thus, therefore, each name is appropriate to the Christ of God—that He should be called Jesus as well (as Christ).

See Isa. xi. 1, 2, especially in LXX.

For to none of men was the universal aggregation of spiritual credentials appropriate, except to Christ; paralleled as He is to a “flower” by reason of glory, by reason of grace; but accounted “of the root of Jesse,” whence His origin is to be deduced,—to wit, through Mary.1306

1306 See Luke i. 27.

For He was from the native soil of Bethlehem, and from the house of David; as, among the Romans, Mary is described in the census, of whom is born Christ.1307

1307 See Isa. liii. 3; 7, in LXX.; and comp. Ps. xxxviii. 17 (xxxvii. 18 in LXX.) in the “Great Bible” of 1539.

If He “neither did contend nor shout, nor was His voice heard abroad,” who “crushed not the bruised reed”—Israel’s faith, who “quenched not the burning flax”1309

1309 See Isa. xlii. 2, 3, and Matt. xii. 19, 20.

—that is, the momentary glow of the Gentiles—but made it shine more by the rising of His own light,—He can be none other than He who was predicted. The action, therefore, of the Christ who is come must be examined by being placed side by side with the rule of the Scriptures. For, if I mistake not, we find Him distinguished by a twofold operation,—that of preaching and that of power. Now, let each count be disposed of summarily. Accordingly, let us work out the order we have set down, teaching that Christ was announced as a preacher; as, through Isaiah: “Cry out,” he says, “in vigour, and spare not; lift up, as with a trumpet, thy voice, and announce to my commonalty their crimes, and to the house of Jacob their sins.  Me from day to day they seek, and to learn my ways they covet, as a people which hath done righteousness, and hath not forsaken the judgment of God,” and so forth:1310

1310 See Isa. lviii. 1, 2, especially in LXX.

that, moreover, He was to do acts of power from the Father: “Behold, our God will deal retributive judgment; Himself will come and save us:  then shall the infirm be healed, and the eyes of the blind shall see, and the ears of the deaf shall hear, and the mutes’ tongues shall be loosed, and the lame shall leap as an hart,”1311

1311 See Isa. xxxv. 4, 5, 6.

and so on; which works not even you deny that Christ did, inasmuch as you were wont to say that, “on account of the works ye stoned Him not, but because He did them on the Sabbaths.”1312

1312 See John v. 17, 18, compared with x. 31–; 33.


Comp. Deut. xxi. 23 with Gal. iii. 13, with Prof. Lightfoot on the latter passage.

But the reason of the case antecedently explains the sense of this malediction; for He says in Deuteronomy: “If, moreover, (a man) shall have been (involved) in some sin incurring the judgment of death, and shall die, and ye shall suspend him on a tree, his body shall not remain on the tree, but with burial ye shall bury him on the very day; because cursed by God is every one who shall have been suspended on a tree; and ye shall not defile the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee for (thy) lot.”1314

1314 Deut. xxi. 22, 23 (especially in the LXX.).

Therefore He did not maledictively adjudge Christ to this passion, but drew a distinction, that whoever, in any sin, had incurred the judgment of death, and died suspended on a tree, he should be “cursed by God,” because his own sins were the cause of his suspension on the tree. On the other hand, Christ, who spoke not guile from His mouth,1315

1315 See 1 Pet. ii. 22 with Isa. liii. 9.

and who exhibited all righteousness and humility, not only (as we have above recorded it predicted of Him) was not exposed to that kind of death for his own deserts, but (was so exposed) in order that what was predicted by the prophets as destined to come upon Him through your means1316

1316 Oehler’s pointing is disregarded.

might be fulfilled; just as, in the Psalms, the Spirit Himself of Christ was already singing, saying, “They were repaying me evil for good;”1317

1317 Ps. xxxv. (xxxiv. in LXX.) 12.

and, “What I had not seized I was then paying in full;”1318

1318 Ps. lxix. 4 (lxviii. 5 in LXX.).

“They exterminated my hands and feet;”1319

1319 Ps. xxii. 16 (xxi. 17 in LXX.).

and, “They put into my drink gall, and in my thirst they slaked me with vinegar;”1320

1320 Ps. lxix. 21 (lxviii. 5 in LXX.).

“Upon my vesture they did cast (the) lot;”1321

1321 Ps. xxii. 18 (xxi. 19 in LXX.).

just as the other (outrages) which you were to commit on Him were foretold,—all which He, actually and thoroughly suffering, suffered not for any evil action of His own, but “that the Scriptures from the mouth of the prophets might be fulfilled.”1322

1322 See Bible:John.19.32-John.19.37">Matt. xxvi. 56; xxvii. 34, 35; John xix. 23, 24, 28, 32–37.

See Rom. ix. 32, 33, with Isa. xxviii. 16; 1 Cor. i. 23; Gal. v. 11.

if it had been nakedly predicted; and the more magnificent, the more to be adumbrated, that the difficulty of its intelligence might seek (help from) the grace of God.

Comp. Gen. xxii. 1–10 with John xix. 17.

Manifested e.g., in his two dreams. See Gen. xxxvii.

just as Christ was sold by Israel—(and therefore,) “according to the flesh,” by His “brethren”1329

1329 Comp. Rom. ix. 5.

—when He is betrayed by Judas.1330

1330 Or, “Judah.”

For Joseph is withal blest by his father1331

1331 This is an error. It is not “his father,” Jacob, but Moses, who thus blesses him. See Deut. xxxiii. 17. The same error occurs in adv. Marc. 1. iii. c. xxiii.

after this form: “His glory (is that) of a bull; his horns, the horns of an unicorn; on them shall he toss nations alike unto the very extremity of the earth.”  Of course no one-horned rhinoceros was there pointed to, nor any two-horned minotaur. But Christ was therein signified: “bull,” by reason of each of His two characters,—to some fierce, as Judge; to others gentle, as Saviour; whose “horns” were to be the extremities of the cross. For even in a ship’s yard—which is part of a cross—this is the name by which the extremities are called; while the central pole of the mast is a “unicorn.” By this power, in fact, of the cross, and in this manner horned, He does now, on the one hand, “toss” universal nations through faith, wafting them away from earth to heaven; and will one day, on the other, “toss” them through judgment, casting them down from heaven to earth.

Not strictly “the same;” for here the reference is to Gen. xlix. 5–7.

When Jacob pronounced a blessing on Simeon and Levi, he prophesies of the scribes and Pharisees; for from them1333

1333 i.e., Simeon and Levi.

is derived their1334

1334 i.e., the scribes and Pharisees.

origin. For (his blessing) interprets spiritually thus: “Simeon and Levi perfected iniquity out of their sect,”1335

1335 Perfecerunt iniquitatem ex sua secta. There seems to be a play on the word “secta” in connection with the outrage committed by Simeon and Levi, as recorded in Gen. xxxiv. 25–31; and for συνετέλεσαν ἀδικίαν ἐξαιρέσεως αὐτῶν (which is the reading of the LXX., ed. Tisch. 3, Lips. 1860), Tertullian’s Latin seems to have read, συνετέλεσαν ἀδικίαν ἐξ αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν.

—whereby, to wit, they persecuted Christ: “into their counsel come not my soul! and upon their station rest not my heart! because in their indignation they slew men”—that is, prophets—“and in their concupiscence they hamstrung a bull!”1336

1336 See Gen. xlix. 5–7 in LXX.; and comp. the margin of Eng. ver. on ver. 7, and Wordsworth in loc., who incorrectly renders ταῦρον an “ox” here.

—that is, Christ, whom—after the slaughter of prophets—they slew, and exhausted their savagery by transfixing His sinews with nails.  Else it is idle if, after the murder already committed by them, he upbraids others, and not them, with butchery.1337

1337 What the sense of this is it is not easy to see. It appears to have puzzled Pam. and Rig. so effectually that they both, conjecturally and without authority, adopted the reading found in adv. Marc. l. iii. c. xviii. (from which book, as usual, the present passage is borrowed), only altering illis to ipsis.

See Ex. xvii. 8–16; and comp. Col. ii. 14, 15.

Why, again, did the same Moses, after the prohibition of any “likeness of anything,”1339

1339 Ex. xx. 4.

set forth a brazen serpent, placed on a “tree,” in a hanging posture, for a spectacle of healing to Israel, at the time when, after their idolatry,1340

1340 Their sin was “speaking against God and against Moses” (Num. xxi. 4–9).

they were suffering extermination by serpents, except that in this case he was exhibiting the Lord’s cross on which the “serpent” the devil was “made a show of,”1341

1341 Comp. Col. ii. 14, 15, as before; also Gen. iii. 1, etc.; 2 Cor. xi. 3; Rev. xii. 9.

and, for every one hurt by such snakes—that is, his angels1342

1342 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 14, 15; Matt. xxv. 41; Rev. xii. 9.

—on turning intently from the peccancy of sins to the sacraments of Christ’s cross, salvation was outwrought? For he who then gazed upon that (cross) was freed from the bite of the serpents.1343

1343 Comp. de Idol. c. v.; adv. Marc. l. iii. c. xviii.

A ligno. Oehler refers us to Ps. xcvi. 10 (xcv. 10 in LXX.); but the special words “a ligno” are wanting there, though the text is often quoted by the Fathers.

I wait to hear what you understand thereby; for fear you may perhaps think some carpenter-king1345

1345 Lignarium aliquem regem. It is remarkable, in connection herewith, that our Lord is not only called by the Jews “the carpenter’s son” (Matt. xiii. 55; Luke iv. 22), but “the carpenter” (Mark vi. 3).

is signified, and not Christ, who has reigned from that time onward when he overcame the death which ensued from His passion of “the tree.”

See Isa. ix. 6.

What novelty is that, unless he is speaking of the “Son” of God?—and one is born to us the beginning of whose government has been made “on His shoulder.” What king in the world wears the ensign of his power on his shoulder, and does not bear either diadem on his head, or else sceptre in his hand, or else some mark of distinctive vesture? But the novel “King of ages,” Christ Jesus, alone reared “on His shoulder” His own novel glory, and power, and sublimity,—the cross, to wit; that, according to the former prophecy, the Lord thenceforth “might reign from the tree.” For of this tree likewise it is that God hints, through Jeremiah, that you would say, “Come, let us put wood1347

1347 Lignum.

into his bread, and let us wear him away out of the land of the living; and his name shall no more be remembered.”1348

1348 See Jer. xi. 19 (in LXX.).

Of course on His body that “wood” was put;1349

1349 i.e., when they laid on Him the crossbeam to carry. See John xix. 17.

for so Christ has revealed, calling His body “bread,”1350

1350 See John vi. passim, and the various accounts of the institution of the Holy Supper.

whose body the prophet in bygone days announced under the term “bread.” If you shall still seek for predictions of the Lord’s cross, the twenty-first Psalm will at length be able to satisfy you, containing as it does the whole passion of Christ; singing, as He does, even at so early a date, His own glory.1351

1351 It is Ps. xxii. in our Bibles, xxi. in LXX.

“They dug,” He says, “my hands and feet”1352

1352 Ver. 16 (17 in LXX.).

—which is the peculiar atrocity of the cross; and again when He implores the aid of the Father, “Save me,” He says, “out of the mouth of the lion”—of course, of death—“and from the horn of the unicorns my humility,”1353

1353 Ps. xxii. 21 (xxi. 22 in LXX., who render it as Tertullian does).

—from the ends, to wit, of the cross, as we have above shown; which cross neither David himself suffered, nor any of the kings of the Jews: that you may not think the passion of some other particular man is here prophesied than His who alone was so signally crucified by the People.

Isa. liii. 8, 9, 10, (in LXX.).

and so forth. He says again, moreover: “His sepulture hath been taken away from the midst.”1356

1356 Isa. lvii. 2 (in LXX.).

For neither was He buried except He were dead, nor was His sepulture removed from the midst except through His resurrection. Finally, he subjoins: “Therefore He shall have many for an heritage, and of many shall He divide spoils:”1357

1357 Isa. liii. 12 (in LXX.). Comp., too, Bp. Lowth. Oehler’s pointing again appears to be faulty.

who else (shall so do) but He who “was born,” as we have above shown?—“in return for the fact that His soul was delivered unto death?” For, the cause of the favour accorded Him being shown,—in return, to wit, for the injury of a death which had to be recompensed,—it is likewise shown that He, destined to attain these rewards because of death, was to attain them after death—of course after resurrection. For that which happened at His passion, that mid-day grew dark, the prophet Amos announces, saying, “And it shall be,” he says, “in that day, saith the Lord, the sun shall set at mid-day, and the day of light shall grow dark over the land:  and I will convert your festive days into grief, and all your canticles into lamentation; and I will lay upon your loins sackcloth, and upon every head baldness; and I will make the grief like that for a beloved (son), and them that are with him like a day of mourning.”1358

1358 See Amos viii. 9, 10 (especially in the LXX.).

For that you would do thus at the beginning of the first month of your new (years) even Moses prophesied, when he was foretelling that all the community of the sons of Israel was1359

1359 Oehler’s “esset” appears to be a mistake for “esse.”

to immolate at eventide a lamb, and were to eat1360

1360 The change from singular to plural is due to the Latin, not to the translator.

this solemn sacrifice of this day (that is, of the passover of unleavened bread) with bitterness;” and added that “it was the passover of the Lord,”1361

1361 See Ex. xii. 1–11.

that is, the passion of Christ. Which prediction was thus also fulfilled, that “on the first day of unleavened bread”1362

1362 See Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7; John xviii. 28.

you slew Christ;1363

1363 Comp. 1 Cor. v. 7.

and (that the prophecies might be fulfilled) the day hasted to make an “eventide,”—that is, to cause darkness, which was made at mid-day; and thus “your festive days God converted into grief, and your canticles into lamentation.” For after the passion of Christ there overtook you even captivity and dispersion, predicted before through the Holy Spirit.
Comp. Isa. lxi. 2.

which will be subsequent. From which ruin none will be freed but he who shall have been frontally sealed1366

1366 Or possibly, simply, “sealed”—obsignatus.

with the passion of the Christ whom you have rejected. For thus it is written: “And the Lord said unto me, Son of man, thou hast seen what the elders of Israel do, each one of them in darkness, each in a hidden bed-chamber: because they have said, The Lord seeth us not; the Lord hath derelinquished the earth. And He said unto me, Turn thee again, and thou shalt see greater enormities which these do. And He introduced me unto the thresholds of the gate of the house of the Lord which looketh unto the north; and, behold, there, women sitting and bewailing Thammuz.  And the Lord said unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen? Is the house of Judah moderate, to do the enormities which they have done? And yet thou art about to see greater affections of theirs. And He introduced me into the inner shrine of the house of the Lord; and, behold, on the thresholds of the house of the Lord, between the midst of the porch and between the midst of the altar,1367

1367 Inter mediam elam et inter medium altaris: i.e., probably ="between the porch and the altar,” as the Eng. ver. has.

as it were twenty and five men have turned their backs unto the temple of the Lord, and their faces over against the east; these were adoring the sun. And He said unto me, Seest thou, son of man? Are such deeds trifles to the house of Judah, that they should do the enormities which these have done? because they have filled up (the measure of) their impieties, and, behold, are themselves, as it were, grimacing; I will deal with mine indignation,1368

1368 So Oehler points, and Tischendorf in his edition of the LXX. points not very differently. I incline to read: “Because they have filled up the measure of their impieties, and, behold (are) themselves, as it were, grimacing, I will,” etc.

mine eye shall not spare, neither will I pity; they shall cry out unto mine ears with a loud voice, and I will not hear them, nay, I will not pity. And He cried into mine ears with a loud voice, saying, The vengeance of this city is at hand; and each one had vessels of extermination in his hand. And, behold, six men were coming toward the way of the high gate which was looking toward the north, and each one’s double-axe of dispersion was in his hand: and one man in the midst of them, clothed with a garment reaching to the feet,1369

1369 Comp. Rev. i. 13.

and a girdle of sapphire about his loins:  and they entered, and took their stand close to the brazen altar. And the glory of the God of Israel, which was over the house, in the open court of it,1370

1370 “Quæ fuit super eam” (i.e. super domum) “in subdivali domûs” is Oehler’s reading; but it differs from the LXX.

ascended from the cherubim: and the Lord called the man who was clothed with the garment reaching to the feet, who had upon his loins the girdle; and said unto him, Pass through the midst of Jerusalem, and write the sign Tau1371

1371 The ms. which Oehler usually follows omits “Tau;” so do the LXX.

on the foreheads of the men who groan and grieve over all the enormities which are done in their midst. And while these things were doing, He said unto an hearer,1372

1372 Et in his dixit ad audientem. But the LXX. reading agrees almost verbatim with the Eng. ver.

Go ye after him into the city, and cut short; and spare not with your eyes, and pity not elder or youth or virgin; and little ones and women slay ye all, that they may be thoroughly wiped away; but all upon whom is the sign Tau approach ye not; and begin with my saints.”1373

1373 Ezek. viii. 12–ix. 6 (especially in the LXX.). Comp. adv. Marc. l. iii. c. xxii. But our author differs considerably even from the LXX.

Now the mystery of this “sign” was in various ways predicted; (a “sign”) in which the foundation of life was forelaid for mankind; (a “sign”) in which the Jews were not to believe: just as Moses beforetime kept on announcing in Exodus,1374

1374 Or rather in Deuteronomy. See xxviii. 65 sqq.

saying, “Ye shall be ejected from the land into which ye shall enter; and in those nations ye shall not be able to rest:  and there shall be instability of the print1375

1375 Or, “sole.”

of thy foot: and God shall give thee a wearying heart, and a pining soul, and failing eyes, that they see not: and thy life shall hang on the tree1376

1376 In ligno. There are no such words in the LXX. If the words be retained, “thy life” will mean Christ, who is called “our Life” in Col. iii. 4. See also John i. 4; xiv. 6; xi. 25. And so, again, “Thou shalt not trust (or believe) thy life” would mean, “Thou shalt not believe Christ.”

before thine eyes; and thou shalt not trust thy life.”

Ps. ii. 7, 8.

For you will not be able to affirm that “son” to be David rather than Christ; or the “bounds of the earth” to have been promised rather to David, who reigned within the single (country of) Judea, than to Christ, who has already taken captive the whole orb with the faith of His gospel; as He says through Isaiah:  “Behold, I have given Thee for a covenant1380

1380 Dispositionem; Gr. διαθήκην.

of my family, for a light of Gentiles, that Thou mayst open the eyes of the blind”—of course, such as err—“to outloose from bonds the bound”—that is, to free them from sins—“and from the house of prison”—that is, of death—“such as sit in darkness”1381

1381 Isa. xlii. 6, 7, comp. lxi. 1; Luke iv. 14–18.

—of ignorance, to wit. And if these blessings accrue through Christ, they will not have been prophesied of another than Him through whom we consider them to have been accomplished.1382

1382 Comp. Luke ii. 25–33.


Mic. v. 2; Matt. ii. 3–; 6. Tertullian’s Latin agrees rather with the Greek of St. Matthew than with the LXX.

But if hitherto he has not been born, what “leader” was it who was thus announced as to proceed from the tribe of Judah, out of Bethlehem? For it behoves him to proceed from the tribe of Judah and from Bethlehem. But we perceive that now none of the race of Israel has remained in Bethlehem; and (so it has been) ever since the interdict was issued forbidding any one of the Jews to linger in the confines of the very district, in order that this prophetic utterance also should be perfectly fulfilled:  “Your land is desert, your cities burnt up by fire,”—that is, (he is foretelling) what will have happened to them in time of war “your region strangers shall eat up in your sight, and it shall be desert and subverted by alien peoples.”1384

1384 See Isa. i. 7.

And in another place it is thus said through the prophet: “The King with His glory ye shall see,”—that is, Christ, doing deeds of power in the glory of God the Father;1385

1385 Comp. John v. 43; x. 37, 38.

“and your eyes shall see the land from afar,”1386

1386 Isa. xxxiii. 17.

—which is what you do, being prohibited, in reward of your deserts, since the storming of Jerusalem, to enter into your land; it is permitted you merely to see it with your eyes from afar: “your soul,” he says, “shall meditate terror,”1387

1387 Isa. xxxiii. 18.

—namely, at the time when they suffered the ruin of themselves.1388

1388 Comp. the “failing eyes” in the passage from Deuteronomy given in c. xi., if “eyes” is to be taken as the subject here. If not, we have another instance of the slipshod writing in which this treatise abounds.

How, therefore, will a “leader” be born from Judea, and how far will he “proceed from Bethlehem,” as the divine volumes of the prophets do plainly announce; since none at all is left there to this day of (the house of) Israel, of whose stock Christ could be born?

Comp. Ex. xxx. 22–33.

But, if there is no longer “unction” there1391

1391 i.e., in Jerusalem or Judea.

as Daniel prophesied (for he says, “Unction shall be exterminated”), it follows that they1392

1392 The Jews.

no longer have it, because neither have they a temple where was the “horn”1393

1393 Comp. 1 Kings (3 Kings in LXX.) i. 39, where the Eng. ver. has “an horn;” the LXX. τὸ κέρας, “the horn;” which at that time, of course, was in David’s tabernacle (2 Sam.—2 Kings in LXX.—vi. 17,) for “temple” there was yet none.

from which kings were wont to be anointed.  If, then, there is no unction, whence shall be anointed the “leader” who shall be born in Bethlehem? or how shall he proceed “from Bethlehem,” seeing that of the seed of Israel none at all exists in Bethlehem.

Dan. ix. 26.

—undoubtedly (that Leader) who was to proceed “from Bethlehem,” and from the tribe of “Judah.” Whence, again, it is manifest that “the city must simultaneously be exterminated” at the time when its “Leader” had to suffer in it, (as foretold) through the Scriptures of the prophets, who say: “I have outstretched my hands the whole day unto a People contumacious and gainsaying Me, who walketh in a way not good, but after their own sins.”1395

1395 See Isa. lxv. 2; Rom. x. 21.

And in the Psalms, David says: “They exterminated my hands and feet: they counted all my bones; they themselves, moreover, contemplated and saw me, and in my thirst slaked me with vinegar.”1396

1396 Ps. xxii. 16, 17 (xxi. 17, 18, in LXX.); and lxix. 21 (lxviii. 22 in LXX.).

These things David did not suffer, so as to seem justly to have spoken of himself; but the Christ who was crucified.  Moreover, the “hands and feet,” are not “exterminated,”1397

1397 i.e., displaced, dislocated.

except His who is suspended on a “tree.”  Whence, again, David said that “the Lord would reign from the tree:”1398

1398 See c. x. above.

for elsewhere, too, the prophet predicts the fruit of this “tree,” saying “The earth hath given her blessings,”1399

1399 See Ps. lxvii. 6 (lxvi. 7 in LXX.); lxxxv. 12 (lxxxiv. 13 in LXX.).

—of course that virgin-earth, not yet irrigated with rains, nor fertilized by showers, out of which man was of yore first formed, out of which now Christ through the flesh has been born of a virgin; “and the tree,”1400

1400 “Lignum,” as before.

he says, “hath brought his fruit,”1401

1401 See Joel ii. 22.

—not that “tree” in paradise which yielded death to the protoplasts, but the “tree” of the passion of Christ, whence life, hanging, was by you not believed!1402

1402 See c. xi. above, and the note there.

For this “tree” in a mystery,1403

1403 Sacramento.

it was of yore wherewith Moses sweetened the bitter water; whence the People, which was perishing of thirst in the desert, drank and revived;1404

1404 See Ex. xv. 22–26.

just as we do, who, drawn out from the calamities of the heathendom1405

1405 Sæculi.

in which we were tarrying perishing with thirst (that is, deprived of the divine word), drinking, “by the faith which is on Him,”1406

1406 See Acts xxvi. 18, ad fin.

the baptismal water of the “tree” of the passion of Christ, have revived,—a faith from which Israel has fallen away, (as foretold) through Jeremiah, who says, “Send, and ask exceedingly whether such things have been done, whether nations will change their gods (and these are not gods!). But My People hath changed their glory: whence no profit shall accrue to them: the heaven turned pale thereat” (and when did it turn pale? undoubtedly when Christ suffered), “and shuddered,” he says, “most exceedingly;”1407

1407 See Jer. ii. 10–12.

and “the sun grew dark at mid-day:”1408

1408 See Amos viii. 9, as before, in c.x.

(and when did it “shudder exceedingly” except at the passion of Christ, when the earth also trembled to her centre, and the veil of the temple was rent, and the tombs were burst asunder?1409

1409 See Bible:Mark.15.38 Bible:Luke.23.44-Luke.23.45">Matt. xxvii. 45, 50–52; Mark xv. 33, 37, 38, Luke xxiii. 44, 45.

“because these two evils hath My People done; Me,” He says, “they have quite forsaken, the fount of water of life,1410

1410 ὑδατος ζωῆς in the LXX. here (ed. Tischendorf, who quotes the Cod. Alex. as reading, however, ὑδατος ζῶντος). Comp. Rev. xxii. 1, 17, and xxi. 6; John vii. 37–39. (The reference, it will be seen, is still to Jer. ii. 10–13; but the writer has mixed up words of Amos therewith.)

and they have digged for themselves worn-out tanks, which will not be able to contain water.” Undoubtedly, by not receiving Christ, the “fount of water of life,” they have begun to have “worn-out tanks,” that is, synagogues for the use of the “dispersions of the Gentiles,”1411

1411 Comp. The τὴν διασπορὰν τῶν ῾Ελλήνων of John vii. 35; and see 1 Pet. i. 1.

in which the Holy Spirit no longer lingers, as for the time past He was wont to tarry in the temple before the advent of Christ, who is the true temple of God. For, that they should withal suffer this thirst of the Divine Spirit, the prophet Isaiah had said, saying: “Behold, they who serve Me shall eat, but ye shall be hungry; they who serve Me shall drink, but ye shall thirst, and from general tribulation of spirit shall howl: for ye shall transmit your name for a satiety to Mine elect, but you the Lord shall slay; but for them who serve Me shall be named a new name, which shall be blessed in the lands.”1412

1412 See Isa. lxv. 13–16 in LXX.

Helisæo. Comp. Luke iv. 27.

the prophet’s coming up, the sons of the prophets beg of him to extract from the stream the iron which had sunk. And accordingly Elisha, having taken “wood,” and cast it into that place where the iron had been submerged, forthwith it rose and swam on the surface,1416

1416 The careless construction of leaving the nominative “Elisha” with no verb to follow it is due to the original, not to the translator.

and the “wood” sank, which the sons of the prophets recovered.1417

1417 See 2 Kings vi. 1–7 (4 Kings vi. 1–7 in LXX). It is not said, however, that the wood sank.

Whence they understood that Elijah’s spirit was presently conferred upon him.1418

1418 This conclusion they had drawn before, and are not said to have drawn, consequently, upon this occasion. See 2 Kings (4 Kings in LXX.) ii. 16.

What is more manifest than the mystery1419

1419 Sacramento.

of this “wood,”—that the obduracy of this world1420

1420 “Sæculi,” or perhaps here “heathendom.”

had been sunk in the profundity of error, and is freed in baptism by the “wood” of Christ, that is, of His passion; in order that what had formerly perished through the “tree” in Adam, should be restored through the “tree” in Christ?1421

1421 For a similar argument, see Anselm’s Cur Deus Homo? l. i. c. iii. sub fin.

while we, of course, who have succeeded to, and occupy, the room of the prophets, at the present day sustain in the world1422

1422 Sæculo.

that treatment which the prophets always suffered on account of divine religion: for some they stoned, some they banished; more, however, they delivered to mortal slaughter,1423

1423 Mortis necem.

—a fact which they cannot deny.1424

1424 Comp. Acts vii. 51, 52; Heb. xi. 32–; 38.

See Gen. xxii. 1–14.

Christ, on the other hand, in His times, carried His “wood” on His own shoulders, adhering to the horns of the cross, with a thorny crown encircling His head. For Him it behoved to be made a sacrifice on behalf of all Gentiles, who “was led as a sheep for a victim, and, like a lamb voiceless before his shearer, so opened not His mouth” (for He, when Pilate interrogated Him, spake nothing1427

1427 See Matt. xxvii. 11–14; Mark xv. 1–5; John xix. 8–12.

); for “in humility His judgment was taken away:  His nativity, moreover, who shall declare?” Because no one at all of human beings was conscious of the nativity of Christ at His conception, when as the Virgin Mary was found pregnant by the word of God; and because “His life was to be taken from the land.”1428

1428 See Isa. liii. 7, 8.

Why, accordingly, after His resurrection from the dead, which was effected on the third day, did the heavens receive Him back? It was in accordance with a prophecy of Hosea, uttered on this wise:  “Before daybreak shall they arise unto Me, saying, Let us go and return unto the Lord our God, because Himself will draw us out and free us. After a space of two days, on the third day”1429

1429 Oehler refers to Hos. vi. 1; add 2 (ad init.).

—which is His glorious resurrection—He received back into the heavens (whence withal the Spirit Himself had come to the Virgin1430

1430 See Luke i. 35.

) Him whose nativity and passion alike the Jews have failed to acknowledge. Therefore, since the Jews still contend that the Christ is not yet come, whom we have in so many ways approved1431

1431 For this sense of the word “approve,” comp. Acts ii. 22, Greek and English, and Phil. i. 10, Greek and English.

to be come, let the Jews recognise their own fate,—a fate which they were constantly foretold as destined to incur after the advent of the Christ, on account of the impiety with which they despised and slew Him. For first, from the day when, according to the saying of Isaiah, “a man cast forth his abominations of gold and silver, which they made to adore with vain and hurtful (rites),”1432

1432 See Isa. ii. 20.

—that is, ever since we Gentiles, with our breast doubly enlightened through Christ’s truth, cast forth (let the Jews see it) our idols,—what follows has likewise been fulfilled. For “the Lord of Sabaoth hath taken away, among the Jews from Jerusalem,” among the other things named, “the wise architect” too,1433

1433 See Isa. iii. 1; 3; and comp. 1 Cor. iii. 10; Eph. ii. 20, 21; 1 Pet. ii. 4–8, and many similar passages.

who builds the church, God’s temple, and the holy city, and the house of the Lord. For thenceforth God’s grace desisted (from working) among them. And “the clouds were commanded not to rain a shower upon the vineyard of Sorek,”1434

1434 Comp. Isa. v. 2 in LXX. and Lowth.

—the clouds being celestial benefits, which were commanded not to be forthcoming to the house of Israel; for it “had borne thorns”—whereof that house of Israel had wrought a crown for Christ—and not “righteousness, but a clamour,”—the clamour whereby it had extorted His surrender to the cross.1435

1435 Comp. Isa. v. 6, 7, with Matt. xxvii. 20–25, Mark xv. 8–15, Luke xxiii. 13–25, John xix. 12–16.

And thus, the former gifts of grace being withdrawn, “the law and the prophets were until John,”1436

1436 Matt. xi. 13; Luke xvi. 16.

and the fishpool of Bethsaida1437

1437 See John v. 1–9; and comp. de Bapt. c. v., and the note there.

until the advent of Christ: thereafter it ceased curatively to remove from Israel infirmities of health; since, as the result of their perseverance in their frenzy, the name of the Lord was through them blasphemed, as it is written: “On your account the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles:”1438

1438 See Isa. lii. 5; Ezek. xxxvi. 20, 23; Rom. ii. 24. (The passage in Isaiah in the LXX. agrees with Rom. ii. 24.)

for it is from them that the infamy (attached to that name) began, and (was propagated during) the interval from Tiberius to Vespasian. And because they had committed these crimes, and had failed to understand that Christ “was to be found”1439

1439 See Isa. lv. 6, 7.

in “the time of their visitation,”1440

1440 See Luke xix. 41–44.

their land has been made “desert, and their cities utterly burnt with fire, while strangers devour their region in their sight: the daughter of Sion is derelict, as a watch-tower in a vineyard, or as a shed in a cucumber garden,”—ever since the time, to wit, when “Israel knew not” the Lord, and “the People understood Him not;” but rather “quite forsook, and provoked unto indignation, the Holy One of Israel.”1441

1441 See Isa. i. 7, 8; 4.

So, again, we find a conditional threat of the sword: “If ye shall have been unwilling, and shall not have been obedient, the glaive shall eat you up.”1442

1442 Isa. i. 20.

Whence we prove that the sword was Christ, by not hearing whom they perished; who, again, in the Psalm, demands of the Father their dispersion, saying, “Disperse them in Thy power;”1443

1443 See Ps. lix. 11 (lviii. 12 in LXX.)

who, withal, again through Isaiah prays for their utter burning. “On My account,” He says, “have these things happened to you; in anxiety shall ye sleep.”1444

1444 See Isa. liii. 2 in LXX.

“a man set in the plague,1446

1446 See Ps. xxxviii. 17 in the “Great Bible” (xxxvii. 18 in LXX.). Also Isa. liii. 3 in LXX.

and knowing how to bear infirmity:” to wit as having been set by the Father “for a stone of offence,”1447

1447 See Isa. viii. 14 (where, however, the LXX. rendering is widely different) with Rom. ix. 32, 33; Ps. cxviii. 22 (cxvii. 22 in LXX.); 1 Pet. ii. 4.

and “made a little lower” by Him “than angels,”1448

1448 See Ps. viii. 5 (viii. 6 in LXX.) with Heb. ii. 5–9.

He pronounces Himself “a worm, and not a man, an ignominy of man, and the refuse of the People.”1449

1449 See Ps. xxii. 6 (xxi. 7 in LXX., the Alex. ms. of which here agrees well with Tertullian).

Which evidences of ignobility suit the First Advent, just as those of sublimity do the Second; when He shall be made no longer “a stone of offence nor a rock of scandal,” but “the highest corner-stone,”1450

1450 See reference 3 above, with Isa. xxviii. 16.

after reprobation (on earth) taken up (into heaven) and raised sublime for the purpose of consummation,1451

1451 Comp. Eph. i. 10.

and that “rock”—so we must admit—which is read of in Daniel as forecut from a mount, which shall crush and crumble the image of secular kingdoms.1452

1452 Or, “worldly kingdoms.” See Dan. ii. 34, 35, 44, 45" id="iv.ix.xiv-p10.1" parsed="|Dan|2|34|2|35;|Dan|2|44|0|0;|Dan|2|45|0|0" osisRef="Bible:Dan.2.34-Dan.2.35 Bible:Dan.2.44 Bible:Dan.2.45">Dan. ii. 34, 35, 44, 45.

Of which second advent of the same (Christ) Daniel has said: “And, behold, as it were a Son of man, coming with the clouds of the heaven, came unto the Ancient of days, and was present in His sight; and they who were standing by led (Him) unto Him. And there was given Him royal power; and all nations of the earth, according to their race, and all glory, shall serve Him: and His power is eternal, which shall not be taken away, and His kingdom one which shall not be corrupted.”1453

1453 See Dan. vii. 13, 14.

Then, assuredly, is He to have an honourable mien, and a grace not “deficient more than the sons of men;” for (He will then be) “blooming in beauty in comparison with the sons of men.”1454

1454 See c. ix. med.

“Grace,” says the Psalmist, “hath been outpoured in Thy lips: wherefore God hath blessed Thee unto eternity. Gird Thee Thy sword around Thy thigh, most potent in Thy bloom and beauty!”1455

1455 See c. ix. med.

while the Father withal afterwards, after making Him somewhat lower than angels, “crowned Him with glory and honour and subjected all things beneath His feet.”1456

1456 See Ps. viii. 5, 6 (6, 7 in LXX.); Heb. ii. 6–9.

And then shall they “learn to know Him whom they pierced, and shall beat their breasts tribe by tribe;”1457

1457 See Zech. xii. 10; 12 (where the LXX., as we have it, differs widely from our Eng. ver. in ver. 10); Rev. i. 7.

of course because in days bygone they did not know Him when conditioned in the humility of human estate. Jeremiah says: “He is a human being, and who will learn to know Him?”1458

1458 See Jer. xvii. 9 in LXX.

because, “His nativity,” says Isaiah, “who shall declare?” So, too, in Zechariah, in His own person, nay, in the very mystery1459

1459 Sacramento.

of His name withal, the most true Priest of the Father, His own1460

1460 The reading which Oehler follows, and which seems to have the best authority, is “verissimus sacerdos Patris, Christus Ipsius,” as in the text.  But Rig., whose judgment is generally very sound, prefers, with some others, to read, “verus summus sacerdos Patris Christus Jesus;” which agrees better with the previous allusion to “the mystery of His name withal:” comp. c. ix. above, towards the end.

Christ, is delineated in a twofold garb with reference to the two advents.1461

1461 See Zech. iii. “The mystery of His name” refers to the meaning of “Jeshua,” for which see c. ix. above.

First, He was clad in “sordid attire,” that is, in the indignity of passible and mortal flesh, when the devil, withal, was opposing himself to Him—the instigator, to wit, of Judas the traitor1462

1462 Comp. John vi. 70 and xiii. 2 (especially in Greek, where the word διάβολος is used in each case).

—who even after His baptism had tempted Him.  In the next place, He was stripped of His former sordid raiment, and adorned with a garment down to the foot, and with a turban and a clean mitre, that is, (with the garb) of the second advent; since He is demonstrated as having attained “glory and honour.” Nor will you be able to say that the man (there depicted) is “the son of Jozadak,”1463

1463 Or “Josedech,” as Tertullian here writes, and as we find in Bible:Zech.6.11">Hag. i. 1, 12; ii. 2, 4; Zech. vi. 11, and in the LXX.

who was never at all clad in a sordid garment, but was always adorned with the sacerdotal garment, nor ever deprived of the sacerdotal function. But the “Jesus”1464

1464 Or, “Jeshua.”

there alluded to is Christ, the Priest of God the most high Father; who at His first advent came in humility, in human form, and passible, even up to the period of His passion; being Himself likewise made, through all (stages of suffering) a victim for us all; who after His resurrection was “clad with a garment down to the foot,”1465

1465 See Rev. i. 13.

and named the Priest of God the Father unto eternity.1466

1466 See Ps. cx. (cix. in LXX.) 4; Heb. v. 5–10.

So, again, I will make an interpretation of the two goats which were habitually offered on the fast-day.1467

1467 See Lev. xvi.

Do not they, too, point to each successive stage in the character of the Christ who is already come? A pair, on the one hand, and consimilar (they were), because of the identity of the Lord’s general appearance, inasmuch as He is not to come in some other form, seeing that He has to be recognised by those by whom He was once hurt. But the one of them, begirt with scarlet, amid cursing and universal spitting, and tearing, and piercing, was cast away by the People outside the city into perdition, marked with manifest tokens of Christ’s passion; who, after being begirt with scarlet garment, and subjected to universal spitting, and afflicted with all contumelies, was crucified outside the city.1468

1468 Comp. Heb. xiii. 10–13. It is to be noted, however, that all this spitting, etc., formed no part of the divinely ordained ceremony.

The other, however, offered for sins, and given as food to the priests merely of the temple,1469

1469 This appears to be an error. See Lev. vi. 30.

gave signal evidences of the second appearance; in so far as, after the expiation of all sins, the priests of the spiritual temple, that is, of the church, were to enjoy1470

1470 Unless Oehler’s “fruerentur” is an error for “fruentur” ="will enjoy.”

a spiritual public distribution (as it were) of the Lord’s grace, while all others are fasting from salvation.

Or, “unto eternity.” Comp. Bible:Ps.89.35-Ps.89.37">2 Sam. (2 Kings in LXX.) vii. 13; 1 Chron. xvii. 12; Ps. lxxxix. 3, 4, 29, 35, 36, 37 (in LXX. Bible:Ps.88.38">Ps. lxxxviii. 4, 5, 30, 36, 37, 38).

is more suitable to Christ, God’s Son, than to Solomon,—a temporal king, to wit, who reigned over Israel alone. For at the present day nations are invoking Christ which used not to know Him; and peoples at the present day are fleeing in a body to the Christ of whom in days bygone they were ignorant1475

1475 See Isa. lv. 5 (especially in the LXX).

), you cannot contend that is future which you see taking place.1476

1476 Oehler’s pointing is discarded. The whole passage, from “which you dare not assert” down to “ignorant,” appears to be parenthetical; and I have therefore marked it as such.

Either deny that these events were prophesied, while they are seen before your eyes; or else have been fulfilled, while you hear them read: or, on the other hand, if you fail to deny each position, they will have their fulfilment in Him with respect to whom they were prophesied. 1 Tim. i. 4.

It must, however, be added, that no solution may be found by any man, but such as is learned from God; and that which is learned of God is the sum and substance of the whole thing.
1 Cor. x. 19.

We should then be never required to try our strength in contests about the soul with philosophers, those patriarchs of heretics, as they may be fairly called.1508

1508 Compare Tertullian’s Adv. Hermog. c. viii.

The apostle, so far back as his own time, foresaw, indeed, that philosophy would do violent injury to the truth.1509

1509 Col. ii. 8.

This admonition about false philosophy he was induced to offer after he had been at Athens, had become acquainted with that loquacious city,1510

1510 Linguatam civitatem. Comp. Acts xvii. 21.

and had there had a taste of its huckstering wiseacres and talkers. In like manner is the treatment of the soul according to the sophistical doctrines of men which “mix their wine with water.”1511

1511 Isa. i. 22.

Some of them deny the immortality of the soul; others affirm that it is immortal, and something more. Some raise disputes about its substance; others about its form; others, again, respecting each of its several faculties. One school of philosophers derives its state from various sources, while another ascribes its departure to different destinations. The various schools reflect the character of their masters, according as they have received their impressions from the dignity1512

1512 Honor.

of Plato, or the vigour1513

1513 Vigor. Another reading has “rigor” (ακληρότης), harshness.

of Zeno, or the equanimity1514

1514 Tenor.

of Aristotle, or the stupidity1515

1515 Stupor.

of Epicurus, or the sadness1516

1516 Mœror.

of Heraclitus, or the madness1517

1517 Furor.

of Empedocles. The fault, I suppose, of the divine doctrine lies in its springing from Judæa1518

1518 Isa. ii. 3.

rather than from Greece. Christ made a mistake, too, in sending forth fishermen to preach, rather than the sophist. Whatever noxious vapours, accordingly, exhaled from philosophy, obscure the clear and wholesome atmosphere of truth, it will be for Christians to clear away, both by shattering to pieces the arguments which are drawn from the principles of things—I mean those of the philosophers—and by opposing to them the maxims of heavenly wisdom—that is, such as are revealed by the Lord; in order that both the pitfalls wherewith philosophy captivates the heathen may be removed, and the means employed by heresy to shake the faith of Christians may be repressed. We have already decided one point in our controversy with Hermogenes, as we said at the beginning of this treatise, when we claimed the soul to be formed by the breathing1519

1519 Flatu.

of God, and not out of matter. We relied even there on the clear direction of the inspired statement which informs us how that “the Lord God breathed on man’s face the breath of life, so that man became a living soul”1520

1520 Gen. ii. 7.

—by that inspiration of God, of course. On this point, therefore, nothing further need be investigated or advanced by us. It has its own treatise,1521

1521 Titulus.

and its own heretic. I shall regard it as my introduction to the other branches of the subject. Luke xvi. 23, 24.

Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality. For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence. But what is that which is removed to Hades1535

1535 Ad inferna. [See p. 59, supra.]

after the separation of the body; which is there detained; which is reserved until the day of judgment; to which Christ also, on dying, descended? I imagine it is the souls of the patriarchs. But wherefore (all this), if the soul is nothing in its subterranean abode?  For nothing it certainly is, if it is not a bodily substance. For whatever is incorporeal is incapable of being kept and guarded in any way; it is also exempt from either punishment or refreshment. That must be a body, by which punishment and refreshment can be experienced. Of this I shall treat more fully in a more fitting place. Therefore, whatever amount of punishment or refreshment the soul tastes in Hades, in its prison or lodging,1536

1536 Diversorio.

in the fire or in Abraham’s bosom, it gives proof thereby of its own corporeality. For an incorporeal thing suffers nothing, not having that which makes it capable of suffering; else, if it has such capacity, it must be a bodily substance. For in as far as every corporeal thing is capable of suffering, in so far is that which is capable of suffering also corporeal.1537

1537 Compare De Resur. Carnis, xvii. There is, however, some variation in Tertullian’s language on this subject.  In his Apol. xlviii. he speaks as if the soul could not suffer when separated from the body. See also his De Testimonio Animæ, ch. iv., p. 177, supra; and see Bp. Kaye, p. 183.


Rev. i. 10.

beheld plainly the souls of the martyrs.1539

1539 Rev. vi. 9.


1 Cor. xii. 1–11. [A key to our author’s

Now, can you refuse to believe this, even if indubitable evidence on every point is forthcoming for your conviction? Since, then, the soul is a corporeal substance, no doubt it possesses qualities such as those which we have just mentioned, amongst them the property of colour, which is inherent in every bodily substance.  Now what colour would you attribute to the soul but an etherial transparent one? Not that its substance is actually the ether or air (although this was the opinion of Ænesidemus and Anaximenes, and I suppose of Heraclitus also, as some say of him), nor transparent light (although Heraclides of Pontus held it to be so). “Thunder-stones,”1547

1547 Cerauniis gemmis.

indeed, are not of igneous substance, because they shine with ruddy redness; nor are beryls composed of aqueous matter, because they are of a pure wavy whiteness. How many things also besides these are there which their colour would associate in the same class, but which nature keeps widely apart! Since, however, everything which is very attenuated and transparent bears a strong resemblance to the air, such would be the case with the soul, since in its material nature1548

1548 Tradux.

it is wind and breath, (or spirit); whence it is that the belief of its corporeal quality is endangered, in consequence of the extreme tenuity and subtilty of its essence. Likewise, as regards the figure of the human soul from your own conception, you can well imagine that it is none other than the human form; indeed, none other than the shape of that body which each individual soul animates and moves about. This we may at once be induced to admit from contemplating man’s original formation.  For only carefully consider, after God hath breathed upon the face of man the breath of life, and man had consequently become a living soul, surely that breath must have passed through the face at once into the interior structure, and have spread itself throughout all the spaces of the body; and as soon as by the divine inspiration it had become condensed, it must have impressed itself on each internal feature, which the condensation had filled in, and so have been, as it were, congealed in shape, (or stereotyped). Hence, by this densifying process, there arose a fixing of the soul’s corporeity; and by the impression its figure was formed and moulded. This is the inner man, different from the outer, but yet one in the twofold condition.1549

1549 Dupliciter unus.

It, too, has eyes and ears of its own, by means of which Paul must have heard and seen the Lord;1550

1550 2 Cor. xii. 2–4.

it has, moreover all the other members of the body by the help of which it effects all processes of thinking and all activity in dreams. Thus it happens that the rich man in hell has a tongue and poor (Lazarus) a finger and Abraham a bosom.1551

1551 Luke xvi. 23, 24.

By these features also the souls of the martyrs under the altar are distinguished and known. The soul indeed which in the beginning was associated with Adam’s body, which grew with its growth and was moulded after its form proved to be the germ both of the entire substance (of the human soul) and of that (part of) creation.
Tertullian’s reading of Isa. lvii. 16.

And again:  “He giveth breath unto the people that are on the earth, and Spirit to them that walk thereon.”1565

1565 Isa. xlii. 5.

First of all there comes the (natural) soul, that is to say, the breath, to the people that are on the earth,—in other words, to those who act carnally in the flesh; then afterwards comes the Spirit to those who walk thereon,—that is, who subdue the works of the flesh; because the apostle also says, that “that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, (or in possession of the natural soul,) and afterward that which is spiritual.”1566

1566 1 Cor. xv. 46.

For, inasmuch as Adam straightway predicted that “great mystery of Christ and the church,”1567

1567 Eph. v. 31, 32.

when he said, “This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they two shall become one flesh,”1568

1568 Gen. ii. 24, 25.

he experienced the influence of the Spirit.  For there fell upon him that ecstasy, which is the Holy Ghost’s operative virtue of prophecy. And even the evil spirit too is an influence which comes upon a man. Indeed, the Spirit of God not more really “turned Saul into another man,”1569

1569 1 Sam. x. 6.

that is to say, into a prophet, when “people said one to another, What is this which is come to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?”1570

1570 1 Sam. x. 11.

than did the evil spirit afterwards turn him into another man—in other words, into an apostate. Judas likewise was for a long time reckoned among the elect (apostles), and was even appointed to the office of their treasurer; he was not yet the traitor, although he was become fraudulent; but afterwards the devil entered into him. Consequently, as the spirit neither of God nor of the devil is naturally planted with a man’s soul at his birth, this soul must evidently exist apart and alone, previous to the accession to it of either spirit: if thus apart and alone, it must also be simple and uncompounded as regards its substance; and therefore it cannot respire from any other cause than from the actual condition of its own substance.
Wisd. i. 6.

when His prophet is reproved by His discovering to him the secrets of the heart;1586

1586 Prov. xxiv. 12.

when God Himself anticipates in His people the thoughts of their heart,1587

1587 Ps. cxxxix. 23.

“Why think ye evil in your hearts?”1588

1588 Matt. ix. 4.

when David prays “Create in me a clean heart, O God,”1589

1589 Ps. li. 12.

and Paul declares, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness,”1590

1590 Rom. x. 10.

and John says, “By his own heart is each man condemned;”1591

1591 1 John iii. 20.

when, lastly, “he who looketh on a woman so as to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart,”1592

1592 Matt. v. 28.

—then both points are cleared fully up, that there is a directing faculty of the soul, with which the purpose of God may agree; in other words, a supreme principle of intelligence and vitality (for where there is intelligence, there must be vitality), and that it resides in that most precious part1593

1593 In eo thesauro.

of our body to which God especially looks:  so that you must not suppose, with Heraclitus, that this sovereign faculty of which we are treating is moved by some external force; nor with Moschion,1594

1594 Not Suidas’ philosopher of that name, but a renowned physician mentioned by Galen and Pliny (Oehler).

that it floats about through the whole body; nor with Plato, that it is enclosed in the head; nor with Zenophanes, that it culminates in the crown of the head; nor that it reposes in the brain, according to the opinion of Hippocrates; nor around the basis of the brain, as Herophilus thought; nor in the membranes thereof, as Strato and Erasistratus said; nor in the space between the eyebrows, as Strato the physician held; nor within the enclosure1595

1595 Lorica.

of the breast, according to Epicurus:  but rather, as the Egyptians have always taught, especially such of them as were accounted the expounders of sacred truths;1596

1596 The Egyptian hierophants.

in accordance, too, with that verse of Orpheus or Empedocles:

Luke xxii. 15.

In our own cases, accordingly, the irascible and the concupiscible elements of our soul must not invariably be put to the account of the irrational (nature), since we are sure that in our Lord these elements operated in entire accordance with reason. God will be angry, with perfect reason, with all who deserve His wrath; and with reason, too, will God desire whatever objects and claims are worthy of Himself.  For He will show indignation against the evil man, and for the good man will He desire salvation. To ourselves even does the apostle allow the concupiscible quality. “If any man,” says he, “desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.”1600

1600 1 Tim. iii. 1.

Now, by saying “a good work,” he shows us that the desire is a reasonable one. He permits us likewise to feel indignation.  How should he not, when he himself experiences the same? “I would,” says he, “that they were even cut off which trouble you.”1601

1601 Gal. v. 12.

In perfect agreement with reason was that indignation which resulted from his desire to maintain discipline and order. When, however, he says, “We were formerly the children of wrath,”1602

1602 Eph. ii. 3.

he censures an irrational irascibility, such as proceeds not from that nature which is the production of God, but from that which the devil brought in, who is himself styled the lord or “master” of his own class, “Ye cannot serve two masters,”1603

1603 Matt. vi. 24.

and has the actual designation of “father:”  “Ye are of your father the devil.”1604

1604 John vi. 44.

So that you need not be afraid to ascribe to him the mastery and dominion over that second, later, and deteriorated nature (of which we have been speaking), when you read of him as “the sewer of tares,” and the nocturnal spoiler of the crop of corn.1605

1605 Matt. xiii. 25.


Luke x. 18.

that He did not really hear the Father’s voice testifying of Himself;1612

1612 Matt. iii. 17.

or that He was deceived in touching Peter’s wife’s mother;1613

1613 Matt. viii. 15.

or that the fragrance of the ointment which He afterwards smelled was different from that which He accepted for His burial;1614

1614 Matt. xxvi. 7–12.

and that the taste of the wine was different from that which He consecrated in memory of His blood.1615

1615 Matt. xxvi. 27, 28; Luke xxii. 19, 20; 1 Cor. xi. 25.

On this false principle it was that Marcion actually chose to believe that He was a phantom, denying to Him the reality of a perfect body. Now, not even to His apostles was His nature ever a matter of deception. He was truly both seen and heard upon the mount;1616

1616 Matt. xvii. 3–8.

true and real was the draught of that wine at the marriage of (Cana in) Galilee;1617

1617 John ii. 1–10.

true and real also was the touch of the then believing Thomas.1618

1618 John xx. 27.

Read the testimony of John: “That which we have seen, which we have heard, which we have looked upon with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.”1619

1619 1 John i. 1.

False, of course, and deceptive must have been that testimony, if the witness of our eyes, and ears, and hands be by nature a lie.
Rom. i. 20.

and as Plato too might inform our heretics:  “The things which appear are the image1633

1633 Facies.

of the things which are concealed from view,”1634

1634 Timæus, pp. 29, 30, 37, 38.

whence it must needs follow that this world is by all means an image of some other: so that the intellect evidently uses the senses for its own guidance, and authority, and mainstay; and without the senses truth could not be attained.  How, then, can a thing be superior to that which is instrumental to its existence, which is also indispensable to it, and to whose help it owes everything which it acquires? Two conclusions therefore follow from what we have said: (1) That the intellect is not to be preferred above the senses, on the (supposed) ground that the agent through which a thing exists is inferior to the thing itself; and (2) that the intellect must not be separated from the senses, since the instrument by which a thing’s existence is sustained is associated with the thing itself.
Ps. viii. 2; Matt. xxi. 16.

has declared that neither childhood nor infancy is without sensibility,1642

1642 Hebetes.

—the former of which states, when meeting Him with approving shouts, proved its ability to offer Him testimony;1643

1643 Matt. xxi. 15.

while the other, by being slaughtered, for His sake of course, knew what violence meant.1644

1644 Tit. i. 12.

Very likely, too, something must be set down to the score of bodily condition and the state of the health. Stoutness hinders knowledge, but a spare form stimulates it; paralysis prostrates the mind, a decline preserves it. How much more will those accidental circumstances have to be noticed, which, in addition to the state of one’s body or one’s health, tend to sharpen or to dull the intellect! It is sharpened by learned pursuits, by the sciences, the arts, by experimental knowledge, business habits, and studies; it is blunted by ignorance, idle habits, inactivity, lust, inexperience, listlessness, and vicious pursuits.  Then, besides these influences, there must perhaps1650

1650 Si et alia.

be added the supreme powers. Now these are the supreme powers: according to our (Christian) notions, they are the Lord God and His adversary the devil; but according to men’s general opinion about providence, they are fate and necessity; and about fortune, it is man’s freedom of will.  Even the philosophers allow these distinctions; whilst on our part we have already undertaken to treat of them, on the principles of the (Christian) faith, in a separate work.1651

1651 Tertullian wrote a work De Fato, which is lost. Fulgentius, p. 561, gives a quotation from it.

It is evident how great must be the influences which so variously affect the one nature of the soul, since they are commonly regarded as separate “natures.” Still they are not different species, but casual incidents of one nature and substance—even of that which God conferred on Adam, and made the mould of all (subsequent ones). Casual incidents will they always remain, but never will they become specific differences.  However great, too, at present is the variety of men’s maunders, it was not so in Adam, the founder of their race.  But all these discordances ought to have existed in him as the fountainhead, and thence to have descended to us in an unimpaired variety, if the variety had been due to nature.
Eph. v. 32.

“This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman. Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and he shall cleave unto his wife; and they two shall be one flesh.”1654

1654 Gen. ii. 23, 24.

But this (gift of prophecy) only came on him afterwards, when God infused into him the ecstasy, or spiritual quality, in which prophecy consists. If, again, the evil of sin was developed in him, this must not be accounted as a natural disposition: it was rather produced by the instigation of the (old) serpent as far from being incidental to his nature as it was from being material in him, for we have already excluded belief in “Matter.”1655

1655 See Adv. Hermog. xiii.

Now, if neither the spiritual element, nor what the heretics call the material element, was properly inherent in him (since, if he had been created out of matter, the germ of evil must have been an integral part of his constitution), it remains that the one only original element of his nature was what is called the animal (the principle of vitality, the soul), which we maintain to be simple and uniform in its condition. Concerning this, it remains for us to inquire whether, as being called natural, it ought to be deemed subject to change. (The heretics whom we have referred to) deny that nature is susceptible of any change,1656

1656 See Adv. Valentin. xxix.

in order that they may be able to establish and settle their threefold theory, or “trinity,” in all its characteristics as to the several natures, because “a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, nor a corrupt tree good fruit; and nobody gathers figs of thorns, nor grapes of brambles.”1657

1657 Luke vi. 43, 44.

If so, then “God will not be able any longer to raise up from the stones children unto Abraham; nor to make a generation of vipers bring forth fruits of repentance.”1658

1658 Matt. iii. 7–9.

And if so, the apostle too was in error when he said in his epistle, “Ye were at one time darkness, (but now are ye light in the Lord:)”1659

1659 Eph. v. 8.

and, “We also were by nature children of wrath;”1660

1660 Eph. ii. 3.

and, “Such were some of you, but ye are washed.”1661

1661 1 Cor. vi. 11.

The statements, however, of holy Scripture will never be discordant with truth. A corrupt tree will never yield good fruit, unless the better nature be grafted into it; nor will a good tree produce evil fruit, except by the same process of cultivation. Stones also will become children of Abraham, if educated in Abraham’s faith; and a generation of vipers will bring forth the fruits of penitence, if they reject the poison of their malignant nature. This will be the power of the grace of God, more potent indeed than nature, exercising its sway over the faculty that underlies itself within us—even the freedom of our will, which is described as αὐτεξούσιος (of independent authority); and inasmuch as this faculty is itself also natural and mutable, in whatsoever direction it turns, it inclines of its own nature. Now, that there does exist within us naturally this independent authority (τὸ αὐτεξούσιον ), we have already shown in opposition both to Marcion1662

1662 See our Anti-Marcion, ii. 5–7.

and to Hermogenes.1663

1663 In his work against this man, entitled De Censu Animæ, not now extant.

If, then, the natural condition has to be submitted to a definition, it must be determined to be twofold—there being the category of the born and the unborn, the made and not-made. Now that which has received its constitution by being made or by being born, is by nature capable of being changed, for it can be both born again and re-made; whereas that which is not-made and unborn will remain for ever immoveable. Since, however, this state is suited to God alone, as the only Being who is unborn and not-made (and therefore immortal and unchangeable), it is absolutely certain that the nature of all other existences which are born and created is subject to modification and change; so that if the threefold state is to be ascribed to the soul, it must be supposed to arise from the mutability of its accidental circumstances, and not from the appointment of nature.
Mark xvi. 9.

and of a legion in number, as in the Gadarene.1684

1684 Mark vi. 1–9.

Now one soul is naturally more susceptible of conjunction with another soul, by reason of the identity of their substance, than an evil spirit is, owing to their diverse natures. But when the same philosopher, in the sixth book of The Laws, warns us to beware lest a vitiation of seed should infuse a soil into both body and soul from an illicit or debased concubinage, I hardly know whether he is more inconsistent with himself in respect of one of his previous statements, or of that which he had just made. For he here shows us that the soul proceeds from human seed (and warns us to be on our guard about it), not, (as he had said before,) from the first breath of the new-born child. Pray, whence comes it that from similarity of soul we resemble our parents in disposition, according to the testimony of Cleanthes,1685

1685 See above, ch. v.

if we are not produced from this seed of the soul? Why, too, used the old astrologers to cast a man’s nativity from his first conception, if his soul also draws not its origin from that moment? To this (nativity) likewise belongs the inbreathing of the soul, whatever that is.
Gen. xxv. 22, 23.

though her child-bearing is as yet remote, and there is no impulse of (vital) air. Behold, a twin offspring chafes within the mother’s womb, although she has no sign as yet of the twofold nation. Possibly we might have regarded as a prodigy the contention of this infant progeny, which struggled before it lived, which had animosity previous to animation, if it had simply disturbed the mother by its restlessness within her.  But when her womb opens, and the number of her offspring is seen, and their presaged condition known, we have presented to us a proof not merely of the (separate) souls of the infants, but of their hostile struggles too. He who was the first to be born was threatened with detention by him who was anticipated in birth, who was not yet fully brought forth, but whose hand only had been born. Now if he actually imbibed life, and received his soul, in Platonic style, at his first breath; or else, after the Stoic rule, had the earliest taste of animation on touching the frosty air; what was the other about, who was so eagerly looked for, who was still detained within the womb, and was trying to detain (the other) outside? I suppose he had not yet breathed when he seized his brother’s heel;1688

1688 Gen. xxv. 26.

and was still warm with his mother’s warmth, when he so strongly wished to be the first to quit the womb. What an infant! so emulous, so strong, and already so contentious; and all this, I suppose, because even now full of life!  Consider, again, those extraordinary conceptions, which were more wonderful still, of the barren woman and the virgin: these women would only be able to produce imperfect offspring against the course of nature, from the very fact that one of them was too old to bear seed, and the other was pure from the contact of man. If there was to be bearing at all in the case, it was only fitting that they should be born without a soul, (as the philosopher would say,) who had been irregularly conceived. However, even these have life, each of them in his mother’s womb. Elizabeth exults with joy, (for) John had leaped in her womb;1689

1689 Luke i. 41–45.

Mary magnifies the Lord, (for) Christ had instigated her within.1690

1690 Luke i. 46.

The mothers recognise each their own offspring, being moreover each recognised by their infants, which were therefore of course alive, and were not souls merely, but spirits also. Accordingly you read the word of God which was spoken to Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee.”1691

1691 Jer. i. 5.

Since God forms us in the womb, He also breathes upon us, as He also did at the first creation, when “the Lord God formed man, and breathed into him the breath of life.”1692

1692 Gen. ii. 7.

Nor could God have known man in the womb, except in his entire nature: “And before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee.”1693

1693 Jer. i. 5.

Well, was it then a dead body at that early stage? Certainly not. For “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
Gen. i. 28.

Excess, however, has He cursed, in adulteries, and wantonness, and chambering.1698

1698 Lupanaria.

Well, now, in this usual function of the sexes which brings together the male and the female in their common intercourse, we know that both the soul and the flesh discharge a duty together: the soul supplies desire, the flesh contributes the gratification of it; the soul furnishes the instigation, the flesh affords the realization. The entire man being excited by the one effort of both natures, his seminal substance is discharged, deriving its fluidity from the body, and its warmth from the soul. Now if the soul in Greek is a word which is synonymous with cold,1699

1699 See above, c. xxv. p. 206.

how does it come to pass that the body grows cold after the soul has quitted it? Indeed (if I run the risk of offending modesty even, in my desire to prove the truth), I cannot help asking, whether we do not, in that very heat of extreme gratification when the generative fluid is ejected, feel that somewhat of our soul has gone from us? And do we not experience a faintness and prostration along with a dimness of sight?  This, then, must be the soul-producing seed, which arises at once from the out-drip of the soul, just as that fluid is the body-producing seed which proceeds from the drainage of the flesh.  Most true are the examples of the first creation. Adam’s flesh was formed of clay. Now what is clay but an excellent moisture, whence should spring the generating fluid?  From the breath of God first came the soul. But what else is the breath of God than the vapour of the spirit, whence should spring that which we breathe out through the generative fluid? Forasmuch, therefore, as these two different and separate substances, the clay and the breath, combined at the first creation in forming the individual man, they then both amalgamated and mixed their proper seminal rudiments in one, and ever afterwards communicated to the human race the normal mode of its propagation, so that even now the two substances, although diverse from each other, flow forth simultaneously in a united channel; and finding their way together into their appointed seed-plot, they fertilize with their combined vigour the human fruit out of their respective natures.  And inherent in this human product is his own seed, according to the process which has been ordained for every creature endowed with the functions of generation. Accordingly from the one (primeval) man comes the entire outflow and redundance of men’s souls—nature proving herself true to the commandment of God, “Be fruitful, and multiply.”1700

1700 Gen. i. 28.

For in the very preamble of this one production, “Let us make man,”1701

1701 Ver. 26.

man’s whole posterity was declared and described in a plural phrase, “Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,” etc.1702

1702 Ver. 26.

And no wonder: in the seed lies the promise and earnest of the crop.
Ps. xlix. 20.

), it does not on this account follow that rapacious persons become kites, lewd persons dogs, ill-tempered ones panthers, good men sheep, talkative ones swallows, and chaste men doves, as if the selfsame substance of the soul everywhere repeated its own nature in the properties of the animals (into which it passed). Besides, a substance is one thing, and the nature of that substance is another thing; inasmuch as the substance is the special property of one given thing, whereas the nature thereof may possibly belong to many things.  Take an example or two. A stone or a piece of iron is the substance: the hardness of the stone and the iron is the nature of the substance. Their hardness combines objects by a common quality; their substances keep them separate.  Then, again, there is softness in wool, and softness in a feather: their natural qualities are alike, (and put them on a par;) their substantial qualities are not alike, (and keep them distinct.) Thus, if a man likewise be designated a wild beast or a harmless one, there is not for all that an identity of soul. Now the similarity of nature is even then observed, when dissimilarity of substance is most conspicuous: for, by the very fact of your judging that a man resembles a beast, you confess that their soul is not identical; for you say that they resemble each other, not that they are the same. This is also the meaning of the word of God (which we have just quoted): it likens man to the beasts in nature, but not in substance. Besides, God would not have actually made such a comment as this concerning man, if He had known him to be in substance only bestial.
Rom. xiii. 4.

and which is an institute of religion when it severely avenges in defence of human life? When we contemplate, too, the penalties awarded to other crimes—gibbets, and holocausts, and sacks, and harpoons, and precipices—who would not think it better to receive his sentence in the courts of Pythagoras and Empedocles?  For even the wretches whom they will send into the bodies of asses and mules to be punished by drudgery and slavery, how will they congratulate themselves on the mild labour of the mill and the water-wheel, when they recollect the mines, and the convict-gangs, and the public works, and even the prisons and black-holes, terrible in their idle, do-nothing routine? Then, again, in the case of those who, after a course of integrity, have surrendered their life to the Judge, I likewise look for rewards, but I rather discover punishments. To be sure, it must be a handsome gain for good men to be restored to life in any animals whatsoever! Homer, so dreamt Ennius, remembered that he was once a peacock; however, I cannot for my part believe poets, even when wide awake. A peacock, no doubt, is a very pretty bird, pluming itself, at will, on its splendid feathers; but then its wings do not make amends for its voice, which is harsh and unpleasant; and there is nothing that poets like better than a good song. His transformation, therefore, into a peacock was to Homer a penalty, not an honour.  The world’s remuneration will bring him a much greater joy, when it lauds him as the father of the liberal sciences; and he will prefer the ornaments of his fame to the graces of his tail! But never mind! let poets migrate into peacocks, or into swans, if you like, especially as swans have a respectable voice: in what animal will you invest that righteous hero Æacus? In what beast will you clothe the chaste and excellent Dido?  What bird shall fall to the lot of Patience? what animal to the lot of Holiness? what fish to that of Innocence?  Now all creatures are the servants of man; all are his subjects, all his dependants. If by and by he is to become one of these creatures, he is by such a change debased and degraded, he to whom, for his virtues, images, statues, and titles are freely awarded as public honours and distinguished privileges, he to whom the senate and the people vote even sacrifices! Oh, what judicial sentences for gods to pronounce, as men’s recompense after death! They are more mendacious than any human judgments; they are contemptible as punishments, disgusting as rewards; such as the worst of men could never fear, nor the best desire; such indeed, as criminals will aspire to, rather than saints,—the former, that they may escape more speedily the world’s stern sentence,—the latter that they may more tardily incur it. How well, (forsooth), O ye philosophers do you teach us, and how usefully do you advise us, that after death rewards and punishments fall with lighter weight! whereas, if any judgment awaits souls at all, it ought rather to be supposed that it will be heavier at the conclusion of life than in the conduct1724

1724 In administratione.

thereof, since nothing is more complete than that which comes at the very last—nothing, moreover, is more complete than that which is especially divine. Accordingly, God’s judgment will be more full and complete, because it will be pronounced at the very last, in an eternal irrevocable sentence, both of punishment and of consolation, (on men whose) souls are not to transmigrate into beasts, but are to return into their own proper bodies. And all this once for all, and on “that day, too, of which the Father only knoweth;”1725

1725 Mark xiii. 32.

(only knoweth,) in order that by her trembling expectation faith may make full trial of her anxious sincerity, keeping her gaze ever fixed on that day, in her perpetual ignorance of it, daily fearing that for which she yet daily hopes.
Acts viii. 18–21. [Vol. I. pp. 171, 182, 193, 347.]

he applied his energies to the destruction of the truth, as if to console himself with revenge. Besides the support with which his own magic arts furnished him, he had recourse to imposture, and purchased a Tyrian woman of the name of Helen out of a brothel, with the same money which he had offered for the Holy Spirit,—a traffic worthy of the wretched man. He actually feigned himself to be the Supreme Father, and further pretended that the woman was his own primary conception, wherewith he had purposed the creation of the angels and the archangels; that after she was possessed of this purpose she sprang forth from the Father and descended to the lower spaces, and there anticipating the Father’s design had produced the angelic powers, which knew nothing of the Father, the Creator of this world; that she was detained a prisoner by these from a (rebellious) motive very like her own, lest after her departure from them they should appear to be the offspring of another being; and that, after being on this account exposed to every insult, to prevent her leaving them anywhere after her dishonour, she was degraded even to the form of man, to be confined, as it were, in the bonds of the flesh. Having during many ages wallowed about in one female shape and another, she became the notorious Helen who was so ruinous to Priam, and afterwards to the eyes of Stesichorus, whom, she blinded in revenge for his lampoons, and then restored to sight to reward him for his eulogies. After wandering about in this way from body to body, she, in her final disgrace, turned out a viler Helen still as a professional prostitute. This wench, therefore, was the lost sheep, upon whom the Supreme Father, even Simon, descended, who, after he had recovered her and brought her back—whether on his shoulders or loins I cannot tell—cast an eye on the salvation of man, in order to gratify his spleen by liberating them from the angelic powers. Moreover, to deceive these he also himself assumed a visible shape; and feigning the appearance of a man amongst men, he acted the part of the Son in Judea, and of the Father in Samaria. O hapless Helen, what a hard fate is yours between the poets and the heretics, who have blackened your fame sometimes with adultery, sometimes with prostitution!  Only her rescue from Troy is a more glorious affair than her extrication from the brothel. There were a thousand ships to remove her from Troy; a thousand pence were probably more than enough to withdraw her from the stews. Fie on you, Simon, to be so tardy in seeking her out, and so inconstant in ransoming her! How different from Menelaus! As soon as he has lost her, he goes in pursuit of her; she is no sooner ravished than he begins his search; after a ten years’ conflict he boldly rescues her:  there is no lurking, no deceiving, no cavilling. I am really afraid that he was a much better “Father,” who laboured so much more vigilantly, bravely, and perseveringly, about the recovery of his Helen.
Matt. v. 26.

thrust out from time to time into the prison of the body. To this effect does he tamper with the whole of that allegory of the Lord which is extremely clear and simple in its meaning, and ought to be from the first understood in its plain and natural sense. Thus our “adversary” (therein mentioned1729

1729 Ver. 25.

) is the heathen man, who is walking with us along the same road of life which is common to him and ourselves. Now “we must needs go out of the world,”1730

1730 1 Cor. v. 10.

if it be not allowed us to have conversation with them. He bids us, therefore, show a kindly disposition to such a man. “Love your enemies,” says He, “pray for them that curse you,”1731

1731 Luke vi. 27.

lest such a man in any transaction of business be irritated by any unjust conduct of yours, and “deliver thee to the judge” of his own (nation1732

1732 Matt. v. 25.

), and you be thrown into prison, and be detained in its close and narrow cell until you have liquidated all your debt against him.1733

1733 Ver. 26.

Then, again, should you be disposed to apply the term “adversary” to the devil, you are advised by the (Lord’s) injunction, “while you are in the way with him,” to make even with him such a compact as may be deemed compatible with the requirements of your true faith. Now the compact you have made respecting him is to renounce him, and his pomp, and his angels. Such is your agreement in this matter. Now the friendly understanding you will have to carry out must arise from your observance of the compact: you must never think of getting back any of the things which you have abjured, and have restored to him, lest he should summon you as a fraudulent man, and a transgressor of your agreement, before God the Judge (for in this light do we read of him, in another passage, as “the accuser of the brethren,”1734

1734 Rev. xii. 10.

or saints, where reference is made to the actual practice of legal prosecution); and lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection.1735

1735 Morâ resurrectionis. For the force of this phrase, as apparently implying a doctrine of purgatory, and an explanation of Tertullian’s teaching on this point, see Bp. Kaye on Tertullian, pp. 328, 329. [See p. 59, supra.]

What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation? If, however, according to Carpocrates, the soul is bound to the commission of all sorts of crime and evil conduct, what must we from his system understand to be its “adversary” and foe? I suppose it must be that better mind which shall compel it by force to the performance of some act of virtue, that it may be driven from body to body, until it be found in none a debtor to the claims of a virtuous life. This means, that a good tree is known by its bad fruit—in other words, that the doctrine of truth is understood from the worst possible precepts.  I apprehend1736

1736 Spero.

that heretics of this school seize with especial avidity the example of Elias, whom they assume to have been so reproduced in John (the Baptist) as to make our Lord’s statement sponsor for their theory of transmigration, when He said, “Elias is come already, and they knew him not;”1737

1737 Matt. xvii. 12.

and again, in another passage, “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.”1738

1738 Matt. xi. 14.

Well, then, was it really in a Pythagorean sense that the Jews approached John with the inquiry, “Art thou Elias?”1739

1739 John i. 21.

and not rather in the sense of the divine prediction, “Behold, I will send you Elijah” the Tisbite?1740

1740 Mal. iv. 5.

The fact, however, is, that their metempsychosis, or transmigration theory, signifies the recall of the soul which had died long before, and its return to some other body. But Elias is to come again, not after quitting life (in the way of dying), but after his translation (or removal without dying); not for the purpose of being restored to the body, from which he had not departed, but for the purpose of revisiting the world from which he was translated; not by way of resuming a life which he had laid aside, but of fulfilling prophecy,—really and truly the same man, both in respect of his name and designation, as well as of his unchanged humanity. How, therefore could John be Elias? You have your answer in the angel’s announcement: “And he shall go before the people,” says he, “in the spirit and power of Elias”—not (observe) in his soul and his body. These substances are, in fact, the natural property of each individual; whilst “the spirit and power” are bestowed as external gifts by the grace of God and so may be transferred to another person according to the purpose and will of the Almighty, as was anciently the case with respect to the spirit of Moses.1741

1741 Num. xii. 2.


Beyond the hebdomad comes the resurrection, on which see Matt. xxii. 30.

We have already demonstrated the conjunction of the body and the soul, from the concretion of their very seminations to the complete formation of the fœtus. We now maintain their conjunction likewise from the birth onwards; in the first place, because they both grow together, only each in a different manner suited to the diversity of their nature—the flesh in magnitude, the soul in intelligence—the flesh in material condition, the soul in sensibility. We are, however, forbidden to suppose that the soul increases in substance, lest it should be said also to be capable of diminution in substance, and so its extinction even should be believed to be possible; but its inherent power, in which are contained all its natural peculiarities, as originally implanted in its being, is gradually developed along with the flesh, without impairing the germinal basis of the substance, which it received when breathed at first into man. Take a certain quantity of gold or of silver—a rough mass as yet: it has indeed a compact condition, and one that is more compressed at the moment than it will be; yet it contains within its contour what is throughout a mass of gold or of silver. When this mass is afterwards extended by beating it into leaf, it becomes larger than it was before by the elongation of the original mass, but not by any addition thereto, because it is extended in space, not increased in bulk; although in a way it is even increased when it is extended: for it may be increased in form, but not in state.  Then, again, the sheen of the gold or the silver, which when the metal was any in block was inherent in it no doubt really, but yet only obscurely, shines out in developed lustre.  Afterwards various modifications of shape accrue, according to the feasibility in the material which makes it yield to the manipulation of the artisan, who yet adds nothing to the condition of the mass but its configuration. In like manner, the growth and developments of the soul are to be estimated, not as enlarging its substance, but as calling forth its powers.
Gen. ii. 16.

and then again to the generation which followed next after the flood He enlarged the grant: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; behold, as the green herb have I given you all these things,”1750

1750 Gen. ix. 3.

—where He has regard rather to the body than to the soul, although it be in the interest of the soul also. For we must remove all occasion from the caviller, who, because the soul apparently wants ailments, would insist on the soul’s being from this circumstance deemed mortal, since it is sustained by meat and drink and after a time loses its rigour when they are withheld, and on their complete removal ultimately droops and dies. Now the point we must keep in view is not merely which particular faculty it is which desires these (aliments), but also for what end; and even if it be for its own sake, still the question remains, Why this desire, and when felt, and how long? Then again there is the consideration, that it is one thing to desire by natural instinct, and another thing to desire through necessity; one thing to desire as a property of being, another thing to desire for a special object. The soul, therefore, will desire meat and drink—for itself indeed, because of a special necessity; for the flesh, however, from the nature of its properties. For the flesh is no doubt the house of the soul, and the soul is the temporary inhabitant of the flesh. The desire, then, of the lodger will arise from the temporary cause and the special necessity which his very designation suggests,—with a view to benefit and improve the place of his temporary abode, while sojourning in it; not with the view, certainly, of being himself the foundation of the house, or himself its walls, or himself its support and roof, but simply and solely with the view of being accommodated and housed, since he could not receive such accommodation except in a sound and well-built house. (Now, applying this imagery to the soul,) if it be not provided with this accommodation, it will not be in its power to quit its dwelling-place, and for want of fit and proper resources, to depart safe and sound, in possession, too, of its own supports, and the aliments which belong to its own proper condition,—namely immortality, rationality, sensibility, intelligence, and freedom of the will.
1 Cor. vii. 14.

and this as much by the prerogative of the (Christian) seed as by the discipline of the institution (by baptism, and Christian education). “Else,” says he, “were the children unclean” by birth:1753

1753 1 Cor. vii. 14.

as if he meant us to understand that the children of believers were designed for holiness, and thereby for salvation; in order that he might by the pledge of such a hope give his support to matrimony, which he had determined to maintain in its integrity. Besides, he had certainly not forgotten what the Lord had so definitively stated:  “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God;”1754

1754 John iii. 5.

in other words, he cannot be holy.
Rom. vi. 4.

and because unclean, it is actively sinful, and suffuses even the flesh (by reason of their conjunction) with its own shame. Now although the flesh is sinful, and we are forbidden to walk in accordance with it,1756

1756 Gal. v. 16.

and its works are condemned as lusting against the spirit,1757

1757 Ver. 17.

and men on its account are censured as carnal,1758

1758 Rom. viii. 5.

yet the flesh has not such ignominy on its own account. For it is not of itself that it thinks anything or feels anything for the purpose of advising or commanding sin. How should it, indeed? It is only a ministering thing, and its ministration is not like that of a servant or familiar friend—animated and human beings; but rather that of a vessel, or something of that kind: it is body, not soul. Now a cup may minister to a thirsty man; and yet, if the thirsty man will not apply the cup to his mouth, the cup will yield no ministering service. Therefore the differentia, or distinguishing property, of man by no means lies in his earthy element; nor is the flesh the human person, as being some faculty of his soul, and a personal quality; but it is a thing of quite a different substance and different condition, although annexed to the soul as a chattel or as an instrument for the offices of life. Accordingly the flesh is blamed in the Scriptures, because nothing is done by the soul without the flesh in operations of concupiscence, appetite, drunkenness, cruelty, idolatry, and other works of the flesh,—operations, I mean, which are not confined to sensations, but result in effects. The emotions of sin, indeed, when not resulting in effects, are usually imputed to the soul: “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after, hath already in his heart committed adultery with her.”1759

1759 Matt. v. 28.

But what has the flesh alone, without the soul, ever done in operations of virtue, righteousness, endurance, or chastity? What absurdity, however, it is to attribute sin and crime to that substance to which you do not assign any good actions or character of its own!  Now the party which aids in the commission of a crime is brought to trial, only in such a way that the principal offender who actually committed the crime may bear the weight of the penalty, although the abettor too does not escape indictment. Greater is the odium which falls on the principal, when his officials are punished through his fault. He is beaten with more stripes who instigates and orders the crime, whilst at the same time he who obeys such an evil command is not acquitted.
Gen. ii. 21.

If you receive your instruction from God, (you will find) that the fountain of the human race, Adam, had a taste of drowsiness before having a draught of repose; slept before he laboured, or even before he ate, nay, even before he spoke; in order that men may see that sleep is a natural feature and function, and one which has actually precedence over all the natural faculties. From this primary instance also we are led to trace even then the image of death in sleep. For as Adam was a figure of Christ, Adam’s sleep shadowed out the death of Christ, who was to sleep a mortal slumber, that from the wound inflicted on His side might, in like manner (as Eve was formed), be typified the church, the true mother of the living. This is why sleep is so salutary, so rational, and is actually formed into the model of that death which is general and common to the race of man.  God, indeed, has willed (and it may be said in passing that He has, generally, in His dispensations brought nothing to pass without such types and shadows) to set before us, in a manner more fully and completely than Plato’s example, by daily recurrence the outlines of man’s state, especially concerning the beginning and the termination thereof; thus stretching out the hand to help our faith more readily by types and parables, not in words only, but also in things. He accordingly sets before your view the human body stricken by the friendly power of slumber, prostrated by the kindly necessity of repose immoveable in position, just as it lay previous to life, and just as it will lie after life is past: there it lies as an attestation of its form when first moulded, and of its condition when at last buried—awaiting the soul in both stages, in the former previous to its bestowal, in the latter after its recent withdrawal. Meanwhile the soul is circumstanced in such a manner as to seem to be elsewhere active, learning to bear future absence by a dissembling of its presence for the moment. We shall soon know the case of Hermotimus. But yet it dreams in the interval. Whence then its dreams? The fact is, it cannot rest or be idle altogether, nor does it confine to the still hours of sleep the nature of its immortality. It proves itself to possess a constant motion; it travels over land and sea, it trades, it is excited, it labours, it plays, it grieves, it rejoices, it follows pursuits lawful and unlawful; it shows what very great power it has even without the body, how well equipped it is with members of its own, although betraying at the same time the need it has of impressing on some body its activity again. Accordingly, when the body shakes off its slumber, it asserts before your eye the resurrection of the dead by its own resumption of its natural functions.  Such, therefore, must be both the natural reason and the reasonable nature of sleep. If you only regard it as the image of death, you initiate faith, you nourish hope, you learn both how to die and how to live, you learn watchfulness, even while you sleep.
Gen. ii. 21.

The sleep came on his body to cause it to rest, but the ecstasy fell on his soul to remove rest: from that very circumstance it still happens ordinarily (and from the order results the nature of the case) that sleep is combined with ecstasy. In fact, with what real feeling, and anxiety, and suffering do we experience joy, and sorrow, and alarm in our dreams! Whereas we should not be moved by any such emotions, by what would be the merest fantasies of course, if when we dream we were masters of ourselves, (unaffected by ecstasy.) In these dreams, indeed, good actions are useless, and crimes harmless; for we shall no more be condemned for visionary acts of sin, than we shall be crowned for imaginary martyrdom. But how, you will ask, can the soul remember its dreams, when it is said to be without any mastery over its own operations? This memory must be an especial gift of the ecstatic condition of which we are treating, since it arises not from any failure of healthy action, but entirely from natural process; nor does it expel mental function—it withdraws it for a time. It is one thing to shake, it is another thing to move; one thing to destroy, another thing to agitate. That, therefore, which memory supplies betokens soundness of mind; and that which a sound mind ecstatically experiences whilst the memory remains unchecked, is a kind of madness. We are accordingly not said to be mad, but to dream, in that state; to be in the full possession also of our mental faculties,1768

1768 Prudentes.

if we are at any time. For although the power to exercise these faculties1769

1769 Sapere.

may be dimmed in us, it is still not extinguished; except that it may seem to be itself absent at the very time that the ecstasy is energizing in us in its special manner, in such wise as to bring before us images of a sound mind and of wisdom, even as it does those of aberration.
Joel iii. 1.

—must all those visions be regarded as emanating, which may be compared to the actual grace of God, as being honest, holy, prophetic, inspired, instructive, inviting to virtue, the bountiful nature of which causes them to overflow even to the profane, since God, with grand impartiality, “sends His showers and sunshine on the just and on the unjust.”1774

1774 Matt. v. 45.

It was, indeed by an inspiration from God that Nebuchadnezzar dreamt his dreams;1775

1775 Dan. ii. 1, etc.

and almost the greater part of mankind get their knowledge of God from dreams. Thus it is that, as the mercy of God super-abounds to the heathen, so the temptation of the evil one encounters the saints, from whom he never withdraws his malignant efforts to steal over them as best he may in their very sleep, if unable to assault them when they are awake. The third class of dreams will consist of those which the soul itself apparently creates for itself from an intense application to special circumstances. Now, inasmuch as the soul cannot dream of its own accord (for even Epicharmus is of this opinion), how can it become to itself the cause of any vision? Then must this class of dreams be abandoned to the action of nature, reserving for the soul, even when in the ecstatic condition, the power of enduring whatever incidents befall it? Those, moreover, which evidently proceed neither from God, nor from diabolical inspiration, nor from the soul, being beyond the reach as well of ordinary expectation, usual interpretation, or the possibility of being intelligibly related, will have to be ascribed in a separate category to what is purely and simply the ecstatic state and its peculiar conditions.
Dan. i. 8–14

received from God, besides other wisdom, the gift especially of penetrating and explaining the sense of dreams. For my own part, I hardly know whether fasting would not simply make me dream so profoundly, that I should not be aware whether I had in fact dreamt at all. Well, then, you ask, has not sobriety something to do in this matter?  Certainly it is as much concerned in this as it is in the entire subject: if it contributes some good service to superstition, much more does it to religion. For even demons require such discipline from their dreamers as a gratification to their divinity, because they know that it is acceptable to God, since Daniel (to quote him again) “ate no pleasant bread” for the space of three weeks.1779

1779 Dan. x. 2.

This abstinence, however, he used in order to please God by humiliation, and not for the purpose of producing a sensibility and wisdom for his soul previous to receiving communication by dreams and visions, as if it were not rather to effect such action in an ecstatic state. This sobriety, then, (in which our question arises,) will have nothing to do with exciting ecstasy, but will rather serve to recommend its being wrought by God. Gen. ii. 17. [Not ex natura, but as penalty.]

such is the contract with everything which is born: so that even from this the frigid conceit of Epicurus is refuted, who says that no such debt is due from us; and not only so, but the insane opinion of the Samaritan heretic Menander is also rejected, who will have it that death has not only nothing to do with his disciples, but in fact never reaches them. He pretends to have received such a commission from the secret power of One above, that all who partake of his baptism become immortal, incorruptible and instantaneously invested with resurrection-life. We read, no doubt, of very many wonderful kinds of waters: how, for instance, the vinous quality of the stream intoxicates people who drink of the Lyncestis; how at Colophon the waters of an oracle-inspiring fountain1783

1783 Scaturigo dæmonica.

affect men with madness; how Alexander was killed by the poisonous water from Mount Nonacris in Arcadia. Then, again, there was in Judea before the time of Christ a pool of medicinal virtue. It is well known how the poet has commemorated the marshy Styx as preserving men from death; although Thetis had, in spite of the preservative, to lament her son. And for the matter of that, were Menander himself to take a plunge into this famous Styx, he would certainly have to die after all; for you must come to the Styx, placed as it is by all accounts in the regions of the dead. Well, but what and where are those blessed and charming waters which not even John Baptist ever used in his preministrations, nor Christ after him ever revealed to His disciples? What was this wondrous bath of Menander? He is a comical fellow, I ween.1784

1784 It is difficult to say what Tertullian means by his “comicum credo.” Is it a playful parody on the heretic’s name, the same as the comic poet’s (Menander)?

But why (was such a font) so seldom in request, so obscure, one to which so very few ever resorted for their cleansing? I really see something to suspect in so rare an occurrence of a sacrament to which is attached so very much security and safety, and which dispenses with the ordinary law of dying even in the service of God Himself, when, on the contrary, all nations have “to ascend to the mount of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob,” who demands of His saints in martyrdom that death which He exacted even of His Christ. No one will ascribe to magic such influence as shall exempt from death, or which shall refresh and vivify life, like the vine by the renewal of its condition. Such power was not accorded to the great Medea herself—over a human being at any rate, if allowed her over a silly sheep. Enoch no doubt was translated,1785

1785 Gen. v. 24; Heb. xi. 5.

and so was Elijah;1786

1786 2 Kings ii. 11.

nor did they experience death: it was postponed, (and only postponed,) most certainly: they are reserved for the suffering of death, that by their blood they may extinguish Antichrist.1787

1787 Rev. xi. 3.

Even John underwent death, although concerning him there had prevailed an ungrounded expectation that he would remain alive until the coming of the Lord.1788

1788 John xxi. 23.

Heresies, indeed, for the most part spring hurriedly into existence, from examples furnished by ourselves: they procure their defensive armour from the very place which they attack. The whole question resolves itself, in short, into this challenge: Where are to be found the men whom Menander himself has baptized? whom he has plunged into his Styx? Let them come forth and stand before us—those apostles of his whom he has made immortal?  Let my (doubting) Thomas see them, let him hear them, let him handle them—and he is convinced.
1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16.

because it is in Christ. Still, (as must be admitted,) by reason of its enclosure it obstructs and obscures the soul, and sullies it by the concretion of the flesh; whence it happens that the light which illumines objects comes in upon the soul in a more confused manner, as if through a window of horn. Undoubtedly, when the soul, by the power of death, is released from its concretion with the flesh, it is by the very release cleansed and purified: it is, moreover, certain that it escapes from the veil of the flesh into open space, to its clear, and pure, and intrinsic light; and then finds itself enjoying its enfranchisement from matter, and by virtue of its liberty it recovers its divinity, as one who awakes out of sleep passes from images to verities. Then it tells out what it sees; then it exults or it fears, according as it finds what lodging is prepared for it, as soon as it sees the very angel’s face, that arraigner of souls, the Mercury of the poets.
Matt. xii. 40.

that is, in the secret inner recess which is hidden in the earth, and enclosed by the earth, and superimposed on the abysmal depths which lie still lower down. Now although Christ is God, yet, being also man, “He died according to the Scriptures,”1800

1800 1 Cor. xv. 3.

and “according to the same Scriptures was buried.”1801

1801 Ver. 4.

With the same law of His being He fully complied, by remaining in Hades in the form and condition of a dead man; nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself.1802

1802 1 Pet. iii. 19.

(This being the case), you must suppose Hades to be a subterranean region, and keep at arm’s length those who are too proud to believe that the souls of the faithful deserve a place in the lower regions.1803

1803 See Irenæus, adv. Hæres. v. [Vol. I. p. 566, this Series.]

These persons, who are “servants above their Lord, and disciples above their Master,”1804

1804 Matt. x. 24.

would no doubt spurn to receive the comfort of the resurrection, if they must expect it in Abraham’s bosom. But it was for this purpose, say they, that Christ descended into hell, that we might not ourselves have to descend thither. Well, then, what difference is there between heathens and Christians, if the same prison awaits them all when dead? How, indeed, shall the soul mount up to heaven, where Christ is already sitting at the Father’s right hand, when as yet the archangel’s trumpet has not been heard by the command of God,1805

1805 1 Cor. xv. 52 and 1 Thess. iv. 16.

—when as yet those whom the coming of the Lord is to find on the earth, have not been caught up into the air to meet Him at His coming,1806

1806 1 Thess. iv. 17.

in company with the dead in Christ, who shall be the first to arise?1807

1807 Ver. 16.

To no one is heaven opened; the earth is still safe for him, I would not say it is shut against him. When the world, indeed, shall pass away, then the kingdom of heaven shall be opened.  Shall we then have to sleep high up in ether, with the boy-loving worthies of Plato; or in the air with Arius; or around the moon with the Endymions of the Stoics? No, but in Paradise, you tell me, whither already the patriarchs and prophets have removed from Hades in the retinue of the Lord’s resurrection. How is it, then, that the region of Paradise, which as revealed to John in the Spirit lay under the altar,1808

1808 Rev. vi. 9.

displays no other souls as in it besides the souls of the martyrs? How is it that the most heroic martyr Perpetua on the day of her passion saw only her fellow-martyrs there, in the revelation which she received of Paradise, if it were not that the sword which guarded the entrance permitted none to go in thereat, except those who had died in Christ and not in Adam? A new death for God, even the extraordinary one for Christ, is admitted into the reception-room of mortality, specially altered and adapted to receive the new-comer. Observe, then, the difference between a heathen and a Christian in their death: if you have to lay down your life for God, as the Comforter1809

1809 Paracletus.

counsels, it is not in gentle fevers and on soft beds, but in the sharp pains of martyrdom: you must take up the cross and bear it after your Master, as He has Himself instructed you.1810

1810 Matt. xvi. 24.

The sole key to unlock Paradise is your own life’s blood.1811

1811 The souls of the martyrs were, according to Tertullian, at once removed to Paradise (Bp. Kaye, p. 249).

You have a treatise by us,1812

1812 De Paradiso.  [Compare, p. 216, note 9, supra.]

(on Paradise), in which we have established the position that every soul is detained in safe keeping in Hades until the day of the Lord.
Ex. vii. 12.

Many attempts were also wrought against the apostles by the sorcerers Simon and Elymas,1824

1824 Acts viii. 9; xiii. 8.

but the blindness which struck (them) was no enchanter’s trick. What novelty is there in the effort of an unclean spirit to counterfeit the truth?  At this very time, even, the heretical dupes of this same Simon (Magus) are so much elated by the extravagant pretensions of their art, that they undertake to bring up from Hades the souls of the prophets themselves. And I suppose that they can do so under cover of a lying wonder. For, indeed, it was no less than this that was anciently permitted to the Pythonic (or ventriloquistic) spirit1825

1825 See above in ch. xxviii. p. 209, supra.

—even to represent the soul of Samuel, when Saul consulted the dead, after (losing the living) God.1826

1826 1 Sam. xxviii. 6–16.

God forbid, however, that we should suppose that the soul of any saint, much less of a prophet, can be dragged out of (its resting-place in Hades) by a demon. We know that “Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light”1827

1827 2 Cor. xi. 14.

—much more into a man of light—and that at last he will “show himself to be even God,”1828

1828 2 Thess. ii. 4.

and will exhibit “great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, he shall deceive the very elect.”1829

1829 Matt. xxiv. 24.

He hardly1830

1830 Si forte.

hesitated on the before-mentioned occasion to affirm himself to be a prophet of God, and especially to Saul, in whom he was then actually dwelling. You must not imagine that he who produced the phantom was one, and he who consulted it was another; but that it was one and the same spirit, both in the sorceress and in the apostate (king), which easily pretended an apparition of that which it had already prepared them to believe as real—(even the spirit) through whose evil influence Saul’s heart was fixed where his treasure was, and where certainly God was not. Therefore it came about, that he saw him through whose aid he believed that he was going to see, because he believed him through whose help he saw. But we are met with the objection, that in visions of the night dead persons are not unfrequently seen, and that for a set purpose.1831

1831 Non frustra.

For instance, the Nasamones consult private oracles by frequent and lengthened visits to the sepulchres of their relatives, as one may find in Heraclides, or Nymphodorus, or Herodotus;1832

1832 In iv. 172.

and the Celts, for the same purpose, stay away all night at the tombs of their brave chieftains, as Nicander affirms.  Well, we admit apparitions of dead persons in dreams to be not more really true than those of living persons; but we apply the same estimate to all alike—to the dead and to the living, and indeed to all the phenomena which are seen. Now things are not true because they appear to be so, but because they are fully proved to be so. The truth of dreams is declared from the realization, not the aspect. Moreover, the fact that Hades is not in any case opened for (the escape of) any soul, has been firmly established by the Lord in the person of Abraham, in His representation of the poor man at rest and the rich man in torment.1833

1833 Luke xvi. 26. [Compare note 15, p. 231. supra.]

No one, (he said,) could possibly be despatched from those abodes to report to us how matters went in the nether regions,—a purpose which, (if any could be,) might have been allowable on such an occasion, to persuade a belief in Moses and the prophets. The power of God has, no doubt, sometimes recalled men’s souls to their bodies, as a proof of His own transcendent rights; but there must never be, because of this fact, any agreement supposed to be possible between the divine faith and the arrogant pretensions of sorcerers, and the imposture of dreams, and the licence of poets. But yet in all cases of a true resurrection, when the power of God recalls souls to their bodies, either by the agency of prophets, or of Christ, or of apostles, a complete presumption is afforded us, by the solid, palpable, and ascertained reality (of the revived body), that its true form must be such as to compel one’s belief of the fraudulence of every incorporeal apparition of dead persons.
Matt. v. 28.

Therefore, even for this cause it is most fitting that the soul, without at all waiting for the flesh, should be punished for what it has done without the partnership of the flesh. So, on the same principle, in return for the pious and kindly thoughts in which it shared not the help of the flesh, shall it without the flesh receive its consolation.  Nay more,1840

1840 Quid nunc si.

even in matters done through the flesh the soul is the first to conceive them, the first to arrange them, the first to authorize them, the first to precipitate them into acts. And even if it is sometimes unwilling to act, it is still the first to treat the object which it means to effect by help of the body.  In no case, indeed, can an accomplished fact be prior to the mental conception1841

1841 Conscientia.

thereof. It is therefore quite in keeping with this order of things, that that part of our nature should be the first to have the recompense and reward to which they are due on account of its priority. In short, inasmuch as we understand “the prison” pointed out in the Gospel to be Hades,1842

1842 Matt. v. 25.

and as we also interpret “the uttermost farthing”1843

1843 Ver. 26.

to mean the very smallest offence which has to be recompensed there before the resurrection,1844

1844 Morâ resurrectionis. See above, on this opinion of Tertullian, in ch. xxxv.

no one will hesitate to believe that the soul undergoes in Hades some compensatory discipline, without prejudice to the full process of the resurrection, when the recompense will be administered through the flesh besides. This point the Paraclete has also pressed home on our attention in most frequent admonitions, whenever any of us has admitted the force of His words from a knowledge of His promised spiritual disclosures.1845

1845 [A symptom of Montanism.]

And now at last having, as I believe, encountered every human opinion concerning the soul, and tried its character by the teaching of (our holy faith,) we have satisfied the curiosity which is simply a reasonable and necessary one.  As for that which is extravagant and idle, there will evermore be as great a defect in its information, as there has been exaggeration and self-will in its researches. Chapter I.—Introductory. Heresies Must Exist, and Even Abound; They are a Probation to Faith.

The character of the times in which we live is such as to call forth from us even this admonition, that we ought not to be astonished at the heresies (which abound)1851

1851 Istas.

neither ought their existence to surprise us, for it was foretold that they should come to pass;1852

1852 Bible:1Tim.4.1-1Tim.4.3 Bible:2Pet.2.1">Matt. vii. 15; xxiv. 4, 11, 24; 1 Tim. iv. 1–3; 2 Pet. ii. 1.

nor the fact that they subvert the faith of some, for their final cause is, by affording a trial to faith, to give it also the opportunity of being “approved.”1853

1853 1 Cor. xi. 19.

Groundless, therefore, and inconsiderate is the offence of the many1854

1854 Plerique, “the majority.”

who are scandalized by the very fact that heresies prevail to such a degree. How great (might their offence have been) if they had not existed.1855

1855 The Holy Ghost having foretold that they should exist.  (Rigalt.)

When it has been determined that a thing must by all means be, it receives the (final) cause for which it has its being. This secures the power through which it exists, in such a way that it is impossible for it not to have existence.
1 Sam. xviii. 8, 9.

David, a good man “after the Lord’s own heart,”1861

1861 1 Sam. xiii. 14.

is guilty afterwards of murder and adultery.1862

1862 2 Sam. xi.

Solomon, endowed by the Lord with all grace and wisdom, is led into idolatry, by women.1863

1863 1 Kings xi. 4.

For to the Son of God alone was it reserved to persevere to the last without sin.1864

1864 Heb. iv. 15. [See p. 221, supra.]

But what if a bishop, if a deacon, if a widow, if a virgin, if a doctor, if even a martyr,1865

1865 [Here the word martyr means no more than a witness or confessor, and may account for what are called exaggerated statements as to the number of primitive martyrs. See Kaye p. 128.]

have fallen from the rule (of faith), will heresies on that account appear to possess1866

1866 Obtinere.

the truth? Do we prove the faith1867

1867 Fidem, “The Creed.”

by the persons, or the persons by the faith?  No one is wise, no one is faithful, no one excels in dignity,1868

1868 Major.

but the Christian; and no one is a Christian but he who perseveres even to the end.1869

1869 Matt. x. 22.

You, as a man, know any other man from the outside appearance. You think as you see. And you see as far only as you have eyes. But says (the Scripture), “the eyes of the Lord are lofty.”1870

1870 Jer. xxxii. 19.

“Man looketh at the outward appearance, but God looketh at the heart.”1871

1871 1 Sam. xvi. 7.

“The Lord (beholdeth and) knoweth them that are His;”1872

1872 2 Tim. ii. 19.

and “the plant which (my heavenly Father) hath not planted, He rooteth up;”1873

1873 Matt. xv. 13.

and “the first shall,” as He shows, “be last;”1874

1874 Matt. xx. 16.

and He carries “His fan in His hand to purge His threshing-floor.”1875

1875 Matt. iii. 12.

Let the chaff of a fickle faith fly off as much as it will at every blast of temptation, all the purer will be that heap of corn which shall be laid up in the garner of the Lord. Did not certain of the disciples turn back from the Lord Himself,1876

1876 John vi. 66.

when they were offended? Yet the rest did not therefore think that they must turn away from following Him,1877

1877 A vestigiis ejus.

but because they knew that He was the Word of Life, and was come from God,1878

1878 John i. 1; vi. 68, and xvi. 30.

they continued in His company to the very last, after He had gently inquired of them whether they also would go away.1879

1879 John vi. 67.

It is a comparatively small thing,1880

1880 Minus.

that certain men, like Phygellus, and Hermogenes, and Philetus, and Hymenæus, deserted His apostle:1881

1881 2 Tim. i. 15; ii. 17; 1 Tim. i. 20.

the betrayer of Christ was himself one of the apostles. We are surprised at seeing His churches forsaken by some men, although the things which we suffer after the example of Christ Himself, show us to be Christians. “They went out from us,” says (St. John,) “but they were not of us. If they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.”1882

1882 1 John ii. 19. [i.e., with the Apostolic Churches. See Cap. xx, infra.]


Matt. vii. 15.

Now, what are these sheep’s clothing’s, but the external surface of the Christian profession? Who are the ravening wolves but those deceitful senses and spirits which are lurking within to waste the flock of Christ? Who are the false prophets but deceptive predictors of the future? Who are the false apostles but the preachers of a spurious gospel?1884

1884 Adulteri evangelizatores, the spurious preachers of the gospel. [Galat. i. 8, 9, an example of Apostolic præscription.]

Who also are the Antichrists, both now and evermore, but the men who rebel against Christ?1885

1885 Hoc scil. “tempore.”

Heresies, at the present time, will no less rend the church by their perversion of doctrine, than will Antichrist persecute her at that day by the cruelty of his attacks,1886

1886 Oehler’s “persecutionem” ought of course to be “persecutionum.”

except that persecution make seven martyrs, (but) heresy only apostates. And therefore “heresies must needs be in order that they which are approved might be made manifest,”1887

1887 1 Cor. xi. 19.

both those who remained stedfast under persecution, and those who did not wander out of their way1888

1888 Exorbitaverint.

into heresy. For the apostle does not mean1889

1889 Juvat.

that those persons should be deemed approved who exchange their creed for heresy; although they contrariously interpret his words to their own side, when he says in another passage, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good;”1890

1890 1 Thess. v. 21. [But Truth is to be demonstrated as a theorem, not treated as a problem of which we must seek the solution.]

as if, after proving all things amiss, one might not through error make a determined choice of some evil thing.
1 Cor. xi. 19.

For he shows us that it was owing to the prospect of the greater evil that he readily believed the existence of the lighter ones; and so far indeed was he from believing, in respect of evils (of such a kind), that heresies were good, that his object was to forewarn us that we ought not to be surprised at temptations of even a worse stamp, since (he said) they tended “to make manifest all such as were approved;”1892

1892 1 Cor. xi. 18.

in other words, those whom they were unable to pervert.1893

1893 Depravare.

In short, since the whole passage1894

1894 Capitulum.

points to the maintenance of unity and the checking of divisions, inasmuch as heresies sever men from unity no less than schisms and dissensions, no doubt he classes heresies under the same head of censure as he does schisms also and dissensions. And by so doing, he makes those to be “not approved,” who have fallen into heresies; more especially when with reproofs he exhorts1895

1895 Objurget.

men to turn away from such, teaching them that they should “all speak and think the selfsame thing,”1896

1896 1 Cor. i. 10.

the very object which heresies do not permit.
Gal. v. 20.

who also intimates to Titus, that “a man who is a heretic” must be “rejected after the first admonition,” on the ground that “he that is such is perverted, and committeth sin, as a self-condemned man.”1898

1898 Tit. iii. 10, 11.

Indeed, in almost every epistle, when enjoining on us (the duty) of avoiding false doctrines, he sharply condemns1899

1899 Taxat.

heresies. Of these the practical effects1900

1900 Opera.

are false doctrines, called in Greek heresies,1901

1901 Αἱρέσεις .

a word used in the sense of that choice which a man makes when he either teaches them (to others)1902

1902 Instituendas.

or takes up with them (for himself).1903

1903 Suscipiendas.

For this reason it is that he calls the heretic self-condemned,1904

1904 [A remarkable word is subjoined by the Apostle (ἐξέστραπται) which signifies turned inside out, and so self-condemned, as exhibiting his inward contentiousness and pravity.

because he has himself chosen that for which he is condemned. We, however, are not permitted to cherish any object1905

1905 Nihil, any doctrine.

after our own will, nor yet to make choice of that which another has introduced of his private fancy. In the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine1906

1906 Disciplinam, including both the principles and practice of the Christian religion.

which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even “an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel” (than theirs), he would be called accursed1907

1907 Anathema. See Gal. i. 8.

by us. The Holy Ghost had even then foreseen that there would be in a certain virgin (called) Philumene1908

1908 Concerning Philumene, see below, chap. xxv.; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 13; Augustine, de Hæres, chap. xlii. ; Jerome, Epist. adv. Ctesiph. (Works, ed. Ben.) iv. 477, and in his Commentary on Galatians, ii. See also Tertullian, Against Marcion, p. 139, Edinb. Edition.

an angel of deceit, “transformed into an angel of light,”1909

1909 2 Cor. xi. 14.

by whose miracles and illusions1910

1910 Præstigiis.

Apelles was led (when) he introduced his new heresy.
1 Tim. iv. 1.

produced for itching ears of the spirit of this world’s wisdom: this the Lord called “foolishness,”1912

1912 1 Cor. iii. 18 and 25.

and “chose the foolish things of the world” to confound even philosophy itself. For (philosophy) it is which is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and the dispensation of God. Indeed1913

1913 Denique.

heresies are themselves instigated1914

1914 Subornantur.

by philosophy. From this source came the Æons, and I known not what infinite forms,1915

1915 Formeæ, “Ideæ” (Oehler).

and the trinity of man1916

1916 See Tertullian’s treatises, adversus Valentinum, xxv., and de Anima, xxi.; also Epiphanius, Hær. xxxi . 23.

in the system of Valentinus, who was of Plato’s school. From the same source came Marcion’s better god, with all his tranquillity; he came of the Stoics. Then, again, the opinion that the soul dies is held by the Epicureans; while the denial of the restoration of the body is taken from the aggregate school of all the philosophers; also, when matter is made equal to God, then you have the teaching of Zeno; and when any doctrine is alleged touching a god of fire, then Heraclitus comes in. The same subject-matter is discussed over and over again1917

1917 Volutatur.

by the heretics and the philosophers; the same arguments1918

1918 Retractatus.

are involved. Whence comes evil? Why is it permitted? What is the origin of man? and in what way does he come? Besides the question which Valentinus has very lately proposed—Whence comes God? Which he settles with the answer: From enthymesis and ectroma.1919

1919 “De enthymesi;” for this word Tertullian gives animationem (in his tract against Valentinus, ix.), which seems to mean, “the mind in operation.” (See the same treatise, x. xi.) With regard to the other word, Jerome (on Amos. iii.) adduces Valentinus as calling Christ ἔκτρωμα, that is, abortion.

Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions,1920

1920 Sententiis.

so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions—embarrassing1921

1921 Molestam.

even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of1922

1922 Tractaverit, in the sense of conclusively settling.

nothing! Whence spring those “fables and endless genealogies,”1923

1923 1 Tim. i. 4.

and “unprofitable questions,”1924

1924 Tit. iii. 9.

and “words which spread like a cancer?”1925

1925 2 Tim. ii. 17.

From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, “See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost.”1926

1926 Col. ii. 8. The last clause, “præter providentiam Spiritus Sancti,” is either Tertullian’s reading, or his gloss of the apostle’s οὐ κατὰ Χριστόν—“not after Christ.”

He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from “the porch of Solomon,”1927

1927 Because in the beginning of the church the apostles taught in Solomon’s porch, Acts iii. 5.

who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.”1928

1928 Wisdom of Solomon, i. 1.

Away with1929

1929 Viderint.

all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.
Scrupulositatem, “hair-splitting.”

It is written, they say, “Seek, and ye shall find.”1932

1932 Matt. vii. 7.

Let us remember at what time the Lord said this. I think it was at the very outset of His teaching, when there was still a doubt felt by all whether He were the Christ, and when even Peter had not yet declared Him to be the Son of God, and John (Baptist) had actually ceased to feel assurance about Him.1933

1933 See our translation of the Anti-Marcion, iv. 18 (infra), and Tertullian’s treatise, de Bapt. x.

With good reason, therefore, was it then said, “Seek, and ye shall find,” when inquiry was still be to made of Him who was not yet become known. Besides, this was said in respect of the Jews. For it is to them that the whole matter1934

1934 Sermo.

of this reproof1935

1935 Suggillationis.

pertains, seeing that they had (a revelation) where they might seek Christ.

Luke xvi. 29.

—in other words, the law and the prophets, which preach Christ; as also in another place He says plainly, “Search the Scriptures, in which ye expect (to find) salvation; for they testify of me;”1937

1937 John v. 39.

which will be the meaning of “Seek, and ye shall find.” For it is clear that the next words also apply to the Jews: “Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”1938

1938 Matt. vii. 7.

The Jews had formerly been in covenant with1939

1939 Penes.

God; but being afterwards cast off on account of their sins, they began to be1940

1940 Or, “were for the first time.”

without God. The Gentiles, on the contrary, had never been in covenant with God; they were only as “a drop from a bucket,” and “as dust from the threshing floor,”1941

1941 Isa. xl. 15.

and were ever outside the door. Now, how shall he who was always outside knock at the place where he never was? What door does he know of, when he has passed through none, either by entrance or ejection?  Is it not rather he who is aware that he once lived within and was thrust out, that (probably) found the door and knocked thereat? In like manner, “Ask, and ye shall receive,”1942

1942 Matt. vii. 7.

is suitably said1943

1943 Competit.

to one who was aware from whom he ought to ask,—by whom also some promise had been given; that is to say, “the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.” Now, the Gentiles knew nothing either of Him, or of any of His promises. Therefore it was to Israel that he spake when He said, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”1944

1944 Matt. xv. 24.

Not yet had He “cast to the dogs the children’s bread;”1945

1945 Ver. 26.

not yet did He charge them to “go into the way of the Gentiles.”1946

1946 Matt. x. 5.

It is only at the last that He instructs them to “go and teach all nations, and baptize them,”1947

1947 Matt. xxviii. 19.

when they were so soon to receive “the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, who should guide them into all the truth.”1948

1948 John xvi. 13.

And this, too, makes towards the same conclusion. If the apostles, who were ordained1949

1949 Destinati.

to be teachers to the Gentiles, were themselves to have the Comforter for their teacher, far more needless1950

1950 Multo magis vacabat.

was it to say to us, “Seek, and ye shall find,” to whom was to come, without research,1951

1951 Ultro.

our instruction1952

1952 Doctrina.

by the apostles, and to the apostles themselves by the Holy Ghost. All the Lord’s sayings, indeed, are set forth for all men; through the ears of the Jews have they passed on to us. Still most of them were addressed to Jewish persons;1953

1953 In personas, i.e., Judæorum (Oehler).

they therefore did not constitute instruction properly designed1954

1954 Proprietatem admonitionis.

for ourselves, but rather an example.1955

1955 “That is, not a specific command” primarily meant for us, but a principle “to be applied by us” (Dodgson).


Sensus.

consistently with1960

1960 Cum.

(that reason),1961

1961 See Oehler’s note.

which is the guiding principle1962

1962 Gubernaculo. See Irenæus, ii. 46, for a similar view (Rigalt.). Surely Dodgson’s version, if intelligible in itself even, incorrectly represents Tertullian’s sense.

in all interpretation. (Now) no divine saying is so unconnected1963

1963 Dissoluta.

and diffuse, that its words only are to be insisted on, and their connection left undetermined. But at the outset I lay down (this position) that there is some one, and therefore definite, thing taught by Christ, which the Gentiles are by all means bound to believe, and for that purpose to “seek,” in order that they may be able, when they have “found” it, to believe. However,1964

1964 Porro.

there can be no indefinite seeking for that which has been taught as one only definite thing. You must “seek” until you “find,” and believe when you have found; nor have you anything further to do but to keep what you have believed provided you believe this besides, that nothing else is to be believed, and therefore nothing else is to be sought, after you have found and believed what has been taught by Him who charges you to seek no other thing than that which He has taught.1965

1965 [Not to be contented with Truth, once known, is a sin preceding that against the Holy Spirit, and this state of mind explains the judicial blindness inflicted on Lapsers, as asserted by St. Paul, 2 Thess. ii. 10; 13, where note—“they received not the love of the truth.” They had it and were not content with it.]

When, indeed, any man doubts about this, proof will be forthcoming,1966

1966 Constabit.

that we have in our possession1967

1967 Penes nos.

that which was taught by Christ.  Meanwhile, such is my confidence in our proof, that I anticipate it, in the shape of an admonition to certain persons, not “to seek” anything beyond what they have believed—that this is what they ought to have sought, how to avoid1968

1968 Ne.

interpreting, “Seek, and ye shall find,” without regard to the rule of reason.
“The limit.”

it. But you have succeeded in finding1973

1973 Invenisti.

when you have believed. For you would not have believed if you had not found; as neither would you have sought except with a view to find. Your object, therefore, in seeking was to find; and your object in finding was to believe. All further delay for seeking and finding you have prevented1974

1974 Fixisti, “determined.”

by believing. The very fruit of your seeking has determined for you this limit.  This boundary1975

1975 Fossam.

has He set for you Himself, who is unwilling that you should believe anything else than what He has taught, or, therefore, even seek for it. If, however, because so many other things have been taught by one and another, we are on that account bound to go on seeking, so long as we are able to find anything, we must (at that rate) be ever seeking, and never believe anything at all. For where shall be the end of seeking? where the stop1976

1976 Statio, “resting-place.”

in believing? where the completion in finding?  (Shall it be) with Marcion? But even Valentinus proposes (to us the) maxim, “Seek, and ye shall find.” (Then shall it be) with Valentinus? Well, but Apelles, too, will assail me with the same quotation; Hebion also, and Simon, and all in turn, have no other argument wherewithal to entice me, and draw me over to their side. Thus I shall be nowhere, and still be encountering1977

1977 Dum convenero.

(that challenge), “Seek, and ye shall find,” precisely as if I had no resting-place;1978

1978 This is the rendering of Oehler’s text, “et velut si nusquam. There are other readings of this obscure passage, of which as we add the two most intelligible. The Codex Agobardinus has, “et velim si nunquam;” that is, “and I would that I were nowhere,” with no fixed belief—in such wise as never to have had the truth; not, as must now be, to have forfeited it. (Dodgson).  This seems far-fetched, and inferior to the reading of Pamelius and his mss.:  “et velint me sic esse nusquam;”—or (as Semler puts it) “velint sic nusquam;” i.e., “and they (the heretics) would wish me to be nowhere”—without the fixed faith of the Catholic. This makes good sense. [Semler is here mentioned, and if anybody wishes to understand what sort of editor he was, he may be greatly amused by Kaye’s examination of some of his positions, pp. 64–84. Elucidation II.]

as if (indeed) I had never found that which Christ has taught—that which ought1979

1979 Oportet.

to be sought, that which must needs1980

1980 Necesse est. Observe these degrees of obligation.

be believed.
Quamvis et errare delinquere est.

With impunity, I repeat, does a man ramble,1982

1982 Vagatur.

when he (purposely) deserts nothing. But yet, if I have believed what I was bound to believe, and then afterwards think that there is something new to be sought after, I of course expect that there is something else to be found, although I should by no means entertain such expectation, unless it were because I either had not believed, although I apparently had become a believer, or else have ceased to believe. If I thus desert my faith, I am found to be a denier thereof. Once for all I would say, No man seeks, except him who either never possessed, or else has lost (what he sought). The old woman (in the Gospel)1983

1983 Anus illa.

had lost one of her ten pieces of silver, and therefore she sought it;1984

1984 Luke xv. 8.

when, however, she found it, she ceased to look for it. The neighbour was without bread, and therefore he knocked; but as soon as the door was opened to him, and he received the bread, he discontinued knocking.1985

1985 Luke xi. 5.

The widow kept asking to be heard by the judge, because she was not admitted; but when her suit was heard, thenceforth she was silent.1986

1986 Luke xviii. 2, 3.

So that there is a limit both to seeking, and to knocking, and to asking. “For to every one that asketh,” says He, “it shall be given, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened, and by him that seeketh it shall be found.”1987

1987 Luke xi. 9.

Away with the man1988

1988 Viderit.

who is ever seeking because he never finds; for he seeks there where nothing can be found. Away with him who is always knocking because it will never be opened to him; for he knocks where there is none (to open). Away with him who is always asking because he will never be heard; for he asks of one who does not hear. Extranea.

and opposed to our own verity, and to whom we are forbidden to draw near? What slave looks for food from a stranger, not to say an enemy of his master? What soldier expects to get bounty and pay from kings who are unallied, I might almost say hostile—unless forsooth he be a deserter, and a runaway, and a rebel? Even that old woman1990

1990 Although Tertullian calls her “anus,” St. Luke’s word is γυνή not γραῦς.

searched for the piece of silver within her own house. It was also at his neighbour’s door that the persevering assailant kept knocking. Nor was it to a hostile judge, although a severe one, that the widow made her appeal. No man gets instruction1991

1991 Instrui potest.

from that which tends to destruction.1992

1992 Unde destruitur.

No man receives illumination from a quarter where all is darkness. Let our “seeking,” therefore be in that which is our own, and from those who are our own: and concerning that which is our own,—that, and only that,1993

1993 Idque dumtaxat.

which can become an object of inquiry without impairing the rule of faith.
Doctor, literally, “teacher.” See Eph. iv. 11; also above; chap. iii. p. 244.

brother gifted with the grace of knowledge, some one of the experienced class, some one of your close acquaintance who is curious like yourself; although with yourself, a seeker he will, after all,2001

2001 This seems to be the more probable meaning of novissime in this rather obscure sentence. Oehler treats it adverbially as “postremo,” and refers to a similar use of the word below in chap. xxx. Dr. Routh (and, after him, the translator in The Library of the Fathers, Tertullian, p. 448) makes the word a noun, “thou newest of novices,” and refers to Tertullian’s work, against Praxeas, chap. xxvii., for a like use. This seems to us too harsh for the present context.

be quite aware2002

2002 Sciet.

that it is better for you to remain in ignorance, lest you should come to know what you ought not, because you have acquired the knowledge of what you ought to know.2003

2003 See 1 Cor. xii. 8.

“Thy faith,” He says, “hath saved thee”2004

2004 Luke xviii. 42.

not observe your skill2005

2005 Exercitatio.

in the Scriptures. Now, faith has been deposited in the rule; it has a law, and (in the observance thereof) salvation. Skill,2006

2006 Exercitatio.

however, consists in curious art, having for its glory simply the readiness that comes from knack.2007

2007 De peritiæ studio.

Let such curious art give place to faith; let such glory yield to salvation. At any rate, let them either relinquish their noisiness,2008

2008 Non obstrepant.

or else be quiet. To know nothing in opposition to the rule (of faith), is to know all things. (Suppose) that heretics were not enemies to the truth, so that we were not forewarned to avoid them, what sort of conduct would it be to agree with men who do themselves confess that they are still seeking? For if they are still seeking, they have not as yet found anything amounting to certainty; and therefore, whatever they seem for a while2009

2009 Interim.

to hold, they betray their own scepticism,2010

2010 Dubitationem.

whilst they continue seeking. You therefore, who seek after their fashion, looking to those who are themselves ever seeking, a doubter to doubters, a waverer to waverers, must needs be “led, blindly by the blind, down into the ditch.”2011

2011 Matt. xv. 14.

But when, for the sake of deceiving us, they pretend that they are still seeking, in order that they may palm2012

2012 Insinuent.

their essays2013

2013 Tractatus.

upon us by the suggestion of an anxious sympathy,2014

2014 Or, “by instilling an anxiety into us” (Dodgson).

—when, in short (after gaining an access to us), they proceed at once to insist on the necessity of our inquiring into such points as they were in the habit of advancing, then it is high time for us in moral obligation2015

2015 Jam debemus.

to repel2016

2016 Refutare.

them, so that they may know that it is not Christ, but themselves, whom we disavow. For since they are still seekers, they have no fixed tenets yet;2017

2017 Nondum tenent.

and being not fixed in tenet, they have not yet believed; and being not yet believers, they are not Christians. But even though they have their tenets and their belief, they still say that inquiry is necessary in order to discussion.2018

2018 Ut defendant.

Previous, however, to the discussion, they deny what they confess not yet to have believed, so long as they keep it an object of inquiry. When men, therefore, are not Christians even on their own admission,2019

2019 Nec sibi sunt.

how much more (do they fail to appear such) to us! What sort of truth is that which they patronize,2020

2020 Patrocinantur.

when they commend it to us with a lie?  Well, but they actually2021

2021 Ipsi.

treat of the Scriptures and recommend (their opinions) out of the Scriptures! To be sure they do.2022

2022 Scilicet.

From what other source could they derive arguments concerning the things of the faith, except from the records of the faith?
2027 De consilio diffidentiæ.

or from a desire of entering on the contest2028

2028 Constitutionis, “prima causarum conflictio,”—a term of the law courts.

in some other way, were there not reasons on my side, especially this, that our faith owes deference2029

2029 Obsequium.

to the apostle, who forbids us to enter on “questions,” or to lend our ears to new-fangled statements,2030

2030 1 Tim. vi. 3, 4.

or to consort with a heretic “after the first and second admonition,”2031

2031 Tit. iii. 10.

not, (be it observed,) after discussion.  Discussion he has inhibited in this way, by designating admonition as the purpose of dealing with a heretic, and the first one too, because he is not a Christian; in order that he might not, after the manner of a Christian, seem to require correction again and again, and “before two or three witnesses,”2032

2032 Matt. xviii. 16.

seeing that he ought to be corrected, for the very reason that he is not to be disputed with; and in the next place, because a controversy over the Scriptures can, clearly,2033

2033 Plane, ironical.

produce no other effect than help to upset either the stomach or the brain.
2041 Æquo gradu.

(with yourself) in denying and in defence, or at any rate on a like standing2042

2042 Statu certe pari.

he will go away confirmed in his uncertainty2043

2043 Incertior.

by the discussion, not knowing which side to adjudge heretical. For, no doubt, they too are able2044

2044 Habent.

to retort these things on us. It is indeed a necessary consequence that they should go so far as to say that adulterations of the Scriptures, and false expositions thereof, are rather introduced by ourselves, inasmuch as they, no less than we2045

2045 Proinde.

maintain that truth is on their side. Mark iv. 34.

and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.”2052

2052 Matt. xxviii. 19.

Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as “the sent.” Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David,2053

2053 Ps. cix. 8; comp. with Acts i. 15–20.

chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith,2054

2054 Traducem fidei.

and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them,2055

2055 Mutuantur “borrowing.”

that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches.  Every sort of thing2056

2056 Omne genus.

must necessarily revert to its original for its classification.2057

2057 Censeatur or, “for its origin.”

Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring).  In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion,2058

2058 Communicatio pacis.

and title of brotherhood, and bond2059

2059 Contesseratio. [3 John 8.]

of hospitality,—privileges2060

2060 Jura, “rights.”

which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.2061

2061 That is, of the faith, or Christian creed.


Matt. xi. 27.

Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree2063

2063 Perinde.

manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds2064

2064 Matricibus.

and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God.  Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged2065

2065 Præjudicandam. [This then is Præscription.]

as false2066

2066 De mendacio.

which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin2067

2067 Censeatur.

in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto2068

2068 Ex hoc ipso, “from this very circumstance.”

proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.
Mark iv. 34.

which were obscure, telling them that “to them it was given to know those mysteries,”2073

2073 Matt. xiii. 11.

which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,”2074

2074 Matt. xvi. 18. [See Kaye p. 222, also Elucidation II.]

who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,”2075

2075 Ver. 19.

with the power of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?”2076

2076 Ver. 19.

Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord’s most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast2077

2077 John xxi. 20.

to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor,2078

2078 John xiii. 25. [N.B. loco suo.]

whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead?2079

2079 John xix. 26.

Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father’s voice moreover, from heaven?2080

2080 Matt. xvii. 1–8.

Not as if He thus disapproved2081

2081 Reprobans.

of all the rest, but because “by three witnesses must every word be established.”2082

2082 Deut. xix. 15; and 2 Cor. xiii. 1.

After the same fashion,2083

2083 Itaque, ironical.

too, (I suppose,) were they ignorant to whom, after His resurrection also, He vouchsafed, as they were journeying together, “to expound all the Scriptures.”2084

2084 Luke xxiv. 27.

No doubt2085

2085 Plane.

He had once said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now;” but even then He added, “When He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all truth.”2086

2086 John xvi. 12, 13.

He (thus) shows that there was nothing of which they were ignorant, to whom He had promised the future attainment of all truth by help of the Spirit of truth.  And assuredly He fulfilled His promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles that the Holy Ghost did come down. Now they who reject that Scripture2087

2087 See Tertullian’s Anti-Marcion, iv. 5, and v. 2 (Trans. pp. 187 and 377).

can neither belong to the Holy Spirit, seeing that they cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they presume to claim to be a church themselves2088

2088 Nec ecclesiam se dicant defendere.

who positively have no means of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes2089

2089 Incunabulis, infant nursing.

this body was established. Of so much importance is it to them not to have any proofs for the things which they maintain, lest along with them there be introduced damaging exposures2090

2090 Traductiones.

of those things which they mendaciously devise.
Gal. i. 13.

still this is not enough for any man who examines before he believes, since even the Lord Himself did not bear witness of Himself.2093

2093 John v. 31.

But let them believe without the Scriptures, if their object is to believe contrary to the Scriptures.2094

2094 Ut credunt contra Scripturas.

Still they should show, from the circumstance which they allege of Peter’s being rebuked by Paul, that Paul added yet another form of the gospel besides that which Peter and the rest had previously set forth. But the fact is,2095

2095 Atquin.

having been converted from a persecutor to a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren—to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles’ hands.  Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he “went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter,”2096

2096 Gal. i. 18.

because of his office, no doubt,2097

2097 Scilicet.

and by right of a common belief and preaching.  Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have “glorified the Lord,”2098

2098 Gal. i. 24.

because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him. They accordingly even gave him “the right hand of fellowship,”2099

2099 Gal. ii. 9.

as a sign of their agreement with him, and arranged amongst themselves a distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel, so that they should severally preach not a different gospel, but (the same), to different persons,2100

2100 The same verse. [Note Peter’s restriction to Jews.]

Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the Gentiles. Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived with the Gentiles, he proceeded to separate himself from their company out of respect for persons, the fault surely was one of conversation, not of preaching.2101

2101 Vers. 12, 13. See also Anti-Marcion, iv. 3 (Trans. p. 182).

For it does not appear from this, that any other God than the Creator, or any other Christ than (the son) of Mary, or any other hope than the resurrection, was (by him) announced.
1 Cor. ix. 20; 22.

Therefore it was according to times and persons and causes that they used to censure certain practices, which they would not hesitate themselves to pursue, in like conformity to times and persons and causes. Just (e.g.) as if Peter too had censured Paul, because, whilst forbidding circumcision, he actually circumcised Timothy himself. Never mind2108

2108 Viderint.

those who pass sentence on apostles! It is a happy fact that Peter is on the same level with Paul in the very glory2109

2109 Et in martyrio.

of martyrdom. Now, although Paul was carried away even to the third heaven, and was caught up to paradise,2110

2110 2 Cor. xii. 4.

and heard certain revelations there, yet these cannot possibly seem to have qualified him for (teaching) another doctrine, seeing that their very nature was such as to render them communicable to no human being.2111

2111 Nulli hominum.

If, however, that unspeakable mystery2112

2112 Nescio quid illud.

did leak out,2113

2113 Emanavit.

and become known to any man, and if any heresy affirms that it does itself follow the same, (then) either Paul must be charged with having betrayed the secret, or some other man must actually2114

2114 Et.

be shown to have been afterwards “caught up into paradise,” who had permission to speak out plainly what Paul was not allowed (even) to mutter.
1 Tim. vi. 20.

and again: “That good thing which was committed unto thee keep.”2117

2117 2 Tim. i. 14.

What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize2118

2118 Ut alterius doctrinæ deputetur.

a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, “This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy?”2119

2119 1 Tim. i. 18.

and also of that precept of which he says, “I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment?”2120

2120 1 Tim. vi. 13.

Now, what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious2121

2121 Nescis quid.

hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetched2122

2122 Remotiore.

doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: “Before many witnesses” is his phrase.2123

2123 2 Tim. ii. 2.

Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these “many witnesses,” it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced “before many witnesses.” Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to “commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also,”2124

2124 2 Tim. ii. 2.

be construed into a proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says “these things,” he refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself.2125

2125 Apud conscientiam. [Clement of Alexandria is to be interpreted by Tertullian, with whom he does not essentially differ. For Clement’s Esoteric Doctrine (See Vol. II. pp. 302, 313, etc.) is defined as perfecting the type of the Christian by the strong meat of Truth, of which the entire deposit is presupposed as common to all Christians. We must not blame Clement for the abuse of his teaching by perverters of Truth itself.]


Matt. vii. 6.

Openly did the Lord speak,2129

2129 John xviii. 20.

without any intimation of a hidden mystery.  He had Himself commanded that, “whatsoever they had heard in darkness” and in secret, they should “declare in the light and on the house-tops.”2130

2130 Matt. x. 27.

He had Himself foreshown, by means of a parable, that they should not keep back in secret, fruitless of interest,2131

2131 Luke xix. 20–24.

a single pound, that is, one word of His.  He used Himself to tell them that a candle was not usually “pushed away under a bushel, but placed on a candlestick,” in order to “give light to all who are in the house.”2132

2132 Matt. v. 15.

These things the apostles either neglected, or failed to understand, if they fulfilled them not, by concealing any portion of the light, that is, of the word of God and the mystery of Christ. Of no man, I am quite sure, were they afraid,—neither of Jews nor of Gentiles in their violence;2133

2133 Literally, “the violence of neither Jew nor Gentile.”

with all the greater freedom, then, would they certainly preach in the church, who held not their tongue in synagogues and public places. Indeed they would have found it impossible either to convert Jews or to bring in Gentiles, unless they “set forth in order”2134

2134 Luke i. 1.

that which they would have them believe.  Much less, when churches were advanced in the faith, would they have withdrawn from them anything for the purpose of committing it separately to some few others. Although, even supposing that among intimate friends,2135

2135 Domesticos. [All this interprets Clement and utterly deprives the Trent System of its appeal to a secret doctrine, against our Præscription.]

so to speak, they did hold certain discussions, yet it is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the Catholic churches,2136

2136 Catholice, or, “which they were bringing before the public in catholic way.”

—as if they spoke of one God in the Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church,2137

2137 1 Cor. i. 10.

seeing that they, whether Paul or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they remembered (the words): “Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this cometh of evil;”2138

2138 Matt. v. 37.

so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment.
Gal. iii. 1.

and, “Ye did run so well; who hath hindered you?”2142

2142 Gal. v. 7.

and how the epistle actually begins: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him, who hath called you as His own in grace, to another gospel.”2143

2143 Gal. i. 6.

That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they “were yet carnal,” who “required to be fed with milk,” being as yet “unable to bear strong meat;”2144

2144 1 Cor. iii. 1, and following verses.

who also “thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know.”2145

2145 1 Cor. viii. 2.

When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the apostle “rejoices and gives thanks to God,” which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution. John xiv. 26.

and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth;2147

2147 John xv. 26.

grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ,2148

2148 [Tertullian knows no other Vicar of Christ than the Holy Spirit.  They who attribute infallibility to any mortal man become Montanists; they attribute the Paraclete’s voice to their oracle.]

neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith?  No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues.  When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless2149

2149 Audeat.

enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?
Gal. i. 8. [In this chapter (xxix.) the principle of Prescription is condensed and brought to the needle-point—Quod semper. If you can’t show that your doctrine was always taught, it is false: and this is “Prescription.”]


1 Cor. xi. 19.

and yet it does not follow from that necessity, that heresies are a good thing. As if it has not been necessary also that there should be evil! It was even necessary that the Lord should be betrayed; but woe to the traitor!2161

2161 Mark. xiv. 21.

So that no man may from this defend heresies. If we must likewise touch the descent2162

2162 Stemma. The reading of the Cod. Agobard. is “stigma,” which gives very good sense.

of Apelles, he is far from being “one of the old school,”2163

2163 Vetus.

like his instructor and moulder, Marcion; he rather forsook the continence of Marcion, by resorting to the company of a woman, and withdrew to Alexandria, out of sight of his most abstemious2164

2164 Sanctissimi. This may be an ironical allusion to Marcion’s repudiation of marriage.

master. Returning therefrom, after some years, unimproved, except that he was no longer a Marcionite, he clave2165

2165 Impegit.

to another woman, the maiden Philumene (whom we have already2166

2166 In chap. vi. p. 246 above.

mentioned), who herself afterwards became an enormous prostitute. Having been imposed on by her vigorous spirit,2167

2167 Energemate. Oehler defines this word, “vis et efficacia dæmonum, quibus agebatur.” [But see Lardner, Credib. viii. p. 540.]

he committed to writing the revelations which he had learned of her. Persons are still living who remember them,—their own actual disciples and successors,—who cannot therefore deny the lateness of their date. But, in fact, by their own works they are convicted, even as the Lord said.2168

2168 Matt. vii. 16.

For since Marcion separated the New Testament from the Old, he is (necessarily) subsequent to that which he separated, inasmuch as it was only in his power to separate what was (previously) united. Having then been united previous to its separation, the fact of its subsequent separation proves the subsequence also of the man who effected the separation.  In like manner Valentinus, by his different expositions and acknowledged2169

2169 Sine dubio.

emendations, makes these changes on the express ground of previous faultiness, and therefore demonstrates the difference2170

2170 Alterius fuisse. One reading is anterius; i.e., “demonstrates the priority” of the book he alters.

of the documents. These corrupters of the truth we mention as being more notorious and more public2171

2171 Frequentiores.

than others. There is, however, a certain man2172

2172 Nescio qui.

named Nigidius, and Hermogenes, and several others, who still pursue the course2173

2173 Ambulant.

of perverting the ways of the Lord. Let them show me by what authority they come!  If it be some other God they preach, how comes it that they employ the things and the writings and the names of that God against whom they preach? If it be the same God, why treat Him in some other way? Let them prove themselves to be new apostles!2174

2174 Compare de Carne Christi, chap. ii. [Elucidation IV.]

Let them maintain that Christ has come down a second time, taught in person a second time, has been twice crucified, twice dead, twice raised! For thus has the apostle described (the order of events in the life of Christ); for thus, too, is He2175

2175 Christ; so Routh.

accustomed to make His apostles—to give them, (that is), power besides of working the same miracles which He worked Himself.2176

2176 We add Oehler’s reading of this obscure passage: “Sic enim apostolus descripsit, sic enim apostolos solet facere, dare præterea illis virtutem eadem signa edendi quæ et ipse.” [“It is worthy of remark” (says Kaye, p. 95), “that he does not appeal to any instance of the exercise of miraculous powers in his own day.”]

I would therefore have their mighty deeds also brought forward; except that I allow their mightiest deed to be that by which they perversely vie with the apostles.  For whilst they used to raise men to life from the dead, these consign men to death from their living state. 1 Cor. xv. 12.

This opinion was the especial property of the Sadducees.2194

2194 Comp. Tertull. De Resur. Carnis, xxxvi.

A part of it, however, is maintained by Marcion and Apelles and Valentinus, and all other impugners of the resurrection. Writing also to the Galatians, he inveighs against such men as observed and defend circumcision and the (Mosaic) law.2195

2195 Gal. v. 2.

Thus runs Hebion’s heresy. Such also as “forbid to marry” he reproaches in his instructions to Timothy.2196

2196 1 Tim. iv. 3.

Now, this is the teaching of Marcion and his follower Apelles. (The apostle) directs a similar blow2197

2197 Æque tangit.

against those who said that “the resurrection was past already.”2198

2198 2 Tim. ii. 3.

Such an opinion did the Valentinians assert of themselves. When again he mentions “endless genealogies,”2199

2199 1 Tim. i. 4.

one also recognises Valentinus, in whose system a certain Æon, whosoever he be,2200

2200 Nescio qui.

of a new name, and that not one only, generates of his own grace2201

2201 Charite.

Sense and Truth; and these in like manner produce of themselves Word2202

2202 Sermonem.

and Life, while these again afterwards beget Man and the Church. From these primary eight2203

2203 De qua prima ogdoade. [See Irenæus, Vol. I. p. 316, etc. this Series.]

ten other Æons after them spring, and then the twelve others arise with their wonderful names, to complete the mere story of the thirty Æons. The same apostle, when disapproving of those who are “in bondage to elements,”2204

2204 Gal. iv. 9.

points us to some dogma of Hermogenes, who introduces matter as having no beginning,2205

2205 Non natam, literally, “as being unbegotten.”

and then compares it with God, who has no beginning.2206

2206 Deo non nato.

By thus making the mother of the elements a goddess, he has it in his power “to be in bondage” to a being which he puts on a par with2207

2207 Comparat.

God. John, however, in the Apocalypse is charged to chastise those “who eat things sacrificed to idols,” and “who commit fornication.”2208

2208 Rev. ii. 14.

There are even now another sort of Nicolaitans. Theirs is called the Gaian2209

2209 Gaiana. So Oehler; the common reading being “Caiana.”

heresy. But in his epistle he especially designates those as “Antichrists” who “denied that Christ was come in the flesh,”2210

2210 1 John iv. 3.

and who refused to think that Jesus was the Son of God. The one dogma Marcion maintained; the other, Hebion.2211

2211 Comp. Epiphanius, i. 30.

The doctrine, however, of Simon’s sorcery, which inculcated the worship of angels,2212

2212 Referred to perhaps in Col. ii. 18.

was itself actually reckoned amongst idolatries and condemned by the Apostle Peter in Simon’s own person.
Luke vi. 40.

Let the entire mass2219

2219 Universæ.

of heresies choose, therefore, for themselves the times when they should appear, provided that the when be an unimportant point; allowing, too, that they be not of the truth, and (as a matter of course2220

2220 Utique.

) that such as had no existence in the time of the apostles could not possibly have had any connection with the apostles. If indeed they had then existed, their names would be extant,2221

2221 Nominarentur et ipsæ.

with a view to their own repression likewise.  Those (heresies) indeed which did exist in the days of the apostles, are condemned in their very mention.2222

2222 Nominatione, i.e. by the apostles.

If it be true, then, that those heresies, which in the apostolic times were in a rude form, are now found to be the same, only in a much more polished shape, they derive their condemnation from this very circumstance. Or if they were not the same, but arose afterwards in a different form, and merely assumed from them certain tenets, then, by sharing with them an agreement in their teaching,2223

2223 Prædicationis.

they must needs partake in their condemnation, by reason of the above-mentioned definition,2224

2224 Fine.

of lateness of date, which meets us on the very threshold.2225

2225 Præcedente.

Even if they were free from any participation in condemned doctrine, they would stand already judged2226

2226 Præjudicarentur. [i.e. by Præscription.]

on the mere ground of time, being all the more spurious because they were not even named by the apostles. Whence we have the firmer assurance, that these were (the heresies) which even then,2227

2227 i.e., in the days of the apostles, and by their mouth.

were announced as about to arise. Compare 1 Tim. v. 21, and vi. 13; 2 Tim. ii. 14, and iv. 1–4.

even so do I hold it. As for you, they have, it is certain, always held you as disinherited, and rejected you as strangers—as enemies. But on what ground are heretics strangers and enemies to the apostles, if it be not from the difference of their teaching, which each individual of his own mere will has either advanced or received in opposition to the apostles?”
See Eph. vi. 12; and 1 Cor. xi. 18.

wherewith we also, my brethren, may fairly expect to have “to wrestle,” as necessary for faith, that the elect may be made manifest, (and) that the reprobate may be discovered. And therefore they possess influence, and a facility in thinking out and fabricating2260

2260 Instruendis.

errors, which ought not to be wondered at as if it were a difficult and inexplicable process, seeing that in profane writings also an example comes ready to hand of a similar facility. You see in our own day, composed out of Virgil,2261

2261 Oehler reads “ex Vergilio,” although the Codex Agobard. as “ex Virgilio.”

a story of a wholly different character, the subject-matter being arranged according to the verse, and the verse according to the subject-matter. In short,2262

2262 Denique. [“Getica lyra.”]

Hosidius Geta has most completely pilfered his tragedy of Medea from Virgil. A near relative of my own, among some leisure productions2263

2263 Otis.

of his pen, has composed out of the same poet The Table of Cebes. On the same principle, those poetasters are commonly called Homerocentones, “collectors of Homeric odds and ends,” who stitch into one piece, patchwork fashion, works of their own from the lines of Homer, out of many scraps put together from this passage and from that (in miscellaneous confusion). Now, unquestionably, the Divine Scriptures are more fruitful in resources of all kinds for this sort of facility. Nor do I risk contradiction in saying2264

2264 Nec periclitor dicere. [Truly, a Tertullianic paradox; but compare 2 Pet. iii. 16. N.B. Scripture the test of heresy.]

that the very Scriptures were even arranged by the will of God in such a manner as to furnish materials for heretics, inasmuch as I read that “there must be heresies,”2265

2265 1 Cor. xi. 19.

which there cannot be without the Scriptures.
Morositatem Illam. [He refers to the minute and vexatious ordinances complained of by St. Peter (Acts xiv. 10,) which Latin Christianity has ten-folded, in his name.]

moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has shown such emulation in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of which consists the administration of Christ’s sacraments, it follows, of course, that the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon,2275

2275 Gestiit.

and succeeded in, adapting2276

2276 Attemperare.

to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine things and of the Christian saints2277

2277 i.e., the Scriptures of the New Testament.

—his interpretation from their interpretations, his words from their words, his parables from their parables. For this reason, then, no one ought to doubt, either that “spiritual wickednesses,” from which also heresies come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any real difference between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they appertain both to the same author and the same work that idolatry does. They either pretend that there is another god in opposition to the Creator, or, even if they acknowledge that the Creator is the one only God, they treat of Him as a different being from what He is in truth. The consequence is, that every lie which they speak of God is in a certain sense a sort of idolatry.
See Matt. vii. 6.

Simplicity they will have to consist in the overthrow of discipline, attention to which on our part they call brothelry.2280

2280 Lenocinium. “Pandering” is Archdeacon Dodgson’s word.

Peace also they huddle up2281

2281 Miscent.

anyhow with all comers; for it matters not to them, however different be their treatment of subjects, provided only they can conspire together to storm the citadel of the one only Truth. All are puffed up, all offer you knowledge.  Their catechumens are perfect before they are full-taught.2282

2282 Edocti.

The very women of these heretics, how wanton they are! For they are bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake2283

2283 Repromittere.

cures—it may be even to baptize.2284

2284 Compare Tertullian’s tract, de Bapt. I. and de Veland. Virg. viii. [Also, Epiphan. iv. p. 453, Ed. Oehler.]

Their ordinations, are carelessly administered,2285

2285 Temerariæ.

capricious, changeable.2286

2286 They were constantly changing their ministers. It was a saying of the heretics, “Alius hodie episcopus, cras alius” (Rigalt.).

At one time they put novices in office; at another time, men who are bound to some secular employment;2287

2287 Sæculo obstrictos.

at another, persons who have apostatized from us, to bind them by vainglory, since they cannot by the truth. Nowhere is promotion easier than in the camp of rebels, where the mere fact of being there is a foremost service.2288

2288 Promereri est.

And so it comes to pass that to-day one man is their bishop, to-morrow another; to-day he is a deacon who to-morrow is a reader; to-day he is a presbyter who tomorrow is a layman. For even on laymen do they impose the functions of priesthood.
Ps. cxi. 10; Prov. i. 7.

Where the fear of God is, there is seriousness, an honourable and yet thoughtful2295

2295 Attonita, as if in fear that it might go wrong (Rigalt.).

diligence, as well as an anxious carefulness and a well-considered admission (to the sacred ministry)2296

2296 In contrast to the opposite fault of the heresies exposed above.

and a safely-guarded2297

2297 Deliberata, where the character was well weighed previous to admission to the eucharist.

communion, and promotion after good service, and a scrupulous submission (to authority), and a devout attendance,2298

2298 Apparitio, the duty and office of an apparitor, or attendant on men of higher rank, whether in church or state.

and a modest gait, and a united church, and God in all things.
2 Cor. v. 10.

to render an account of our faith itself before all things. What, then, will they say who shall have defiled it, even the virgin which Christ committed to them with the adultery of heretics? I suppose they will allege that no injunction was ever addressed to them by Him or by His apostles concerning depraved2300

2300 Scævis.

and perverse doctrines assailing them,2301

2301 Futuris.

or about their avoiding and abhorring the same.  (He and His apostles, perhaps,) will acknowledge2302

2302 It seems to us, that this is the force of the strong irony, indicated by the “credo,” which pervades this otherwise unintelligible passage.  Dodgson’s version seems untenable:  “Let them (the heretics) acknowledge that the fault is with themselves rather than with those who prepared us so long beforehand.”

that the blame rather lies with themselves and their disciples, in not having given us previous warning and instruction!  They2303

2303 Christ and His apostles, as before, in continuation of the strong irony.

will, besides, add a good deal respecting the high authority of each doctor of heresy,—how that these mightily strengthened belief in their own doctrine; how that they raised the dead, restored the sick, foretold the future, that so they might deservedly be regarded as apostles. As if this caution were not also in the written record: that many should come who were to work even the greatest miracles, in defence of the deceit of their corrupt preaching. So, forsooth, they will deserve to be forgiven! If, however, any, being mindful of the writings and the denunciations of the Lord and the apostles, shall have stood firm in the integrity of the faith, I suppose they will run great risk of missing pardon, when the Lord answers: I plainly forewarned you that there should be teachers of false doctrine in my name, as well as that of the prophets and apostles also; and to my own disciples did I give a charge, that they should preach the same things to you. But as for you, it was not, of course, to be supposed2304

2304 This must be the force of a sentence which is steeped in irony:  “Scilicet cum vos non crederetis.” We are indebted to Oehler for restoring the sentence thus.

that you would believe me! I once gave the gospel and the doctrine of the said rule (of life and faith) to my apostles; but afterwards it was my pleasure to make considerable changes in it! I had promised a resurrection, even of the flesh; but, on second thoughts, it struck me2305

2305 Recogitavi.

that I might not be able to keep my promise!  I had shown myself to have been born of a virgin; but this seemed to me afterwards to be a discreditable thing.2306

2306 Turpe.

I had said that He was my Father, who is the Maker of the sun and the showers; but another and better father has adopted me! I had forbidden you to lend an ear to heretics; but in this I erred! Such (blasphemies), it is possible,2307

2307 Capit.

do enter the minds of those who go out of the right path,2308

2308 Exorbitant.

and who do not defend2309

2309 Cavent.

the true faith from the danger which besets it.  On the present occasion, indeed, our treatise has rather taken up a general position against heresies, (showing that they must) all be refuted on definite, equitable, and necessary rules, without2310

2310 This sense comes from the “repellendas” and the “a collatione Scripturarum.”

any comparison with the Scriptures. For the rest, if God in His grace permit, we shall prepare answers to certain of these heresies in separate treatises.2311

2311 Specialiter. He did this, indeed, in his treatises against Marcion, Hermogenes, the Valentinians, Praxeas, and others. [These are to follow in this Series. Kaye (p. 47) justly considered this sentence as proving the De Præscript, a preface to all his treatises against particular heresies.]

To those who may devote their leisure in reading through these (pages), in the belief of the truth, be peace, and the grace of our God Jesus Christ for ever.2312

2312 Elucidation V.


In adopting this expression from the Roman Law, Tertullian has simply puzzled beginners to get at his idea. Nor do they learn much when it is called a demurrer, which, if I comprehend the word as used in law-cases, is a rejoinder to the testimony of the other party, amounting to—“Well, what of it? It does not prove your case.” Something like this is indeed in Tertullian’s use of the term præscription; but Dr. Holmes furnishes what seems to me the best explanation, (though he only half renders it,) “the Prescriptive Rule against Heresies.” In a word, it means, “the Rule of Faith asserted against Heresies.” And his practical point is, it is useless to discuss Scripture with convicted (Titus iii. 10, 11.) heretics; every one of them is ready with “his psalm, his doctrine, his interpretation,” and you may argue fruitlessly till Doomsday. But bring them to the test of (Quod Semper, etc.), the apostolic præscription (1 Corinthians xi. 16).—We have no such custom neither the Churches of God. State this Rule of Faith, viz. Holy Scripture, as interpreted from the apostolic day: if it proves the doctrine or custom a novelty, then it has no foundation, and even if it be harmless, it cannot be innocently professed against the order and peace of the churches.

In the treatise of Cyprian, De Unitate, we shall have occasion to speak fully on this interesting point.  The reference to Kaye may suffice, here.  But, since the inveterate confusion of all that is said of Peter with all that is claimed by a modern bishop for himself promotes a false view of this passage, it may be well to note (1) that St. Peter’s name is expounded by himself (1 Peter ii. 4, 5) so as to make Christ the Rock and all believers “lively stones”—or Peters—by faith in Him. St. Peter is often called the rock, most justly, in this sense, by a rhetorical play on his name: Christ the Rock and all believers “lively stones,” being cemented with Him by the Spirit.  But, (2) this specialty of St. Peter, as such, belongs to him (Cephas) only. (3) So far as transmitted it belongs to no particular See. (4) The claim of Rome is disproved by Præscription. (5) Were it otherwise, it would not justify that See in making new articles of Faith.  (6) Nor in its Schism with the East.  (7) When it restores St. Peter’s Doctrine and Holiness, to the Latin Churches, there will be no quarrel about pre-eminence. Meantime, Rome’s fallibility is expressly taught in Romans xi. 18–21.

St. Luke vi. 43 sq.

how that “the good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit, neither the corrupt tree good fruit.” Which means, that an honest mind and good faith cannot produce evil deeds, any more than an evil disposition can produce good deeds. Now (like many other persons now-a-days, especially those who have an heretical proclivity), while morbidly brooding2351

2351 Languens.

over the question of the origin of evil, his perception became blunted by the very irregularity of his researches; and when he found the Creator declaring, “I am He that createth evil,”2352

2352 Isa. xlv. 7.

inasmuch as he had already concluded from other arguments, which are satisfactory to every perverted mind, that God is the author of evil, so he now applied to the Creator the figure of the corrupt tree bringing forth evil fruit, that is, moral evil,2353

2353 Mala.

and then presumed that there ought to be another god, after the analogy of the good tree producing its good fruit.  Accordingly, finding in Christ a different disposition, as it were—one of a simple and pure benevolence2354

2354 [This purely good or goodish divinity is an idea of the Stoics. De Præscript. chap. 7.]

—differing from the Creator, he readily argued that in his Christ had been revealed a new and strange2355

2355 Hospitam.

divinity; and then with a little leaven he leavened the whole lump of the faith, flavouring it with the acidity of his own heresy.

Isa. xl. 18; 25.

Human circumstances may perhaps be compared with divine ones, but they may not be with God.  God is one thing, and what belongs to God is another thing. Once more:2371

2371 Denique.

you who apply the example of a king, as a great supreme, take care that you can use it properly. For although a king is supreme on his throne next to God, he is still inferior to God; and when he is compared with God, he will be dislodged2372

2372 Excidet.

from that great supremacy which is transferred to God. Now, this being the case, how will you employ in a comparison with God an object as your example, which fails2373

2373 Amittitur. “Tertullian” (who thinks lightly of the analogy of earthly monarchs) “ought rather to have contended that the illustration strengthened his argument.  In each kingdom there is only one supreme power; but the universe is God’s kingdom: there is therefore only one supreme power in the universe.”— Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian, Third edition, p. 453, note 2.

in all the purposes which belong to a comparison? Why, when supreme power among kings cannot evidently be multifarious, but only unique and singular, is an exception made in the case of Him (of all others)2374

2374 Scilicet.

who is King of kings, and (from the exceeding greatness of His power, and the subjection of all other ranks2375

2375 Graduum.

to Him) the very summit,2376

2376 Culmen.

as it were, of dominion? But even in the case of rulers of that other form of government, where they one by one preside in a union of authority, if with their petty2377

2377 Minutalibus regnis.

prerogatives of royalty, so to say, they be brought on all points2378

2378 Undique.

into such a comparison with one another as shall make it clear which of them is superior in the essential features2379

2379 Substantiis.

and powers of royalty, it must needs follow that the supreme majesty will redound2380

2380 Eliquetur.

to one alone,—all the others being gradually, by the issue of the comparison, removed and excluded from the supreme authority. Thus, although, when spread out in several hands, supreme authority seems to be multifarious, yet in its own powers, nature, and condition, it is unique. It follows, then, that if two gods are compared, as two kings and two supreme authorities, the concentration of authority must necessarily, according to the meaning of the comparison, be conceded to one of the two; because it is clear from his own superiority that he is the supreme, his rival being now vanquished, and proved to be not the greater, however great. Now, from this failure of his rival, the other is unique in power, possessing a certain solitude, as it were, in his singular pre-eminence. The inevitable conclusion at which we arrive, then, on this point is this: either we must deny that God is the great Supreme, which no wise man will allow himself to do; or say that God has no one else with whom to share His power.
Ps. lxxxii. 1; 6.

As therefore the attribute of supremacy would be inappropriate to these, although they are called gods, so is it to the Creator. This is a foolish objection; and my answer to it is, that its author fails to consider that quite as strong an objection might be urged against the (superior) god of Marcion: he too is called god, but is not on that account proved to be divine, as neither are angels nor men, the Creator’s handiwork. If an identity of names affords a presumption in support of equality of condition, how often do worthless menials strut insolently in the names of kings—your Alexanders, Cæsars, and Pompeys!2403

2403 The now less obvious nicknames of “Alex. Darius and Olofernes,” are in the text.

This fact, however, does not detract from the real attributes of the royal persons.  Nay more, the very idols of the Gentiles are called gods. Yet not one of them is divine because he is called a god. It is not, therefore, for the name of god, for its sound or its written form, that I am claiming the supremacy in the Creator, but for the essence2404

2404 Substantiæ.

to which the name belongs; and when I find that essence alone is unbegotten and unmade—alone eternal, and the maker of all things—it is not to its name, but its state, not to its designation, but its condition, that I ascribe and appropriate the attribute of the supremacy.  And so, because the essence to which I ascribe it has come2405

2405 Vocari obtinuit.

to be called god, you suppose that I ascribe it to the name, because I must needs use a name to express the essence, of which indeed that Being consists who is called God, and who is accounted the great Supreme because of His essence, not from His name. In short, Marcion himself, when he imputes this character to his god, imputes it to the nature,2406

2406 Statum.

not to the word. That supremacy, then, which we ascribe to God in consideration of His essence, and not because of His name, ought, as we maintain, to be equal2407

2407 Ex pari.

in both the beings who consist of that substance for which the name of God is given; because, in as far as they are called gods (i.e. supreme beings, on the strength, of course, of their unbegotten and eternal, and therefore great and supreme essence), in so far the attribute of being the great Supreme cannot be regarded as less or worse in one than in another great Supreme. If the happiness, and sublimity, and perfection2408

2408 Integritas.

of the Supreme Being shall hold good of Marcion’s god, it will equally so of ours; and if not of ours, it will equally not hold of Marcion’s. Therefore two supreme beings will be neither equal nor unequal: not equal, because the principle which we have just expounded, that the Supreme Being admits of no comparison with Himself, forbids it; not unequal, because another principle meets us respecting the Supreme Being, that He is capable of no diminution. So, Marcion, you are caught2409

2409 Hæsisti.

in the midst of your own Pontic tide.  The waves of truth overwhelm you on every side. You can neither set up equal gods nor unequal ones. For there are not two; so far as the question of number is properly concerned. Although the whole matter of the two gods is at issue, we have yet confined our discussion to certain bounds, within which we shall now have to contend about separate peculiarities.
Compare Rom. i. 20, a passage which is quite subversive of Marcion’s theory.

of malignity, in having brought many persons under the charge of unbelief by furnishing to them no groundwork for their faith.
2 Cor. xii. 5.

—imitate, if you can, the cells of the bee, the hills of the ant, the webs of the spider, and the threads of the silkworm; endure, too, if you know how, those very creatures2490

2490 Tertullian, it should be remembered, lived in Africa.

which infest your couch and house, the poisonous ejections of the blister-beetle,2491

2491 Cantharidis.

the spikes of the fly, and the gnat’s sheath and sting. What of the greater animals, when the small ones so affect you with pleasure or pain, that you cannot even in their case despise their Creator? Finally, take a circuit round your own self; survey man within and without. Even this handiwork of our God will be pleasing to you, inasmuch as your own lord, that better god, loved it so well,2492

2492 Adamavit.

and for your sake was at the pains2493

2493 Laboravit.

of descending from the third heaven to these poverty-stricken2494

2494 Paupertina. This and all such passages are, of course, in imitation of Marcion’s contemptuous view of the Creator’s work.

elements, and for the same reason was actually crucified in this sorry2495

2495 Cellula.

apartment of the Creator. Indeed, up to the present time, he has not disdained the water which the Creator made wherewith he washes his people; nor the oil with which he anoints them; nor that union of honey and milk wherewithal he gives them the nourishment2496

2496 Infantat.

of children; nor the bread by which he represents his own proper body, thus requiring in his very sacraments the “beggarly2497

2497 Mendicitatibus.

elements” of the Creator. You, however, are a disciple above his master, and a servant above his lord; you have a higher reach of discernment than his; you destroy what he requires. I wish to examine whether you are at least honest in this, so as to have no longing for those things which you destroy. You are an enemy to the sky, and yet you are glad to catch its freshness in your houses. You disparage the earth, although the elemental parent2498

2498 Matricem.

of your own flesh, as if it were your undoubted enemy, and yet you extract from it all its fatness2499

2499 Medullas.

for your food. The sea, too, you reprobate, but are continually using its produce, which you account the more sacred diet.2500

2500 [The use of fish for fasting-days has no better warrant than Marcion’s example.]

If I should offer you a rose, you will not disdain its Maker. You hypocrite, however much of abstinence you use to show yourself a Marcionite, that is, a repudiator of your Maker (for if the world displeased you, such abstinence ought to have been affected by you as a martyrdom), you will have to associate yourself with2501

2501 Uteris.

the Creator’s material production, into what element soever you shall be dissolved. How hard is this obstinacy of yours! You vilify the things in which you both live and die.
Col. i. 16.

the invisible creation, when we come to examine him. At present (we withhold his testimony), for2523

2523 Nunc enim. The elliptical νῦν γάρ of Greek argumentation.

we are for the most part engaged in preparing the way, by means of common sense and fair arguments, for a belief in the future support of the Scriptures also. We affirm, then, that this diversity of things visible and invisible must on this ground be attributed to the Creator, even because the whole of His work consists of diversities—of things corporeal and incorporeal; of animate and inanimate; of vocal and mute of moveable and stationary; of productive and sterile; of arid and moist; of hot and cold. Man, too, is himself similarly tempered with diversity, both in his body and in his sensation. Some of his members are strong, others weak; some comely, others uncomely; some twofold, others unique; some like, others unlike. In like manner there is diversity also in his sensation: now joy, then anxiety; now love, then hatred; now anger, then calmness. Since this is the case, inasmuch as the whole of this creation of ours has been fashioned2524

2524 Modulata.

with a reciprocal rivalry amongst its several parts, the invisible ones are due to the visible, and not to be ascribed to any other author than Him to whom their counterparts are imputed, marking as they do diversity in the Creator Himself, who orders what He forbade, and forbids what He ordered; who also strikes and heals. Why do they take Him to be uniform in one class of things alone, as the Creator of visible things, and only them; whereas He ought to be believed to have created both the visible and the invisible, in just the same way as life and death, or as evil things and peace?2525

2525 “I make peace, and create evil,” Isa. xlv. 7.

And verily, if the invisible creatures are greater than the visible, which are in their own sphere great, so also is it fitting that the greater should be His to whom the great belong; because neither the great, nor indeed the greater, can be suitable property for one who seems to possess not even the smallest things.
1 Cor. xv. 11.

When, again, he mentioned “certain false brethren as having crept in unawares,” who wished to remove the Galatians into another gospel,2558

2558 See Gal. i. 6, 7; and ii. 4.

he himself shows that that adulteration of the gospel was not meant to transfer them to the faith of another god and christ, but rather to perpetuate the teaching of the law; because he blames them for maintaining circumcision, and observing times, and days, and months, and years, according to those Jewish ceremonies which they ought to have known were now abrogated, according to the new dispensation purposed by the Creator Himself, who of old foretold this very thing by His prophets. Thus He says by Isaiah: Old things have passed away. “Behold, I will do a new thing.”2559

2559 Isa. xliii. 19.

And in another passage: “I will make a new covenant, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt.”2560

2560 This quotation, however, is from Jer. xxxi. 32.

In like manner by Jeremiah: Make to yourselves a new covenant, “circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart.”2561

2561 Jer. iv. 4.

It is this circumcision, therefore, and this renewal, which the apostle insisted on, when he forbade those ancient ceremonies concerning which their very founder announced that they were one day to cease; thus by Hosea: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast-days, her new moons, and her Sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.”2562

2562 Hos. ii. 11.

So likewise by Isaiah: “The new moons, and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; your holy days, and fasts, and feast-days, my soul hateth.”2563

2563 Slightly altered from Isa. i. 13, 14.

Now, if even the Creator had so long before discarded all these things, and the apostle was now proclaiming them to be worthy of renunciation, the very agreement of the apostle’s meaning with the decrees of the Creator proves that none other God was preached by the apostle than He whose purposes he now wished to have recognised, branding as false both apostles and brethren, for the express reason that they were pushing back the gospel of Christ the Creator from the new condition which the Creator had foretold, to the old one which He had discarded.
Ps. ii. 3, 1, 2.

And, indeed, if another god were preached by Paul, there could be no doubt about the law, whether it were to be kept or not, because of course it would not belong to the new lord, the enemy2568

2568 Æmulum.

of the law. The very newness and difference of the god would take away not only all question about the old and alien law, but even all mention of it.  But the whole question, as it then stood, was this, that although the God of the law was the same as was preached in Christ, yet there was a disparagement2569

2569 Derogaretur.

of His law. Permanent still, therefore, stood faith in the Creator and in His Christ; manner of life and discipline alone fluctuated.2570

2570 Nutabat.

Some disputed about eating idol sacrifices, others about the veiled dress of women, others again about marriage and divorce, and some even about the hope of the resurrection; but about God no one disputed. Now, if this question also had entered into dispute, surely it would be found in the apostle, and that too as a great and vital point. No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation. You will, however, find no church of apostolic origin2571

2571 Census.

but such as reposes its Christian faith in the Creator.2572

2572 In Creatore christianizet.

But if the churches shall prove to have been corrupt from the beginning, where shall the pure ones be found? Will it be amongst the adversaries of the Creator? Show us, then, one of your churches, tracing its descent from an apostle, and you will have gained the day.2573

2573 Obduxeris. For this sense of the word, see Apol. 1. sub init. “sed obducimur,” etc.

Forasmuch then as it is on all accounts evident that there was from Christ down to Marcion’s time no other God in the rule of sacred truth2574

2574 Sacramenti.

than the Creator, the proof of our argument is sufficiently established, in which we have shown that the god of our heretic first became known by his separation of the gospel and the law.  Our previous position2575

2575 Definito.

is accordingly made good, that no god is to be believed whom any man has devised out of his own conceits; except indeed the man be a prophet,2576

2576 That is, “inspired.”

and then his own conceits would not be concerned in the matter. If Marcion, however, shall be able to lay claim to this inspired character, it will be necessary for it to be shown. There must be no doubt or paltering.2577

2577 Nihil retractare oportebat.

For all heresy is thrust out by this wedge of the truth, that Christ is proved to be the revealer of no God else but the Creator.2578

2578 [Kaye, p. 274.]


Matt. v. 48.

Prove, then, that the goodness of your god also is a perfect one. That it is indeed imperfect has been already sufficiently shown, since it is found to be neither natural nor rational. The same conclusion, however, shall now be made clear2620

2620 Traducetur.

by another method; it is not simply2621

2621 Nec jam.

imperfect, but actually2622

2622 Immo.

feeble, weak, and exhausted, failing to embrace the full number2623

2623 Minor numero.

of its material objects, and not manifesting itself in them all. For all are not put into a state of salvation2624

2624 Non fiunt salvi. [Kaye, p. 347.]

by it; but the Creator’s subjects, both Jew and Christian, are all excepted.2625

2625 Pauciores.

Now, when the greater part thus perish, how can that goodness be defended as a perfect one which is inoperative in most cases, is somewhat only in few, naught in many, succumbs to perdition, and is a partner with destruction?2626

2626 Partiaria exitii.

And if so many shall miss salvation, it will not be with goodness, but with malignity, that the greater perfection will lie. For as it is the operation of goodness which brings salvation, so is it malevolence which thwarts it.2627

2627 Non facit salvos.

Since, however, this goodness) saves but few, and so rather leans to the alternative of not saving, it will show itself to greater perfection by not interposing help than by helping. Now, you will not be able to attribute goodness (to your god) in reference to the Creator, (if accompanied with) failure towards all. For whomsoever you call in to judge the question, it is as a dispenser of goodness, if so be such a title can be made out,2628

2628 Si forte (i.e., εἰ τύχοι εἴπερ ἄρα, with a touch of irony,— a frequent phrase in Tertullian.

and not as a squanderer thereof, as you claim your god to be, that you must submit the divine character for determination.  So long, then, as you prefer your god to the Creator on the simple ground of his goodness, and since he professes to have this attribute as solely and wholly his own, he ought not to have been wanting in it to any one. However, I do not now wish to prove that Marcion’s god is imperfect in goodness because of the perdition of the greater number. I am content to illustrate this imperfection by the fact that even those whom he saves are found to possess but an imperfect salvation—that is, they are saved only so far as the soul is concerned,2629

2629 Anima tenus. Comp.De Præscr. Hær. 33, where Marcion, as well as Apelles, Valentinus, and others, are charged with the Sadducean denial of the resurrection of the flesh, which is censured by St. Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 12.

but lost in their body, which, according to him, does not rise again. Now, whence comes this halving of salvation, if not from a failure of goodness? What could have been a better proof of a perfect goodness, than the recovery of the whole man to salvation? Totally damned by the Creator, he should have been totally restored by the most merciful god. I rather think that by Marcion’s rule the body is baptized, is deprived of marriage,2630

2630 Compare De Præscr. Hær. 33, where Marcion and Apelles are brought under St. Paul’s reproach in 1 Tim. iv. 3.

is cruelly tortured in confession. But although sins are attributed to the body, yet they are preceded by the guilty concupiscence of the soul; nay, the first motion of sin must be ascribed to the soul, to which the flesh acts in the capacity of a servant. By and by, when freed from the soul, the flesh sins no more.2631

2631 Hactenus. [Kaye, p. 260.]

So that in this matter goodness is unjust, and likewise imperfect, in that it leaves to destruction the more harmless substance, which sins rather by compliance than in will. Now, although Christ put not on the verity of the flesh, as your heresy is pleased to assume, He still vouchsafed to take upon Him the semblance thereof. Surely, therefore, some regard was due to it from Him, because of this His feigned assumption of it. Besides, what else is man than flesh, since no doubt it was the corporeal rather than the spiritual2632

2632 Animalis (from anima, the vital principle, “the breath of life”) is here opposed to corporalis.

element from which the Author of man’s nature gave him his designation?2633

2633 םרָאָהָ, homo, from המָרַאְַהָ, humus, the ground; see the Hebrew of Gen. ii. 7.

“And the Lord God made man of the dust of the ground,” not of spiritual essence; this afterwards came from the divine afflatus:  “and man became a living soul.”  What, then, is man? Made, no doubt of it, of the dust; and God placed him in paradise, because He moulded him, not breathed him, into being—a fabric of flesh, not of spirit. Now, this being the case, with what face will you contend for the perfect character of that goodness which did not fail in some one particular only of man’s deliverance, but in its general capacity? If that is a plenary grace and a substantial mercy which brings salvation to the soul alone, this were the better life which we now enjoy whole and entire; whereas to rise again but in part will be a chastisement, not a liberation.  The proof of the perfect goodness is, that man, after his rescue, should be delivered from the domicile and power of the malignant deity unto the protection of the most good and merciful God.  Poor dupe of Marcion, fever2634

2634 Febricitas.

is hard upon you; and your painful flesh produces a crop of all sorts of briers and thorns. Nor is it only to the Creator’s thunderbolts that you lie exposed, or to wars, and pestilences, and His other heavier strokes, but even to His creeping insects. In what respect do you suppose yourself liberated from His kingdom when His flies are still creeping upon your face? If your deliverance lies in the future, why not also in the present, that it may be perfectly wrought? Far different is our condition in the sight of Him who is the Author, the Judge, the injured2635

2635 Offensum, probably in respect of the Marcionite treatment of His attributes.

Head of our race! You display Him as a merely good God; but you are unable to prove that He is perfectly good, because you are not by Him perfectly delivered.
Gen. i. 28.

but also, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife;”2681

2681 Ex. xx. 14; 17.

and who threatened with death the unchaste, sacrilegious, and monstrous abomination both of adultery and unnatural sin with man and beast.2682

2682 Lev. xx. 10, 13, 15.

Now, if any limitation is set to marrying—such as the spiritual rule,2683

2683 Ratio.

which prescribes but one marriage under the Christian obedience,2684

2684 In fide. Tertullian uses (De Pud. 18) “ante fidem” as synonymous with ante baptismum; similarly “post fidem.”

maintained by the authority of the Paraclete,2685

2685 [Bad as this is, does it argue the lapse of our author as at this time complete?]

—it will be His prerogative to fix the limit Who had once been diffuse in His permission; His to gather, Who once scattered; His to cut down the tree, Who planted it; His to reap the harvest, Who sowed the seed; His to declare, “It remaineth that they who have wives be as though they had none,”2686

2686 1 Cor. vii. 29.

Who once said, “Be fruitful, and multiply;” His the end to Whom belonged the beginning. Nevertheless, the tree is not cut down as if it deserved blame; nor is the corn reaped, as if it were to be condemned,—but simply because their time is come. So likewise the state of matrimony does not require the hook and scythe of sanctity, as if it were evil; but as being ripe for its discharge, and in readiness for that sanctity which will in the long run bring it a plenteous crop by its reaping.  For this leads me to remark of Marcion’s god, that in reproaching marriage as an evil and unchaste thing, he is really prejudicing the cause of that very sanctity which he seems to serve.  For he destroys the material on which it subsists; if there is to be no marriage, there is no sanctity. All proof of abstinence is lost when excess is impossible; for sundry things have thus their evidence in their contraries.  Just as “strength is made perfect in weakness,”2687

2687 2 Cor. xii. 9.

so likewise is continence made manifest by the permission to marry. Who indeed will be called continent, if that be taken away which gives him the opportunity of pursuing a life of continence? What room for temperance in appetite does famine give? What repudiation of ambitious projects does poverty afford?  What bridling of lust can the eunuch merit? To put a complete stop, however, to the sowing of the human race, may, for aught I know, be quite consistent for Marcion’s most good and excellent god.  For how could he desire the salvation of man, whom he forbids to be born, when he takes away that institution from which his birth arises? How will he find any one on whom to set the mark of his goodness, when he suffers him not to come into existence? How is it possible to love him whose origin he hates? Perhaps he is afraid of a redundant population, lest he should be weary in liberating so many; lest he should have to make many heretics; lest Marcionite parents should produce too many noble disciples of Marcion. The cruelty of Pharaoh, which slew its victims at their birth, will not prove to be more inhuman in comparison.2688

2688 This is the force of the erit instead of the past tense.

For while he destroyed lives, our heretic’s god refuses to give them: the one removes from life, the other admits none to it.  There is no difference in either as to their homicide—man is slain by both of them; by the former just after birth, by the latter as yet unborn. Thanks should we owe thee, thou god of our heretic, hadst thou only checked2689

2689 Isses in, i.e., obstitisses, check or resist, for then Marcion would, of course, not have been born:  the common text has esses in.

the dispensation of the Creator in uniting male and female; for from such a union indeed has thy Marcion been born!  Enough, however, of Marcion’s god, who is shown to have absolutely no existence at all, both by our definitions2690

2690 Tertullian has discussed these “definitions” in chap. ii. vii., and the “conditions” from chap. viii. onward. He will “examine the Scripture” passages in books iv. and v.  Fr. Junius.

of the one only Godhead, and the condition of his attributes.2691

2691 Statuum.

The whole course, however, of this little work aims directly at this conclusion.  If, therefore, we seem to anybody to have achieved but little result as yet, let him reserve his expectations, until we examine the very Scripture which Marcion quotes. Comp. Isa. xl. 13, 14; with Rom. xi. 34.

With whom the apostle agreeing exclaims, “Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!”2712

2712 Rom. xi. 33.

“His judgments unsearchable,” as being those of God the Judge; and “His ways past finding out,” as comprising an understanding and knowledge which no man has ever shown to Him, except it may be those critics of the Divine Being, who say, God ought not to have been this,2713

2713 Sic non debuit Deus. This perhaps may mean, God ought not to have done this, etc.

and He ought rather to have been that; as if any one knew what is in God, except the Spirit of God.2714

2714 1 Cor. ii. 11.

Moreover, having the spirit of the world, and “in the wisdom of God by wisdom knowing not God,”2715

2715 1 Cor. i. 21.

they seem to themselves to be wiser2716

2716 Consultiores.

than God; because, as the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God, so also the wisdom of God is folly in the world’s esteem. We, however, know that “the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”2717

2717 1 Cor. i. 25.

Accordingly, God is then especially great, when He is small2718

2718 Pusillus.

to man; then especially good, when not good in man’s judgment; then especially unique, when He seems to man to be two or more.  Now, if from the very first “the natural man, not receiving the things of the Spirit of God,”2719

2719 1 Cor. ii. 14.

has deemed God’s law to be foolishness, and has therefore neglected to observe it; and as a further consequence, by his not having faith, “even that which he seemeth to have hath been taken from him”2720

2720 Luke viii. 18; comp. Matt. xiii. 12.

—such as the grace of paradise and the friendship of God, by means of which he might have known all things of God, if he had continued in his obedience—what wonder is it, if he,2721

2721 That is, the natural man, the ψυχικός.

reduced to his material nature, and banished to the toil of tilling the ground, has in his very labour, downcast and earth-gravitating as it was, handed on that earth-derived spirit of the world to his entire race, wholly natural2722

2722 Animali = ψυχικῷ.

and heretical as it is, and not receiving the things which belong to God? Or who will hesitate to declare the great sin of Adam to have been heresy, when he committed it by the choice2723

2723 Electionem. By this word our author translates the Greek αἵρεσις. Comp. De Præscr. Her. 6, p. 245, supra.

of his own will rather than of God’s?  Except that Adam never said to his fig-tree, Why hast thou made me thus? He confessed that he was led astray; and he did not conceal the seducer.  He was a very rude heretic. He was disobedient; but yet he did not blaspheme his Creator, nor blame that Author of his being, Whom from the beginning of his life he had found to be so good and excellent, and Whom he had perhaps2724

2724 Si forte.

made his own judge from the very first.
Gen. i. 14.

Previous, then, to this temporal course, (the goodness) which created time had not time; nor before that beginning which the same goodness originated, had it a beginning.  Being therefore without all order of a beginning, and all mode of time, it will be reckoned to possess an age, measureless in extent2734

2734 Immensa.

and endless in duration;2735

2735 Interminabili.

nor will it be possible to regard it as a sudden or adventitious or impulsive emotion, because it has nothing to occasion such an estimate of itself; in other words, no sort of temporal sequence.  It must therefore be accounted an eternal attribute, inbred in God,2736

2736 Deo ingenita “Natural to,” or “inherent in.”

and everlasting,2737

2737 Perpetua. [Truly, a sublime Theodicy.]

and on this account worthy of the Divine Being, putting to shame for ever2738

2738 Suffundens jam hinc.

the benevolence of Marcion’s god, subsequent as he is to (I will not say) all beginnings and times, but to the very malignity of the Creator, if indeed malignity could possibly have been found in goodness.
“Eructavit cor. meum Sermonem optimum” is Tertullian’s reading of Ps. xlv. 1, “My heart is inditing a good matter,” A.V., which the Vulgate, Ps. xliv. 1, renders by “Eructavit cor meum verbum bonum,” and the Septuagint by ᾽Εξηρεύξατο ἡ καρδία μου λόγον ἀγαθόν. This is a tolerably literal rendering of the original words, בוֹט רבָרָ יבִּלִ שׁהַרָ. In these words the Fathers used to descry an adumbration of the mystery of the Son’s eternal generation from the Father, and His coming forth in time to create the world.  See Bellarmine, On the Psalms (Paris ed. 1861), vol. i. 292. The Psalm is no doubt eminently Messianic, as both Jewish and Christian writers have ever held. See Perowne, The Psalms, vol. i. p. 216.  Bishop Bull reviews at length the theological opinions of Tertullian, and shows that he held the eternity of the Son of God, whom he calls “Sermo” or “Verbum Dei.” See Defensio Fidei Nicænæ (translation in the “Oxford Library of the Fathers,” by the translator of this work) vol. ii. 509–545. In the same volume, p. 482, the passage from the Psalm before us is similarly applied by Novatian: “Sic Dei Verbum processit, de quo dictum est, Eructavit cor meum Verbum bonum.” [See vol. ii. p. 98, this series: and Kaye, p. 515.]

Let Marcion take hence his first lesson on the noble fruit of this truly most excellent tree. But, like a most clumsy clown, he has grafted a good branch on a bad stock. The sapling, however, of his blasphemy shall be never strong: it shall wither with its planter, and thus shall be manifested the nature of the good tree. Look at the total result: how fruitful was the Word! God issued His fiat, and it was done: God also saw that it was good;2744

2744 Gen. i.

not as if He were ignorant of the good until He saw it; but because it was good, He therefore saw it, and honoured it, and set His seal upon it; and consummated2745

2745 Dispungens, i.e., examinans et probans et ita quasi consummans (Oehler).

the goodness of His works by His vouchsafing to them that contemplation. Thus God blessed what He made good, in order that He might commend Himself to you as whole and perfect, good both in word and act.2746

2746 This twofold virtue is very tersely expressed: “Sic et benedicebat quæ benefaciebat.”

As yet the Word knew no malediction, because He was a stranger to malefaction.2747

2747 This, the translator fears, is only a clumsy way of representing the terseness of our author’s “maledicere” and “malefacere.”

We shall see what reasons required this also of God. Meanwhile the world consisted of all things good, plainly foreshowing how much good was preparing for him for whom all this was provided. Who indeed was so worthy of dwelling amongst the works of God, as he who was His own image and likeness? That image was wrought out by a goodness even more operative than its wont,2748

2748 Bonitas et quidem operantior.

with no imperious word, but with friendly hand preceded by an almost affable2749

2749 Blandiente.

utterance: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”2750

2750 Gen. i. 26.

Goodness spake the word; Goodness formed man of the dust of the ground into so great a substance of the flesh, built up out of one material with so many qualities; Goodness breathed into him a soul, not dead but living. Goodness gave him dominion2751

2751 Præfecit.

over all things, which he was to enjoy and rule over, and even give names to. In addition to this, Goodness annexed pleasures2752

2752 Delicias.

to man so that, while master of the whole world,2753

2753 Totius orbis possidens.

he might tarry among higher delights, being translated into paradise, out of the world into the Church.2754

2754 There is a profound thought here; in his tract, De Pœnit. 10, he says, “Where one or two are, is the church, and the church is Christ.” Hence what he here calls Adam’s “higher delights,” even spiritual blessings in Christ with Eve. [Important note in Kaye, p. 304.]

The self-same Goodness provided also a help meet for him, that there might be nothing in his lot that was not good. For, said He, that the man be alone is not good.2755

2755 See Gen. ii. 18.

He knew full well what a blessing to him would be the sex of Mary,2756

2756 Sexum Mariæ. For the Virgin Mary gave birth to Christ, the Saviour of men; and the virgin mother the Church, the spouse of Christ, gives birth to Christians (Rigalt.).

and also of the Church. The law, however, which you find fault with,2757

2757 Arguis.

and wrest into a subject of contention, was imposed on man by Goodness, aiming at his happiness, that he might cleave to God, and so not show himself an abject creature rather than a free one, nor reduce himself to the level of the other animals, his subjects, which were free from God, and exempt from all tedious subjection;2758

2758 Ex fastidio liberis.

but might, as the sole human being, boast that he alone was worthy of receiving laws from God; and as a rational being, capable of intelligence and knowledge, be restrained within the bounds of rational liberty, subject to Him who had subjected all things unto him. To secure the observance of this law, Goodness likewise took counsel by help of this sanction: “In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.”2759

2759 Gen. ii. 17.

For it was a most benignant act of His thus to point out the issues of transgression, lest ignorance of the danger should encourage a neglect of obedience. Now, since2760

2760 Porro si.

it was given as a reason previous to the imposition of the law, it also amounted to a motive for subsequently observing it, that a penalty was annexed to its transgression; a penalty, indeed, which He who proposed it was still unwilling that it should be incurred.  Learn then the goodness of our God amidst these things and up to this point; learn it from His excellent works, from His kindly blessings, from His indulgent bounties, from His gracious providences, from His laws and warnings, so good and merciful.
Rev. xxii. 15.

and who yelp at the God of truth, let us come to your various questions. These are the bones of contention, which you are perpetually gnawing! If God is good, and prescient of the future, and able to avert evil, why did He permit man, the very image and likeness of Himself, and, by the origin of his soul, His own substance too, to be deceived by the devil, and fall from obedience of the law into death? For if He had been good, and so unwilling that such a catastrophe should happen, and prescient, so as not to be ignorant of what was to come to pass, and powerful enough to hinder its occurrence, that issue would never have come about, which should be impossible under these three conditions of the divine greatness. Since, however, it has occurred, the contrary proposition is most certainly true, that God must be deemed neither good, nor prescient, nor powerful. For as no such issue could have happened had God been such as He is reputed—good, and prescient, and mighty—so has this issue actually happened, because He is not such a God. In reply, we must first vindicate those attributes in the Creator which are called in question—namely, His goodness and foreknowledge, and power. But I shall not linger long over this point2762

2762 Articulo.

for Christ’s own definition2763

2763 John x. 25.

comes to our aid at once. From works must proofs be obtained. The Creator’s works testify at once to His goodness, since they are good, as we have shown, and to His power, since they are mighty, and spring indeed out of nothing. And even if they were made out of some (previous) matter, as some2764

2764 He refers to Hermogenes; see Adv. Hermog. chap. xxxii.

will have it, they are even thus out of nothing, because they were not what they are. In short, both they are great because they are good; and2765

2765 Vel…vel.

God is likewise mighty, because all things are His own, whence He is almighty. But what shall I say of His prescience, which has for its witnesses as many prophets as it inspired? After all,2766

2766 Quanquam.

what title to prescience do we look for in the Author of the universe, since it was by this very attribute that He foreknew all things when He appointed them their places, and appointed them their places when He foreknew them? There is sin itself. If He had not foreknown this, He would not have proclaimed a caution against it under the penalty of death. Now if there were in God such attributes as must have rendered it both impossible and improper for any evil to have happened to man,2767

2767 As the Marcionites alleged.

and yet evil did occur, let us consider man’s condition also—whether it were not, in fact, rather the cause why that came to pass which could not have happened through God. I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God’s image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature. For it was not by his face, and by the lineaments of his body, though they were so varied in his human nature, that he expressed his likeness to the form of God; but he showed his stamp2768

2768 Signatus est.

in that essence which he derived from God Himself (that is, the spiritual,2769

2769 Animæ.

which answered to the form of God), and in the freedom and power of his will. This his state was confirmed even by the very law which God then imposed upon him. For a law would not be imposed upon one who had it not in his power to render that obedience which is due to law; nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will. So in the Creator’s subsequent laws also you will find, when He sets before man good and evil, life and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by God’s calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and this on no other ground than2770

2770 Nec alias nisi.

that man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.
Ezek. xviii. 23.

As, therefore, God designed for man a condition of life, so man brought on himself a state of death; and this, too, neither through infirmity nor through ignorance, so that no blame can be imputed to the Creator. No doubt it was an angel who was the seducer; but then the victim of that seduction was free, and master of himself; and as being the image and likeness of God, was stronger than any angel; and as being, too, the afflatus of the Divine Being, was nobler than that material spirit of which angels were made. Who maketh, says he, His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.2811

2811 Ps. civ. 4.

He would not have made all things subject to man, if he had been too weak for the dominion, and inferior to the angels, to whom He assigned no such subjects; nor would He have put the burden of law upon him, if he had been incapable of sustaining so great a weight; nor, again, would He have threatened with the penalty of death a creature whom He knew to be guiltless on the score of his helplessness:  in short, if He had made him infirm, it would not have been by liberty and independence of will, but rather by the withholding from him these endowments. And thus it comes to pass, that even now also, the same human being, the same substance of his soul, the same condition as Adam’s, is made conqueror over the same devil by the self-same liberty and power of his will, when it moves in obedience to the laws of God.2812

2812 [On capp. viii. and ix. See Kaye’s references in notes p. 178 et seqq.]


Gen. ii. 7.

that God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life, and that man became thereby a living soul, not a life-giving spirit, has distinguished that soul from the condition of the Creator. The work must necessarily be distinct from the workman, and it is inferior to him.  The pitcher will not be the potter, although made by the potter; nor in like manner, will the afflatus, because made by the spirit, be on that account the spirit.  The soul has often been called by the same name as the breath. You should also take care that no descent be made from the breath to a still lower quality.  So you have granted (you say) the infirmity of the soul, which you denied before! Undoubtedly, when you demand for it an equality with God, that is, a freedom from fault, I contend that it is infirm. But when the comparison is challenged with an angel, I am compelled to maintain that the head over all things is the stronger of the two, to whom the angels are ministers,2825

2825 Heb. i. 14.

who is destined to be the judge of angels,2826

2826 1 Cor. vi. 3.

if he shall stand fast in the law of God—an obedience which he refused at first. Now this disobedience2827

2827 Hoc ipsum, referring to the noluit of the preceding clause.

it was possible for the afflatus of God to commit: it was possible, but it was not proper. The possibility lay in its slenderness of nature, as being the breath and not the spirit; the impropriety, however, arose from its power of will, as being free, and not a slave.  It was furthermore assisted by the warning against committing sin under the threat of incurring death, which was meant to be a support for its slender nature, and a direction for its liberty of choice. So that the soul can no longer appear to have sinned, because it has an affinity with God, that is to say, through the afflatus, but rather through that which was an addition to its nature, that is, through its free-will, which was indeed given to it by God in accordance with His purpose and reason, but recklessly employed2828

2828 Agitatum.

by man according as he chose. This, then, being the case, the entire course2829

2829 Dispositio.

of God’s action is purged from all imputation to evil. For the liberty of the will will not retort its own wrong on Him by whom it was bestowed, but on him by whom it was improperly used. What is the evil, then, which you want to impute to the Creator?  If it is man’s sin, it will not be God’s fault, because it is man’s doing; nor is that Being to be regarded as the author of the sin, who turns out to be its forbidder, nay, its condemner.  If death is the evil, death will not give the reproach of being its own author to Him who threatened it, but to him who despised it. For by his contempt he introduced it, which assuredly2830

2830 Utique.

would not have appeared had man not despised it.
Ezek. xxviii. 11–16 (Sept.).

This description, it is manifest, properly belongs to the transgression of the angel, and not to the prince’s: for none among human beings was either born in the paradise of God, not even Adam himself, who was rather translated thither; nor placed with a cherub upon God’s holy mountain, that is to say, in the heights of heaven, from which the Lord testifies that Satan fell; nor detained amongst the stones of fire, and the flashing rays of burning constellations, whence Satan was cast down like lightning.2838

2838 Luke x. 18.

No, it is none else than the very author of sin who was denoted in the person of a sinful man: he was once irreproachable, at the time of his creation, formed for good by God, as by the good Creator of irreproachable creatures, and adorned with every angelic glory, and associated with God, good with the Good; but afterwards of his own accord removed to evil. From the day when thine iniquities,2839

2839 Læsuræ ="injuries.” ᾽Αδικήματα ἔν σοι—Iniquitates in te.”—Hieron.

says he, were discovered,—attributing to him those injuries wherewith he injured man when he was expelled from his allegiance to God,—even from that time did he sin, when he propagated his sin, and thereby plied “the abundance of his merchandise,” that is, of his Wickedness, even the tale2840

2840 Censum.

of his transgressions, because he was himself as a spirit no less (than man) created, with the faculty of free-will.  For God would in nothing fail to endow a being who was to be next to Himself with a liberty of this kind.  Nevertheless, by precondemning him, God testified that he had departed from the condition2841

2841 Forma.

of his created nature, through his own lusting after the wickedness which was spontaneously conceived within him; and at the same time, by conceding a permission for the operation of his designs, He acted consistently with the purpose of His own goodness, deferring the devil’s destruction for the self-same reason as He postponed the restitution of man. For He afforded room for a conflict, wherein man might crush his enemy with the same freedom of his will as had made him succumb to him (proving that the fault was all his own, not God’s), and so worthily recover his salvation by a victory; wherein also the devil might receive a more bitter punishment, through being vanquished by him whom he had previously injured; and wherein God might be discovered to be so much the more good, as waiting2842

2842 Sustinens.

for man to return from his present life to a more glorious paradise, with a right to pluck of the tree of life.2843

2843 [Kaye. p. 313.]


Gen. iii. 16.

although before she had heard without pain the increase of her race proclaimed with the blessing, Increase and multiply, and although she had been destined to be a help and not a slave to her male partner. Immediately the earth is also cursed,2845

2845 Gen. iii. 18.

which before was blessed. Immediately spring up briers and thorns, where once had grown grass, and herbs, and fruitful trees. Immediately arise sweat and labour for bread, where previously on every tree was yielded spontaneous food and untilled2846

2846 Secura.

nourishment. Thenceforth it is “man to the ground,” and not as before, “from the ground”; to death thenceforth, but before, to life; thenceforth with coats of skins, but before, nakedness without a blush. Thus God’s prior goodness was from2847

2847 Secundum.

nature, His subsequent severity from2848

2848 Secundum.

a cause. The one was innate, the other accidental; the one His own, the other adapted;2849

2849 Accommodata.

the one issuing from Him, the other admitted by Him. But then nature could not have rightly permitted His goodness to have gone on inoperative, nor the cause have allowed His severity to have escaped in disguise or concealment.  God provided the one for Himself, the other for the occasion.2850

2850 Rei.

You should now set about showing also that the position of a judge is allied with evil, who have been dreaming of another god as a purely good one—solely because you cannot understand the Deity to be a judge; although we have proved God to be also a judge. Or if not a judge, at any rate a perverse and useless originator of a discipline which is not to be vindicated—in other words, not to be judged.  You do not, however, disprove God’s being a judge, who have no proof to show that He is a judge. You will undoubtedly have to accuse justice herself, which provides the judge, or else to reckon her among the species of evil, that is, to add injustice to the titles of goodness. But then justice is an evil, if injustice is a good. And yet you are forced to declare injustice to be one of the worst of things, and by the same rule are constrained to class justice amongst the most excellent. Since there is nothing hostile2851

2851 Æmulum.

to evil which is not good, and no enemy of good which is not evil. It follows, then, that as injustice is an evil, so in the same degree is justice a good.  Nor should it be regarded as simply a species of goodness, but as the practical observance2852

2852 Tutela.

of it, because goodness (unless justice be so controlled as to be just) will not be goodness, if it be unjust. For nothing is good which is unjust; while everything, on the other hand, which is just is good.
Matt. vii. 13.

how thronged in comparison with the opposite:  would not all glide down that road were there nothing in it to fear? We dread the Creator’s tremendous threats, and yet scarcely turn away from evil. What, if He threatened not? Will you call this justice an evil, when it is all unfavourable to evil? Will you deny it to be a good, when it has its eye towards2862

2862 Prospicit.

good? What sort of being ought you to wish God to be? Would it be right to prefer that He should be such, that sins might flourish under Him, and the devil make mock at Him? Would you suppose Him to be a good God, who should be able to make a man worse by security in sin? Who is the author of good, but He who also requires it? In like manner who is a stranger to evil, except Him who is its enemy? Who its enemy, besides Him who is its conqueror? Who else its conqueror, than He who is its punisher? Thus God is wholly good, because in all things He is on the side of good. In fact, He is omnipotent, because able both to help and to hurt. Merely to profit is a comparatively small matter, because it can do nothing else than a good turn. From such a conduct2863

2863 De ejusmodi.

with what confidence can I hope for good, if this is its only ability? How can I follow after the reward of innocence, if I have no regard to the requital of wrong-doing? I must needs have my doubts whether he might not fail in recompensing one or other alternative, who was unequal in his resources to meet both. Thus far, then, justice is the very fulness of the Deity Himself, manifesting God as both a perfect father and a perfect master: a father in His mercy, a master in His discipline; a father in the mildness of His power, a master in its severity; a father who must be loved with dutiful affection, a master who must needs be feared; be loved, because He prefers mercy to sacrifice;2864

2864 Hos. vi. 6.

be feared because He dislikes sin; be loved, because He prefers the sinner’s repentance to his death;2865

2865 Ezek. xxxiii. 11.

be feared, because He dislikes the sinners who do not repent. Accordingly, the divine law enjoins duties in respect of both these attributes: Thou shalt love God, and, Thou shalt fear God. It proposed one for the obedient man, the other for the transgressor.2866

2866 Matt. xxii. 37 f.


See Isa. xlv. 7.

—so that from these very (contrasts of His providence) I may get an answer to the heretics. Behold, they say, how He acknowledges Himself to be the creator of evil in the passage, “It is I who create evil.” They take a word whose one form reduces to confusion and ambiguity two kinds of evils (because both sins and punishments are called evils), and will have Him in every passage to be understood as the creator of all evil things, in order that He may be designated the author of evil. We, on the contrary, distinguish between the two meanings of the word in question, and, by separating evils of sin from penal evils, mala culpæ from mala pœnæ, confine to each of the two classes its own author,—the devil as the author of the sinful evils (culpæ), and God as the creator of penal evils (pœnæ); so that the one class shall be accounted as morally bad, and the other be classed as the operations of justice passing penal sentences against the evils of sin.  Of the latter class of evils which are compatible with justice, God is therefore avowedly the creator. They are, no doubt, evil to those by whom they are endured, but still on their own account good, as being just and defensive of good and hostile to sin. In this respect they are, moreover, worthy of God. Else prove them to be unjust, in order to show them deserving of a place in the sinful class, that is to say, evils of injustice; because if they turn out to belong to justice, they will be no longer evil things, but good—evil only to the bad, by whom even directly good things are condemned as evil. In this case, you must decide that man, although the wilful contemner of the divine law, unjustly bore the doom which he would like to have escaped; that the wickedness of those days was unjustly smitten by the deluge, afterwards by the fire (of Sodom); that Egypt, although most depraved and superstitious, and, worse still, the harasser of its guest-population,2869

2869 Hospitis populi conflictatricem.

was unjustly stricken with the chastisement of its ten plagues. God hardens the heart of Pharaoh. He deserved, however, to be influenced2870

2870 Subministrari. In Apol. ii., the verb ministrare is used to indicate Satan’s power in influencing men. [The translator here corrects his own word seduced and I have substituted his better word influenced. The Lord gave him over to Satan’s influence.]

to his destruction, who had already denied God, already in his pride so often rejected His ambassadors, accumulated heavy burdens on His people, and (to sum up all) as an Egyptian, had long been guilty before God of Gentile idolatry, worshipping the ibis and the crocodile in preference to the living God. Even His own people did God visit in their ingratitude.2871

2871 Num. xi. and xxi.

Against young lads, too, did He send forth bears, for their irreverence to the prophet.2872

2872 2 Kings ii. 23, 24. [See notes 4, 5, 9, following.]


Jer. xxxi. 29.

in other words, that the father should not bear the iniquity of the son, nor the son the iniquity of the father, but that every man should be chargeable with his own sin; so that the harshness of the law having been reduced2879

2879 Edomita, cf. chap. xix. sub init. and xxix.

after the hardness of the people, justice was no longer to judge the race, but individuals. If, however, you accept the gospel of truth, you will discover on whom recoils the sentence of the Judge, when requiting on sons the sins of their fathers, even on those who had been (hardened enough) to imprecate spontaneously on themselves this condemnation: “His blood be on us, and on our children.”2880

2880 Matt. xxvii. 25.

This, therefore, the providence of God has ordered throughout its course,2881

2881 Omnis providentia.

even as it had heard it.
Matt. v. 45. T. predicts this (by the word pluentem) strictly of the “goodness” of God, the quam.

—a bounty which no other god at all exercises.  It is true that Marcion has been bold enough to erase from the gospel this testimony of Christ to the Creator; but yet the world itself is inscribed with the goodness of its Maker, and the inscription is read by each man’s conscience.  Nay, this very long-suffering of the Creator will tend to the condemnation of Marcion; that patience, (I mean,) which waits for the sinner’s repentance rather than his death, which prefers mercy to sacrifice,2900

2900 Hos. vi. 6.

averting from the Ninevites the ruin which had been already denounced against them,2901

2901 Jonah iii. 10.

and vouchsafing to Hezekiah’s tears an extension of his life,2902

2902 2 Kings xx. i.

and restoring his kingly state to the monarch of Babylon after his complete repentance;2903

2903 Dan. iv. 33.

that mercy, too, which conceded to the devotion of the people the son of Saul when about to die,2904

2904 1 Sam. xiv. 45.

and gave free forgiveness to David on his confessing his sins against the house of Uriah;2905

2905 2 Sam. xii. 13.

which also restored the house of Israel as often as it condemned it, and addressed to it consolation no less frequently than reproof. Do not therefore look at God simply as Judge, but turn your attention also to examples of His conduct as the Most Good.2906

2906 Optimi.

Noting Him, as you do, when He takes vengeance, consider Him likewise when He shows mercy.2907

2907 Indulget.

In the scale, against His severity place His gentleness. When you shall have discovered both qualities to co-exist in the Creator, you will find in Him that very circumstance which induces you to think there is another God. Lastly, come and examine into His doctrine, discipline, precepts, and counsels. You will perhaps say that there are equally good prescriptions in human laws. But Moses and God existed before all your Lycurguses and Solons. There is not one after-age2908

2908 Posteritas.

which does not take from primitive sources.  At any rate, my Creator did not learn from your God to issue such commandments as: Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt not covet what is thy neighbour’s; honour thy father and thy mother; and, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. To these prime counsels of innocence, chastity, and justice, and piety, are also added prescriptions of humanity, as when every seventh year slaves are released for liberty;2909

2909 Lev. xxv. 4, etc.

when at the same period the land is spared from tillage; a place is also granted to the needy; and from the treading ox’s mouth the muzzle is removed, for the enjoyment of the fruit of his labour before him, in order that kindness first shown in the case of animals might be raised from such rudiments2910

2910 Erudiretur.

to the refreshment2911

2911 Refrigeria. [1 Cor. ix. 10.]

of men.
Ex. xxi. 24.

Now there is not here any smack of a permission to mutual injury; but rather, on the whole, a provision for restraining violence. To a people which was very obdurate, and wanting in faith towards God, it might seem tedious, and even incredible, to expect from God that vengeance which was subsequently to be declared by the prophet: “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”2913

2913 Deut. xxxii. 35; Rom. xii. 19.

Therefore, in the meanwhile, the commission of wrong was to be checked2914

2914 Repastinaretur.

by the fear of a retribution immediately to happen; and so the permission of this retribution was to be the prohibition of provocation, that a stop might thus be put to all hot-blooded2915

2915 Æstuata.

injury, whilst by the permission of the second the first is prevented by fear, and by this deterring of the first the second fails to be committed. By the same law another result is also obtained,2916

2916 Qua et alias.

even the more ready kindling of the fear of retaliation by reason of the very savour of passion which is in it. There is no more bitter thing, than to endure the very suffering which you have inflicted upon others. When, again, the law took somewhat away from men’s food, by pronouncing unclean certain animals which were once blessed, you should understand this to be a measure for encouraging continence, and recognise in it a bridle imposed on that appetite which, while eating angels’ food, craved after the cucumbers and melons of the Egyptians. Recognise also therein a precaution against those companions of the appetite, even lust and luxury, which are usually chilled by the chastening of the appetite.2917

2917 Ventris.

For “the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.”2918

2918 Ex. xxxii. 6.

Furthermore, that an eager wish for money might be restrained, so far as it is caused by the need of food, the desire for costly meat and drink was taken out of their power. Lastly, in order that man might be more readily educated by God for fasting, he was accustomed to such articles of food as were neither plentiful nor sumptuous, and not likely to pamper the appetite of the luxurious. Of course the Creator deserved all the greater blame, because it was from His own people that He took away food, rather than from the more ungrateful Marcionites. As for the burdensome sacrifices also, and the troublesome scrupulousness of their ceremonies2919

2919 Operationes.

and oblations, no one should blame them, as if God specially required them for Himself: for He plainly asks, “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?” and, “Who hath required them at your hand?”2920

2920 Isa. i. 11, 12.

But he should see herein a careful provision2921

2921 Industriam.

on God’s part, which showed His wish to bind to His own religion a people who were prone to idolatry and transgression by that kind of services wherein consisted the superstition of that period; that He might call them away therefrom, while requesting it to be performed to Himself, as if He desired that no sin should be committed in making idols.
Ps. i. 2.

It was not in severity that its Author promulgated this law, but in the interest of the highest benevolence, which rather aimed at subduing2923

2923 Edomantis, cf. chap. xv. sub fin. and xxix.

the nation’s hardness of heart, and by laborious services hewing out a fealty which was (as yet) untried in obedience:  for I purposely abstain from touching on the mysterious senses of the law, considered in its spiritual and prophetic relation, and as abounding in types of almost every variety and sort.  It is enough at present, that it simply bound a man to God, so that no one ought to find fault with it, except him who does not choose to serve God. To help forward this beneficent, not onerous, purpose of the law, the prophets were also ordained by the self-same goodness of God, teaching precepts worthy of God, how that men should “cease to do evil, learn to do well, seek judgment, judge the fatherless,2924

2924 Pupillo.

and plead for the widow:”2925

2925 Isa. i. 16, 17.

be fond of the divine expostulations:2926

2926 Quæstiones, alluding to Isa. i. 18: δεῦτε καὶ διαλεχθῶμεν, λέγει Κύριος.

avoid contact with the wicked:2927

2927 Alluding to Isa. lviii. 6: “Loose the bands of wickedness.”

“let the oppressed go free:”2928

2928 Isa. lviii. 6.

dismiss the unjust sentence,2929

2929 A lax quotation, perhaps, of the next clause in the same verse:  “Break every yoke.”

“deal their bread to the hungry; bring the outcast into their house; cover the naked, when they see him; nor hide themselves from their own flesh and kin:”2930

2930 Isa. lviii. 7, slightly changed from the second to the third person.

“keep their tongue from evil, and their lips from speaking guile: depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it:”2931

2931 Ps. xxxiv. 13, 14.

be angry, and sin not; that is, not persevere in anger, or be enraged:2932

2932 Comp. Ps. iv. 4.

“walk not in the counsel of the ungodly; nor stand in the way of sinners; nor sit in the seat of the scornful.”2933

2933 Ps. i. 1.

Where then?  “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity;”2934

2934 Ps. cxxxiii. 1.

meditating (as they do) day and night in the law of the Lord, because “it is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man; better to hope in the Lord than in man.”2935

2935 Ps. cxviii. 4.

For what recompense shall man receive from God? “He shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither, and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.”2936

2936 Ps. i. 3.

“He that hath clean hands and a pure heart, who hath not taken God’s name in vain, nor sworn deceitfully to his neighbour, he shall receive blessing from the Lord, and mercy from the God of his salvation.”2937

2937 Ps. xxiv. 4, 5. He has slightly misquoted the passage.

“For the eyes of the Lord are upon them that fear Him, upon them that hope in His mercy, to deliver their souls from death,” even eternal death, “and to nourish them in their hunger,” that is, after eternal life.2938

2938 Ps. xxxiii. 18, 19, slightly altered.

“Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivereth them out of them all.”2939

2939 Ps. xxxiv. 19.

“Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.”2940

2940 Ps. cxvi. 15.

“The Lord keepeth all their bones; not one of them shall be broken.”2941

2941 Ps. xxxiv. 20, modified.

The Lord will redeem the souls of His servants.2942

2942 Ps. xxxiv. 22.

We have adduced these few quotations from a mass of the Creator’s Scriptures; and no more, I suppose, are wanted to prove Him to be a most good God, for they sufficiently indicate both the precepts of His goodness and the first-fruits2943

2943 Præmissa.

thereof.
Deut. xiv.

prohibited this very kind of piscatory aliment, as soon as they find themselves confuted, eject the black venom of their blasphemy, and so spread about in all directions the object which (as is now plain) they severally have in view, when they put forth such assertions and protestations as shall obscure and tarnish the rekindled light2946

2946 Relucentem, “rekindled” by the confutation.

of the Creator’s bounty. We will, however, follow their wicked design, even through these black clouds, and drag to light their tricks of dark calumny, laying to the Creator’s charge with especial emphasis the fraud and theft of gold and silver which the Hebrews were commanded by Him to practise against the Egyptians. Come, unhappy heretic, I cite even you as a witness; first look at the case of the two nations, and then you will form a judgment of the Author of the command.  The Egyptians put in a claim on the Hebrews for these gold and silver vessels.2947

2947 Vasa = the jewels and the raiment mentioned in Ex. iii. 22.

The Hebrews assert a counter claim, alleging that by the bond2948

2948 Nomine. [Here our author exhibits his tact as a jurisconsult.]

of their respective fathers, attested by the written engagement of both parties, there were due to them the arrears of that laborious slavery of theirs, for the bricks they had so painfully made, and the cities and palaces2949

2949 Villis.

which they had built. What shall be your verdict, you discoverer2950

2950 Elector.

of the most good God? That the Hebrews must admit the fraud, or the Egyptians the compensation? For they maintain that thus has the question been settled by the advocates on both sides,2951

2951 For a discussion of the spoiling of the Egyptians by the Israelites, the reader is referred to Calmet’s Commentary, on Ex. iii. 22, where he adduces, besides this passage of Tertullian, the opinions of Irenæus, adv. Hæres. iv. 49; Augustine, contra Faust. ii. 71; Theodoret, Quæst. in Exod. xxiii.; Clement of Alex. Stromat. i. 1; of Philo, De Vita Moysis, i.; Josephus, Antiqq. ii. 8, who says that “the Egyptians freely gave all to the Israelites;” of Melchior Canus, Loc. Theoll. i. 4. He also refers to the book of Wisdom, x. 17–20. These all substantially agree with our author. See also a full discussion in Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gentium, vii. 8, who quotes from the Gemara, Sanhedrin, c. ii. f. 91a; and Bereshith Rabba, par. 61 f., 68, col. 2, where such a tribunal as Tertullian refers to is mentioned as convened by Alexander the Great, who, after hearing the pleadings, gave his assent to the claims of the advocates of Israel.

of the Egyptians demanding their vessels, and the Hebrews claiming the requital of their labours. But for all they say,2952

2952 Tamen.

the Egyptians justly renounced their restitution-claim then and there; while the Hebrews to this day, in spite of the Marcionites, re-assert their demand for even greater damages,2953

2953 Amplius.

insisting that, however large was their loan of the gold and silver, it would not be compensation enough, even if the labour of six hundred thousand men should be valued at only “a farthing”2954

2954 Singulis nummis. [Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 23. Vol. II., p. 336, supra.]

a day a piece. Which, however, were the more in number—those who claimed the vessel, or those who dwelt in the palaces and cities? Which, too, the greater—the grievance of the Egyptians against the Hebrews, or “the favour”2955

2955 Gratia Hebræorum, either a reference to Ex. iii. 21, or meaning, perhaps, “the unpaid services of the Hebrews.”

which they displayed towards them? Were free men reduced to servile labour, in order that the Hebrews might simply proceed against the Egyptians by action at law for injuries; or in order that their officers might on their benches sit and exhibit their backs and shoulders shamefully mangled by the fierce application of the scourge? It was not by a few plates and cup—in all cases the property, no doubt, of still fewer rich men—that any one would pronounce that compensation should have been awarded to the Hebrews, but both by all the resources of these and by the contributions of all the people.2956

2956 Popularium omnium.

If, therefore, the case of the Hebrews be a good one, the Creator’s case must likewise be a good one; that is to say, his command, when He both made the Egyptians unconsciously grateful, and also gave His own people their discharge in full2957

2957 Expunxit.

at the time of their migration by the scanty comfort of a tacit requital of their long servitude. It was plainly less than their due which He commanded to be exacted. The Egyptians ought to have given back their men-children2958

2958 Ex. i. 18; 22. [An ingenious and eloquent defence.]

also to the Hebrews.
Ex. xx. 9, 10.

For it says, “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.” What work?  Of course your own. The conclusion is, that from the Sabbath-day He removes those works which He had before enjoined for the six days, that is, your own works; in other words, human works of daily life. Now, the carrying around of the ark is evidently not an ordinary daily duty, nor yet a human one; but a rare and a sacred work, and, as being then ordered by the direct precept of God, a divine one. And I might fully explain what this signified, were it not a tedious process to open out the forms2960

2960 Figuras.

of all the Creator’s proofs, which you would, moreover, probably refuse to allow. It is more to the point, if you be confuted on plain matters2961

2961 De absolutis.

by the simplicity of truth rather than curious reasoning. Thus, in the present instance, there is a clear distinction respecting the Sabbath’s prohibition of human labours, not divine ones. Accordingly, the man who went and gathered sticks on the Sabbath-day was punished with death. For it was his own work which he did; and this2962

2962 [He was not punished for gathering sticks, but for setting an example of contempt of the Divine Law.]

the law forbade. They, however, who on the Sabbath carried the ark round Jericho, did it with impunity. For it was not their own work, but God’s, which they executed, and that too, from His express commandment.
Num. xxi. 8, 9.

I say nothing of what was figured by this cure.2967

2967 See John iii. 14.

Thus, too, the golden Cherubim and Seraphim were purely an ornament in the figured fashion2968

2968 Exemplum.

of the ark; adapted to ornamentation for reasons totally remote from all condition of idolatry, on account of which the making a likeness is prohibited; and they are evidently not at variance with2969

2969 Refragari.

this law of prohibition, because they are not found in that form2970

2970 Statu.

of similitude, in reference to which the prohibition is given. We have spoken2971

2971 In chap. xviii. towards the end. [p. 311, supra.]

of the rational institution of the sacrifices, as calling off their homage from idols to God; and if He afterwards rejected this homage, saying, “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me?”2972

2972 Isa. i. 11.

—He meant nothing else than this to be understood, that He had never really required such homage for Himself. For He says, “I will not eat the flesh of bulls;”2973

2973 Ps. l. 13.

and in another passage: “The everlasting God shall neither hunger nor thirst.”2974

2974 An inexact quotation of Isa. xl .28.

Although He had respect to the offerings of Abel, and smelled a sweet savour from the holocaust of Noah, yet what pleasure could He receive from the flesh of sheep, or the odour of burning victims? And yet the simple and God-fearing mind of those who offered what they were receiving from God, both in the way of food and of a sweet smell, was favourably accepted before God, in the sense of respectful homage2975

2975 Honorem.

to God, who did not so much want what was offered, as that which prompted the offering. Suppose now, that some dependant were to offer to a rich man or a king, who was in want of nothing, some very insignificant gift, will the amount and quality of the gift bring dishonour2976

2976 Infuscabit.

to the rich man and the king; or will the consideration2977

2977 Titulus.

of the homage give them pleasure? Were, however, the dependant, either of his own accord or even in compliance with a command, to present to him gifts suitably to his rank, and were he to observe the solemnities due to a king, only without faith and purity of heart, and without any readiness for other acts of obedience, will not that king or rich man consequently exclaim: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? I am full of your solemnities, your feast-days, and your Sabbaths.”2978

2978 See Isa. i. 11–14.

By calling them yours, as having been performed2979

2979 Fecerat seems the better reading: q.d. “which he had performed,” etc. Oehler reads fecerant.

after the giver’s own will, and not according to the religion of God (since he displayed them as his own, and not as God’s), the Almighty in this passage, demonstrated how suitable to the conditions of the case, and how reasonable, was His rejection of those very offerings which He had commanded to be made to Him.
1 Sam. ix.

but he is not yet the despiser of the prophet Samuel.2985

2985 1 Sam. xiii.

Solomon is rejected; but he is now become a prey to foreign women, and a slave to the idols of Moab and Sidon. What must the Creator do, in order to escape the censure of the Marcionites? Must He prematurely condemn men, who are thus far correct in their conduct, because of future delinquencies? But it is not the mark of a good God to condemn beforehand persons who have not yet deserved condemnation. Must He then refuse to eject sinners, on account of their previous good deeds? But it is not the characteristic of a just judge to forgive sins in consideration of former virtues which are no longer practised. Now, who is so faultless among men, that God could always have him in His choice, and never be able to reject him? Or who, on the other hand, is so void of any good work, that God could reject him for ever, and never be able to choose him? Show me, then, the man who is always good, and he will not be rejected; show me, too, him who is always evil, and he will never be chosen.  Should, however, the same man, being found on different occasions in the pursuit of both (good and evil) be recompensed2986

2986 Dispungetur.

in both directions by God, who is both a good and judicial Being, He does not change His judgments through inconstancy or want of foresight, but dispenses reward according to the deserts of each case with a most unwavering and provident decision.2987

2987 Censura.


1 Sam. xv. 11.

very much as if He meant that His repentance savoured of an acknowledgment of some evil work or error. Well,2990

2990 Porro.

this is not always implied. For there occurs even in good works a confession of repentance, as a reproach and condemnation of the man who has proved himself unthankful for a benefit. For instance, in this case of Saul, the Creator, who had made no mistake in selecting him for the kingdom, and endowing him with His Holy Spirit, makes a statement respecting the goodliness of his person, how that He had most fitly chosen him as being at that moment the choicest man, so that (as He says) there was not his fellow among the children of Israel.2991

2991 1 Sam. ix. 2.

Neither was He ignorant how he would afterwards turn out. For no one would bear you out in imputing lack of foresight to that God whom, since you do not deny Him to be divine, you allow to be also foreseeing; for this proper attribute of divinity exists in Him.  However, He did, as I have said, burden2992

2992 Onerabat.

the guilt of Saul with the confession of His own repentance; but as there is an absence of all error and wrong in His choice of Saul, it follows that this repentance is to be understood as upbraiding another2993

2993 Invidiosam.

rather than as self-incriminating.2994

2994 Criminosam.

Look here then, say you: I discover a self-incriminating case in the matter of the Ninevites, when the book of Jonah declares, “And God repented of the evil that He had said that He would do unto them; and He did it not.”2995

2995 Jonah iii. 10.

In accordance with which Jonah himself says unto the Lord, “Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish; for I knew that Thou art a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest Thee of the evil.”2996

2996 Jonah iv. 2.

It is well, therefore, that he premised the attribute2997

2997 Titulum.

of the most good God as most patient over the wicked, and most abundant in mercy and kindness over such as acknowledged and bewailed their sins, as the Ninevites were then doing. For if He who has this attribute is the Most Good, you will have first to relinquish that position of yours, that the very contact with2998

2998 Malitiæ concursum.

evil is incompatible with such a Being, that is, with the most good God. And because Marcion, too, maintains that a good tree ought not to produce bad fruit; but yet he has mentioned “evil” (in the passage under discussion), which the most good God is incapable of,2999

2999 Non capit.

is there forthcoming any explanation of these “evils,” which may render them compatible with even the most Good?  There is. We say, in short, that evil in the present case3000

3000 Nunc.

means, not what may be attributed to the Creator’s nature as an evil being, but what may be attributed to His power as a judge.  In accordance with which He declared, “I create evil,”3001

3001 Isa. xlv. 7.

and, “I frame evil against you;”3002

3002 Jer. xviii. 11.

meaning not to sinful evils, but avenging ones.  What sort of stigma3003

3003 Infamiam.

pertains to these, congruous as they are with God’s judicial character, we have sufficiently explained.3004

3004 See above, chap. xiv. [p. 308, supra.]

Now although these are called “evils,” they are yet not reprehensible in a judge; nor because of this their name do they show that the judge is evil: so in like manner will this particular evil3005

3005 Malitia, i.e., “the evil” mentioned in the cited Jonah iii. 10.

be understood to be one of this class of judiciary evils, and along with them to be compatible with (God as) a judge.  The Greeks also sometimes3006

3006 Thus, according to St. Jerome, in Matt. vi. 34, κακία means κάκωσις. “Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof”—the occurent adversities.

use the word “evils” for troubles and injuries (not malignant ones), as in this passage of yours3007

3007 In isto articulo.

is also meant. Therefore, if the Creator repented of such evil as this, as showing that the creature deserve decondemnation, and ought to be punished for his sin, then, in3008

3008 Atqui hic.

the present instance no fault of a criminating nature will be imputed to the Creator, for having deservedly and worthily decreed the destruction of a city so full of iniquity. What therefore He had justly decreed, having no evil purpose in His decree, He decreed from the principle of justice,3009

3009 Or, “in his capacity as Judge,” ex justitia.

not from malevolence. Yet He gave it the name of “evil,” because of the evil and desert involved in the very suffering itself. Then, you will say, if you excuse the evil under name of justice, on the ground that He had justly determined destruction against the people of Nineveh, He must even on this argument be blameworthy, for having repented of an act of justice, which surely should not be repented of. Certainly not,3010

3010 Immo.

my reply is; God will never repent of an act of justice. And it now remains that we should understand what God’s repentance means. For although man repents most frequently on the recollection of a sin, and occasionally even from the unpleasantness3011

3011 Ingratia.

of some good action, this is never the case with God. For, inasmuch as God neither commits sin nor condemns a good action, in so far is there no room in Him for repentance of either a good or an evil deed. Now this point is determined for you even in the scripture which we have quoted. Samuel says to Saul, “The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbour of thine that is better than thou;”3012

3012 1 Sam. xv. 28.

and into two parts shall Israel be divided:  “for He will not turn Himself, nor repent; for He does not repent as a man does.”3013

3013 Ver. 29, but inexactly quoted.

According, therefore, to this definition, the divine repentance takes in all cases a different form from that of man, in that it is never regarded as the result of improvidence or of fickleness, or of any condemnation of a good or an evil work.  What, then, will be the mode of God’s repentance? It is already quite clear,3014

3014 Relucet.

if you avoid referring it to human conditions.  For it will have no other meaning than a simple change of a prior purpose; and this is admissible without any blame even in a man, much more3015

3015 Nedum.

in God, whose every purpose is faultless.  Now in Greek the word for repentance (μετάνοια) is formed, not from the confession of a sin, but from a change of mind, which in God we have shown to be regulated by the occurrence of varying circumstances.
Gen. iii. 9; 11.

Where art thou? as if ignorant where he was; and when he alleged that the shame of his nakedness was the cause (of his hiding himself), He inquired whether he had eaten of the tree, as if He were in doubt.  By no means;3020

3020 Immo.

God was neither uncertain about the commission of the sin, nor ignorant of Adam’s whereabouts. It was certainly proper to summon the offender, who was concealing himself from the consciousness of his sin, and to bring him forth into the presence of his Lord, not merely by the calling out of his name, but with a home-thrust blow3021

3021 Sugillatione.

at the sin which he had at that moment committed. For the question ought not to be read in a merely interrogative tone, Where art thou, Adam? but with an impressive and earnest voice, and with an air of imputation, Oh, Adam, where art thou?—as much as to intimate: thou art no longer here, thou art in perdition—so that the voice is the utterance of One who is at once rebuking and sorrowing.3022

3022 Dolendi.

But of course some part of paradise had escaped the eye of Him who holds the universe in His hand as if it were a bird’s nest, and to whom heaven is a throne and earth a footstool; so that He could not see, before He summoned him forth, where Adam was, both while lurking and when eating of the forbidden fruit!  The wolf or the paltry thief escapes not the notice of the keeper of your vineyard or your garden! And God, I suppose, with His keener vision,3023

3023 Oculatiorem.

from on high was unable to miss the sight of3024

3024 Præterire.

aught which lay beneath Him! Foolish heretic, who treat with scorn3025

3025 Naso.

so fine an argument of God’s greatness and man’s instruction! God put the question with an appearance of uncertainty, in order that even here He might prove man to be the subject of a free will in the alternative of either a denial or a confession, and give to him the opportunity of freely acknowledging his transgression, and, so far,3026

3026 Hoc nomine.

of lightening it.3027

3027 Relevandi.

In like manner He inquires of Cain where his brother was, just as if He had not yet heard the blood of Abel crying from the ground, in order that he too might have the opportunity from the same power of the will of spontaneously denying, and to this degree aggravating, his crime; and that thus there might be supplied to us examples of confessing sins rather than of denying them: so that even then was initiated the evangelic doctrine, “By thy words3028

3028 Ex ore tuo, “out of thine own mouth.”

thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”3029

3029 Matt. xii. 37.

Now, although Adam was by reason of his condition under law3030

3030 Propter statum legis.

subject to death, yet was hope preserved to him by the Lord’s saying, “Behold, Adam is become as one of us;”3031

3031 Gen. iii. 22. [II. Peter; i. 4.]

that is, in consequence of the future taking of the man into the divine nature. Then what follows? “And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, (and eat), and live for ever.” Inserting thus the particle of present time, “And now,” He shows that He had made for a time, and at present, a prolongation of man’s life. Therefore He did not actually3032

3032 Ipsum. [Comp. Heb. ix. 8; and Rev. xxii. 14.]

curse Adam and Eve, for they were candidates for restoration, and they had been relieved3033

3033 Relevatos.

by confession. Cain, however, He not only cursed; but when he wished to atone for his sin by death, He even prohibited his dying, so that he had to bear the load of this prohibition in addition to his crime. This, then, will prove to be the ignorance of our God, which was simulated on this account, that delinquent man should not be unaware of what he ought to do. Coming down to the case of Sodom and Gomorrha, he says: “I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.”3034

3034 Gen. xviii. 21. [Marcion’s god also “comes down.” p. 284, supra.]

Well, was He in this instance also uncertain through ignorance, and desiring to know?  Or was this a necessary tone of utterance, as expressive of a minatory and not a dubious sense, under the colour of an inquiry? If you make merry at God’s “going down,” as if He could not except by the descent have accomplished His judgment, take care that you do not strike your own God with as hard a blow. For He also came down to accomplish what He wished.
See Jer. xxii. 5.

What was He to do, when He knew3036

3036 Isa. xliv. 8.

of no other God; especially when He was swearing to this very point, that besides himself there was absolutely no God?  Is it then of swearing falsely that you convict3037

3037 Deprehendis.

Him, or of swearing a vain oath? But it is not possible for him to appear to have sworn falsely, when he was ignorant, as you say he was, that there was another God.  For when he swore by that which he knew, he really committed no perjury. But it was not a vain oath for him to swear that there was no other God.  It would indeed be a vain oath, if there had been no persons who believed that there were other Gods, like the worshippers of idols then, and the heretics of the present day.  Therefore He swears by Himself, in order that you may believe God, even when He swears that there is besides Himself no other God at all. But you have yourself, O Marcion, compelled God to do this. For even so early as then were you foreseen. Hence, if He swears both in His promises and His threatenings, and thus extorts3038

3038 Extorquens.

faith which at first was difficult, nothing is unworthy of God which causes men to believe in God. But (you say) God was even then mean3039

3039 Pusillus.

enough in His very fierceness, when, in His wrath against the people for their consecration of the calf, He makes this request of His servant Moses: “Let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make of thee a great nation.”3040

3040 Ex. xxxii. 10.

Accordingly, you maintain that Moses is better than his God, as the deprecator, nay the averter, of His anger. “For,” said he, “Thou shalt not do this; or else destroy me along with them.”3041

3041 An allusion to, rather than a quotation of, Ex. xxxii. 32.

Pitiable are ye also, as well as the people, since you know not Christ, prefigured in the person of Moses as the deprecator of the Father, and the offerer of His own life for the salvation of the people. It is enough, however, that the nation was at the instant really given to Moses. That which he, as a servant, was able to ask of the Lord, the Lord required of Himself. For this purpose did He say to His servant, “Let me alone, that I may consume them,” in order that by his entreaty, and by offering himself, he might hinder3042

3042 Non sineret.

(the threatened judgment), and that you might by such an instance learn how much privilege is vouchsafed3043

3043 Quantum liceat.

with God to a faithful man and a prophet.
Ps. viii. 6.

In which lowering of His condition He received from the Father a dispensation in those very respects which you blame as human; from the very beginning learning,3061

3061 Ediscens, “practising” or “rehearsing.”

even then, (that state of a) man which He was destined in the end to become.3062

3062 This doctrine of theology is more fully expressed by our author in a fine passage in his Treatise against Praxeas, xvi. (Oehler, vol. ii. p. 674), of which the translator gave this version in Bp. Bull’s Def. Nic. Creed, vol. i. p. 18: “The Son hath executed judgment from the beginning, throwing down the haughty tower, and dividing the tongues, punishing the whole world by the violence of waters, raining upon Sodom and Gomorrha fire and brimstone ‘the Lord from the Lord.’  For he it was who at all times came down to hold converse with men, from Adam on to the patriarchs and the prophets, in vision, in dream, in mirror, in dark saying; ever from the beginning laying the foundation of the course (of His dispensations), which He meant to follow out unto the end. Thus was He ever learning (practising or rehearsing); and the God who conversed with men upon earth could be no other than the Word, which was to be made flesh.  But He was thus learning (or rehearsing, ediscebat) in order to level for us the way of faith, that we might the more readily believe that the Son of God had come down into the world, if we knew that in times past also something similar had been done.” The original thus opens: “Filius itaque est qui ab initio judicavit.” This the author connects with John iii. 35, Matt. xxviii. 18, John v. 22. The “judgment” is dispensational from the first to the last.  Every judicial function of God’s providence from Eden to the judgment day is administered by the Son of God. This office of judge has been largely dealt with in its general view by Tertullian, in this book ii. against Marcion (see chap. xi.–xvii.).

It is He who descends, He who interrogates, He who demands, He who swears.  With regard, however, to the Father, the very gospel which is common to us will testify that He was never visible, according to the word of Christ: “No man knoweth the Father, save the Son.”3063

3063 Matt. xi. 27.

For even in the Old Testament He had declared, “No man shall see me, and live.”3064

3064 Ex. xxxiii. 20.

He means that the Father is invisible, in whose authority and in whose name was He God who appeared as the Son of God. But with us3065

3065 Penes nos. Christians, not Marcionites. [Could our author have regarded himself as formally at war with the church, at this time?]

Christ is received in the person of Christ, because even in this manner is He our God. Whatever attributes therefore you require as worthy of God, must be found in the Father, who is invisible and unapproachable, and placid, and (so to speak) the God of the philosophers; whereas those qualities which you censure as unworthy must be supposed to be in the Son, who has been seen, and heard, and encountered, the Witness and Servant of the Father, uniting in Himself man and God, God in mighty deeds, in weak ones man, in order that He may give to man as much as He takes from God. What in your esteem is the entire disgrace of my God, is in fact the sacrament of man’s salvation. God held converse with man, that man might learn to act as God. God dealt on equal terms3066

3066 Ex æquo agebat.

with man, that man might be able to deal on equal terms with God. God was found little, that man might become very great. You who disdain such a God, I hardly know whether you ex fidebelieve that God was crucified. How great, then, is your perversity in respect of the two characters of the Creator! You designate Him as Judge, and reprobate as cruelty that severity of the Judge which only acts in accord with the merits of cases. You require God to be very good, and yet despise as meanness that gentleness of His which accorded with His kindness, (and) held lowly converse in proportion to the mediocrity of man’s estate. He pleases you not, whether great or little, neither as your judge nor as your friend! What if the same features should be discovered in your God? That He too is a judge, we have already shown in the proper section:3067

3067 In the 1st book, 25th and following chapters.

that from being a judge He must needs be severe; and from being severe He must also be cruel, if indeed cruel.3068

3068 Sævum.


Matt. xxiv. 24. [See Kaye, p. 125.]

so as to turn aside the very elect, and yet for all that were not to be received, He showed how rash was belief in signs and wonders, which were so very easy of accomplishment by even false christs. Else how happens it, if He meant Himself to be approved and understood, and received on a certain evidence—I mean that of miracles—that He forbade the recognition of those others who had the very same sort of proof to show, and whose coming was to be quite as sudden and unannounced by any authority?3120

3120 Auctore.

If, because He came before them, and was beforehand with them in displaying the signs of His mighty deeds, He therefore seized the first right to men’s faith,—just as the firstcomers do the first place in the baths,—and so forestalled all who came after Him in that right, take care that He, too, be not caught in the condition of the later comers, if He be found to be behindhand with the Creator, who had already been made known, and had already worked miracles like Him,3121

3121 Proinde.

and like Him had forewarned men not to believe in others, even such as should come after Him. If, therefore, to have been the first to come and utter this warning, is to bar and limit faith,3122

3122 Cludet, quasi claudet.

He will Himself have to be condemned, because He was later in being acknowledged; and authority to prescribe such a rule about later comers will belong to the Creator alone, who could have been posterior to none. And now, when I am about to prove that the Creator sometimes displayed by His servants of old, and in other cases reserved for His Christ to display, the self-same miracles which you claim as solely due to faith in your Christ, I may fairly even from this maintain that there was so much the greater reason wherefore Christ should not be believed in simply on account of His miracles, inasmuch as these would have shown Him to belong to none other (God) than the Creator, because answering to the mighty deeds of the Creator, both as performed by His servants and reserved for3123

3123 Repromissis in.

His Christ; although, even if some other proofs should be found in your Christ—new ones, to wit—we should more readily believe that they, too, belong to the same God as do the old ones, rather than to him who has no other than new3124

3124 Tantummodo nova.

proofs, such as are wanting in the evidences of that antiquity which wins the assent of faith,3125

3125 Egentia experimentis fidei victricis vetustatis.

so that even on this ground he ought to have come announced as much by prophecies of his own building up faith in him, as by miracles, especially in opposition to the Creator’s Christ who was to come fortified by signs and prophets of His own, in order that he might shine forth as the rival of Christ by help of evidence of different kinds.  But how was his Christ to be foretold by a god who was himself never predicted? This, therefore, is the unavoidable inference, that neither your god nor your Christ is an object of faith, because God ought not to have been unknown, and Christ ought to have been made known through God.3126

3126 i.e., through God’s announcement by prophecy.


Ch. l. 6, slightly altered.

For whether it was Christ even then, as we hold, or the prophet, as the Jews say, who pronounced these words concerning himself, in either case, that which as yet had not happened sounded as if it had been already accomplished. Another characteristic will be, that very many events are figuratively predicted by means of enigmas and allegories and parables, and that they must be understood in a sense different from the literal description. For we both read of “the mountains dropping down new wine,”3148

3148 Joel iii. 18.

but not as if one might expect “must” from the stones, or its decoction from the rocks; and also hear of “a land flowing with milk and honey,”3149

3149 Ex. iii. 8, 17; Deut. xxvi. 9, 15.

but not as if you were to suppose that you would ever gather Samian cakes from the ground; nor does God, forsooth, offer His services as a water-bailiff or a farmer when He says, “I will open rivers in a land; I will plant in the wilderness the cedar and the box-tree.”3150

3150 Isa. xli. 18, 19, inexactly quoted.

In like manner, when, foretelling the conversion of the Gentiles, He says, “The beasts of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls,” He surely never meant to derive3151

3151 Relaturus.

His fortunate omens from the young of birds and foxes, and from the songsters of marvel and fable. But why enlarge on such a subject? When the very apostle whom our heretics adopt,3152

3152 Hæreticorum apostolus. We have already referred to Marcion’s acceptance of St. Paul’s epistles. It has been suggested that Tertullian in the text uses hæreticorum apostolus as synonymous with ethnicorum apostolus="apostle of the Gentiles,” in which case allusion to St. Paul would of course be equally clear. But this interpretation is unnecessary.

interprets the law which allows an unmuzzled mouth to the oxen that tread out the corn, not of cattle, but of ourselves;3153

3153 1 Cor. ix. 9.

and also alleges that the rock which followed (the Israelites) and supplied them with drink was Christ;3154

3154 1 Cor. x. 4; compare below, book v., chap. vii.

teaching the Galatians, moreover, that the two narratives of the sons of Abraham had an allegorical meaning in their course;3155

3155 Gal. iv. 22; 24.

and to the Ephesians giving an intimation that, when it was declared in the beginning that a man should leave his father and mother and become one flesh with his wife, he applied this to Christ and the church.3156

3156 Eph. v. 31, 32.


Isa. xxix. 14.

and again: “With your ear ye shall hear, and not understand; and with your eyes ye shall see, but not perceive: for the heart of this people hath growth fat, and with their ears they hear heavily, and their eyes have they shut; lest they hear with their ears, and see with their eyes, and understand with the heart, and be converted, and I heal them.”3165

3165 Isa. vi. 9, 10. Quoted with some verbal differences.

Now this blunting of their sound senses they had brought on themselves, loving God with their lips, but keeping far away from Him in their heart. Since, then, Christ was announced by the Creator, “who formeth the lightning, and createth the wind, and declareth unto man His Christ,” as the prophet Joel says,3166

3166 A supposed quotation of Amos iv. 13. See Oehler’s marginal reference. If so, the reference to Joel is either a slip of Tertullian or a corruption of his text; more likely the former, for the best mss. insert Joel’s name. Amos iv. 13, according to the LXX., runs, ᾽Απαγγέλλων εἰς ἀνθρώπους τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτοῦ, which exactly suits Tertullian’s quotation. Junius supports the reference to Joel, supposing that Tertullian has his ch. ii. 31 in view, as compared with Acts ii. 16–33. This is too harsh an interpretation. It is simpler and better to suppose that Tertullian really meant to quote the LXX. of the passage in Amos, but in mistake named Joel as his prophet.

since the entire hope of the Jews, not to say of the Gentiles too, was fixed on the manifestation of Christ,—it was demonstrated that they, by their being deprived of those powers of knowledge and understanding—wisdom and prudence, would fail to know and understand that which was predicted, even Christ; when the chief of their wise men should be in error respecting Him—that is to say, their scribes and prudent ones, or Pharisees; and when the people, like them, should hear with their ears and not understand Christ while teaching them, and see with their eyes and not perceive Christ, although giving them signs. Similarly it is said elsewhere: “Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, but he who ruleth over them?”3167

3167 Isa. xlii. 19, altered.

Also when He upbraids them by the same Isaiah: “I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.  The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: but Israel doth not know; my people doth not consider.”3168

3168 Isa. i. 2, 3.

We indeed, who know for certain that Christ always spoke in the prophets, as the Spirit of the Creator (for so says the prophet: “The person of our Spirit, Christ the Lord,”3169

3169 This seems to be a translation with a slight alteration of the LXX. version of Lam. iv. 20, πνεῦμα προσώπου ἡμῶν Χριστὸς Κύριος .

who from the beginning was both heard and seen as the Father’s vicegerent in the name of God), are well aware that His words, when actually upbraiding Israel, were the same as those which it was foretold that He should denounce against him: “Ye have forsaken the Lord, and have provoked the Holy One of Israel to anger.”3170

3170 Isa. i. 4.

If, however, you would rather refer to God Himself, instead of to Christ, the whole imputation of Jewish ignorance from the first, through an unwillingness to allow that even anciently3171

3171 Retro.

the Creator’s word and Spirit—that is to say, His Christ—was despised and not acknowledged by them, you will even in this subterfuge be defeated. For when you do not deny that the Creator’s Son and Spirit and Substance is also His Christ, you must needs allow that those who have not acknowledged the Father have failed likewise to acknowledge the Son through the identity of their natural substance;3172

3172 Per ejusdem substantiæ conditionem.

for if in Its fulness It has baffled man’s understanding, much more has a portion of It, especially when partaking of the fulness.3173

3173 He seems here to allude to such statements of God’s being as Col. ii. 9.

Now, when these things are carefully considered, it becomes evident how the Jews both rejected Christ and slew Him; not because they regarded Him as a strange Christ, but because they did not acknowledge Him, although their own. For how could they have understood the strange One, concerning whom nothing had ever been announced, when they failed to understand Him about whom there had been a perpetual course of prophecy? That admits of being understood or being not understood, which, by possessing a substantial basis for prophecy,3174

3174 Substantiam prædictationis.

will also have a subject-matter3175

3175 Materiam.

for either knowledge or error; whilst that which lacks such matter admits not the issue of wisdom. So that it was not as if He belonged to another3176

3176 Alterius, “the other,” i.e., Marcion’s rival God.

god that they conceived an aversion for Christ, and persecuted Him, but simply as a man whom they regarded as a wonder-working juggler,3177

3177 Planum in signis, cf. the Magnum in potestate of Apolog. 21.

and an enemy3178

3178 Æmulum, “a rival,” i.e., to Moses.

in His doctrines. They brought Him therefore to trial as a mere man, and one of themselves too—that is, a Jew (only a renegade and a destroyer of Judaism)—and punished Him according to their law. If He had been a stranger, indeed, they would not have sat in judgment over Him. So far are they from appearing to have understood Him to be a strange Christ, that they did not even judge Him to be a stranger to their own human nature.3179

3179 Nec hominem ejus ut alienum judicaverunt, “His manhood they judged not to be different.”


A reference to, rather than quotation from, Isa. liii. 7.

For, says (the prophet), we have announced concerning Him: “He is like a tender plant,3183

3183 Sicut puerulus, “like a little boy,” or, “a sorry slave.”

like a root out of a thirsty ground; He hath no form nor comeliness; and we beheld Him, and He was without beauty:  His form was disfigured;”3184

3184 Isa. liii. 2, 3, according to the Septuagint.

“marred more than the sons of men; a man stricken with sorrows, and knowing how to bear our infirmity;”3185

3185 See Isa. lii. 14; liii. 3, 4.

“placed by the Father as a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence;”3186

3186 Isa. viii. 14.

“made by Him a little lower than the angels;”3187

3187 Ps. viii. 6.

declaring Himself to be “a worm and not a man, a reproach of men, and despised of the people.”3188

3188 Ps. xxii. 7.

Now these signs of degradation quite suit His first coming, just as the tokens of His majesty do His second advent, when He shall no longer remain “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence,” but after His rejection become “the chief corner-stone,” accepted and elevated to the top place3189

3189 Consummationem: an allusion to Zech. iv. 7.

of the temple, even His church, being that very stone in Daniel, cut out of the mountain, which was to smite and crush the image of the secular kingdom.3190

3190 See Dan. ii. 34.

Of this advent the same prophet says: “Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days; and they brought Him before Him, and there was given Him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away; and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”3191

3191 Dan. vii. 13, 14.

Then indeed He shall have both a glorious form, and an unsullied beauty above the sons of men. “Thou art fairer,” says (the Psalmist), “than the children of men; grace is poured into Thy lips; therefore God hath blessed Thee for ever. Gird Thy sword upon Thy thigh, O most mighty, with Thy glory and Thy majesty.”3192

3192 Ps. xlv. 2, 3.

For the Father, after making Him a little lower than the angels, “will crown Him with glory and honour, and put all things under His feet.”3193

3193 Ps. viii. 5, 6.

“Then shall they look on Him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, tribe after tribe;”3194

3194 Zech. xii. 10; 12.

because, no doubt, they once refused to acknowledge Him in the lowliness of His human condition. He is even a man, says Jeremiah, and who shall recognise Him.  Therefore, asks Isaiah, “who shall declare His generation?”3195

3195 Isa. liii. 8.

So also in Zechariah, Christ Jesus, the true High Priest of the Father, in the person of Joshua, nay, in the very mystery of His name,3196

3196 Joshua, i.e., Jesus.

is portrayed in a twofold dress with reference to both His advents. At first He is clad in sordid garments, that is to say, in the lowliness of suffering and mortal flesh: then the devil resisted Him, as the instigator of the traitor Judas, not to mention his tempting Him after His baptism: afterwards He was stripped of His first filthy raiment, and adorned with the priestly robe3197

3197 Podere.

and mitre, and a pure diadem;3198

3198 Cidari munda.

in other words, with the glory and honour of His second advent.3199

3199 See Zech. iii.

If I may offer, moreover, an interpretation of the two goats which were presented on “the great day of atonement,”3200

3200 Jejunio, see Lev. xvi. 5; 7, etc.

do they not also figure the two natures of Christ? They were of like size, and very similar in appearance, owing to the Lord’s identity of aspect; because He is not to come in any other form, having to be recognised by those by whom He was also wounded and pierced. One of these goats was bound3201

3201 Circumdatus.

with scarlet,3202

3202 Perhaps in reference to Heb. ix. 19.

and driven by the people out of the camp3203

3203 Civitatem, “city.”

into the wilderness,3204

3204 In perditionem.

amid cursing, and spitting, and pulling, and piercing,3205

3205 This treatment of the scape-goat was partly ceremonial, partly disorderly. The Mischna (Yoma vi. 4–6) mentions the scarlet ribbon which was bound round the animal’s head between the horns, and the “pulling” (rather plucking out of its hair); but this latter was an indignity practised by scoffers and guarded against by Jews. Tertullian repeats the whole of this passage, Adv. Jud. xiv. Similar use is made of the type of the scape-goat by other fathers, as Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph.) and Cyril of Alex. (Epist. ad Acacium). In this book ix. Against Julian, he expressly says: “Christ was described by the two goats,—as dying for us in the flesh, and then (as shown by the scape-goat) overcoming death in His divine nature.”  See Tertullian’s passages illustrated fully in Rabbi Chiga, Addit. ad Cod. de die Expiat. (in Ugolini, Thes. i. 88).

being thus marked with all the signs of the Lord’s own passion; while the other, by being offered up for sins, and given to the priests of the temple for meat, afforded proofs of His second appearance, when (after all sins have been expiated) the priests of the spiritual temple, that is, the church, are to enjoy the flesh, as it were,3206

3206 Quasi visceratione. [See Kaye’s important comment, p. 426.]

of the Lord’s own grace, whilst the residue go away from salvation without tasting it.3207

3207 Jejunantibus.

Since, therefore, the first advent was prophetically declared both as most obscure in its types, and as deformed with every kind of indignity, but the second as glorious and altogether worthy of God, they would on this very account, while confining their regards to that which they were easily able both to understand and to believe, even the second advent, be not undeservedly deceived respecting the more obscure, and, at any rate, the more lowly first coming.  Accordingly, to this day they deny that their Christ has come, because He has not appeared in majesty, while they ignore the fact that He was to come also in lowliness.
2 Cor. vi. 14.

Since however, Christ’s being flesh is now discovered to be a lie, it follows that all things which were done by the flesh of Christ were done untruly,3211

3211 Mendacio.

—every act of intercourse,3212

3212 Congressus.

of contact, of eating or drinking,3213

3213 Convictus.

yea, His very miracles. If with a touch, or by being touched, He freed any one of a disease, whatever was done by any corporeal act cannot be believed to have been truly done in the absence of all reality in His body itself. Nothing substantial can be allowed to have been effected by an unsubstantial thing; nothing full by a vacuity. If the habit were putative, the action was putative; if the worker were imaginary, the works were imaginary. On this principle, too, the sufferings of Christ will be found not to warrant faith in Him. For He suffered nothing who did not truly suffer; and a phantom could not truly suffer.  God’s entire work, therefore, is subverted. Christ’s death, wherein lies the whole weight and fruit of the Christian name, is denied although the apostle asserts3214

3214 Demandat.

it so expressly3215

3215 Tam impresse, “so strongly.”

as undoubtedly real, making it the very foundation of the gospel, of our salvation and of his own preaching.3216

3216 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4, 14, 17, 18.

“I have delivered unto you before all things,” says he, “how that Christ died for our sins, and that he was buried, and that He rose again the third day.”  Besides, if His flesh is denied, how is His death to be asserted; for death is the proper suffering of the flesh, which returns through death back to the earth out of which it was taken, according to the law of its Maker? Now, if His death be denied, because of the denial of His flesh, there will be no certainty of His resurrection. For He rose not, for the very same reason that He died not, even because He possessed not the reality of the flesh, to which as death accrues, so does resurrection likewise. Similarly, if Christ’s resurrection be nullified, ours also is destroyed. If Christ’s resurrection be not realized,3217

3217 Valebit.

neither shall that be for which Christ came.  For just as they, who said that there is no resurrection of the dead, are refuted by the apostle from the resurrection of Christ, so, if the resurrection of Christ falls to the ground, the resurrection of the dead is also swept away.3218

3218 Aufertur.

And so our faith is vain, and vain also is the preaching of the apostles. Moreover, they even show themselves to be false witnesses of God, because they testified that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise. And we remain in our sins still.3219

3219 1 Cor. xv. 13–18.

And those who have slept in Christ have perished; destined, forsooth,3220

3220 Sane.

to rise again, but peradventure in a phantom state,3221

3221 Phantasmate forsitan.

just like Christ.
Luke xx. 36.

(for he says, “They shall be like the angels”), why should not my God also have fitted on to angels the true substance of men, from whatever source derived? For not even you will tell me, in reply, whence is obtained that angelic nature on your side; so that it is enough for me to define this as being fit and proper to God, even the verity of that thing which was objective to three senses—sight, touch, and hearing. It is more difficult for God to practise deception3225

3225 Mentiri.

than to produce real flesh from any material whatever, even without the means of birth. But for other heretics, also, who maintain that the flesh in the angels ought to have been born of flesh, if it had been really human, we have an answer on a sure principle, to the effect that it was truly human flesh, and yet not born. It was truly human, because of the truthfulness of God, who can neither lie nor deceive, and because (angelic beings) cannot be dealt with by men in a human way except in human substance: it was withal unborn, because none3226

3226 i.e., among the angels.

but Christ could become incarnate by being born of the flesh in order that by His own nativity He might regenerate3227

3227 Reformaret.

our birth, and might further by His death also dissolve our death, by rising again in that flesh in which, that He might even die, He was born. Therefore on that occasion He did Himself appear with the angels to Abraham in the verity of the flesh, which had not as yet undergone birth, because it was not yet going to die, although it was even now learning to hold intercourse amongst men.  Still greater was the propriety in angels, who never received a dispensation to die for us, not having assumed even a brief experience3228

3228 Commeatum.

of flesh by being born, because they were not destined to lay it down again by dying; but, from whatever quarter they obtained it, and by what means soever they afterwards entirely divested themselves of it, they yet never pretended it to be unreal flesh. Since the Creator “maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire”—as truly spirits as also fire—so has He truly made them flesh likewise; wherefore we can now recall to our own minds, and remind the heretics also, that He has promised that He will one day form men into angels, who once formed angels into men.
Luke xi. 27.

And how else could they have said that His mother and His brethren were standing without?3238

3238 Luke viii. 20.

But we shall see more of this in the proper place.3239

3239 Below, iv. 26; also in De carne Christi, cap. vii.

Surely, when He also proclaimed Himself as the Son of man, He, without doubt, confessed that He had been born. Now I would rather refer all these points to an examination of the gospel; but still, as I have already stated, if he, who seemed to be man, had by all means to pass as having been born, it was vain for him to suppose that faith in his nativity was to be perfected3240

3240 Expungendam, “consummated,” a frequent use of the word in our author.

by the device of an imaginary flesh. For what advantage was there in that being not true which was held to be true, whether it were his flesh or his birth? Or if you should say, let human opinion go for nothing;3241

3241 Viderit opinio humana.

you are then honouring your god under the shelter of a deception, since he knew himself to be something different from what he had made men to think of him. In that case you might possibly have assigned to him a putative nativity even, and so not have hung the question on this point. For silly women fancy themselves pregnant sometimes, when they are corpulent3242

3242 Inflatæ.

either from their natural flux3243

3243 Sanguinis tributo.

or from some other malady. And, no doubt, it had become his duty, since he had put on the mere mask of his substance, to act out from its earliest scene the play of his phantasy, lest he should have failed in his part at the beginning of the flesh. You have, of course,3244

3244 Plane, ironically said.

rejected the sham of a nativity, and have produced true flesh itself. And, no doubt, even the real nativity of a God is a most mean thing.3245

3245 Turpissimum.

Come then, wind up your cavils3246

3246 Perora.

against the most sacred and reverend works of nature; inveigh against all that you are; destroy the origin of flesh and life; call the womb a sewer of the illustrious animal—in other words, the manufactory for the production of man; dilate on the impure and shameful tortures of parturition, and then on the filthy, troublesome, contemptible issues of the puerperal labour itself! But yet, after you have pulled all these things down to infamy, that you may affirm them to be unworthy of God, birth will not be worse for Him than death, infancy than the cross, punishment than nature, condemnation than the flesh. If Christ truly suffered all this, to be born was a less thing for Him. If Christ suffered evasively,3247

3247 Mendacio.

as a phantom; evasively, too, might He have been born. Such are Marcion’s chief arguments by which he makes out another Christ; and I think that we show plainly enough that they are utterly irrelevant, when we teach how much more truly consistent with God is the reality rather than the falsehood of that condition3248

3248 Habitus.

in which He manifested His Christ. Since He was “the truth,” He was flesh; since He was flesh, He was born. For the points which this heresy assaults are confirmed, when the means of the assault are destroyed. Therefore if He is to be considered in the flesh,3249

3249 Carneus.

because He was born; and born, because He is in the flesh, and because He is no phantom,—it follows that He must be acknowledged as Himself the very Christ of the Creator, who was by the Creator’s prophets foretold as about to come in the flesh, and by the process of human birth.3250

3250 Ex nativitate.


Isa. vii. 14.

then, that He takes the riches of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria against the king of Assyria.3252

3252 Isa. viii. 4. Compare adv. Judæos, 9.

But yet He who is come was neither born under such a name, nor ever engaged in any warlike enterprise. I must, however, remind you that you ought to look into the contexts3253

3253 Cohærentia.

of the two passages. For there is immediately added the interpretation of Emmanuel, “God with us;” so that you have to consider not merely the name as it is uttered, but also its meaning. The utterance is Hebrew, Emmanuel, of the prophet’s own nation; but the meaning of the word, God with us, is by the interpretation made common property. Inquire, then, whether this name, God-with-us, which is Emmanuel, be not often used for the name of Christ,3254

3254 Agitetur in Christo.

from the fact that Christ has enlightened the world. And I suppose you will not deny it, inasmuch as you do yourself admit that He is called God-with-us, that is, Emmanuel. Else if you are so foolish, that, because with you He gets the designation God-with-us, not Emmanuel, you therefore are unwilling to grant that He is come whose property it is to be called Emmanuel, as if this were not the same name as God-with-us, you will find among the Hebrew Christians, and amongst Marcionites too, that they name Him Emmanuel when they mean Him to be called God-with-us; just indeed as every nation, by whatever word they would express God-with-us, has called Him Emmanuel, completing the sound in its sense. Now since Emmanuel is God-with-us, and God-with-us is Christ, who is in us (for “as many of you as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ”3255

3255 Gal. iii. 27.

), Christ is as properly implied in the meaning of the name, which is God-with-us, as He is in the pronunciation of the name, which is Emmanuel. And thus it is evident that He is now come who was foretold as Emmanuel, because what Emmanuel signifies is come, that is to say, God-with-us.
Isa. viii. 4.

You should first examine the point of age, whether it can be taken to represent Christ as even yet a man,3258

3258 Jam hominem, jam virum in Adv. Judæos, “at man’s estate.”

much less a warrior. Although, to be sure, He might be about to call to arms by His cry as an infant; might be about to sound the alarm of war not with a trumpet, but with a little rattle; might be about to seek His foe, not on horseback, or in chariot, or from parapet, but from nurse’s neck or nursemaid’s back, and so be destined to subjugate Damascus and Samaria from His mother’s breasts!  It is a different matter, of course, when the babes of your barbarian Pontus spring forth to the fight. They are, I ween, taught to lance before they lacerate;3259

3259 Lanceare ante quam lancinare. This play on words points to the very early training of the barbarian boys to war. Lancinare perhaps means, “to nibble the nipple with the gum.”

swathed at first in sunshine and ointment,3260

3260 He alludes to the suppling of their young joints with oil, and then drying them in the sun.

afterwards armed with the satchel,3261

3261 Pannis.

and rationed on bread and butter!3262

3262 Butyro.

Now, since nature, certainly, nowhere grants to man to learn warfare before life, to pillage the wealth of a Damascus before he knows his father and mother’s name, it follows that the passage in question must be deemed to be a figurative one. Well, but nature, says he, does not permit “a virgin to conceive,” and still the prophet is believed. And indeed very properly; for he has paved the way for the incredible thing being believed, by giving a reason for its occurrence, in that it was to be for a sign. “Therefore,” says he, “the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.”3263

3263 Isa. vii. 14.

Now a sign from God would not have been a sign,3264

3264 The tam dignum of this place is “jam signum” in adv. Judæos.

unless it had been some novel and prodigious thing. Then, again, Jewish cavillers, in order to disconcert us, boldly pretend that Scripture does not hold3265

3265 Contineat.

that a virgin, but only a young woman,3266

3266 This opinion of Jews and Judaizing heretics is mentioned by Irenæus, Adv. Hæret. iii. 21 (Stieren’s ed. i. 532); Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. v. 8; Jerome, Adv. Helvid. (ed. Benedict), p. 132. Nor has the cavil ceased to be held, as is well known, to the present day. The המָלְעַהָ of Isa. vii. 4 is supposed by the Jewish Fuerst to be Isaiah’s wife, and he quotes Kimchi’s authority; while the neologian Gesenius interprets the word, a bride, and rejects the Catholic notion of an unspotted virgin. To make way, however, for their view, both Fuerst and Gesenius have to reject the LXX. rendering, παρθένος.

is to conceive and bring forth.  They are, however, refuted by this consideration, that nothing of the nature of a sign can possibly come out of what is a daily occurrence, the pregnancy and child-bearing of a young woman. A virgin mother is justly deemed to be proposed3267

3267 Disposita.

by God as a sign, but a warlike infant has no like claim to the distinction; for even in such a case3268

3268 Et hic.

there does not occur the character of a sign.  But after the sign of the strange and novel birth has been asserted, there is immediately afterwards declared as a sign the subsequent course of the Infant,3269

3269 Alius ordo jam infantis.

who was to eat butter and honey. Not that this indeed is of the nature of a sign, nor is His “refusing the evil;” for this, too, is only a characteristic of infancy.3270

3270 Infantia est. Better in adv. Judæos, “est infantiæ.”

But His destined capture of the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria before the king of Assyria is no doubt a wonderful sign.3271

3271 The italicised words we have added from adv. Judæos, “hoc est mirabile signum.”

Keep to the measure of His age, and seek the purport of the prophecy, and give back also to the truth of the gospel what you have taken away from it in the lateness of your heresy,3272

3272 Posterior. Posteritas is an attribute of heresy in T.’s view.

and the prophecy at once becomes intelligible and declares its own accomplishment. Let those eastern magi wait on the new-born Christ, presenting to Him, (although) in His infancy, their gifts of gold and frankincense; and surely an Infant will have received the riches of Damascus without a battle, and unarmed.

Ps. lxxii. 15.

and again: “The kings of Arabia and Saba shall offer to Him gifts.”3276

3276 Ps. lxxii. 10.

For the East generally regarded the magi as kings; and Damascus was anciently deemed to belong to Arabia, before it was transferred to Syrophœnicia on the division of the Syrias (by Rome).3277

3277 See Otto’s Justin Martyr, ii. 273, n. 23. [See Vol. I. p. 238, supra.]

Its riches Christ then received, when He received the tokens thereof in the gold and spices; while the spoils of Samaria were the magi themselves. These having discovered Him and honoured Him with their gifts, and on bended knee adored Him as their God and King, through the witness of the star which led their way and guided them, became the spoils of Samaria, that is to say, of idolatry, because, as it is easy enough to see,3278

3278 Videlicet.

they believed in Christ. He designated idolatry under the name of Samaria, as that city was shameful for its idolatry, through which it had then revolted from God from the days of king Jeroboam. Nor is this an unusual manner for the Creator, (in His Scriptures3279

3279 The Creatori here answers to the Scripturis divinis of the parallel passage in adv. Judæos. Of course there is a special force in this use of the Creator’s name here against Marcion.

) figuratively to employ names of places as a metaphor derived from the analogy of their sins. Thus He calls the chief men of the Jews “rulers of Sodom,” and the nation itself “people of Gomorrah.”3280

3280 Isa. i. 10.

And in another passage He also says: “Thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite,”3281

3281 Ezek. xvi. 3.

by reason of their kindred iniquity;3282

3282 To the sins of these nations.

although He had actually called them His sons:  “I have nourished and brought up children.”3283

3283 Isa. i. 2.

So likewise by Egypt is sometimes understood, in His sense,3284

3284 Apud illum, i.e., Creatorem.

the whole world as being marked out by superstition and a curse.3285

3285 Maledictionis.

By a similar usage Babylon also in our (St.) John is a figure of the city of Rome, as being like (Babylon) great and proud in royal power, and warring down the saints of God. Now it was in accordance with this style that He called the magi by the name of Samaritans, because (as we have said) they had practised idolatry as did the Samaritans.  Moreover, by the phrase “before or against the king of Assyria,” understand “against Herod;” against whom the magi then opposed themselves, when they refrained from carrying him back word concerning Christ, whom he was seeking to destroy.
Ps. xlv. 3.

But what do you read about Christ just before? “Thou art fairer than the children of men; grace is poured forth upon Thy lips.”3287

3287 Ps. xlv. 2.

It amuses me to imagine that blandishments of fair beauty and graceful lips are ascribed to one who had to gird on His sword for war! So likewise, when it is added, “Ride on prosperously in Thy majesty,”3288

3288 Literally, “Advance, and prosper, and reign.”

the reason is subjoined: “Because of truth, and meekness, and righteousness.”3289

3289 Ps. xlv. 4.

But who shall produce these results with the sword, and not their opposites rather—deceit, and harshness, and injury—which, it must be confessed, are the proper business of battles? Let us see, therefore, whether that is not some other sword, which has so different an action. Now the Apostle John, in the Apocalypse, describes a sword which proceeded from the mouth of God as “a doubly sharp, two-edged one.”3290

3290 Rev. i. 16.

This may be understood to be the Divine Word, who is doubly edged with the two testaments of the law and the gospel—sharpened with wisdom, hostile to the devil, arming us against the spiritual enemies of all wickedness and concupiscence, and cutting us off from the dearest objects for the sake of God’s holy name. If, however, you will not acknowledge John, you have our common master Paul, who “girds our loins about with truth, and puts on us the breastplate of righteousness, and shoes us with the preparation of the gospel of peace, not of war; who bids us take the shield of faith, wherewith we may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the devil, and the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which (he says) is the word of God.”3291

3291 Eph. vi. 14–17.

This sword the Lord Himself came to send on earth, and not peace.3292

3292 Matt. x. 34.

If he is your Christ, then even he is a warrior. If he is not a warrior, and the sword he brandishes is an allegorical one, then the Creator’s Christ in the psalm too may have been girded with the figurative sword of the Word, without any martial gear. The above-mentioned “fairness” of His beauty and “grace of His lips” would quite suit such a sword, girt as it even then was upon His thigh in the passage of David, and sent as it would one day be by Him on earth. For this is what He says: “Ride on prosperously in Thy majesty3293

3293 “Advance, and prosper, and reign.”

”—advancing His word into every land, so as to call all nations: destined to prosper in the success of that faith which received Him, and reigning, from the fact that3294

3294 Exinde qua.

He conquered death by His resurrection.  “Thy right hand,” says He, “shall wonderfully lead Thee forth,”3295

3295 Ps. xlv. 4, but changed.

even the might of Thy spiritual grace, whereby the knowledge of Christ is spread. “Thine arrows are sharp;”3296

3296 Ps. xlv. 5.

everywhere Thy precepts fly about, Thy threatenings also, and convictions3297

3297 Traductiones.

of heart, pricking and piercing each conscience. “The people shall fall under Thee,”3298

3298 Ps. xlv. 5.

that is, in adoration. Thus is the Creator’s Christ mighty in war, and a bearer of arms; thus also does He now take the spoils, not of Samaria alone, but of all nations. Acknowledge, then, that His spoils are figurative, since you have learned that His arms are allegorical. Since, therefore, both the Lord speaks and His apostle writes such things3299

3299 Ejusmodi.

in a figurative style, we are not rash in using His interpretations, the records3300

3300 Exempla.

of which even our adversaries admit; and thus in so far will it be Isaiah’s Christ who has come, in as far as He was not a warrior, because it is not of such a character that He is described by Isaiah.
1 Cor. viii. 5.

The name of Christ, however, does not arise from nature, but from dispensation;3303

3303 Ex dispositione. This word seems to mean what is implied in the phrases, “Christian dispensation,” “Mosaic dispensation,” etc.

and so becomes the proper name of Him to whom it accrues in consequence of the dispensation. Nor is it subject to be shared in by any other God, especially a rival, and one that has a dispensation of His own, to whom it will be also necessary that He should possess names apart from all others. For how happens it that, after they have devised different dispensations for two Gods they admit into this diversity of dispensation a community of names; whereas no proof could be more useful of two Gods being rival ones, than if there should be found coincident with their (diverse) dispensations a diversity also of names? For that is not a state of diverse qualities, which is not distinctly indicated3304

3304 Consignatur.

in the specific meanings3305

3305 Proprietatibus.

of their designations. Whenever these are wanting, there occurs what the Greeks call the katachresis3306

3306 Quintilian, Inst. viii. 6, defines this as a figure “which lends a name to things which have it not.”

of a term, by its improper application to what does not belong to it.3307

3307 De alieno abutendo.

In God, however, there ought, I suppose, to be no defect, no setting up of His dispensations by katachrestic abuse of words. Who is this god, that claims for his son names from the Creator? I say not names which do not belong to him, but ancient and well-known names, which even in this view of them would be unsuitable for a novel and unknown god.  How is it, again, that he tells us that “a piece of new cloth is not sewed on to an old garment,” or that “new wine is not trusted to old bottles,”3308

3308 Matt. ix. 16, 17.

when he is himself patched and clad in an old suit3309

3309 Senio.

of names? How is it he has rent off the gospel from the law, when he is wholly invested with the law,—in the name, forsooth, of Christ? What hindered his calling himself by some other name, seeing that he preached another (gospel), came from another source, and refused to take on him a real body, for the very purpose that he might not be supposed to be the Creator’s Christ? Vain, however, was his unwillingness to seem to be He whose name he was willing to assume; since, even if he had been truly corporeal, he would more certainly escape being taken for the Christ of the Creator, if he had not taken on him His name.  But, as it is, he rejects the substantial verity of Him whose name he has assumed, even though he should give a proof of that verity by his name. For Christ means anointed, and to be anointed is certainly an affair3310

3310 Passio.

of the body. He who had not a body, could not by any possibility have been anointed; he who could not by any possibility have been anointed, could not in any wise have been called Christ. It is a different thing (quite), if he only assumed the phantom of a name too. But how, he asks, was he to insinuate himself into being believed by the Jews, except through a name which was usual and familiar amongst them? Then ’tis a fickle and tricksty God whom you describe! To promote any plan by deception, is the resource of either distrust or of maliciousness. Much more frank and simple was the conduct of the false prophets against the Creator, when they came in His name as their own God.3311

3311 Adversus Creatorem, in sui Dei nomine venientes.

But I do not find that any good came of this proceeding,3312

3312 i.e., to the Marcionite position.

since they were more apt to suppose either that Christ was their own, or rather was some deceiver, than that He was the Christ of the other god; and this the gospel will show.
Ex. xxiii. 20, 21.

He called him an angel indeed, because of the greatness of the powers which he was to exercise, and because of his prophetic office,3321

3321 Officium prophetæ.

while announcing the will of God; but Joshua also (Jesus), because it was a type3322

3322 Sacramentum.

of His own future name. Often3323

3323 Identidem.

did He confirm that name of His which He had thus conferred upon (His servant); because it was not the name of angel, nor Oshea, but Joshua (Jesus), which He had commanded him to bear as his usual appellation for the time to come. Since, therefore, both these names are suitable to the Christ of the Creator, they are proportionately unsuitable to the non-Creator’s Christ; and so indeed is all the rest of (our Christ’s) destined course.3324

3324 Reliquus ordo.

In short, there must now for the future be made between us that certain and equitable rule, necessary to both sides, which shall determine that there ought to be absolutely nothing at all in common between the Christ of the other god and the Creator’s Christ. For you will have as great a necessity to maintain their diversity as we have to resist it, inasmuch as you will be as unable to show that the Christ of the other god has come, until you have proved him to be a far different being from the Creator’s Christ, as we, to claim Him (who has come) as the Creator’s, until we have shown Him to be such a one as the Creator has appointed. Now respecting their names, such is our conclusion against (Marcion).3325

3325 Obduximus.

I claim for myself Christ; I maintain for myself Jesus.
Sentences out of Isa. lii. 14 and liii. 2, etc.

Similarly the Father addressed the Son just before: “Inasmuch as many will be astonished at Thee, so also will Thy beauty be without glory from men.”3331

3331 Isa. lii. 14.

For although, in David’s words, He is fairer than the children of men,”3332

3332 Ps. xlv. 2.

yet it is in that figurative state of spiritual grace, when He is girded with the sword of the Spirit, which is verily His form, and beauty, and glory. According to the same prophet, however, He is in bodily condition “a very worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and an outcast of the people.”3333

3333 Ps. xxii. 6.

But no internal quality of such a kind does He announce as belonging to Him. In Him dwelt the fulness of the Spirit; therefore I acknowledge Him to be “the rod of the stem of Jesse.” His blooming flower shall be my Christ, upon whom hath rested, according to Isaiah, “the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of piety, and of the fear of the Lord.”3334

3334 Isa. xi. 1, 2.

Now to no man, except Christ, would the diversity of spiritual proofs suitably apply.  He is indeed like a flower for the Spirit’s grace, reckoned indeed of the stem of Jesse, but thence to derive His descent through Mary. Now I purposely demand of you, whether you grant to Him the destination3335

3335 Intentionem.

of all this humiliation, and suffering, and tranquillity, from which He will be the Christ of Isaiah,—a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, who was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and who, like a lamb before the shearer, opened not His mouth;3336

3336 Isa. liii. 3; 7.

who did not struggle nor cry, nor was His voice heard in the street who broke not the bruised reed—that is, the shattered faith of the Jews—nor quenched the smoking flax—that is, the freshly-kindled3337

3337 Momentaneum.

ardour of the Gentiles. He can be none other than the Man who was foretold. It is right that His conduct3338

3338 Actum.

be investigated according to the rule of Scripture, distinguishable as it is unless I am mistaken, by the twofold operation of preaching3339

3339 Prædicationis.

and of miracle. But the treatment of both these topics I shall so arrange as to postpone, to the chapter wherein I have determined to discuss the actual gospel of Marcion, the consideration of His wonderful doctrines and miracles—with a view, however, to our present purpose. Let us here, then, in general terms complete the subject which we had entered upon, by indicating, as we pass on,3340

3340 Interim.

how Christ was fore-announced by Isaiah as a preacher: “For who is there among you,” says he, “that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of His Son?”3341

3341 Isa. l. 10.

And likewise as a healer: “For,” says he, “He hath taken away our infirmities, and carried our sorrows.”3342

3342 Isa. liii. 4.


Compare Deut. xxi. 23 with Gal. iii. 13.

But what is meant by this curse, worthy as it is of the simple prediction of the cross, of which we are now mainly inquiring, I defer to consider, because in another passage3346

3346 The words “quiaet aliasantecedit rerum probatio rationem,” seem to refer to the parallel passage in adv. Judæos, where he has described the Jewish law of capital punishment, and argued for the exemption of Christ from its terms. He begins that paragraph with saying, “Sed hujus maledictionis sensum antecedit rerum ratio.”  [See, p. 164, supra.]

we have given the reason3347

3347 Perhaps rationale or procedure.

of the thing preceded by proof. First, I shall offer a full explanation3348

3348 Edocebo.

of the types. And no doubt it was proper that this mystery should be prophetically set forth by types, and indeed chiefly by that method: for in proportion to its incredibility would it be a stumbling-block, if it were set forth in bare prophecy; and in proportion too, to its grandeur, was the need of obscuring it in shadow,3349

3349 Magis obumbrandum.

that the difficulty of understanding it might lead to prayer for the grace of God. First, then, Isaac, when he was given up by his father as an offering, himself carried the wood for his own death. By this act he even then was setting forth the death of Christ, who was destined by His Father as a sacrifice, and carried the cross whereon He suffered. Joseph likewise was a type of Christ, not indeed on this ground (that I may not delay my course3350

3350 But he may mean, by “ne demorer cursum,” “that I may not obstruct the course of the type,” by taking off attention from its true force. In the parallel place, however, another turn is given to the sense; Joseph is a type, “even on this ground—that I may but briefly allude to it—that he suffered,” etc.

), that he suffered persecution for the cause of God from his brethren, as Christ did from His brethren after the flesh, the Jews; but when he is blessed by his father in these words: “His glory is that of a bullock; his horns are the horns of a unicorn; with them shall he push the nations to the very ends of the earth,”3351

3351 Deut. xxxiii. 17.

—he was not, of course, designated as a mere unicorn with its one horn, or a minotaur with two; but Christ was indicated in him—a bullock in respect of both His characteristics: to some as severe as a Judge, to others gentle as a Saviour, whose horns were the extremities of His cross. For of the antenna, which is a part of a cross, the ends are called horns; while the midway stake of the whole frame is the unicorn. By this virtue, then, of His cross, and in this manner “horned,” He is both now pushing all nations through faith, bearing them away from earth to heaven; and will then push them through judgment, casting them down from heaven to earth. He will also, according to another passage in the same scripture, be a bullock, when He is spiritually interpreted to be Jacob against Simeon and Levi, which means against the scribes and the Pharisees; for it was from them that these last derived their origin.3352

3352 Census.

Like Simeon and Levi, they consummated their wickedness by their heresy, with which they persecuted Christ. “Into their counsel let not my soul enter; to their assembly let not my heart be united: for in their anger they slew men,” that is, the prophets; “and in their self-will they hacked the sinews of a bullock,”3353

3353 Gen. xlix. 6. The last clause is, “ceciderunt nervos tauro.”

that is, of Christ. For against Him did they wreak their fury after they had slain His prophets, even by affixing Him with nails to the cross. Otherwise, it is an idle thing3354

3354 Vanum.

when, after slaying men, he inveighs against them for the torture of a bullock! Again, in the case of Moses, wherefore did he at that moment particularly, when Joshua was fighting Amalek, pray in a sitting posture with outstretched hands, when in such a conflict it would surely have been more seemly to have bent the knee, and smitten the breast, and to have fallen on the face to the ground, and in such prostration to have offered prayer? Wherefore, but because in a battle fought in the name of that Lord who was one day to fight against the devil, the shape was necessary of that very cross through which Jesus was to win the victory? Why, once more, did the same Moses, after prohibiting the likeness of everything, set up the golden serpent on the pole; and as it hung there, propose it as an object to be looked at for a cure?3355

3355 Spectaculum salutare.

Did he not here also intend to show the power of our Lord’s cross, whereby that old serpent the devil was vanquished,—whereby also to every man who was bitten by spiritual serpents, but who yet turned with an eye of faith to it, was proclaimed a cure from the bite of sin, and health for evermore?
Ps. xcvi. 10, with a ligno added.

I want to know what you understand by it.  Perhaps you think some wooden3357

3357 Lignarium aliquem regem.

king of the Jews is meant!—and not Christ, who overcame death by His suffering on the cross, and thence reigned! Now, although death reigned from Adam even to Christ, why may not Christ be said to have reigned from the tree, from His having shut up the kingdom of death by dying upon the tree of His cross?  Likewise Isaiah also says: “For unto us a child is born.”3358

3358 Isa. ix. 6.

But what is there unusual in this, unless he speaks of the Son of God? “To us is given He whose government is upon His shoulder.”3359

3359 Isa. ix. 6.

Now, what king is there who bears the ensign of his dominion upon his shoulder, and not rather upon his head as a diadem, or in his hand as a sceptre, or else as a mark in some royal apparel? But the one new King of the new ages, Jesus Christ, carried on His shoulder both the power and the excellence of His new glory, even His cross; so that, according to our former prophecy, He might thenceforth reign from the tree as Lord.  This tree it is which Jeremiah likewise gives you intimation of, when he prophesies to the Jews, who should say, “Come, let us destroy the tree with the fruit, (the bread) thereof,”3360

3360 Jer. xi. 19.

that is, His body. For so did God in your own gospel even reveal the sense, when He called His body bread; so that, for the time to come, you may understand that He has given to His body the figure of bread, whose body the prophet of old figuratively turned into bread, the Lord Himself designing to give by and by an interpretation of the mystery. If you require still further prediction of the Lord’s cross, the twenty-first Psalm3361

3361 The twenty-second Psalm. A.V.

is sufficiently able to afford it to you, containing as it does the entire passion of Christ, who was even then prophetically declaring3362

3362 Canentis.

His glory. “They pierced,” says He, “my hands and my feet,”3363

3363 Ps. xxii. 16.

which is the special cruelty of the cross.  And again, when He implores His Father’s help, He says, “Save me from the lion’s mouth,” that is, the jaws of death, “and my humiliation from the horns of the unicorns;” in other words, from the extremities of the cross, as we have shown above. Now, David himself did not suffer this cross, nor did any other king of the Jews; so that you cannot suppose that this is the prophecy of any other’s passion than His who alone was so notably crucified by the nation.  Now should the heretics, in their obstinacy,3364

3364 Hæretica duritia.

reject and despise all these interpretations, I will grant to them that the Creator has given us no signs of the cross of His Christ; but they will not prove from this concession that He who was crucified was another (Christ), unless they could somehow show that this death was predicted as His by their own god, so that from the diversity of predictions there might be maintained to be a diversity of sufferers,3365

3365 Passionum, literally sufferings, which would hardly give the sense.

and thereby also a diversity of persons.  But since there is no prophecy of even Marcion’s Christ, much less of his cross, it is enough for my Christ that there is a prophecy merely of death. For, from the fact that the kind of death is not declared, it was possible for the death of the cross to have been still intended, which would then have to be assigned to another (Christ), if the prophecy had had reference to another. Besides,3366

3366 Nisi.

if he should be unwilling to allow that the death of my Christ was predicted, his confusion must be the greater3367

3367 Quo magis erubescat.

if he announces that his own Christ indeed died, whom he denies to have had a nativity, whilst denying that my Christ is mortal, though he allows Him to be capable of birth. However, I will show him the death, and burial, and resurrection of my Christ all3368

3368 Et—et—et.

indicated in a single sentence of Isaiah, who says, “His sepulture was removed from the midst of them.” Now there could have been no sepulture without death, and no removal of sepulture except by resurrection. Then, finally, he added: “Therefore He shall have many for his inheritance, and He shall divide the spoil of the many, because He poured out His soul unto death.”3369

3369 Isa. liii. 12.

For there is here set forth the cause of this favour to Him, even that it was to recompense Him for His suffering of death. It was equally shown that He was to obtain this recompense for His death, was certainly to obtain it after His death by means of the resurrection.3370

3370 Both His own and His people’s.


Ps. ii. 7.

You will not be able to put in a claim for some son of David being here meant, rather than Christ; or for the ends of the earth being promised to David, whose kingdom was confined to the Jewish nation simply, rather than to Christ, who now embraces the whole world in the faith of His gospel. So again He says by Isaiah: “I have given Thee for a dispensation of the people, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind,” that is, those that be in error, “to bring out the prisoners from the prison,” that is, to free them from sin, “and from the prison-house,” that is, of death, “those that sit in darkness”—even that of ignorance.3375

3375 Isa. xlii. 6, 7.

If these things are accomplished through Christ, they would not have been designed in prophecy for any other than Him through whom they have their accomplishment.  In another passage He also says:  “Behold, I have set Him as a testimony to the nations, a prince and commander to the nations; nations which know Thee not shall invoke Thee, and peoples shall run together unto Thee.”3376

3376 Isa. lv. 4, 5.

You will not interpret these words of David, because He previously said, “I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.”3377

3377 Isa. lv. 3.

Indeed, you will be obliged from these words all the more to understand that Christ is reckoned to spring from David by carnal descent, by reason of His birth3378

3378 Censum. [Kaye, p. 149.]

of the Virgin Mary. Touching this promise of Him, there is the oath to David in the psalm, “Of the fruit of thy body3379

3379 Ventris, “womb.”

will I set upon thy throne.”3380

3380 Ps. cxxxii. 11.

What body is meant? David’s own?  Certainly not. For David was not to give birth to a son.3381

3381 He treats “body” as here meaning womb.

Nor his wife’s either. For instead of saying, “Of the fruit of thy body,” he would then have rather said, “Of the fruit of thy wife’s body.” But by mentioning his3382

3382 Ipsius.

body, it follows that He pointed to some one of his race of whose body the flesh of Christ was to be the fruit, which bloomed forth from3383

3383 Floruit ex.

Mary’s womb. He named the fruit of the body (womb) alone, because it was peculiarly fruit of the womb, of the womb only in fact, and not of the husband also; and he refers the womb (body) to David, as to the chief of the race and father of the family. Because it could not consist with a virgin’s condition to consort her with a husband,3384

3384 Viro deputare.

He therefore attributed the body (womb) to the father. That new dispensation, then, which is found in Christ now, will prove to be what the Creator then promised under the appellation of “the sure mercies of David,” which were Christ’s, inasmuch as Christ sprang from David, or rather His very flesh itself was David’s “sure mercies,” consecrated by religion, and “sure” after its resurrection. Accordingly the prophet Nathan, in the first of Kings,3385

3385 The four books of the Kings were sometimes regarded as two, “the first” of which contained 1 and 2 Samuel, “the second” 1 and 2 Kings.  The reference in this place is to 2 Samuel vii. 12.

makes a promise to David for his seed, “which shall proceed,” says he, “out of thy bowels.”3386

3386 He here again makes bowels synonymous with womb.

Now, if you explain this simply of Solomon, you will send me into a fit of laughter.  For David will evidently have brought forth Solomon! But is not Christ here designated the seed of David, as of that womb which was derived from David, that is, Mary’s? Now, because Christ rather than any other3387

3387 Magis.

was to build the temple of God, that is to say, a holy manhood, wherein God’s Spirit might dwell as in a better temple, Christ rather than David’s son Solomon was to be looked for as3388

3388 Habendus in.

the Son of God. Then, again, the throne for ever with the kingdom for ever is more suited to Christ than to Solomon, a mere temporal king. From Christ, too, God’s mercy did not depart, whereas on Solomon even God’s anger alighted, after his luxury and idolatry. For Satan3389

3389 In 1 Kings xi. 14, “the Lord” is said to have done this. Comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 with 1 Chron. xxi. i.

stirred up an Edomite as an enemy against him.  Since, therefore, nothing of these things is compatible with Solomon, but only with Christ, the method of our interpretations will certainly be true; and the very issue of the facts shows that they were clearly predicted of Christ. And so in Him we shall have “the sure mercies of David.” Him, not David, has God appointed for a testimony to the nations; Him, for a prince and commander to the nations, not David, who ruled over Israel alone. It is Christ whom all nations now invoke, which knew Him not; Christ to whom all races now betake themselves, whom they were ignorant of before. It is impossible that that should be said to be future, which you see (daily) coming to pass.
Isa. ii. 2, 3.

The gospel will be this “way,” of the new law and the new word in Christ, no longer in Moses.  “And He shall judge among the nations,” even concerning their error. “And these shall rebuke a large nation,” that of the Jews themselves and their proselytes.  “And they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears3396

3396 Sibynas, Σιβύνη· ὅπλον δόρατι παραπλήσιον. Hesychius, “Sibynam appellant Illyrii telum venabuli simile.” Paulus, ex Festo, p. 336, Müll. (Oehler.)

into pruning-hooks;” in other words, they shall change into pursuits of moderation and peace the dispositions of injurious minds, and hostile tongues, and all kinds of evil, and blasphemy.  “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,” shall not stir up discord. “Neither shall they learn war any more,”3397

3397 Isa. ii. 4.

that is, the provocation of hostilities; so that you here learn that Christ is promised not as powerful in war, but pursuing peace. Now you must deny either that these things were predicted, although they are plainly seen, or that they have been accomplished, although you read of them; else, if you cannot deny either one fact or the other, they must have been accomplished in Him of whom they were predicted. For look at the entire course of His call up to the present time from its beginning, how it is addressed to the nations (Gentiles) who are in these last days approaching to God the Creator, and not to proselytes, whose election3398

3398 Allectio.

was rather an event of the earliest days.  Verily the apostles have annulled3399

3399 Junius explains the author’s induxerunt by deleverunt; i.e., “they annulled your opinion about proselytes being the sole called, by their promulgation of the gospel.”

that belief of yours.
Isa. lii. 7 and Rom. x. 15.

not of war nor evil tidings. In response to which is the psalm, “Their sound is gone through all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world;”3401

3401 Ps. xix. 5.

that is, the words of them who carry round about the law that proceeded from Sion and the Lord’s word from Jerusalem, in order that that might come to pass which was written: “They who were far from my righteousness, have come near to my righteousness and truth.”3402

3402 Pamelius regards this as a quotation from Isa. xlvi. 12, 13, only put narratively, in order to indicate briefly its realization.

When the apostles girded their loins for this business, they renounced the elders and rulers and priests of the Jews. Well, says he, but was it not above all things that they might preach the other god?  Rather3403

3403 Atquin.

(that they might preach) that very self-same God, whose scripture they were with all their might fulfilling! “Depart ye, depart ye,” exclaims Isaiah; “go ye out from thence, and touch not the unclean thing,” that is blasphemy against Christ; “Go ye out of the midst of her,” even of the synagogue. “Be ye separate who bear the vessels of the Lord.”3404

3404 Isa. lii. 11.

For already had the Lord, according to the preceding words (of the prophet), revealed His Holy One with His arm, that is to say, Christ by His mighty power, in the eyes of the nations, so that all the3405

3405 Universæ.

nations and the utmost parts of the earth have seen the salvation, which was from God. By thus departing from Judaism itself, when they exchanged the obligations and burdens of the law for the liberty of the gospel, they were fulfilling the psalm, “Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast away their yoke from us;” and this indeed (they did) after that “the heathen raged, and the people imagined vain devices;” after that “the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers took their counsel together against the Lord, and against His Christ.”3406

3406 Comp. Ps. ii. 2, 3, with Acts iv. 25–30.

What did the apostles thereupon suffer? You answer:  Every sort of iniquitous persecutions, from men that belonged indeed to that Creator who was the adversary of Him whom they were preaching. Then why does the Creator, if an adversary of Christ, not only predict that the apostles should incur this suffering, but even express His displeasure3407

3407 Exprobrat.

thereat? For He ought neither to predict the course of the other god, whom, as you contend, He knew not, nor to have expressed displeasure at that which He had taken care to bring about. “See how the righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart; and how merciful men are taken away, and no man considereth. For the righteous man has been removed from the evil person.”3408

3408 Isa. lvii. 1.

Who is this but Christ? “Come, say they, let us take away the righteous, because He is not for our turn, (and He is clean contrary to our doings).”3409

3409 Wisd. of Sol. ii. 12.

Premising, therefore, and likewise subjoining the fact that Christ suffered, He foretold that His just ones should suffer equally with Him—both the apostles and all the faithful in succession; and He signed them with that very seal of which Ezekiel spake: “The Lord said unto me, Go through the gate, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set the mark Tau upon the foreheads of the men.”3410

3410 Ezek. ix. 4. The ms. which T. used seems to have agreed with the versions of Theodotion and Aquila mentioned thus by Origen (Selecta in Ezek.): ὁ δὲ ᾽Ακύλας καὶ Θεοδοτίων φασι. Σημείωσις τοῦ Θαῦ ἐπὶ τὰ μέτωπα, κ.τ.λ. Origen, in his own remarks, refers to the sign of the cross, as indicated by this letter.  Ed. Bened. (by Migne), iii. 802.

Now the Greek letter Tau and our own letter T is the very form of the cross, which He predicted would be the sign on our foreheads in the true Catholic Jerusalem,3411

3411 [Ambiguous, according to Kaye, p. 304, may mean a transition from Paganism to true Christianity.]

in which, according to the twenty-first Psalm, the brethren of Christ or children of God would ascribe glory to God the Father, in the person of Christ Himself addressing His Father; “I will declare Thy name unto my brethren; in the midst of the congregation will I sing praise unto Thee.” For that which had to come to pass in our day in His name, and by His Spirit, He rightly foretold would be of Him. And a little afterwards He says: “My praise shall be of Thee in the great congregation.”3412

3412 Ps. xxii. 22; 25.

In the sixty-seventh Psalm He says again: “In the congregations bless ye the Lord God.”3413

3413 Ps. lxviii. 26.

So that with this agrees also the prophecy of Malachi: “I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; neither will I accept your offerings: for from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place sacrifice shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering”3414

3414 Mal. i. 10, 11.

—such as the ascription of glory, and blessing, and praise, and hymns. Now, inasmuch as all these things are also found amongst you, and the sign upon the forehead,3415

3415 [Kaye remarks that traditions of practice, unlike the traditions of doctrine, may be varied according to times and circumstances. See p. 286.]

and the sacraments of the church, and the offerings of the pure sacrifice, you ought now to burst forth, and declare that the Spirit of the Creator prophesied of your Christ.
Isa. ii. 20.

in other words, from the time when he threw away his idols after the truth had been made clear by Christ. Consider whether what follows in the prophet has not received its fulfilment: “The Lord of hosts hath taken away from Judah and from Jerusalem, amongst other things, both the prophet and the wise artificer;”3417

3417 Architectum, Isa. iii. 1–3, abridged.

that is, His Holy Spirit, who builds the church, which is indeed the temple, and household and city of God. For thenceforth God’s grace failed amongst them; and “the clouds were commanded to rain no rain upon the vineyard” of Sorech; to withhold, that is, the graces of heaven, that they shed no blessing upon “the house of Israel,” which had but produced “the thorns” wherewith it had crowned the Lord, and “instead of righteousness, the cry” wherewith it had hurried Him away to the cross.3418

3418 Isa. v. 6, 7.

And so in this manner the law and the prophets were until John, but the dews of divine grace were withdrawn from the nation. After his time their madness still continued, and the name of the Lord was blasphemed by them, as saith the Scripture: “Because of you my name is continually blasphemed amongst the nations”3419

3419 Isa. lii. 5.

(for from them did the blasphemy originate); neither in the interval from Tiberius to Vespasian did they learn repentance.3420

3420 Compare Adv. Judæos, 13, p. 171, for a like statement.

Therefore “has their land become desolate, their cities are burnt with fire, their country strangers are devouring before their own eyes; the daughter of Sion has been deserted like a cottage in a vineyard, or a lodge in a garden of cucumbers,”3421

3421 Isa. i. 7, 8.

ever since the time when “Israel acknowledged not the Lord, and the people understood Him not, but forsook Him, and provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger.”3422

3422 Isa. i. 3, 4.

So likewise that conditional threat of the sword, “If ye refuse and hear me not, the sword shall devour you,”3423

3423 Isa. i. 20.

has proved that it was Christ, for rebellion against whom they have perished. In the fifty-eighth Psalm He demands of the Father their dispersion:  “Scatter them in Thy power.”3424

3424 Ps. lix. 11.

By Isaiah He also says, as He finishes a prophecy of their consumption by fire:3425

3425 Exustionem.

“Because of me has this happened to you; ye shall lie down in sorrow.”3426

3426 Isa. l. 11.

But all this would be unmeaning enough, if they suffered this retribution not on account of Him, who had in prophecy assigned their suffering to His own cause, but for the sake of the Christ of the other god. Well, then, although you affirm that it is the Christ of the other god who was driven to the cross by the powers and authorities of the Creator, as it were by hostile beings, still I have to say, See how manifestly He was defended3427

3427 Defensus, perhaps “claimed.”

by the Creator: there were given to Him both “the wicked for His burial,” even those who had strenuously maintained that His corpse had been stolen, “and the rich for His death,”3428

3428 See Isa. liii. 9.

even those who had redeemed Him from the treachery of Judas, as well as from the lying report of the soldiers that His body had been taken away. Therefore these things either did not happen to the Jews on His account, in which case you will be refuted by the sense of the Scriptures tallying with the issue of the facts and the order of the times, or else they did happen on His account, and then the Creator could not have inflicted the vengeance except for His own Christ; nay, He must have rather had a reward for Judas, if it had been his master’s enemy whom they put to death. At all events,3429

3429 Certe.

if the Creator’s Christ has not come yet, on whose account the prophecy dooms them to such sufferings, they will have to endure the sufferings when He shall have come. Then where will there be a daughter of Sion to be reduced to desolation, for there is none now to be found? Where will there be cities to be burnt with fire, for they are now in heaps?3430

3430 Compare a passage in the Apology, chap. xxi. p. 34, supra.

Where a nation to be dispersed, which is already in banishment? Restore to Judæa its former state, that the Creator’s Christ may find it, and then you may contend that another Christ has come.  But then, again,3431

3431 Jam vero.

how is it that He can have permitted to range through3432

3432 Admiserit per.

His own heaven one whom He was some day to put to death on His own earth, after the more noble and glorious region of His kingdom had been violated, and His own very palace and sublimest height had been trodden by him? Or was it only in appearance rather that he did this?3433

3433 Hoc affectavit.

God is no doubt3434

3434 Plane.

a jealous God! Yet he gained the victory. You should blush with shame, who put your faith in a vanquished god!  What have you to hope for from him, who was not strong enough to protect himself? For it was either through his infirmity that he was crushed by the powers and human agents of the Creator, or else through maliciousness, in order that he might fasten so great a stigma on them by his endurance of their wickedness.
Rev. xxi. 2.

which the apostle also calls “our mother from above;”3447

3447 Gal. iv. 26.

and, while declaring that our πολίτευμα , or citizenship, is in heaven,3448

3448 Phil. iii. 20, “our conversation,” A.V.

he predicates of it3449

3449 Deputat.

that it is really a city in heaven. This both Ezekiel had knowledge of3450

3450 Ezek. xlviii. 30–35.

and the Apostle John beheld.3451

3451 Rev. xxi. 10–23.

And the word of the new prophecy which is a part of our belief,3452

3452 That is, the Montanist. [Regarded as conclusive; but not conclusive evidence of an accomplished lapse from Catholic Communion.]

attests how it foretold that there would be for a sign a picture of this very city exhibited to view previous to its manifestation. This prophecy, indeed, has been very lately fulfilled in an expedition to the East.3453

3453 He means that of Severus against the Parthians.  Tertullian is the only author who mentions this prodigy.

For it is evident from the testimony of even heathen witnesses, that in Judæa there was suspended in the sky a city early every morning for forty days. As the day advanced, the entire figure of its walls would wane gradually,3454

3454 Evanescente.

and sometimes it would vanish instantly.3455

3455 Et alias de proximo nullam: or “de proximo” may mean, “on a near approach.”

We say that this city has been provided by God for receiving the saints on their resurrection, and refreshing them with the abundance of all really spiritual blessings, as a recompense for those which in the world we have either despised or lost; since it is both just and God-worthy that His servants should have their joy in the place where they have also suffered affliction for His name’s sake.  Of the heavenly kingdom this is the process.3456

3456 Ratio.

After its thousand years are over, within which period is completed the resurrection of the saints, who rise sooner or later according to their deserts there will ensue the destruction of the world and the conflagration of all things at the judgment: we shall then be changed in a moment into the substance of angels, even by the investiture of an incorruptible nature, and so be removed to that kingdom in heaven of which we have now been treating, just as if it had not been predicted by the Creator, and as if it were proving Christ to belong to the other god and as if he were the first and sole revealer of it. But now learn that it has been, in fact, predicted by the Creator, and that even without prediction it has a claim upon our faith in respect of3457

3457 Apud: or, “in the dispensation of the Creator.”

the Creator. What appears to be probable to you, when Abraham’s seed, after the primal promise of being like the sand of the sea for multitude, is destined likewise to an equality with the stars of heaven—are not these the indications both of an earthly and a heavenly dispensation?3458

3458 Dispositionis.

When Isaac, in blessing his son Jacob, says, “God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth,”3459

3459 Gen. xxvii. 28.

are there not in his words examples of both kinds of blessing? Indeed, the very form of the blessing is in this instance worthy of notice. For in relation to Jacob, who is the type of the later and more excellent people, that is to say ourselves,3460

3460 Nostri, i.e., Christians. [Not Montanist, but Catholic.]

first comes the promise of the heavenly dew, and afterwards that about the fatness of the earth. So are we first invited to heavenly blessings when we are separated from the world, and afterwards we thus find ourselves in the way of obtaining also earthly blessings. And your own gospel likewise has it in this wise: “Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and these things shall be added unto you.”3461

3461 Luke xii. 31.

But to Esau the blessing promised is an earthly one, which he supplements with a heavenly, after the fatness of the earth, saying, “Thy dwelling shall be also of the dew of heaven.”3462

3462 Gen. xxvii. 39.

For the dispensation of the Jews (who were in Esau, the prior of the sons in birth, but the later in affection3463

3463 Judæorum enim dispositio in Esau priorum natu et posteriorum affectu filiorum. This is the original of a difficult passage, in which Tertullian, who has taken Jacob as a type of the later, the Christian church, seems to make Esau the symbol of the former, the Jewish church, which, although prior in time, was later in allegiance to the full truth of God.

) at first was imbued with earthly blessings through the law, and afterwards brought round to heavenly ones through the gospel by faith. When Jacob sees in his dream the steps of a ladder set upon the earth, and reaching to heaven, with angels ascending and descending thereon, and the Lord standing above, we shall without hesitation venture to suppose,3464

3464 Temere, si forte, interpretabimur.

that by this ladder the Lord has in judgment appointed that the way to heaven is shown to men, whereby some may attain to it, and others fall therefrom. For why, as soon as he awoke out of his sleep, and shook through a dread of the spot, does he fall to an interpretation of his dream? He exclaims, “How terrible is this place!” And then adds, “This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven!”3465

3465 Gen. xxviii. 12–17.

For he had seen Christ the Lord, the temple of God, and also the gate by whom heaven is entered. Now surely he would not have mentioned the gate of heaven, if heaven is not entered in the dispensation of the3466

3466 Apud.

Creator. But there is now a gate provided by Christ, which admits and conducts to glory. Of this Amos says: “He buildeth His ascensions into heaven;”3467

3467 Amos ix. 6.

certainly not for Himself alone, but for His people also, who will be with Him. “And Thou shalt bind them about Thee,” says he, “like the adornment of a bride.”3468

3468 Isa. xlix. 18.

Accordingly the Spirit, admiring such as soar up to the celestial realms by these ascensions, says, “They fly, as if they were kites; they fly as clouds, and as young doves, unto me”3469

3469 Isa. lx. 8.

—that is, simply like a dove.3470

3470 In allusion to the dove as the symbol of the Spirit, see Matt. iii. 16.

For we shall, according to the apostle, be caught up into the clouds to meet the Lord (even the Son of man, who shall come in the clouds, according to Daniel3471

3471 Dan. vii. 13.

) and so shall we ever be with the Lord,3472

3472 1 Thess. iv. 17.

so long as He remains both on the earth and in heaven, who, against such as are thankless for both one promise and the other, calls the elements themselves to witness: “Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth.”3473

3473 Isa. i. 2.

Now, for my own part indeed, even though Scripture held out no hand of heavenly hope to me (as, in fact, it so often does), I should still possess a sufficient presumption3474

3474 Præjudicium.

of even this promise, in my present enjoyment of the earthly gift; and I should look out for something also of the heavenly, from Him who is the God of heaven as well as of earth. I should thus believe that the Christ who promises the higher blessings is (the Son) of Him who had also promised the lower ones; who had, moreover, afforded proofs of greater gifts by smaller ones; who had reserved for His Christ alone this revelation3475

3475 Præconium.

of a (perhaps3476

3476 Si forte.

) unheard of kingdom, so that, while the earthly glory was announced by His servants, the heavenly might have God Himself for its messenger. You, however, argue for another Christ, from the very circumstance that He proclaims a new kingdom. You ought first to bring forward some example of His beneficence,3477

3477 Indulgentiæ.

that I may have no good reason for doubting the credibility of the great promise, which you say ought to be hoped for; nay, it is before all things necessary that you should prove that a heaven belongs to Him, whom you declare to be a promiser of heavenly things. As it is, you invite us to dinner, but do not point out your house; you assert a kingdom, but show us no royal state.3478

3478 Regiam: perhaps “capital” or “palace.”

Can it be that your Christ promises a kingdom of heaven, without having a heaven; as He displayed Himself man, without having flesh? O what a phantom from first to last!3479

3479 Omne.

O hollow pretence of a mighty promise! Isa. ii. 3.

—some other law, that is, and another word. In short, says he, “He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people;”3492

3492 Isa. ii. 4.

meaning not those of the Jewish people only, but of the nations which are judged by the new law of the gospel and the new word of the apostles, and are amongst themselves rebuked of their old error as soon as they have believed. And as the result of this, “they beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears (which are a kind of hunting instruments) into pruning-hooks;”3493

3493 Isa. ii. 4.

that is to say, minds, which once were fierce and cruel, are changed by them into good dispositions productive of good fruit. And again:  “Hearken unto me, hearken unto me, my people, and ye kings, give ear unto me; for a law shall proceed from me, and my judgment for a light to the nations;”3494

3494 Isa. ii. 4, according to the Sept.

wherefore He had determined and decreed that the nations also were to be enlightened by the law and the word of the gospel. This will be that law which (according to David also) is unblameable, because “perfect, converting the soul”3495

3495 Ps. xix. 7.

from idols unto God. This likewise will be the word concerning which the same Isaiah says, “For the Lord will make a decisive word in the land.”3496

3496 T.’s version of Isa. x. 23. “Decisus Sermo” ="determined” of A.V.

Because the New Testament is compendiously short,3497

3497 Compendiatum.

and freed from the minute and perplexing3498

3498 Laciniosis.

burdens of the law. But why enlarge, when the Creator by the same prophet foretells the renovation more manifestly and clearly than the light itself?  “Remember not the former things, neither consider the things of old” (the old things have passed away, and new things are arising). “Behold, I will do new things, which shall now spring forth.”3499

3499 Isa. xliii. 18, 19.

So by Jeremiah: “Break up for yourselves new pastures,3500

3500 Novate novamen novum. Agricultural words.

and sow not among thorns, and circumcise yourselves in the foreskin of your heart.”3501

3501 Altered version of Jer. iv. 3, 4.

And in another passage: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Jacob, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I arrested their dispensation, in order to bring them out of the land of Egypt.”3502

3502 Jer. xxxi. 31, 32, with slight change.

He thus shows that the ancient covenant is temporary only, when He indicates its change; also when He promises that it shall be followed by an eternal one. For by Isaiah He says: “Hear me, and ye shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you,” adding “the sure mercies of David,”3503

3503 Isa. lv. 3.

in order that He might show that that covenant was to run its course in Christ. That He was of the family of David, according to the genealogy of Mary,3504

3504 Secundum Mariæ censum. See Kitto’s Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature (third edition), in the article “Genealogy of Jesus Christ,” where the translator of this work has largely given reasons for believing that St. Luke in his genealogy, (chap. iii.) has traced the descent of the Virgin Mary. To the authorities there given may be added this passage of Tertullian, and a fuller one, Adversus Judæos, ix., towards the end. [p. 164, supra.]

He declared in a figurative way even by the rod which was to proceed out of the stem of Jesse.3505

3505 Isa. xi. 1.

Forasmuch then as he said, that from the Creator there would come other laws, and other words, and new dispensations of covenants, indicating also that the very sacrifices were to receive higher offices, and that amongst all nations, by Malachi when he says: “I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord, neither will I accept your sacrifices at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place a sacrifice is offered unto my name, even a pure offering”3506

3506 Mal. i. 10, 11.

—meaning simple prayer from a pure conscience,—it is of necessity that every change which comes as the result of innovation, introduces a diversity in those things of which the change is made, from which diversity arises also a contrariety.  For as there is nothing, after it has undergone a change, which does not become different, so there is nothing different which is not contrary.3507

3507 To its former self.

Of that very thing, therefore, there will be predicated a contrariety in consequence of its diversity, to which there accrued a change of condition after an innovation. He who brought about the change, the same instituted the diversity also; He who foretold the innovation, the same announced beforehand the contrariety likewise.  Why, in your interpretation, do you impute a difference in the state of things to a difference of powers? Why do you wrest to the Creator’s prejudice those examples from which you draw your antitheses, when you may recognise them all in His sensations and affections? “I will wound,” He says, “and I will heal;” “I will kill,” He says again, “and I will make alive”3508

3508 Deut. xxxii. 39.

—even the same “who createth evil and maketh peace;”3509

3509 Isa. xlv. 7.

from which you are used even to censure Him with the imputation of fickleness and inconstancy, as if He forbade what He commanded, and commanded what He forbade. Why, then, have you not reckoned up the Antitheses also which occur in the natural works of the Creator, who is for ever contrary to Himself? You have not been able, unless I am misinformed, to recognise the fact,3510

3510 Recogitare.

that the world, at all events,3511

3511 Saltim.

even amongst your people of Pontus, is made up of a diversity of elements which are hostile to one another.3512

3512 Æmularum invicem.

It was therefore your bounden duty first to have determined that the god of the light was one being, and the god of darkness was another, in such wise that you might have been able to have distinctly asserted one of them to be the god of the law and the other the god of the gospel. It is, however, the settled conviction already3513

3513 Præjudicatum est.

of my mind from manifest proofs, that, as His works and plans3514

3514 In the external world.

exist in the way of Antitheses, so also by the same rule exist the mysteries of His religion.3515

3515 Sacramenta.


Gal. ii. 2.

in other words, that the faith which he had learned, and the gospel which he was preaching, might be in accordance with theirs. Then, at last, having conferred with the (primitive) authors, and having agreed with them touching the rule of faith, they joined their hands in fellowship, and divided their labours thenceforth in the office of preaching the gospel, so that they were to go to the Jews, and St. Paul to the Jews and the Gentiles.  Inasmuch, therefore, as the enlightener of St. Luke himself desired the authority of his predecessors for both his own faith and preaching, how much more may not I require for Luke’s Gospel that which was necessary for the Gospel of his master.3543

3543 [Dr. Holmes not uniformly, yet constantly inserts the prefix St. before the name of Paul, and brackets it, greatly disfiguring the page.  It is not in our author’s text, but I venture to dispense with the ever-recurring brackets.]


See Gal. ii. 13, 14.

) for “not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,”3551

3551 Compare what has been already said in book i. chap. 20, and below in book v. chap. 3. See also Tertullian’s treatise, De Præscript. Hæret. chap. 23. [Kaye, p. 275.]

as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character3552

3552 Statum.

of those Gospels which are published as genuine3553

3553 Propria.

and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them. But then, even if he censures Peter and John and James, who were thought to be pillars, it is for a manifest reason. They seemed to be changing their company3554

3554 Variare convictum.

from respect of persons. And yet as Paul himself “became all things to all men,”3555

3555 1 Cor. ix. 22.

that he might gain all, it was possible that Peter also might have betaken himself to the same plan of practising somewhat different from what he taught. And, in like manner, if false apostles also crept in, their character too showed itself in their insisting upon circumcision and the Jewish ceremonies.  So that it was not on account of their preaching, but of their conversation, that they were marked by St. Paul, who would with equal impartiality have marked them with censure, if they had erred at all with respect to God the Creator or His Christ.  Each several case will therefore have to be distinguished. When Marcion complains that apostles are suspected (for their prevarication and dissimulation) of having even depraved the gospel, he thereby accuses Christ, by accusing those whom Christ chose. If, then, the apostles, who are censured simply for inconsistency of walk, composed the Gospel in a pure form,3556

3556 Integrum.

but false apostles interpolated their true record; and if our own copies have been made from these,3557

3557 Inde nostra digesta.

where will that genuine text3558

3558 Germanum instrumentum.

of the apostle’s writings be found which has not suffered adulteration? Which was it that enlightened Paul, and through him Luke? It is either completely blotted out, as if by some deluge—being obliterated by the inundation of falsifiers—in which case even Marcion does not possess the true Gospel; or else, is that very edition which Marcion alone possesses the true one, that is, of the apostles? How, then, does that agree with ours, which is said not to be (the work) of apostles, but of Luke? Or else, again, if that which Marcion uses is not to be attributed to Luke simply because it does agree with ours (which, of course,3559

3559 That is, according to the Marcionite cavil.

is, also adulterated in its title), then it is the work of apostles. Our Gospel, therefore, which is in agreement with it, is equally the work of apostles, but also adulterated in its title.3560

3560 De titulo quoque.


Matt. x. 24.

if Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, “Whether it be I or they, so we preach;”3582

3582 1 Cor. xv. 11.

if Marcion be a prophet, even “the spirits of the prophets will be subject to the prophets,”3583

3583 1 Cor. xiv. 32.

for they are not the authors of confusion, but of peace; or if Marcion be actually an angel, he must rather be designated “as anathema than as a preacher of the gospel,”3584

3584 Gal. i. 8.

because it is a strange gospel which he has preached. So that, whilst he amends, he only confirms both positions: both that our Gospel is the prior one, for he amends that which he has previously fallen in with; and that that is the later one, which, by putting it together out of the emendations of ours, he has made his own Gospel, and a novel one too.
Luke iii. 1 and iv. 31.

(for such is Marcion’s proposition) he “came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum,” of course meaning3635

3635 Utique.

from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own. What then had been his course,3636

3636 Ecquid ordinis.

for him to be described as first descending from his own heaven to the Creator’s? For why should I abstain from censuring those parts of the statement which do not satisfy the requirement of an ordinary narrative, but always end in a falsehood? To be sure, our censure has been once for all expressed in the question, which we have already3637

3637 See above, book i. chap. xxiii. [Comp. i. cap. xix.]

suggested: Whether, when descending through the Creator’s domain, and indeed in hostility to him, he could possibly have been admitted by him, and by him been transmitted to the earth, which was equally his territory? Now, however, I want also to know the remainder of his course down, assuming that he came down. For we must not be too nice in inquiring3638

3638 This is here the force of viderit, our author’s very favourite idiom.

whether it is supposed that he was seen in any place. To come into view3639

3639 Apparere.

indicates3640

3640 Sapit.

a sudden unexpected glance, which for a moment fixed3641

3641 Impegerit.

the eye upon the object that passed before the view, without staying. But when it happens that a descent has been effected, it is apparent, and comes under the notice of the eyes.3642

3642 Descendisse autem, dum fit, videtur et subit oculos. Probably this bit of characteristic Latinity had better be rendered thus: “The accomplishment of a descent, however, is, whilst happening, a visible process, and one that meets the eye.” Of the various readings, “dum sit,” “dum it,” “dum fit,” we take the last with Oehler, only understanding the clause as a parenthesis.

Moreover, it takes account of fact, and thus obliges one to examine in what condition with what preparation,3643

3643 Suggestu.

with how much violence or moderation, and further, at what time of the day or night, the descent was made; who, again, saw the descent, who reported it, who seriously avouched the fact, which certainly was not easy to be believed, even after the asseveration. It is, in short, too bad3644

3644 Indignum.

that Romulus should have had in Proculus an avoucher of his ascent to heaven, when the Christ of (this) god could not find any one to announce his descent from heaven; just as if the ascent of the one and the descent of the other were not effected on one and the same ladder of falsehood! Then, what had he to do with Galilee, if he did not belong to the Creator by whom3645

3645 Cui.

that region was destined (for His Christ) when about to enter on His ministry?3646

3646 Ingressuro prædicationem.

As Isaiah says: “Drink in this first, and be prompt, O region of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, and ye others who (inhabit) the sea-coast, and that of Jordan, Galilee of the nations, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light; upon you, who inhabit (that) land, sitting in the shadow of death, the light hath arisen.”3647

3647 This is the literal rendering of Tertullian’s version of the prophet’s words, which occur chap. ix. 1, 2. The first clause closely follows the LXX. (ed. Tisch.): Τοῦτο πρῶτον πίε, ταχύ ποίει. This curious passage is explained by Grotius (on Matt. iv. 14) as a mistake of ancient copyists; as if what the Seventy had originally rendered ταχὺ ποίει, from the hiphil of ללק, had been faultily written ταχὺ πίε, and the latter had crept into the text with the marginal note πρῶτον, instead of a repetition of ταχὺ. However this be, Tertullian’s old Latin Bible had the passage thus: “Hoc primum bibito, cito facito, regio Zabulon,” etc.

It is, however, well that Marcion’s god does claim to be the enlightener of the nations, that so he might have the better reason for coming down from heaven; only, if it must needs be,3648

3648 Si utique.

he should rather have made Pontus his place of descent than Galilee. But since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern3649

3649 Agnoscere.

that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them;3650

3650 Matt. v. 17.

for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation.3651

3651 Additum.

It will, however, be vain for him to deny that Christ uttered in word what He forthwith did partially indeed. For the prophecy about place He at once fulfilled. From heaven straight to the synagogue. As the adage runs: “The business on which we are come, do at once.” Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel;”3652

3652 Matt. xv. 24.

and, “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs,”3653

3653 Matt. xv. 26.

—in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite. But facts will satisfy me instead of words. Withdraw all the sayings of my Christ, His acts shall speak. Lo, He enters the synagogue; surely (this is going) to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Behold, it is to Israelites first that He offers the “bread” of His doctrine; surely it is because they are “children” that He shows them this priority.3654

3654 Præfert.

Observe, He does not yet impart it to others; surely He passes them by as “dogs.” For to whom else could He better have imparted it, than to such as were strangers to the Creator, if He especially belonged not to the Creator? And yet how could He have been admitted into the synagogue—one so abruptly appearing,3655

3655 Tam repentinus.

so unknown; one, of whom no one had as yet been apprised of His tribe, His nation, His family, and lastly, His enrolment in the census of Augustus—that most faithful witness of the Lord’s nativity, kept in the archives of Rome? They certainly would have remembered, if they did not know Him to be circumcised, that He must not be admitted into their most holy places.  And even if He had the general right of entering3656

3656 Etsi passim adiretur.

the synagogue (like other Jews), yet the function of giving instruction was allowed only to a man who was extremely well known, and examined and tried, and for some time invested with the privilege after experience duly attested elsewhere. But “they were all astonished at His doctrine.” Of course they were; “for, says (St. Luke), “His word was with power3657

3657 Luke iv. 32.

—not because He taught in opposition to the law and the prophets. No doubt, His divine discourse3658

3658 Eloquium.

gave forth both power and grace, building up rather than pulling down the substance of the law and the prophets.  Otherwise, instead of “astonishment, they would feel horror. It would not be admiration, but aversion, prompt and sure, which they would bestow on one who was the destroyer of law and prophets, and the especial propounder as a natural consequence of a rival god; for he would have been unable to teach anything to the disparagement of the law and the prophets, and so far of the Creator also, without premising the doctrine of a different and rival divinity.  Inasmuch, then, as the Scripture makes no other statement on the matter than that the simple force and power of His word produced astonishment, it more naturally3659

3659 Facilius.

shows that His teaching was in accordance with the Creator by not denying (that it was so), than that it was in opposition to the Creator, by not asserting (such a fact). And thus He will either have to be acknowledged as belonging to Him,3660

3660 That is, the Creator.

in accordance with whom He taught; or else will have to be adjudged a deceiver since He taught in accordance with One whom He had come to oppose. In the same passage, “the spirit of an unclean devil” exclaims: “What have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus? Art Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God.”3661

3661 Luke iv. 33, 34.

I do not here raise the question whether this appellation was suitable to one who ought not to be called Christ, unless he were sent by the Creator.3662

3662 Si non Creatoris.

Elsewhere3663

3663 See above, in book iii. chap. xii., on the name Emmanuel; in chap. xv., on the name Christ; and in chap. xvi., on the name Jesus.

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

Ps. xvi. 10, and probably Dan. ix. 24.

of “the Holy One” of God, and how that God’s name of “Jesus” was in the son of Nun.3666

3666 Compare what was said above in book iii., chap. xvi. p. 335.

These facts he had also received3667

3667 Exceperat.

from the angel, according to our Gospel:  “Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Holy One, the Son of God;”3668

3668 Such is our author’s reading of Luke i. 35.

and, “Thou shalt call his name Jesus.”3669

3669 Matt. i. 21.

Thus he actually had (although only an evil spirit) some idea of the Lord’s dispensation, rather than of any strange and heretofore imperfectly understood one.  Because he also premised this question:  “What have we to do with Thee?”—not as if referring to a strange Jesus, to whom pertain the evil spirits of the Creator. Nor did he say, What hast Thou to do with us? but, “What have we to do with Thee?” as if deploring himself, and deprecating his own calamity; at the prospect of which he adds: “Art Thou come to destroy us?” So completely did he acknowledge in Jesus the Son of that God who was judicial and avenging, and (so to speak) severe,3670

3670 Sævi.

and not of him who was simply good,3671

3671 Optimi.

and knew not how to destroy or how to punish!  Now for what purpose have we adduced his passage first?3672

3672 Præmisimus.

In order to show that Jesus was neither acknowledged by the evil spirit, nor affirmed by Himself, to be any other than the Creator’s. Well, but Jesus rebuked him, you say. To be sure he did, as being an envious (spirit), and in his very confession only petulant, and evil in adulation—just as if it had been Christ’s highest glory to have come for the destruction of demons, and not for the salvation of mankind; whereas His wish really was that His disciples should not glory in the subjection of evil spirits but in the fair beauty of salvation.3673

3673 De candida salutis: see Luke x. 20.

Why else3674

3674 Aut cur.

did He rebuke him? If it was because he was entirely wrong (in his invocation), then He was neither Jesus nor the Holy One of God; if it was because he was partially wrong—for having supposed him to be, rightly enough,3675

3675 Quidem.

Jesus and the Holy One of God, but also as belonging to the Creator—most unjustly would He have rebuked him for thinking what he knew he ought to think (about Him), and for not supposing that of Him which he knew not that he ought to suppose—that he was another Jesus, and the holy one of the other god. If, however, the rebuke has not a more probable meaning3676

3676 Verisimiliorem statum.

than that which we ascribe to it, it follows that the evil spirit made no mistake, and was not rebuked for lying; for it was Jesus Himself, besides whom it was impossible for the evil spirit to have acknowledged any other, whilst Jesus affirmed that He was He whom the evil spirit had acknowledged, by not rebuking him for uttering a lie.
Lam. iv. 7.

even they who were once defiled with the stains of sin, and darkened with the clouds of ignorance. But to Christ the title Nazarene was destined to become a suitable one, from the hiding-place of His infancy, for which He went down and dwelt at Nazareth,3681

3681 Descendit apud, see Luke iv. 16–30.

to escape from Archelaus the son of Herod.  This fact I have not refrained from mentioning on this account, because it behoved Marcion’s Christ to have forborne all connection whatever with the domestic localities of the Creator’s Christ, when he had so many towns in Judæa which had not been by the prophets thus assigned3682

3682 Emancipata.

to the Creator’s Christ. But Christ will be (the Christ) of the prophets, wheresoever He is found in accordance with the prophets. And yet even at Nazareth He is not remarked as having preached anything new,3683

3683 Luke iv. 23.

whilst in another verse He is said to have been rejected3684

3684 Luke iv. 29.

by reason of a simple proverb.3685

3685 Luke iv. 24.

Here at once, when I observe that they laid their hands on Him, I cannot help drawing a conclusion respecting His bodily substance, which cannot be believed to have been a phantom,3686

3686 A rebuke of Marcion’s Docetic views of Christ.

since it was capable of being touched and even violently handled, when He was seized and taken and led to the very brink of a precipice. For although He escaped through the midst of them, He had already experienced their rough treatment, and afterwards went His way, no doubt3687

3687 Scilicet.

because the crowd (as usually happens) gave way, or was even broken through; but not because it was eluded as by an impalpable disguise,3688

3688 Per caliginem.

which, if there had been such, would not at all have submitted to any touch.

Luke iv. 40.

which were not less true, not less unimaginary, than were the hands wherewith He bestowed them. He was therefore the very Christ of Isaiah, the healer of our sicknesses.3691

3691 See Isa. liii. 4.

“Surely,” says he, “He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” Now the Greeks are accustomed to use for carry a word which also signifies to take away. A general promise is enough for me in passing.3692

3692 Interim.

Whatever were the cures which Jesus effected, He is mine. We will come, however, to the kinds of cures. To liberate men, then, from evil spirits, is a cure of sickness.  Accordingly, wicked spirits (just in the manner of our former example) used to go forth with a testimony, exclaiming, “Thou art the Son of God,”3693

3693 Luke iv. 41.

—of what God, is clear enough from the case itself.  But they were rebuked, and ordered not to speak; precisely because3694

3694 Proinde enim.

Christ willed Himself to be proclaimed by men, not by unclean spirits, as the Son of God—even that Christ alone to whom this was befitting, because He had sent beforehand men through whom He might become known, and who were assuredly worthier preachers. It was natural to Him3695

3695 Illius erat.

to refuse the proclamation of an unclean spirit, at whose command there was an abundance of saints. He, however,3696

3696 Porro.

who had never been foretold (if, indeed, he wished to be acknowledged; for if he did not wish so much, his coming was in vain), would not have spurned the testimony of an alien or any sort of substance, who did not happen to have a substance of his own,3697

3697 Propriæ non habebat.

but had descended in an alien one. And now, too, as the destroyer also of the Creator, he would have desired nothing better than to be acknowledged by His spirits, and to be divulged for the sake of being feared:3698

3698 Præ timore.

only that Marcion says3699

3699 See above, book i. chap. vii. xxvi. and xxvii.

that his god is not feared; maintaining that a good being is not an object of fear, but only a judicial being, in whom reside the grounds3700

3700 Materiæ.

of fear—anger, severity, judgments, vengeance, condemnation. But it was from fear, undoubtedly, that the evil spirits were cowed.3701

3701 Cedebant.

Therefore they confessed that (Christ) was the Son of a God who was to be feared, because they would have an occasion of not submitting if there were none for fearing.  Besides, He showed that He was to be feared, because He drave them out, not by persuasion like a good being, but by command and reproof. Or else did he3702

3702 Aut nunquid.

reprove them, because they were making him an object of fear, when all the while he did not want to be feared? And in what manner did he wish them to go forth, when they could not do so except with fear? So that he fell into the dilemma3703

3703 Necessitatem.

of having to conduct himself contrary to his nature, whereas he might in his simple goodness have at once treated them with leniency. He fell, too, into another false position3704

3704 In aliam notam.

—of prevarication, when he permitted himself to be feared by the demons as the Son of the Creator, that he might drive them out, not indeed by his own power, but by the authority of the Creator. “He departed, and went into a desert place.”3705

3705 Luke iv. 42.

This was, indeed, the Creator’s customary region. It was proper that the Word3706

3706 Sermonem. [Nota Bene, Acts vii. 38.]

should there appear in body, where He had aforetime, wrought in a cloud. To the gospel also was suitable that condition of place3707

3707 Habitus loci.

which had once been determined on for the law.3708

3708 The law was given in the wilderness of Sinai; see Ex. xix. 1.

“Let the wilderness and the solitary place, therefore, be glad and rejoice;” so had Isaiah promised.3709

3709 Isa. xxxv. 1.

When “stayed” by the crowds, He said, “I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also.”3710

3710 Luke iv. 42, 43.

Had He displayed His God anywhere yet? I suppose as yet nowhere. But was He speaking of those who knew of another god also? I do not believe so. If, therefore, neither He had preached, nor they had known, any other God but the Creator, He was announcing the kingdom of that God whom He knew to be the only God known to those who were listening to Him.
See Luke v. 1–11.

By saying this, He suggested to them the meaning of the fulfilled prophecy, that it was even He who by Jeremiah had foretold, “Behold, I will send many fishers; and they shall fish them,”3713

3713 Jer. xvi. 16.

that is, men. Then at last they left their boats, and followed Him, understanding that it was He who had begun to accomplish what He had declared. It is quite another case, when he affected to choose from the college of shipmasters, intending one day to appoint the shipmaster Marcion his apostle. We have indeed already laid it down, in opposition to his Antitheses, that the position of Marcion derives no advantage from the diversity which he supposes to exist between the Law and the Gospel, inasmuch as even this was ordained by the Creator, and indeed predicted in the promise of the new Law, and the new Word, and the new Testament.  Since, however, he quotes with especial care,3714

3714 Attentius argumentatur.

as a proof in his domain,3715

3715 Apud illum, i.e., the Creator.

a certain companion in misery (συνταλαίπωρον), and associate in hatred (συμμισούμενον ), with himself, for the cure of leprosy,3716

3716 Luke v. 12–14.

I shall not be sorry to meet him, and before anything else to point out to him the force of the law figuratively interpreted, which, in this example of a leper (who was not to be touched, but was rather to be removed from all intercourse with others), prohibited any communication with a person who was defiled with sins, with whom the apostle also forbids us even to eat food,3717

3717 1 Cor. v. 11.

forasmuch as the taint of sins would be communicated as if contagious, wherever a man should mix himself with the sinner.  The Lord, therefore, wishing that the law should be more profoundly understood as signifying spiritual truths by carnal facts3718

3718 Per carnalia, by material things.

—and thus3719

3719 Hoc nomine.

not destroying, but rather building up, that law which He wanted to have more earnestly acknowledged—touched the leper, by whom (even although as man He might have been defiled) He could not be defiled as God, being of course incorruptible. The prescription, therefore, could not be meant for Him, that He was bound to observe the law and not touch the unclean person, seeing that contact with the unclean would not cause defilement to Him. I thus teach that this (immunity) is consistent in my Christ, the rather when I show that it is not consistent in yours. Now, if it was as an enemy3720

3720 Æmulus.

of the law that He touched the leper—disregarding the precept of the law by a contempt of the defilement—how could he be defiled, when he possessed not a body3721

3721 Another allusion to Marcion’s Docetic doctrine.

which could be defiled? For a phantom is not susceptible of defilement. He therefore, who could not be defiled, as being a phantom, will not have an immunity from pollution by any divine power, but owing to his fantastic vacuity; nor can he be regarded as having despised pollution, who had not in fact any material capacity3722

3722 Materiam.

for it; nor, in like manner, as having destroyed the law, who had escaped defilement from the occasion of his phantom nature, not from any display of virtue. If, however, the Creator’s prophet Elisha cleansed Naaman the Syrian alone,3723

3723 Unicum.

to the exclusion of3724

3724 Ex., literally, “alone of.” So Luke iv. 27.

so many lepers in Israel,3725

3725 Compare 2 Kings v. 9–; 14 with Luke iv. 27.

this fact contributes nothing to the distinction of Christ, as if he were in this way the better one for cleansing this Israelite leper, although a stranger to him, whom his own Lord had been unable to cleanse. The cleansing of the Syrian rather3726

3726 Facilius—rather than of Israelites.

was significant throughout the nations of the world3727

3727 Per Nationes. [Bishop Andrewes thus classifies the “Sins of the Nations,” as Tertullian’s idea seems to have suggested: (1) Pride, Amorite; (2) Envy, Hittite; (3) Wrath, Perizzite; (4) Gluttony, Girgashite; (5) Lechery, Hivite; (6) Covetousness, Canaanite; (7) Sloth, Jebusite.]

of their own cleansing in Christ their light,3728

3728 Compare, in Simeon’s song, Luke ii. 32, the designation, “A light to lighten the Gentiles.”

steeped as they were in the stains of the seven deadly sins:3729

3729 [See Elucidation I.]

idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false-witness, and fraud.3730

3730 Such seems to be the meaning of the obscure passage in the original, “Syro facilius emundato significato per nationes emundationis in Christo lumine earum quæ septem maculis, capitalium delictorum inhorrerent, idoatria,” etc. We have treated significato as one member of an ablative absolute clause, from significatum, a noun occuring in Gloss. Lat. Gr. synonymous with δήλωσις. Rigault, in a note on the passage, imputes the obscurity to Tertullian’s arguing on the Marcionite hypothesis. “Marcion,” says he, “held that the prophets, like Elisha, belonged to the Creator, and Christ to the good God. To magnify Christ’s beneficence, he prominently dwells on the alleged fact, that Christ, although a stranger to the Creator’s world, yet vouchsafed to do good in it. This vain conceit Tertullian refutes from the Marcionite hypothesis itself. God the Creator, said they, had found Himself incapable of cleansing this Israelite; but He had more easily cleansed the Syrian.  Christ, however, cleansed the Israelite, and so showed himself the superior power. Tertullian denies both positions.”

Seven times, therefore, as if once for each,3731

3731 Quasi per singulos titulos.

did he wash in Jordan; both in order that he might celebrate the expiation of a perfect hebdomad;3732

3732 There was a mystic completeness in the number seven.

and because the virtue and fulness of the one baptism was thus solemnly imputed3733

3733 Dicabatur.

to Christ, alone, who was one day to establish on earth not only a revelation, but also a baptism, endued with compendious efficacy.3734

3734 Sicut sermonem compendiatum, ita et lavacrum. In chap. i. of this book, the N.T. is called the compendiatum. This illustrates the present phrase.

Even Marcion finds here an antithesis:3735

3735 Et hoc opponit.

how that Elisha indeed required a material resource, applied water, and that seven times; whereas Christ, by the employment of a word only, and that but once for all, instantly effected3736

3736 Repræsentavit.

the cure. And surely I might venture3737

3737 Quasi non audeam.

to claim3738

3738 Vindicare in.

the Very Word also as of the Creator’s substance. There is nothing of which He who was the primitive Author is not also the more powerful one. Forsooth,3739

3739 Plane. An ironical cavil from the Marcionite view.

it is incredible that that power of the Creator should have, by a word, produced a remedy for a single malady, which once by a word brought into being so vast a fabric as the world! From what can the Christ of the Creator be better discerned, than from the power of His word? But Christ is on this account another (Christ), because He acted differently from Elisha—because, in fact, the master is more powerful than his servant! Why, Marcion, do you lay down the rule, that things are done by servants just as they are by their very masters? Are you not afraid that it will turn to your discredit, if you deny that Christ belongs to the Creator, on the ground that He was once more powerful than a servant of the Creator—since, in comparison with the weakness of Elisha, He is acknowledged to be the greater, if indeed greater!3740

3740 Si tamen major.

For the cure is the same, although there is a difference in the working of it. What has your Christ performed more than my Elisha?  Nay, what great thing has the word of your Christ performed, when it has simply done that which a river of the Creator effected? On the same principle occurs all the rest. So far as renouncing all human glory went, He forbade the man to publish abroad the cure; but so far as the honour of the law was concerned, He requested that the usual course should be followed: “Go, show thyself to the priest, and present the offering which Moses commanded.”3741

3741 Luke v. 14.

For the figurative signs of the law in its types He still would have observed, because of their prophetic import.3742

3742 Utpote prophetatæ.

These types signified that a man, once a sinner, but afterwards purified3743

3743 Emaculatum.

from the stains thereof by the word of God, was bound to offer unto God in the temple a gift, even prayer and thanksgiving in the church through Christ Jesus, who is the Catholic Priest of the Father.3744

3744 [i.e., the Great High Priest whose sacrifice is accepted of the Father, for the sins of the whole world.]

Accordingly He added: “that it may be for a testimony unto you”—one, no doubt, whereby He would testify that He was not destroying the law, but fulfilling it; whereby, too, He would testify that it was He Himself who was foretold as about to undertake3745

3745 Suscepturus: to carry or take away.

their sicknesses and infirmities. This very consistent and becoming explanation of “the testimony,” that adulator of his own Christ, Marcion seeks to exclude under the cover of mercy and gentleness. For, being both good (such are his words), and knowing, besides, that every man who had been freed from leprosy would be sure to perform the solemnities of the law, therefore He gave this precept. Well, what then? Has He continued in his goodness (that is to say, in his permission of the law) or not?  For if he has persevered in his goodness, he will never become a destroyer of the law; nor will he ever be accounted as belonging to another god, because there would not exist that destruction of the law which would constitute his claim to belong to the other god. If, however, he has not continued good, by a subsequent destruction of the law, it is a false testimony which he has since imposed upon them in his cure of the leper; because he has forsaken his goodness, in destroying the law. If, therefore, he was good whilst upholding the law,3746

3746 Legis indultor.

he has now become evil as a destroyer of the law. However, by the support which he gave to the law, he affirmed that the law was good.  For no one permits himself in the support of an evil thing. Therefore he is not only bad if he has permitted obedience to a bad law; but even worse still, if he has appeared3747

3747 Advenit.

as the destroyer of a good law. So that if he commanded the offering of the gift because he knew that every cured leper would be sure to bring one; he possibly abstained from commanding what he knew would be spontaneously done. In vain, therefore, was his coming down, as if with the intention of destroying the law, when he makes concessions to the keepers of the law. And yet,3748

3748 Atquin.

because he knew their disposition,3749

3749 Formam.

he ought the more earnestly to have prevented their neglect of the law,3750

3750 Ab ea avertendos.

since he had come for this purpose. Why then did he not keep silent, that man might of his own simple will obey the law? For then might he have seemed to some extent3751

3751 Aliquatenus.

to have persisted in his patience. But he adds also his own authority increased by the weight of this “testimony.” Of what testimony, I ask,3752

3752 Jam.

if not that of the assertion of the law?  Surely it matters not in what way he asserted the law—whether as good, or as supererogatory,3753

3753 Supervacuus.

or as patient, or as inconstant—provided, Marcion, I drive you from your position.3754

3754 Gradu.

Observe,3755

3755 Ecce.

he commanded that the law should be fulfilled.  In whatever way he commanded it, in the same way might he also have first uttered that sentiment:3756

3756 Sententiam.

“I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.”3757

3757 Matt. v. 17.

What business, therefore, had you to erase out of the Gospel that which was quite consistent in it?3758

3758 Quod salvum est.

For you have confessed that, in his goodness, he did in act what you deny that he did in word.3759

3759 That is, you retain the passage in St. Luke, which relates the act of honouring the law; but you reject that in St. Matthew, which contains Christ’s profession of honouring the law.

We have therefore good proof that He uttered the word, in the fact that He did the deed; and that you have rather expunged the Lord’s word, than that our (evangelists)3760

3760 Nostros: or, perhaps, “our people,”—that is, the Catholics.

have inserted it.
Luke v. 16–26.

and that in public, in the sight of the people.  For, says Isaiah, “they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God.”3762

3762 Isa. xxxv. 2.

What glory, and what excellency? “Be strong, ye weak hands, and ye feeble knees:”3763

3763 Isa. xxxv. 3 in an altered form.

this refers to the palsy. “Be strong; fear not.”3764

3764 Isa. xxxv. 4.

Be strong is not vainly repeated, nor is fear not vainly added; because with the renewal of the limbs there was to be, according to the promise, a restoration also of bodily energies: “Arise, and take up thy couch;” and likewise moral courage3765

3765 Animi vigorem.

not to be afraid of those who should say, “Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” So that you have here not only the fulfilment of the prophecy which promised a particular kind of healing, but also of the symptoms which followed the cure.  In like manner, you should also recognise Christ in the same prophet as the forgiver of sins. “For,” he says, “He shall remit to many their sins, and shall Himself take away our sins.”3766

3766 This seems to be Isa. liii. 12, last clause.

For in an earlier passage, speaking in the person of the Lord himself, he had said:  “Even though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them as white as snow; even though they be like crimson, I will whiten them as wool.”3767

3767 Isa. i. 18.

In the scarlet colour He indicates the blood of the prophets; in the crimson, that of the Lord, as the brighter. Concerning the forgiveness of sins, Micah also says: “Who is a God like unto Thee? pardoning iniquity, and passing by the transgressions of the remnant of Thine heritage. He retaineth not His anger as a testimony against them, because He delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, and will have compassion upon us; He wipeth away our iniquities, and casteth our sins into the depths of the sea.”3768

3768 Mic. vii. 18, 19.

Now, if nothing of this sort had been predicted of Christ, I should find in the Creator examples of such a benignity as would hold out to me the promise of similar affections also in the Son of whom He is the Father. I see how the Ninevites obtained forgiveness of their sins from the Creator3769

3769 Jonah iii. 10.

—not to say from Christ, even then, because from the beginning He acted in the Father’s name. I read, too, how that, when David acknowledged his sin against Uriah, the prophet Nathan said unto him, “The Lord hath cancelled3770

3770 Circumduxit.

thy sin, and thou shalt not die;”3771

3771 2 Sam. xii. 13.

how king Ahab in like manner, the husband of Jezebel, guilty of idolatry and of the blood of Naboth, obtained pardon because of his repentance;3772

3772 1 Kings xxi. 29.

and how Jonathan the son of Saul blotted out by his deprecation the guilt of a violated fast.3773

3773 Resignati jejunii. See 1 Sam. xiv. 43–45.

Why should I recount the frequent restoration of the nation itself after the forgiveness of their sins?—by that God, indeed, who will have mercy rather than sacrifice, and a sinner’s repentance rather than his death.3774

3774 Ezek. xxxiii. 11.

You will first have to deny that the Creator ever forgave sins; then you must in reason show3775

3775 Consequens est ut ostendas.

that He never ordained any such prerogative for His Christ; and so you will prove how novel is that boasted3776

3776 Istam.

benevolence of the, of course, novel Christ when you shall have proved that it is neither compatible with3777

3777 Parem.

the Creator nor predicted by the Creator.  But whether to remit sins can appertain to one who is said to be unable to retain them, and whether to absolve can belong to him who is incompetent even to condemn, and whether to forgive is suitable to him against whom no offence can be committed, are questions which we have encountered elsewhere,3778

3778 See book i. chap. xxvi.–xxviii.

when we preferred to drop suggestions3779

3779 Admonere.

rather than treat them anew.3780

3780 Retractare: give a set treatise about them.

Concerning the Son of man our rule3781

3781 Præscriptio.

is a twofold one: that Christ cannot lie, so as to declare Himself the Son of man, if He be not truly so; nor can He be constituted the Son of man, unless He be born of a human parent, either father or mother. And then the discussion will turn on the point, of which human parent He ought to be accounted the son—of the father or the mother?  Since He is (begotten) of God the Father, He is not, of course, (the son) of a human father. If He is not of a human father, it follows that He must be (the son) of a human mother. If of a human mother, it is evident that she must be a virgin. For to whom a human father is not ascribed, to his mother a husband will not be reckoned; and then to what mother a husband is not reckoned, the condition of virginity belongs.3782

3782 To secure terseness in the premisses, we are obliged to lengthen out the brief terms of the conclusion, virgo est.

But if His mother be not a virgin, two fathers will have to be reckoned to Him—a divine and a human one. For she must have a husband, not to be a virgin; and by having a husband, she would cause two fathers—one divine, the other human—to accrue to Him, who would thus be Son both of God and of a man. Such a nativity (if one may call it so)3783

3783 Si forte.

the mythic stories assign to Castor or to Hercules. Now, if this distinction be observed, that is to say, if He be Son of man as born of His mother, because not begotten of a father, and His mother be a virgin, because His father is not human—He will be that Christ whom Isaiah foretold that a virgin should conceive,3784

3784 Isa. vii. 14.

on what principle you, Marcion, can admit Him Son of man, I cannot possibly see. If through a human father, then you deny him to be Son of God; if through a divine one also,3785

3785 Si et Dei.

then you make Christ the Hercules of fable; if through a human mother only, then you concede my point; if not through a human father also,3786

3786 Si neque patris.

then He is not the son of any man,3787

3787 On Marcion’s principles, it must be remembered.

and He must have been guilty of a lie for having declared Himself to be what He was not. One thing alone can help you in your difficulty: boldness on your part either to surname your God as actually the human father of Christ, as Valentinus did3788

3788 Compare T.’s treatise, Adversus Valentinianos, chap. xii.

with his Æon; or else to deny that the Virgin was human, which even Valentinus did not do. What now, if Christ be described3789

3789 Censentur.

in Daniel by this very title of “Son of man?”  Is not this enough to prove that He is the Christ of prophecy? For if He gives Himself that appellation which was provided in the prophecy for the Christ of the Creator, He undoubtedly offers Himself to be understood as Him to whom (the appellation) was assigned by the prophet. But perhaps3790

3790 Si forte.

it can be regarded as a simple identity of names;3791

3791 Nominum communio simplex.

and yet we have maintained3792

3792 Defendimus. See above, book iii. chap. xv. xvi.

that neither Christ nor Jesus ought to have been called by these names, if they possessed any condition of diversity.  But as regards the appellation “Son of man,” in as far as it occurs by accident,3793

3793 Ex accidenti obvenit.

in so far there is a difficulty in its occurrence along with3794

3794 Super.

a casual identity of names. For it is of pure3795

3795 Proprio.

accident, especially when the same cause does not appear3796

3796 Non convenit.

whereby the identity may be occasioned.  And therefore, if Marcion’s Christ be also said to be born of man, then he too would receive an identical appellation, and there would be two Sons of man, as also two Christs and two Jesuses.  Therefore, since the appellation is the sole right of Him in whom it has a suitable reason,3797

3797 Causam.

if it be claimed for another in whom there is an identity of name, but not of appellation,3798

3798 The context explains the difference between nomen and appellatio. The former refers to the name Jesus or Christ, the latter to the designation Son of man.

then the identity of name even looks suspicious in him for whom is claimed without reason the identity of appellation.  And it follows that He must be believed to be One and the Same, who is found to be the more fit to receive both the name and the appellation; while the other is excluded, who has no right to the appellation, because he has no reason to show for it. Nor will any other be better entitled to both than He who is the earlier, and has had allotted to Him the name of Christ and the appellation of Son of man, even the Jesus of the Creator. It was He who was seen by the king of Babylon in the furnace with His martyrs: “the fourth, who was like the Son of man.”3799

3799 Dan. iii. 25.

He also was revealed to Daniel himself expressly as “the Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven” as a Judge, as also the Scripture shows.3800

3800 Dan. vii. 13.

What I have advanced might have been sufficient concerning the designation in prophecy of the Son of man. But the Scripture offers me further information, even in the interpretation of the Lord Himself. For when the Jews, who looked at Him as merely man, and were not yet sure that He was God also, as being likewise the Son of God, rightly enough said that a man could not forgive sins, but God alone, why did He not, following up their point3801

3801 Secundum intentionem eorum.

about man, answer them, that He3802

3802 Eum: that is, man.

had power to remit sins; inasmuch as, when He mentioned the Son of man, He also named a human being? except it were because He wanted, by help of the very designation “Son of man” from the book of Daniel, so to induce them to reflect3803

3803 Repercutere.

as to show them that He who remitted sins was God and man—that only Son of man, indeed, in the prophecy of Daniel, who had obtained the power of judging, and thereby, of course, of forgiving sins likewise (for He who judges also absolves); so that, when once that objection of theirs3804

3804 Scandalo isto.

was shattered to pieces by their recollection of Scripture, they might the more easily acknowledge Him to be the Son of man Himself by His own actual forgiveness of sins. I make one more observation,3805

3805 Denique.

how that He has nowhere as yet professed Himself to be the Son of God—but for the first time in this passage, in which for the first time He has remitted sins; that is, in which for the first time He has used His function of judgment, by the absolution. All that the opposite side has to allege in argument against these things, (I beg you) carefully weigh3806

3806 Dispice.

what it amounts to. For it must needs strain itself to such a pitch of infatuation as, on the one hand, to maintain that (their Christ) is also Son of man, in order to save Him from the charge of falsehood; and, on the other hand, to deny that He was born of woman, lest they grant that He was the Virgin’s son.  Since, however, the divine authority and the nature of the case, and common sense, do not admit this insane position of the heretics, we have here the opportunity of putting in a veto3807

3807 Interpellandi.

in the briefest possible terms, on the substance of Christ’s body, against Marcion’s phantoms. Since He is born of man, being the Son of man. He is body derived from body.3808

3808 Corpus ex corpore.

You may, I assure you,3809

3809 Plane: introducing the sharp irony.

more easily find a man born without a heart or without brains, like Marcion himself, than without a body, like Marcion’s Christ. And let this be the limit to your examination of the heart, or, at any rate, the brains of the heretic of Pontus.3810

3810 This is perhaps the best sense of T.’s sarcasm: “Atque adeo (thus far) inspice cor Pontici aut (or else) cerebrum.”


He means Levi or St. Matthew; see Luke v. 27–39.

he adduces for a proof that he was chosen as a stranger to the law and uninitiated in3812

3812 Profanum.

Judaism, by one who was an adversary to the law. The case of Peter escaped his memory, who, although he was a man of the law, was not only chosen by the Lord, but also obtained the testimony of possessing knowledge which was given to him by the Father.3813

3813 Matt. xvi. 17.

He had nowhere read of Christ’s being foretold as the light, and hope, and expectation of the Gentiles! He, however, rather spoke of the Jews in a favourable light, when he said, “The whole needed not a physician, but they that are sick.”3814

3814 Luke v. 31.

For since by “those that are sick” he meant that the heathens and publicans should be understood, whom he was choosing, he affirmed of the Jews that they were “whole” for whom he said that a physician was not necessary. This being the case, he makes a mistake in coming down3815

3815 Male descendit.

to destroy the law, as if for the remedy of a diseased condition. because they who were living under it were “whole,” and “not in want of a physician.” How, moreover, does it happen that he proposed the similitude of a physician, if he did not verify it? For, just as nobody uses a physician for healthy persons, so will no one do so for strangers, in so far as he is one of Marcion’s god-made men,3816

3816 Homo a deo Marcionis.

having to himself both a creator and preserver, and a specially good physician, in his Christ. This much the comparison predetermines, that a physician is more usually furnished by him to whom the sick people belong. Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John!3817

3817 See chap. vii. of this book, and chap. ii. of book. iii.

After this fashion occur all things in Marcion’s system. They have their own special and plenary course3818

3818 Plenum ordinem.

in the Creator’s dispensation. Of John, however, what else I have to say will be found in another passage.3819

3819 See below, chap. xviii.

To the several points which now come before us an answer must be given. This, then, I will take care to do3820

3820 Tuebor.

—demonstrate that, reciprocally, John is suitable to Christ, and Christ to John, the latter, of course, as a prophet of the Creator, just as the former is the Creator’s Christ; and so the heretic may blush at frustrating, to his own frustration, the mission of John the Baptist. For if there had been no ministry of John at all—“the voice,” as Isaiah calls him, “of one crying in the wilderness,” and the preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of repentance; if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself3821

3821 Ipsum.

along with others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate and drank, to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying; because, if there existed any diversity3822

3822 Marcion’s diversitas implied an utter incompatibility between John and Christ; for it assigned John to the Creator, from whom it took Christ away.

between Christ and John, and their followers respectively, no exact comparison would be possible, nor would there be a single point where it could be challenged. For nobody would feel surprise, and nobody would be perplexed, although there should arise rival predictions of a diverse deity, which should also mutually differ about modes of conduct,3823

3823 De disciplinis: or, “about discipleships.”

having a prior difference about the authorities3824

3824 De auctoritatibus; or, “about the authors thereof.”

upon which they were based. Therefore Christ belonged to John, and John to Christ; while both belonged to the Creator, and both were of the law and the prophets, preachers and masters. Else Christ would have rejected the discipline of John, as of the rival god, and would also have defended the disciples, as very properly pursuing a different walk, because consecrated to the service of another and contrary deity.  But as it is, while modestly3825

3825 Humiliter.

giving a reason why “the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them,” but promising that “they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them,”3826

3826 Luke v. 34, 35.

He neither defended the disciples, (but rather excused them, as if they had not been blamed without some reason), nor rejected the discipline of John, but rather allowed3827

3827 Concessit.

it, referring it to the time of John, although destining it for His own time. Otherwise His purpose would have been to reject it,3828

3828 Rejecturus alioquin.

and to defend its opponents, if He had not Himself already belonged to it as then in force. I hold also that it is my Christ who is meant by the bridegroom, of whom the psalm says: “He is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and His return is back to the end of it again.”3829

3829 Ps. xix. 5, 6.

By the mouth of Isaiah He also says exultingly of the Father: “Let my soul rejoice in the Lord; for He hath clothed me with the garment of salvation and with the tunic of joy, as a bridegroom.  He hath put a mitre round about my head, as a bride.”3830

3830 Isa. lxi. 10.

To Himself likewise He appropriates3831

3831 Deputat.

the church, concerning which the same3832

3832 The same, which spake again by Isaiah.

Spirit says to Him: “Thou shalt clothe Thee with them all, as with a bridal ornament.”3833

3833 Isa. xlix. 18.

This spouse Christ invites home to Himself also by Solomon from the call of the Gentiles, because you read: “Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse.”3834

3834 Song of Sol. iv. 8.

He elegantly makes mention of Lebanon (the mountain, of course) because it stands for the name of frankincense with the Greeks;3835

3835 There is also in Hebrew an affinity between הנבל, “frankincense,” and זובבִל, “Lebanon.” [Note this strange but reiterated and emphatic identification of incense with idolatry. In the Gentile church it was thoroughly identified with Paganism.]

for it was from idolatry that He betrothed Himself the church. Deny now, Marcion, your utter madness, (if you can)! Behold, you impugn even the law of your god. He unites not in the nuptial bond, nor, when contracted, does he allow it; no one does he baptize but a cælebs or a eunuch; until death or divorce does he reserve baptism.3836

3836 See also book i. chap. xxix. [On this reservation of Baptism see Elucidation II.]

Wherefore, then, do you make his Christ a bridegroom? This is the designation of Him who united man and woman, not of him who separated them. You have erred also in that declaration of Christ, wherein He seems to make a difference between things new and old. You are inflated about the old bottles, and brain-muddled with the new wine; and therefore to the old (that is to say, to the prior) gospel you have sewed on the patch of your new-fangled heresy. I should like to know in what respect the Creator is inconsistent with Himself.3837

3837 Alter.

When by Jeremiah He gave this precept, “Break up for yourselves new pastures,”3838

3838 Jer. iv. 3.

does He not turn away from the old state of things? And when by Isaiah He proclaims how “old things were passed away; and, behold, all things, which I am making, are new,”3839

3839 His reading of (probably) Isa. xliii. 19; comp. 2 Cor. v. 17.

does He not advert to a new state of things?  We have generally been of opinion3840

3840 Olim statuimus.

that the destination of the former state of things was rather promised by the Creator, and exhibited in reality by Christ, only under the authority of one and the same God, to whom appertain both the old things and the new. For new wine is not put into old bottles, except by one who has the old bottles; nor does anybody put a new piece to an old garment, unless the old garment be forthcoming to him. That person only3841

3841 Ille.

does not do a thing when it is not to be done, who has the materials wherewithal to do it if it were to be done.  And therefore, since His object in making the comparison was to show that He was separating the new condition3842

3842 Novitas.

of the gospel from the old state3843

3843 Vetustas.

of the law, He proved that that3844

3844 That is, “the oldness of the law.”

from which He was separating His own3845

3845 That is, “the newness of the gospel.”

ought not to have been branded3846

3846 Notandam.

as a separation3847

3847 Separatione. The more general reading is separationem.

of things which were alien to each other; for nobody ever unites his own things with things that are alien to them,3848

3848 Alienis: i.e., “things not his own.”

in order that he may afterwards be able to separate them from the alien things. A separation is possible by help of the conjunction through which it is made.  Accordingly, the things which He separated He also proved to have been once one; as they would have remained, were it not for His separation. But still we make this concession, that there is a separation, by reformation, by amplification,3849

3849 Amplitudinem.

by progress; just as the fruit is separated from the seed, although the fruit comes from the seed. So likewise the gospel is separated from the law, whilst it advances3850

3850 Provehitur, “is developed.”

from the law—a different thing3851

3851 Aliud.

from it, but not an alien one; diverse, but not contrary. Nor in Christ do we even find any novel form of discourse. Whether He proposes similitudes or refute questions, it comes from the seventy-seventh Psalm.  “I will open,” says He, “my mouth in a parable” (that is, in a similitude); “I will utter dark problems” (that is, I will set forth questions).3852

3852 See Ps. lxxviii. 2.

If you should wish to prove that a man belonged to another race, no doubt you would fetch your proof from the idiom of his language.
Isa. i. 14.

Now, in whatever sense these words were spoken, we know that an abrupt defence must, in a subject of this sort, be used in answer to an abrupt challenge. I shall now transfer the discussion to the very matter in which the teaching of Christ seemed to annul the Sabbath. The disciples had been hungry; on that the Sabbath day they had plucked some ears and rubbed them in their hands; by thus preparing their food, they had violated the holy day. Christ excuses them, and became their accomplice in breaking the Sabbath. The Pharisees bring the charge against Him.  Marcion sophistically interprets the stages of the controversy (if I may call in the aid of the truth of my Lord to ridicule his arts), both in the scriptural record and in Christ’s purpose.3864

3864 This obscure passage runs thus in the original: “Marcion captat status controversiæ (ut aliquid ludam cum mei Domini veritate), scripti et voluntatis.” Status is a technical word in rhetoric. “Est quæstio quæ ex prima causarum conflictione nascitur.” See Cicero, Topic. c. 25, Part. c. 29; and Quinctilian, Instit. Rhetor. iii. 6. (Oehler).

For from the Creator’s Scripture, and from the purpose of Christ, there is derived a colourable precedent3865

3865 Sumitur color.

—as from the example of David, when he went into the temple on the Sabbath, and provided food by boldly breaking up the shew-bread.3866

3866 Luke vi. 1–4; 1 Sam. xxi. 2–; 6.

Even he remembered that this privilege (I mean the dispensation from fasting) was allowed to the Sabbath from the very beginning, when the Sabbath-day itself was instituted. For although the Creator had forbidden that the manna should be gathered for two days, He yet permitted it on the one occasion only of the day before the Sabbath, in order that the yesterday’s provision of food might free from fasting the feast of the following Sabbath-day. Good reason, therefore, had the Lord for pursuing the same principle in the annulling of the Sabbath (since that is the word which men will use); good reason, too, for expressing the Creator’s will,3867

3867 Affectum.

when He bestowed the privilege of not fasting on the Sabbath-day. In short, He would have then and there3868

3868 Tunc demum.

put an end to the Sabbath, nay, to the Creator Himself, if He had commanded His disciples to fast on the Sabbath-day, contrary to the intention3869

3869 Statum.

of the Scripture and of the Creator’s will.  But because He did not directly defend3870

3870 Non constanter tuebatur.

His disciples, but excuses them; because He interposes human want, as if deprecating censure; because He maintains the honour of the Sabbath as a day which is to be free from gloom rather than from work;3871

3871 Non contristandi quam vacandi.

because he puts David and his companions on a level with His own disciples in their fault and their extenuation; because He is pleased to endorse3872

3872 [This adoption of an Americanism is worthy of passing notice.]

the Creator’s indulgence:3873

3873 Placet illi quia Creator indulsit.

because He is Himself good according to His example—is He therefore alien from the Creator? Then the Pharisees watch whether He would heal on the Sabbath-day,3874

3874 Luke vi. 7.

that they might accuse Him—surely as a violator of the Sabbath, not as the propounder of a new god; for perhaps I might be content with insisting on all occasions on this one point, that another Christ3875

3875 That is, the Christ of another God.

is nowhere proclaimed. The Pharisees, however, were in utter error concerning the law of the Sabbath, not observing that its terms were conditional, when it enjoined rest from labour, making certain distinctions of labour. For when it says of the Sabbath-day, “In it thou shalt not do any work of thine,”3876

3876 Ex. xx. 16.

by the word thine3877

3877 It is impossible to say where Tertullian got this reading.  Perhaps his LXX. copy might have had (in Ex. xx. 10): Οὐ ποιήσεις ἐν αὐτῇ πᾶν ἔργον σου, instead of συ; every clause ending in σου, which follows in that verse.  No critical authority, however, now known warrants such a reading. [It is probably based inferentially on verse 9, “all thy work.”]

it restricts the prohibition to human work—which every one performs in his own employment or business—and not to divine work.  Now the work of healing or preserving is not proper to man, but to God. So again, in the law it says, “Thou shalt not do any manner of work in it,”3878

3878 Ex. xii. 16.

except what is to be done for any soul,3879

3879 The LXX. of the latter clause of Ex. xii. 16 thus runs: πλὴν ὅσα ποιηθήσεται πάσῃ ψυχῇ. Tertullian probably got this reading from this clause, although the Hebrew is to this effect:  “Save that which every man (or, every soul) must eat,” which the Vulgate renders:  “Exceptis his, quæ ad vescendum pertinent.”

that is to say, in the matter of delivering the soul;3880

3880 Liberandæ animæ: perhaps saving life.

because what is God’s work may be done by human agency for the salvation of the soul. By God, however, would that be done which the man Christ was to do, for He was likewise God.3881

3881 In salutem animæ: or, for saving life.

Wishing, therefore, to initiate them into this meaning of the law by the restoration of the withered hand, He requires, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath-days to do good, or not? to save life, or to destroy it?”3882

3882 Luke vi. 9.

In order that He might, whilst allowing that amount of work which He was about to perform for a soul,3883

3883 Pro anima: or, for a life.

remind them what works the law of the Sabbath forbade—even human works; and what it enjoined—even divine works, which might be done for the benefit of any soul,3884

3884 Animæ omni: or, any life.

He was called “Lord of the Sabbath,”3885

3885 Luke vi. 5.

because He maintained3886

3886 Tuebatur.

the Sabbath as His own institution. Now, even if He had annulled the Sabbath, He would have had the right to do so,3887

3887 Merito.

as being its Lord, (and) still more as He who instituted it. But He did not utterly destroy it, although its Lord, in order that it might henceforth be plain that the Sabbath was not broken3888

3888 Destructum. We have, as has been most convenient, rendered this word by annul, destroy, break.

by the Creator, even at the time when the ark was carried around Jericho. For that was really3889

3889 Et.

God’s work, which He commanded Himself, and which He had ordered for the sake of the lives of His servants when exposed to the perils of war. Now, although He has in a certain place expressed an aversion of Sabbaths, by calling them your Sabbaths,3890

3890 Isa. i. 13, 14.

reckoning them as men’s Sabbaths, not His own, because they were celebrated without the fear of God by a people full of iniquities, and loving God “with the lip, not the heart,”3891

3891 Isa. xxix. 13.

He has yet put His own Sabbaths (those, that is, which were kept according to His prescription) in a different position; for by the same prophet, in a later passage,3892

3892 Isa. lviii. 13 and lvi. 2.

He declared them to be “true, and delightful, and inviolable.” Thus Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath: He kept the law thereof, and both in the former case did a work which was beneficial to the life of His disciples, for He indulged them with the relief of food when they were hungry, and in the present instance cured the withered hand; in each case intimating by facts, “I came not to destroy, the law, but to fulfil it,”3893

3893 Matt. v. 17.

although Marcion has gagged3894

3894 Obstruxit.

His mouth by this word.3895

3895 “Destroy”…It was hardly necessary for Oehler to paraphrase our author’s characteristically strong sentence by, “since Marcion thought that he had gagged,” etc.

For even in the case before us He fulfilled the law, while interpreting its condition; moreover, He exhibits in a clear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath3896

3896 In other words, “permits to be done on the Sabbath.”

and while imparting to the Sabbath-day itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by His own beneficent action. For He furnished to this day divine safeguards,3897

3897 Præsidia.

—a course which3898

3898 Quod, not quæ, as if in apposition with præsidia.

His adversary would have pursued for some other days, to avoid honouring the Creator’s Sabbath, and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for it. Since, in like manner, the prophet Elisha on this day restored to life the dead son of the Shunammite woman,3899

3899 See 2 Kings iv. 23.

you see, O Pharisee, and you too, O Marcion, how that it was proper employment for the Creator’s Sabbaths of old3900

3900 Olim.

to do good, to save life, not to destroy it; how that Christ introduced nothing new, which was not after the example,3901

3901 Forma.

the gentleness, the mercy, and the prediction also of the Creator. For in this very example He fulfils3902

3902 Repræsentat.

the prophetic announcement of a specific healing: “The weak hands are strengthened,” as were also “the feeble knees”3903

3903 Isa. xxxv. 3.

in the sick of the palsy.
Luke vi. 12.

and He is indeed heard by the Father.  Accordingly turn over the prophets, and learn therefrom His entire course.3905

3905 Ordinem.

“Into the high mountain,” says Isaiah, “get Thee up, who bringest good tidings to Sion; lift up Thy voice with strength, who bringest good tidings to Jerusalem.”3906

3906 Isa. xl. 9.

“They were mightily3907

3907 In vigore. Or this phrase may qualify the noun thus: “They were astonished at His doctrine, in its might.”

astonished at His doctrine; for He was teaching as one who had power.”3908

3908 Luke iv. 32.

And again:  “Therefore, my people shall know my name in that day.” What name does the prophet mean, but Christ’s?  “That I am He that doth speak—even I.”3909

3909 Isa. lii. 6.

For it was He who used to speak in the prophets—the Word, the Creator’s Son. “I am present, while it is the hour, upon the mountains, as one that bringeth glad tidings of peace, as one that publisheth good tidings of good.”3910

3910 Our author’s reading of Isa. lii. 7.

So one of the twelve (minor prophets), Nahum: “For behold upon the mountain the swift feet of Him that bringeth glad tidings of peace.”3911

3911 Nahum i. 15.

Moreover, concerning the voice of His prayer to the Father by night, the psalm manifestly says: “O my God, I will cry in the day-time, and Thou shalt hear; and in the night season, and it shall not be in vain to me.”3912

3912 Ps. xxii. 2.

In another passage touching the same voice and place, the psalm says: “I cried unto the Lord with my voice, and He heard me out of His holy mountain.”3913

3913 Ps. iii. 4.

You have a representation of the name; you have the action of the Evangelizer; you have a mountain for the site; and the night as the time; and the sound of a voice; and the audience of the Father: you have, (in short,) the Christ of the prophets. But why was it that He chose twelve apostles,3914

3914 Luke vi. 13–19.

and not some other number? In truth,3915

3915 Næ.

I might from this very point conclude3916

3916 Interpretari.

of my Christ, that He was foretold not only by the words of prophets, but by the indications of facts. For of this number I find figurative hints up and down the Creator’s dispensation3917

3917 Apud creatorem.

in the twelve springs of Elim;3918

3918 Num. xxxiii. 9.

in the twelve gems of Aaron’s priestly vestment;3919

3919 Ex. xxviii. 13–21.

and in the twelve stones appointed by Joshua to be taken out of the Jordan, and set up for the ark of the covenant. Now, the same number of apostles was thus portended, as if they were to be fountains and rivers which should water the Gentile world, which was formerly dry and destitute of knowledge (as He says by Isaiah:  “I will put streams in the unwatered ground”3920

3920 Isa. xliii. 20.

); as if they were to be gems to shed lustre upon the church’s sacred robe, which Christ, the High Priest of the Father, puts on; as if, also, they were to be stones massive in their faith, which the true Joshua took out of the laver of the Jordan, and placed in the sanctuary of His covenant.  What equally good defence of such a number has Marcion’s Christ to show? It is impossible that anything can be shown to have been done by him unconnectedly,3921

3921 Simpliciter: i.e., simply or without relation to any types or prophecies.

which cannot be shown to have been done by my Christ in connection (with preceding types).3922

3922 Non simpliciter.

To him will appertain the event3923

3923 Res.

in whom is discovered the preparation for the same.3924

3924 Rei præparatura.

Again, He changes the name of Simon to Peter,3925

3925 Luke vi. 14. [Elucidation III.]

inasmuch as the Creator also altered the names of Abram, and Sarai, and Oshea, by calling the latter Joshua, and adding a syllable to each of the former. But why Peter? If it was because of the vigour of his faith, there were many solid materials which might lend a name from their strength. Was it because Christ was both a rock and a stone? For we read of His being placed “for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence.”3926

3926 Isa. viii. 14; Rom. ix. 33; 1 Pet. ii. 8.

I omit the rest of the passage.3927

3927 Cætera.

Therefore He would fain3928

3928 Affectavit.

impart to the dearest of His disciples a name which was suggested by one of His own especial designations in figure; because it was, I suppose, more peculiarly fit than a name which might have been derived from no figurative description of Himself.3929

3929 De non suis; opposed to the de figuris suis peculiariter. [St. Peter was not the dearest of the Apostles though he was the foremost.]

There come to Him from Tyre, and from other districts even, a transmarine multitude.  This fact the psalm had in view:  “And behold tribes of foreign people, and Tyre, and the people of the Ethiopians; they were there. Sion is my mother, shall a man say; and in her was born a man” (forasmuch as the God-man was born), and He built her by the Father’s will; that you may know how Gentiles then flocked to Him, because He was born the God-man who was to build the church according to the Father’s will—even of other races also.3930

3930 Ps. lxxxvii. 4, 5, according to the Septuagint.

So says Isaiah too: “Behold, these come from far; and these from the north and from the west;3931

3931 Mari.

and these from the land of the Persians.”3932

3932 Isa. xlix. 12.

Concerning whom He says again: “Lift up thine eyes round about, and behold, all these have gathered themselves together.”3933

3933 Isa. xlix. 18.

And yet again: “Thou seest these unknown and strange ones; and thou wilt say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these? But who hath brought me up these? And these, where have they been?”3934

3934 Isa. xlix. 21.

Will such a Christ not be (the Christ) of the prophets? And what will be the Christ of the Marcionites? Since perversion of truth is their pleasure, he could not be (the Christ) of the prophets.
Luke vi. 20.

Now this very fact, that He begins with beatitudes, is characteristic of the Creator, who used no other voice than that of blessing either in the first fiat or the final dedication of the universe: for “my heart,” says He, “hath indited a very good word.”3939

3939 Ps. xlv. 1. [And see Vol. I. p. 213, supra.]

This will be that “very good word” of blessing which is admitted to be the initiating principle of the New Testament, after the example of the Old. What is there, then, to wonder at, if He entered on His ministry with the very attributes3940

3940 Affectibus.

of the Creator, who ever in language of the same sort loved, consoled, protected, and avenged the beggar, and the poor, and the humble, and the widow, and the orphan? So that you may believe this private bounty as it were of Christ to be a rivulet streaming from the springs of salvation. Indeed, I hardly know which way to turn amidst so vast a wealth of good words like these; as if I were in a forest, or a meadow, or an orchard of apples. I must therefore look out for such matter as chance may present to me.3941

3941 Prout incidit.

Ps. lxxxii. 3, 4.

Similarly in the seventy-first Psalm: “In righteousness shall He judge the needy amongst the people, and shall save the children of the poor.”3943

3943 Ps. lxxii. 4.

And in the following words he says of Christ: “All nations shall serve Him.”3944

3944 Ps. lxxii. 11.

Now David only reigned over the Jewish nation, so that nobody can suppose that this was spoken of David; whereas He had taken upon Himself the condition of the poor, and such as were oppressed with want, “Because He should deliver the needy out of the hand of the mighty man; He shall spare the needy and the poor, and shall deliver the souls of the poor.  From usury and injustice shall He redeem their souls, and in His sight shall their name be honoured.”3945

3945 Ps. lxxii. 12, 13, 14.

Again:  “The wicked shall be turned into hell, even all the nations that forget God; because the needy shall not alway be forgotten; the endurance of the poor shall not perish for ever.”3946

3946 Ps. ix. 17, 18.

Again:  “Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high, and yet looketh on the humble things that are in heaven and on earth!—who raiseth up the needy from off the ground, and out of the dunghill exalteth the poor; that He may set him with the princes of His people,”3947

3947 Ps. cxiii. 5–8.

that is, in His own kingdom. And likewise earlier, in the book of Kings,3948

3948 The books of “Samuel” were also called the books of “Kings.”

Hannah the mother of Samuel gives glory to God in these words: “He raiseth the poor man from the ground, and the beggar, that He may set him amongst the princes of His people (that is, in His own kingdom), and on thrones of glory” (even royal ones).3949

3949 1 Sam. ii. 8.

And by Isaiah how He inveighs against the oppressors of the needy! “What mean ye that ye set fire to my vineyard, and that the spoil of the poor is in your houses? Wherefore do ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the face of the needy?”3950

3950 Isa. iii. 14, 15.

And again:  “Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees; for in their decrees they decree wickedness, turning aside the needy from judgment, and taking away their rights from the poor of my people.”3951

3951 Isa. x. 1, 2.

These righteous judgments He requires for the fatherless also, and the widows, as well as for consolation3952

3952 Solatii.

to the very needy themselves. “Do justice to the fatherless, and deal justly with the widow; and come, let us be reconciled,3953

3953 Tertullian seems to have read διαλλαχθῶμεν instead of διαλεχθῶμεν, let us reason together, in his LXX.

saith the Lord.”3954

3954 Isa. i. 17, 18.

To him, for whom in every stage of lowliness there is provided so much of the Creator’s compassionate regard, shall be given that kingdom also which is promised by Christ, to whose merciful compassion belong, and for a great while have belonged,3955

3955 Jamdudum pertinent.

those to whom the promise is made. For even if you suppose that the promises of the Creator were earthly, but that Christ’s are heavenly, it is quite clear that heaven has been as yet the property of no other God whatever, than Him who owns the earth also; quite clear that the Creator has given even the lesser promises (of earthly blessing), in order that I may more readily believe Him concerning His greater promises (of heavenly blessings) also, than (Marcion’s god), who has never given proof of his liberality by any preceding bestowal of minor blessings. “Blessed are they that hunger, for they shall be filled.”3956

3956 Luke vi. 21.

I might connect this clause with the former one, because none but the poor and needy suffer hunger, if the Creator had not specially designed that the promise of a similar blessing should serve as a preparation for the gospel, that so men might know it to be His.3957

3957 In evangelii scilicet sui præstructionem.

For thus does He say, by Isaiah, concerning those whom He was about to call from the ends of the earth—that is, the Gentiles: “Behold, they shall come swiftly with speed:”3958

3958 Isa. v. 26.

swiftly, because hastening towards the fulness of the times; with speed, because unclogged by the weights of the ancient law. They shall neither hunger nor thirst. Therefore they shall be filled,—a promise which is made to none but those who hunger and thirst. And again He says: “Behold, my servants shall be filled, but ye shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty.”3959

3959 Isa. lxv. 13.

As for these oppositions, we shall see whether they are not premonitors of Christ.3960

3960 An Christo præministrentur.

Meanwhile the promise of fulness to the hungry is a provision of God the Creator.  “Blessed are they that weep, for they shall laugh.”3961

3961 Luke vi. 21.

Turn again to the passage of Isaiah: “Behold, my servants shall exult with joy, but ye shall be ashamed; behold, my servants shall be glad, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart.”3962

3962 Isa. lxv. 13, 14.

And recognise these oppositions also in the dispensation of Christ. Surely gladness and joyous exultation is promised to those who are in an opposite condition—to the sorrowful, and sad, and anxious.  Just as it is said in the 125th Psalm:  “They who sow in tears shall reap in joy.”3963

3963 Ps. cxxvi. 5.

Moreover, laughter is as much an accessory to the exulting and glad, as weeping is to the sorrowful and grieving. Therefore the Creator, in foretelling matters for laughter and tears, was the first who said that those who mourned should laugh. Accordingly, He who began (His course) with consolation for the poor, and the humble, and the hungry, and the weeping, was at once eager3964

3964 Gestivit.

to represent Himself as Him whom He had pointed out by the mouth of Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the poor.”3965

3965 Isa. lxi. 1.

“Blessed are the needy, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”3966

3966 Luke vi. 20.

“He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted.”3967

3967 Isa. lxi. 1.

“Blessed are they that hunger, for they shall be filled.”3968

3968 Luke vi. 21.

“To comfort all that mourn.”3969

3969 Isa. lxi. 2.

“Blessed are they that weep, for they shall laugh.”3970

3970 Luke vi. 21.

“To give unto them that mourn in Sion, beauty (or glory) for ashes, and the oil of joy for mourning, and the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.”3971

3971 Isa. lxi. 3.

Now since Christ, as soon as He entered on His course,3972

3972 Statim admissus.

fulfilled such a ministration as this, He is either, Himself, He who predicted His own coming to do all this; or else if he is not yet come who predicted this, the charge to Marcion’s Christ must be a ridiculous one (although I should perhaps add a necessary3973

3973 Said in irony, as if Marcion’s Christ deserved the rejection.

one), which bade him say, “Blessed shall ye be, when men shall hate you, and shall reproach you, and shall cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.”3974

3974 Luke vi. 22.

In this declaration there is, no doubt, an exhortation to patience. Well, what did the Creator say otherwise by Isaiah?  “Fear ye not the reproach of men, nor be diminished by their contempt.”3975

3975 His reading of Isa. li. 7.

What reproach? what contempt? That which was to be incurred for the sake of the Son of man. What Son of man? He who (is come) according to the Creator’s will. Whence shall we get our proof? From the very cutting off, which was predicted against Him; as when He says by Isaiah to the Jews, who were the instigators of hatred against Him:  “Because of you, my name is blasphemed amongst the Gentiles;”3976

3976 Isa. lii. 5.

and in another passage: “Lay the penalty on3977

3977 Sancite.

Him who surrenders3978

3978 Circumscribit.

His own life, who is held in contempt by the Gentiles, whether servants or magistrates.”3979

3979 Famulis et magistratibus. It is uncertain what passage this quotation represents. It sounds like some of the clauses of Isa. liii.

Now, since hatred was predicted against that Son of man who has His mission from the Creator, whilst the Gospel testifies that the name of Christians, as derived from Christ, was to be hated for the Son of man’s sake, because He is Christ, it determines the point that that was the Son of man in the matter of hatred who came according to the Creator’s purpose, and against whom the hatred was predicted. And even if He had not yet come, the hatred of His name which exists at the present day could not in any case have possibly preceded Him who was to bear the name.3980

3980 Personam nominis.

But He has both suffered the penalty3981

3981 Sancitur.

in our presence, and surrendered His life, laying it down for our sakes, and is held in contempt by the Gentiles. And He who was born (into the world) will be that very Son of man on whose account our name also is rejected.
Luke vi. 26.

“did their fathers unto the prophets.”  What a turncoat3983

3983 Versipellem. An indignant exclamation on Marcion’s Christ.

is Marcion’s Christ! Now the destroyer, now the advocate of the prophets! He destroyed them as their rival, by converting their disciples; he took up their cause as their friend, by stigmatizing3984

3984 Suggillans.

their persecutors. But,3985

3985 Porro.

in as far as the defence of the prophets could not be consistent in the Christ of Marcion, who came to destroy them; in so far is it becoming to the Creator’s Christ that He should stigmatize those who persecuted the prophets, for He in all things accomplished their predictions. Again, it is more characteristic of the Creator to upbraid sons with their fathers’ sins, than it is of that god who chastizes no man for even his own misdeeds.  But you will say, He cannot be regarded as defending the prophets simply because He wished to affirm the iniquity of the Jews for their impious dealings with their own prophets. Well, then, in this case,3986

3986 Hic.

no sin ought to have been charged against the Jews: they were rather deserving of praise and approbation when they maltreated3987

3987 Suggillaverunt. This is Oehler’s emendation; the common reading is figuraverunt.

those whom the absolutely good god of Marcion, after so long a time, bestirred himself3988

3988 Motus est.

to destroy. I suppose, however, that by this time he had ceased to be the absolutely good god;3989

3989 Deus optimus.

he had now sojourned a considerable while even with the Creator, and was no longer (like) the god of Epicurus3990

3990 That is, apathetic, inert, and careless about human affairs.

purely and simply. For see how he condescends3991

3991 Demutat.

to curse, and proves himself capable of taking offence and feeling anger! He actually pronounces a woe! But a doubt is raised against us as to the import of this word, as if it carried with it less the sense of a curse than of an admonition. Where, however, is the difference, since even an admonition is not given without the sting of a threat, especially when it is embittered with a woe? Moreover, both admonition and threatening will be the resources of him3992

3992 Ejus erunt.

who knows how to feel angry. For no one will forbid the doing of a thing with an admonition or a threat, except him who will inflict punishment for the doing of it.  No one would inflict punishment, except him who was susceptible of anger. Others, again, admit that the word implies a curse; but they will have it that Christ pronounced the woe, not as if it were His own genuine feeling, but because the woe is from the Creator, and He wanted to set forth to them the severity of the Creator in order that He might the more commend His own long-suffering3993

3993 Sufferentiam.

in His beatitudes. Just as if it were not competent to the Creator, in the pre-eminence of both His attributes as the good God and Judge, that, as He had made clemency3994

3994 Benignitatem.

the preamble of His benediction so He should place severity in the sequel of His curses; thus fully developing His discipline in both directions, both in following out the blessing and in providing against the curse.3995

3995 Ad maledictionem præcavendam.

He had already said of old, “Behold, I have set before you blessing and cursing.”3996

3996 Deut. xxx. 19.

Which statement was really a presage of3997

3997 Portendebat in.

this temper of the gospel. Besides, what sort of being is that who, to insinuate a belief in his own goodness, invidiously contrasted3998

3998 Opposuit.

with it the Creator’s severity? Of little worth is the recommendation which has for its prop the defamation of another. And yet by thus setting forth the severity of the Creator, he, in fact, affirmed Him to be an object of fear.3999

3999 Timendum.

Now if He be an object of fear, He is of course more worthy of being obeyed than slighted; and thus Marcion’s Christ begins to teach favourably to the Creator’s interests.4000

4000 Creatori docere.

Then, on the admission above mentioned, since the woe which has regard to the rich is the Creator’s, it follows that it is not Christ, but the Creator, who is angry with the rich; while Christ approves of4001

4001 Ratas habet.

the incentives of the rich4002

4002 Divitum causas.

—I mean, their pride, their pomp,4003

4003 Gloriam.

their love of the world, and their contempt of God, owing to which they deserve the woe of the Creator. But how happens it that the reprobation of the rich does not proceed from the same God who had just before expressed approbation of the poor? There is nobody but reprobates the opposite of that which he has approved. If, therefore, there be imputed to the Creator the woe pronounced against the rich, there must be claimed for Him also the promise of the blessing upon the poor; and thus the entire work of the Creator devolves on Christ.—If to Marcion’s god there be ascribed the blessing of the poor, he must also have imputed to him the malediction of the rich; and thus will he become the Creator’s equal,4004

4004 Erit par creatoris.

both good and judicial; nor will there be left any room for that distinction whereby two gods are made; and when this distinction is removed, there will remain the verity which pronounces the Creator to be the one only God. Since, therefore, “woe” is a word indicative of malediction, or of some unusually austere4005

4005 Austerioris.

exclamation; and since it is by Christ uttered against the rich, I shall have to show that the Creator is also a despiser4006

4006 Aspernatorem.

of the rich, as I have shown Him to be the defender4007

4007 Advocatorem.

of the poor, in order that I may prove Christ to be on the Creator’s side in this matter, even when He enriched Solomon.4008

4008 1 Kings iii. 5–13.

But with respect to this man, since, when a choice was left to him, he preferred asking for what he knew to be well-pleasing to God—even wisdom—he further merited the attainment of the riches, which he did not prefer. The endowing of a man indeed with riches, is not an incongruity to God, for by the help of riches even rich men are comforted and assisted; moreover, by them many a work of justice and charity is carried out. But yet there are serious faults4009

4009 Vitia.

which accompany riches; and it is because of these that woes are denounced on the rich, even in the Gospel. “Ye have received,” says He, “your consolation;”4010

4010 Luke vi. 24. [See Southey’s Wesley, on “Riches,” vol. ii. p. 310.]

that is, of course, from their riches, in the pomps and vanities of the world which these purchase for them.  Accordingly, in Deuteronomy, Moses says:  “Lest, when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, as well as thy silver and thy gold, thine heart be then lifted up, and thou forget the Lord thy God.”4011

4011 Deut. viii. 12–14.

In similar terms, when king Hezekiah became proud of his treasures, and gloried in them rather than in God before those who had come on an embassy from Babylon,4012

4012 Tertullian says, ex Perside.

(the Creator) breaks forth4013

4013 Insilit.

against him by the mouth of Isaiah:  “Behold, the days come when all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store, shall be carried to Babylon.”4014

4014 Isa. xxxix. 6.

So by Jeremiah likewise did He say: “Let not the rich man glory in his riches but let him that glorieth even glory in the Lord.”4015

4015 Jer. ix. 23, 24.

Similarly against the daughters of Sion does He inveigh by Isaiah, when they were haughty through their pomp and the abundance of their riches,4016

4016 Isa. iii. 16–24.

just as in another passage He utters His threats against the proud and noble: “Hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth, and down to it shall descend the illustrious, and the great, and the rich (this shall be Christ’s ‘woe to the rich’); and man4017

4017 Homo: “the mean man,” A.V.

shall be humbled,” even he that exalts himself with riches; “and the mighty man4018

4018 Vir.

shall be dishonoured,” even he who is mighty from his wealth.4019

4019 Isa. v. 14.

Concerning whom He says again: “Behold, the Lord of hosts shall confound the pompous together with their strength:  those that are lifted up shall be hewn down, and such as are lofty shall fall by the sword.”4020

4020 Isa. x. 33.

And who are these but the rich? Because they have indeed received their consolation, glory, and honour and a lofty position from their wealth. In Psalm xlviii. He also turns off our care from these and says: “Be not thou afraid when one is made rich, and when his glory is increased: for when he shall die, he shall carry nothing away; nor shall his glory descend along with him.”4021

4021 Ps. xlix. 16, 17.

So also in Psalm lxi.: “Do not desire riches; and if they do yield you their lustre,4022

4022 Relucent.

do not set your heart upon them.”4023

4023 Ps. lxii. 11.

Lastly, this very same woe is pronounced of old by Amos against the rich, who also abounded in delights. “Woe unto them,” says he, “who sleep upon beds of ivory, and deliciously stretch themselves upon their couches; who eat the kids from the flocks of the goats, and sucking calves from the flocks of the heifers, while they chant to the sound of the viol; as if they thought they should continue long, and were not fleeting; who drink their refined wines, and anoint themselves with the costliest ointments.”4024

4024 Amos vi. 1–6.

Therefore, even if I could do nothing else than show that the Creator dissuades men from riches, without at the same time first condemning the rich, in the very same terms in which Christ also did, no one could doubt that, from the same authority, there was added a commination against the rich in that woe of Christ, from whom also had first proceeded the dissuasion against the material sin of these persons, that is, their riches. For such commination is the necessary sequel to such a dissuasive.  He inflicts a woe also on “the full, because they shall hunger; on those too which laugh now, because they shall mourn.”4025

4025 Luke vi. 25.

To these will correspond these opposites which occur, as we have seen above, in the benedictions of the Creator: “Behold, my servants shall be full, but ye shall be hungry”—even because ye have been filled; “behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed”4026

4026 Isa. lxv. 13.

—even ye who shall mourn, who now are laughing.  For as it is written in the psalm, “They who sow in tears shall reap in joy,”4027

4027 Ps. cxxvi. 5.

so does it run in the Gospel: They who sow in laughter, that is, in joy, shall reap in tears. These principles did the Creator lay down of old; and Christ has renewed them, by simply bringing them into prominent view,4028

4028 Distinguendo.

not by making any change in them. “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.”4029

4029 Luke vi. 26.

With equal stress does the Creator, by His prophet Isaiah, censure those who seek after human flattery and praise: “O my people, they who call you happy mislead you, and disturb the paths of your feet.”4030

4030 Isa. iii. 12.

In another passage He forbids all implicit trust in man, and likewise in the applause of man; as by the prophet Jeremiah: “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man.”4031

4031 Jer. xvii. 5.

Whereas in Psalm cxvii. it is said: “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man; it is better to trust in the Lord than to place hope in princes.”4032

4032 Ps. cxviii. 8, 9.

Thus everything which is caught at by men is adjured by the Creator, down to their good words.4033

4033 Nedum benedictionem.

It is as much His property to condemn the praise and flattering words bestowed on the false prophets by their fathers, as to condemn their vexatious and persecuting treatment of the (true) prophets. As the injuries suffered by the prophets could not be imputed4034

4034 Non pertinuissent ad.

to their own God, so the applause bestowed on the false prophets could not have been displeasing to any other god but the God of the true prophets.
2 Esdras xv. 1 and comp. Luke vi. 27, 28.

), “Love your enemies, and bless4036

4036 Benedicite. St. Luke’s word, however, is καλῶς ποιεῖτε, “do good.”

those which hate you, and pray for them which calumniate you.”4037

4037 Calumniantur. St. Luke’s word applies to injury of speech as well as of act.

These commands the Creator included in one precept by His prophet Isaiah: “Say, Ye are our brethren, to those who hate you.”4038

4038 Isa. lxvi. 5.

For if they who are our enemies, and hate us, and speak evil of us, and calumniate us, are to be called our brethren, surely He did in effect bid us bless them that hate us, and pray for them who calumniate us, when He instructed us to reckon them as brethren. Well, but Christ plainly teaches a new kind of patience,4039

4039 “We have here the sense of Marcion’s objection. I do not suppose Tertullian quotes his very words.”—Le Prieur.

when He actually prohibits the reprisals which the Creator permitted in requiring “an eye for an eye,4040

4040 Le Prieur refers to a similar passage in Tertullian’s De Patientia, chap. vi. Oehler quotes an eloquent passage in illustration from Valerianus Episc. Hom. xiii.

and a tooth for a tooth,”4041

4041 Ex. xxi. 24.

and bids us, on the contrary, “to him who smiteth us on the one cheek, to offer the other also, and to give up our coat to him that taketh away our cloak.”4042

4042 Luke vi. 29.

No doubt these are supplementary additions by Christ, but they are quite in keeping with the teaching of the Creator. And therefore this question must at once be determined,4043

4043 Renuntiandum est.

Whether the discipline of patience be enjoined by4044

4044 Penes.

the Creator? When by Zechariah He commanded, “Let none of you imagine evil against his brother,”4045

4045 Zech. vii. 10.

He did not expressly include his neighbour; but then in another passage He says, “Let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour.”4046

4046 Zech. viii. 17.

He who counselled that an injury should be forgotten, was still more likely to counsel the patient endurance of it. But then, when He said, “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay,”4047

4047 Deut. xxxii. 35; comp. Rom. xii. 19 and Heb. x. 30.

He thereby teaches that patience calmly waits for the infliction of vengeance. Therefore, inasmuch as it is incredible4048

4048 Fidem non capit.

that the same (God) should seem to require “a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye,” in return for an injury, who forbids not only all reprisals, but even a revengeful thought or recollection of an injury, in so far does it become plain to us in what sense He required “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,”—not, indeed, for the purpose of permitting the repetition of the injury by retaliating it, which it virtually prohibited when it forbade vengeance; but for the purpose of restraining the injury in the first instance, which it had forbidden on pain of retaliation or reciprocity;4049

4049 Talione, opposito.

so that every man, in view of the permission to inflict a second (or retaliatory) injury, might abstain from the commission of the first (or provocative) wrong. For He knows how much more easy it is to repress violence by the prospect of retaliation, than by the promise of (indefinite) vengeance.  Both results, however, it was necessary to provide, in consideration of the nature and the faith of men, that the man who believed in God might expect vengeance from God, while he who had no faith (to restrain him) might fear the laws which prescribed retaliation.4050

4050 Leges talionis. [Judicial, not personal, reprisals.]

This purpose4051

4051 Voluntatem.

of the law, which it was difficult to understand, Christ, as the Lord of the Sabbath and of the law, and of all the dispensations of the Father, both revealed and made intelligible,4052

4052 Compotem facit. That is, says Oehler, intellectus sui.

when He commanded that “the other cheek should be offered (to the smiter),” in order that He might the more effectually extinguish all reprisals of an injury, which the law had wished to prevent by the method of retaliation, (and) which most certainly revelation4053

4053 Prophetia.

had manifestly restricted, both by prohibiting the memory of the wrong, and referring the vengeance thereof to God.  Thus, whatever (new provision) Christ introduced, He did it not in opposition to the law, but rather in furtherance of it, without at all impairing the prescription4054

4054 Disciplinas: or, “lessons.”

of the Creator. If, therefore,4055

4055 Denique.

one looks carefully4056

4056 Considerem, or, as some of the editions have it, consideremus.

into the very grounds for which patience is enjoined (and that to such a full and complete extent), one finds that it cannot stand if it is not the precept of the Creator, who promises vengeance, who presents Himself as the judge (in the case).  If it were not so,4057

4057 Alioquin.

—if so vast a weight of patience—which is to refrain from giving blow for blow; which is to offer the other cheek; which is not only not to return railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing; and which, so far from keeping the coat, is to give up the cloak also—is laid upon me by one who means not to help me,—(then all I can say is,) he has taught me patience to no purpose,4058

4058 In vacuum.

because he shows me no reward to his precept—I mean no fruit of such patience. There is revenge which he ought to have permitted me to take, if he meant not to inflict it himself; if he did not give me that permission, then he should himself have inflicted it;4059

4059 Præstare, i.e., debuerat præstare.

since it is for the interest of discipline itself that an injury should be avenged. For by the fear of vengeance all iniquity is curbed. But if licence is allowed to it without discrimination,4060

4060 Passim.

it will get the mastery—it will put out (a man’s) both eyes; it will knock out4061

4061 Excitatura.

every tooth in the safety of its impunity.  This, however, is (the principle) of your good and simply beneficent god—to do a wrong to patience, to open the door to violence, to leave the righteous undefended, and the wicked unrestrained! “Give to every one that asketh of thee”4062

4062 Luke vi. 30.

—to the indigent of course, or rather to the indigent more especially, although to the affluent likewise. But in order that no man may be indigent, you have in Deuteronomy a provision commanded by the Creator to the creditor.4063

4063 Datori.

“There shall not be in thine hand an indigent man; so that the Lord thy God shall bless thee with blessings,”4064

4064 The author’s reading of Deut. xv. 4.

—thee meaning the creditor to whom it was owing that the man was not indigent. But more than this. To one who does not ask, He bids a gift to be given. “Let there be, not,” He says, “a poor man in thine hand;” in other words, see that there be not, so far as thy will can prevent;4065

4065 Cura ultro ne sit.

by which command, too, He all the more strongly by inference requires4066

4066 Præjudicat.

men to give to him that asks, as in the following words also: “If there be among you a poor man of thy brethren, thou shalt not turn away thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother. But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him as much as he wanteth.”4067

4067 Deut. xv. 7, 8.

Loans are not usually given, except to such as ask for them. On this subject of lending,4068

4068 De fenore.

however, more hereafter.4069

4069 Below, in the next chapter.

Now, should any one wish to argue that the Creator’s precepts extended only to a man’s brethren, but Christ’s to all that ask, so as to make the latter a new and different precept, (I have to reply) that one rule only can be made out of those principles, which show the law of the Creator to be repeated in Christ.4070

4070 This obscure passage runs thus: “Immo unum erit ex his per quæ lex Creatoris erit in Christo.”

For that is not a different thing which Christ enjoined to be done towards all men, from that which the Creator prescribed in favour of a man’s brethren.  For although that is a greater charity, which is shown to strangers, it is yet not preferable to that4071

4071 Prior ea.

which was previously due to one’s neighbours.  For what man will be able to bestow the love (which proceeds from knowledge of character,4072

4072 This is the idea, apparently, of Tertullian’s question: “Quis enim poterit diligere extraneos?” But a different turn is given to the sense in the older reading of the passage: Quis enim non diligens proximos poterit diligere extraneos? “For who that loveth not his neighbours will be able to love strangers?” The inserted words, however, were inserted conjecturally by Fulvius Ursinus without ms. authority.

upon strangers? Since, however, the second step4073

4073 Gradus.

in charity is towards strangers, while the first is towards one’s neighbours, the second step will belong to him to whom the first also belongs, more fitly than the second will belong to him who owned no first.4074

4074 Cujus non extitit primus.

Accordingly, the Creator, when following the course of nature, taught in the first instance kindness to neighbours,4075

4075 In proximos.

intending afterwards to enjoin it towards strangers; and when following the method of His dispensation, He limited charity first to the Jews, but afterwards extended it to the whole race of mankind. So long, therefore, as the mystery of His government4076

4076 Sacramentum.

was confined to Israel, He properly commanded that pity should be shown only to a man’s brethren; but when Christ had given to Him “the Gentiles for His heritage, and the ends of the earth for His possession,” then began to be accomplished what was said by Hosea: “Ye are not my people, who were my people; ye have not obtained mercy, who once obtained mercy”4077

4077 The sense rather than the words of Hos. i. 6; 9.

—that is, the (Jewish) nation. Thenceforth Christ extended to all men the law of His Father’s compassion, excepting none from His mercy, as He omitted none in His invitation. So that, whatever was the ampler scope of His teaching, He received it all in His heritage of the nations. “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.”4078

4078 Luke vi. 31.

In this command is no doubt implied its counterpart: “And as ye would not that men should do to you, so should ye also not do to them likewise.” Now, if this were the teaching of the new and previously unknown and not yet fully proclaimed deity, who had favoured me with no instruction beforehand, whereby I might first learn what I ought to choose or to refuse for myself, and to do to others what I would wish done to myself, not doing to them what I should be unwilling to have done to myself, it would certainly be nothing else than the chance-medley of my own sentiments4079

4079 Passivitatem sententiæ meæ.

which he would have left to me, binding me to no proper rule of wish or action, in order that I might do to others what I would like for myself, or refrain from doing to others what I should dislike to have done to myself. For he has not, in fact, defined what I ought to wish or not to wish for myself as well as for others, so that I shape my conduct4080

4080 Parem factum.

according to the law of my own will, and have it in my power4081

4081 Possim.

not to render4082

4082 Præstare.

to another what I would like to have rendered to myself—love, obedience, consolation, protection, and such like blessings; and in like manner to do to another what I should be unwilling to have done to myself—violence, wrong, insult, deceit, and evils of like sort.  Indeed, the heathen who have not been instructed by God act on this incongruous liberty of the will and the conduct.4083

4083 Hac inconvenientia voluntatis et facti. Will and action.

For although good and evil are severally known by nature, yet life is not thereby spent4084

4084 Non agitur.

under the discipline of God, which alone at last teaches men the proper liberty of their will and action in faith, as in the fear of God. The god of Marcion, therefore, although specially revealed, was, in spite of his revelation, unable to publish any summary of the precept in question, which had hitherto been so confined,4085

4085 Strictum.

and obscure, and dark, and admitting of no ready interpretation, except according to my own arbitrary thought,4086

4086 Pro meo arbitrio.

because he had provided no previous discrimination in the matter of such a precept. This, however, was not the case with my God, for4087

4087 At enim. The Greek ἀλλὰ γάρ.

He always and everywhere enjoined that the poor, and the orphan, and the widow should be protected, assisted, refreshed; thus by Isaiah He says: “Deal thy bread to the hungry, and them that are houseless bring into thine house; when thou seest the naked, cover him.”4088

4088 Isa. lviii. 7.

By Ezekiel also He thus describes the just man: “His bread will he give to the hungry, and the naked will he cover with a garment.”4089

4089 Ezek. xviii. 7.

That teaching was even then a sufficient inducement to me to do to others what I would that they should do unto me. Accordingly, when He uttered such denunciations as, “Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness,”4090

4090 Ex. xx. 13–16.

—He taught me to refrain from doing to others what I should be unwilling to have done to myself; and therefore the precept developed in the Gospel will belong to Him alone, who anciently drew it up, and gave it distinctive point, and arranged it after the decision of His own teaching, and has now reduced it, suitably to its importance,4091

4091 Merito.

to a compendious formula, because (as it was predicted in another passage) the Lord—that is, Christ—“was to make (or utter) a concise word on earth.”4092

4092 “Recisum sermonem facturus in terris Dominus.” This reading of Isa. x. 23 is very unlike the original, but (as frequently happens in Tertullian) is close upon the Septuagint version: ῞Οτι λόγον συντετμημένον Κύριος ποιήσει ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ ὅλῃ. [Rom. ix. 28.]


Luke vi. 34. [Bossuet, Traité de l’usure, Opp. ix. 48.]

compare with this the following words of Ezekiel, in which He says of the before-mentioned just man, “He hath not given his money upon usury, nor will he take any increase”4094

4094 Ezek. xviii. 8. [Huet, Règne Social, etc., p. 334. Paris, 1858.]

—meaning the redundance of interest,4095

4095 Literally, what redounds to the loan.

which is usury. The first step was to eradicate the fruit of the money lent,4096

4096 Fructum fenoris: the interest.

the more easily to accustom a man to the loss, should it happen, of the money itself, the interest of which he had learnt to lose. Now this, we affirm, was the function of the law as preparatory to the gospel. It was engaged in forming the faith of such as would learn,4097

4097 Quorundam tunc fidem.

by gradual stages, for the perfect light of the Christian discipline, through the best precepts of which it was capable,4098

4098 Primis quibusque præceptis.

inculcating a benevolence which as yet expressed itself but falteringly.4099

4099 Balbutientis adhuc benignitatis. [Elucidation IV.]

For in the passage of Ezekiel quoted above He says, “And thou shalt restore the pledge of the loan”4100

4100 Pignus reddes dati (i.e., fenoris) is his reading of a clause in Ezek. xviii. 16.

—to him, certainly, who is incapable of repayment, because, as a matter of course, He would not anyhow prescribe the restoration of a pledge to one who was solvent. Much more clearly is it enjoined in Deuteronomy: “Thou shalt not sleep upon his pledge; thou shalt be sure to return to him his garment about sunset, and he shall sleep in his own garment.”4101

4101 Deut. xxiv. 12, 13.

Clearer still is a former passage: “Thou shalt remit every debt which thy neighbour oweth thee; and of thy brother thou shalt not require it, because it is called the release of the Lord thy God.”4102

4102 Deut. xv. 2.

Now, when He commands that a debt be remitted to a man who shall be unable to pay it (for it is a still stronger argument when He forbids its being asked for from a man who is even able to repay it), what else does He teach than that we should lend to those of whom we cannot receive again, inasmuch as He has imposed so great a loss on lending? “And ye shall be the children of God.”4103

4103 Luke vi. 35. In the original the phrase is, υἱοὶ τοῦ ύψίστου.

What can be more shameless, than for him to be making us his children, who has not permitted us to make children for ourselves by forbidding marriage?4104

4104 One of the flagrant errors of Marcion’s belief of God. See above, chap. xi.

How does he propose to invest his followers with a name which he has already erased?  I cannot be the son of a eunuch especially when I have for my Father the same great Being whom the universe claims for its! For is not the Founder of the universe as much a Father, even of all men, as (Marcion’s) castrated deity,4105

4105 Quam spado.

who is the maker of no existing thing?  Even if the Creator had not united male and female, and if He had not allowed any living creature whatever to have children, I yet had this relation to Him4106

4106 Hoc eram ejus.

before Paradise, before the fall, before the expulsion, before the two became one.4107

4107 Ante duos unum. Before God made Adam and Eve one flesh, “I was created Adam, not became so by birth.”—Fr. Junius.

I became His son a second time,4108

4108 Denuo.

as soon as He fashioned me4109

4109 Me enixus est.

with His hands, and gave me motion with His inbreathing. Now again He names me His son, not begetting me into natural life, but into spiritual life.4110

4110 Non in animam sed in spiritum.

“Because,” says He, “He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.”4111

4111 Luke vi. 35.

Well done,4112

4112 Euge.

Marcion! how cleverly have you withdrawn from Him the showers and the sunshine, that He might not seem to be a Creator!  But who is this kind being4113

4113 Suavis.

which hitherto has not been even known?  How can he be kind who had previously shown no evidences of such a kindness as this, which consists of the loan to us of sunshine and rain?—who is not destined to receive from the human race (the homage due to that) Creator,—who, up to this very moment, in return for His vast liberality in the gift of the elements, bears with men while they offer to idols, more readily than Himself, the due returns of His graciousness. But God is truly kind even in spiritual blessings.  “The utterances4114

4114 Eloquia.

of the Lord are sweeter than honey and honeycombs.”4115

4115 Ps. xix. 11.

He then has taunted4116

4116 Suggillavit.

men as ungrateful who deserved to have their gratitude—even He, whose sunshine and rain even you, O Marcion, have enjoyed, but without gratitude! Your god, however, had no right to complain of man’s ingratitude, because he had used no means to make them grateful. Compassion also does He teach: “Be ye merciful,” says He, “as your Father also that had mercy upon you.”4117

4117 Reading of Luke vi. 36.

This injunction will be of a piece with, “Deal thy bread to the hungry; and if he be houseless, bring him into thine house; and if thou seest the naked, cover him;”4118

4118 Isa. lviii. 7.

also with, “Judge the fatherless, plead with the widow.”4119

4119 Isa. i. 17.

I recognise here that ancient doctrine of Him who “prefers mercy to sacrifice.”4120

4120 Hos. vi. 6.

If, however, it be now some other being which teaches mercy, on the ground of his own mercifulness, how happens it that he has been wanting in mercy to me for so vast an age? “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; give, and it shall be given unto you:  good measure, pressed down, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye measure withal, it shall be measured to you again.”4121

4121 Luke vi. 37, 38.

As it seems to me, this passage announces a retribution proportioned to the merits.  But from whom shall come the retribution? If only from men, in that case he teaches a merely human discipline and recompense; and in everything we shall have to obey man: if from the Creator, as the Judge and the Recompenser of merits, then He compels our submission to Him, in whose hands4122

4122 Apud quem.

He has placed a retribution which will be acceptable or terrible according as every man shall have judged or condemned, acquitted or dealt with,4123

4123 Mensus fuerit.

his neighbour; if from (Marcion’s god) himself, he will then exercise a judicial function which Marcion denies.  Let the Marcionites therefore make their choice: Will it not be just the same inconsistency to desert the prescription of their master, as to have Christ teaching in the interest of men or of the Creator? But “a blind man will lead a blind man into the ditch.”4124

4124 Luke vi. 39.

Some persons believe Marcion. But “the disciple is not above his master.”4125

4125 Luke vi. 40.

Apelles ought to have remembered this—a corrector of Marcion, although his disciple.4126

4126 De discipulo.

The heretic ought to take the beam out of his own eye, and then he may convict4127

4127 Revincat.

the Christian, should he suspect a mote to be in his eye. Just as a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, so neither can truth generate heresy; and as a corrupt tree cannot yield good fruit, so heresy will not produce truth. Thus, Marcion brought nothing good out of Cerdon’s evil treasure; nor Apelles out of Marcion’s.4128

4128 Luke vi. 41–45. Cerdon is here referred to as Marcion’s master, and Apelles as Marcion’s pupil.

For in applying to these heretics the figurative words which Christ used of men in general, we shall make a much more suitable interpretation of them than if we were to deduce out of them two gods, according to Marcion’s grievous exposition.4129

4129 Scandalum. See above, book i. chap. ii., for Marcion’s perverse application of the figure of the good and the corrupt tree.

I think that I have the best reason possible for insisting still upon the position which I have all along occupied, that in no passage to be anywhere found has another God been revealed by Christ. I wonder that in this place alone Marcion’s hands should have felt benumbed in their adulterating labour.4130

4130 In hoc solo adulterium Marcionis manus stupuisse miror. He means that this passage has been left uncorrupted by M. (as if his hand failed in the pruning process), foolishly for him.

But even robbers have their qualms now and then. There is no wrong-doing without fear, because there is none without a guilty conscience. So long, then, were the Jews cognisant of no other god but Him, beside whom they knew none else; nor did they call upon any other than Him whom alone they knew.  This being the case, who will He clearly be4131

4131 Videbitur.

that said, “Why callest thou me Lord, Lord?”4132

4132 Luke vi. 46.

Will it be he who had as yet never been called on, because never yet revealed;4133

4133 Editus.

or He who was ever regarded as the Lord, because known from the beginning—even the God of the Jews? Who, again, could possibly have added, “and do not the things which I say?” Could it have been he who was only then doing his best4134

4134 Temptabat. Perhaps, “was tampering with them.”

to teach them? Or He who from the beginning had addressed to them His messages4135

4135 Eloquia.

both by the law and the prophets? He could then upbraid them with disobedience, even if He had no ground at any time else for His reproof. The fact is, that He who was then imputing to them their ancient obstinacy was none other than He who, before the coming of Christ, had addressed to them these words, “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart standeth far off from me.”4136

4136 Isa. xxix. 13.

Otherwise, how absurd it were that a new god, a new Christ, the revealer of a new and so grand a religion should denounce as obstinate and disobedient those whom he had never had it in his power to make trial of!
Luke vii. 1–10.

to whom Israel’s faith was in no way interesting!4138

4138 Comp. Epiphanius, Hæres. xlii., Refut. 7, for the same argument: Εἰ οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ ᾽Ισραὴλ τοιαύτην πίστιν εὖρεν, κ.τ.λ. “If He found not so great faith, even in Israel, as He discovered in this Gentile centurion, He does not therefore condemn the faith of Israel. For if He were alien from Israel’s God, and did not pertain to Him, even as His father, He would certainly not have inferentially praised Israel’s faith” (Oehler).

But not from the fact (here stated by Christ)4139

4139 Nec exinde. This points to Christ’s words, “I have not found such faith in Israel.”—Oehler.

could it have been of any interest to Him to approve and compare what was hitherto crude, nay, I might say, hitherto naught. Why, however, might He not have used the example of faith in another4140

4140 Alienæ fidei.

god? Because, if He had done so, He would have said that no such faith had ever had existence in Israel; but as the case stands,4141

4141 Ceterum.

He intimates that He ought to have found so great a faith in Israel, inasmuch as He had indeed come for the purpose of finding it, being in truth the God and Christ of Israel, and had now stigmatized4142

4142 Suggillasset.

it, only as one who would enforce and uphold it. If, indeed, He had been its antagonist,4143

4143 Æmulus.

He would have preferred finding it to be such faith,4144

4144 Eam talem, that is, the faith of Israel.

having come to weaken and destroy it rather than to approve of it. He raised also the widow’s son from death.4145

4145 Luke vii. 11–17.

This was not a strange miracle.4146

4146 Documentum.

The Creator’s prophets had wrought such; then why not His Son much rather? Now, so evidently had the Lord Christ introduced no other god for the working of so momentous a miracle as this, that all who were present gave glory to the Creator, saying: “A great prophet is risen up among us, and God hath visited His people.”4147

4147 Luke vii. 16.

What God?  He, of course, whose people they were, and from whom had come their prophets. But if they glorified the Creator, and Christ (on hearing them, and knowing their meaning) refrained from correcting them even in their very act of invoking4148

4148 Et quidem adhuc orantes.

the Creator in that vast manifestation of His glory in this raising of the dead, undoubtedly He either announced no other God but Him, whom He thus permitted to be honoured in His own beneficent acts and miracles, or else how happens it that He quietly permitted these persons to remain so long in their error, especially as He came for the very purpose to cure them of their error? But John is offended4149

4149 Comp. Epiphanius, Hæres. xlii., Schol. 8, cum Refut.; Tertullian, De Præscript Hæret. 8; and De Bapt. 10.

when he hears of the miracles of Christ, as of an alien god.4150

4150 Ut ulterius. This is the absurd allegation of Marcion. So Epiphanius (Le Prieur).

Well, I on my side4151

4151 Ego.

will first explain the reason of his offence, that I may the more easily explode the scandal4152

4152 Scandalum. Playing on the word “scandalum” in its application to the Baptist and to Marcion.

of our heretic. Now, that the very Lord Himself of all might, the Word and Spirit of the Father,4153

4153 “It is most certain that the Son of God, the second Person of the Godhead, is in the writings of the fathers throughout called by the title of Spirit, Spirit of God, etc.; with which usage agree the Holy Scriptures. See Bible:1Pet.3.18-1Pet.3.20">Mark ii. 8; Rom. i. 3, 4; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. iii. 18–20; also John vi. 63; compared with 56.”—Bp. Bull, Def. Nic. Creed (translated by the translator of this work), vol. i. p. 48 and note X. [The whole passage should be consulted.]

was operating and preaching on earth, it was necessary that the portion of the Holy Spirit which, in the form of the prophetic gift,4154

4154 Ex forma prophetici moduli.

had been through John preparing the ways of the Lord, should now depart from John,4155

4155 Tertullian stands alone in the notion that St. John’s inquiry was owing to any withdrawal of the Spirit, so soon before his martyrdom, or any diminution of his faith. The contrary is expressed by Origen, Homil. xxvii., on Luke vii.; Chrysostom on Matt. xi.; Augustine, Sermon. 66, de Verbo; Hilary on Matthew; Jerome on Matthew, and Epist. 121, ad Algas.; Ambrose on Luke, book v. § 93. They say mostly that the inquiry was for the sake of his disciples. (Oxford Library of the Fathers, vol. x. p. 267, note e). [Elucidation V.]

and return back again of course to the Lord, as to its all-embracing original.4156

4156 Ut in massalem suam summam.

Therefore John, being now an ordinary person, and only one of the many,4157

4157 Unus jam de turba.

was offended indeed as a man, but not because he expected or thought of another Christ as teaching or doing nothing new, for he was not even expecting such a one.4158

4158 Eundem.

Nobody will entertain doubts about any one whom (since he knows him not to exist) he has no expectation or thought of. Now John was quite sure that there was no other God but the Creator, even as a Jew, especially as a prophet.4159

4159 Etiam prophetes.

Whatever doubt he felt was evidently rather4160

4160 Facilius.

entertained about Him4161

4161 Jesus.

whom he knew indeed to exist but knew not whether He were the very Christ.  With this fear, therefore, even John asks the question, “Art thou He that should come, or look we for another?”4162

4162 Luke vii. 20.

—simply inquiring whether He was come as He whom he was looking for. “Art thou He that should come?” i.e. Art thou the coming One? “or look we for another?” i.e. Is He whom we are expecting some other than Thou, if Thou art not He whom we expect to come? For he was supposing,4163

4163 Sperabat.

as all men then thought, from the similarity of the miraculous evidences,4164

4164 Documentorum.

that a prophet might possibly have been meanwhile sent, from whom the Lord Himself, whose coming was then expected, was different, and to whom He was superior.4165

4165 Major.

And there lay John’s difficulty.4166

4166 Scandalum.

He was in doubt whether He was actually come whom all men were looking for; whom, moreover, they ought to have recognised by His predicted works, even as the Lord sent word to John, that it was by means of these very works that He was to be recognised.4167

4167 Luke vii. 21, 22.

Now, inasmuch as these predictions evidently related to the Creator’s Christ—as we have proved in the examination of each of them—it was perverse enough, if he gave himself out to be not the Christ of the Creator, and rested the proof of his statement on those very evidences whereby he was urging his claims to be received as the Creator’s Christ. Far greater still is his perverseness when, not being the Christ of John,4168

4168 That is, not the Creator’s Christ—whose prophet John was—therefore a different Christ from Him whom John announced. This is said, of course, on the Marcionite hypothesis (Oehler).

he yet bestows on John his testimony, affirming him to be a prophet, nay more, his messenger,4169

4169 Angelum.

applying to him the Scripture, “Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.”4170

4170 Luke vii. 26, 27, and Mal. iii. 1–; 3.

He graciously4171

4171 Eleganter.

adduced the prophecy in the superior sense of the alternative mentioned by the perplexed John, in order that, by affirming that His own precursor was already come in the person of John, He might quench the doubt4172

4172 Scrupulum.

which lurked in his question: “Art thou He that should come, or look we for another?”  Now that the forerunner had fulfilled his mission, and the way of the Lord was prepared, He ought now to be acknowledged as that (Christ) for whom the forerunner had made ready the way. That forerunner was indeed “greater than all of women born;”4173

4173 Luke vii. 28.

but for all that, He who was least in the kingdom of God4174

4174 That is, Christ, according to Epiphanius. See next note.

was not subject to him;4175

4175 Comp. the Refutation of Epiphanius (Hæres. xlii. Refut. 8): “Whether with reference to John or to the Saviour, He pronounces a blessing on such as should not be offended in Himself or in John.  Nor should they devise for themselves whatsoever things they heard not from him. He also has a greater object in view, on account of which the Saviour said this; even that no one should think that John (who was pronounced to be greater than any born of women) was greater than the Saviour Himself, because even He was born of a woman. He guards against this mistake, and says, ‘Blessed is he who shall not be offended in me.’ He then adds, ‘He that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.’  Now, in respect of His birth in the flesh, the Saviour was less than he by the space of six months. But in the kingdom He was greater, being even his God.  For the Only-begotten came not to say aught in secret, or to utter a falsehood in His preaching, as He says Himself, ‘In secret have I said nothing, but in public,’ etc. (Κἄν τε πρὸς ᾽Ιωάννην ἔχοι…ἀλλὰ μετὰ παῤῥησίας).”— Oehler.

as if the kingdom in which the least person was greater than John belonged to one God, while John, who was greater than all of women born, belonged himself to another God. For whether He speaks of any “least person” by reason of his humble position, or of Himself, as being thought to be less than John—since all were running into the wilderness after John rather than after Christ (“What went ye out into the wilderness to see?”4176

4176 Luke vii. 25.

)—the Creator has equal right4177

4177 Tantundem competit creatori.

to claim as His own both John, greater than any born of women, and Christ, or every “least person in the kingdom of heaven,” who was destined to be greater than John in that kingdom, although equally pertaining to the Creator, and who would be so much greater than the prophet,4178

4178 Major tanto propheta.

because he would not have been offended at Christ, an infirmity which then lessened the greatness of John. We have already spoken of the forgiveness4179

4179 De remissa.

of sins. The behaviour of “the woman which was a sinner,” when she covered the Lord’s feet with her kisses, bathed them with her tears, wiped them with the hairs of her head, anointed them with ointment,4180

4180 Luke vii. 36–50.

produced an evidence that what she handled was not an empty phantom,4181

4181 Comp. Epiphanius, Hæres. xlii., Refut. 10, 11.

but a really solid body, and that her repentance as a sinner deserved forgiveness according to the mind of the Creator, who is accustomed to prefer mercy to sacrifice.4182

4182 Hos. vi. 6.

But even if the stimulus of her repentance proceeded from her faith, she heard her justification by faith through her repentance pronounced in the words, “Thy faith hath saved thee,” by Him who had declared by Habakkuk, “The just shall live by his faith.”4183

4183 Hab. ii. 4.


Isa. xxxii. 9, 10. Quoted as usual, from the LXX.: Γυναῖκες πλούσιαι ἀνάστητε, καὶ ἀκούσατε τῆς φωνῆς μου· θυγατέρες ἐν ἐλπίδι εἰσακούσατε λόγους μου. ῾Ημέρας ἐνιαυτοῦ μνείαν ποιήσασθε ἐν ὀδύνῃ μετ᾽ ἐλπίδος.

—that He might prove4185

4185 Ostenderet.

them first as disciples, and then as assistants and helpers: “Daughters, hear my words in hope; this day of the year cherish the memory of, in labour with hope.” For it was “in labour” that they followed Him, and “with hope” did they minister to Him.  On the subject of parables, let it suffice that it has been once for all shown that this kind of language4186

4186 Eloquii.

was with equal distinctness promised by the Creator. But there is that direct mode of His speaking4187

4187 Pronunciatio.

to the people—“Ye shall hear with the ear, but ye shall not understand”4188

4188 Isa. vi. 9.

—which now claims notice as having furnished to Christ that frequent form of His earnest instruction: “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”4189

4189 Luke viii. 8.

Not as if Christ, actuated with a diverse spirit, permitted a hearing which the Creator had refused; but because the exhortation followed the threatening.  First came, “Ye shall hear with the ear, but shall not understand;” then followed, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” For they wilfully refused to hear, although they had ears. He, however, was teaching them that it was the ears of the heart which were necessary; and with these the Creator had said that they would not hear. Therefore it is that He adds by His Christ, “Take heed how ye hear,”4190

4190 Luke viii. 18.

and hear not,—meaning, of course, with the hearing of the heart, not of the ear. If you only attach a proper sense to the Creator’s admonition,4191

4191 Pronuntiationi.

suitable to the meaning of Him who was rousing the people to hear by the words, “Take heed how ye hear,” it amounted to a menace to such as would not hear. In fact,4192

4192 Sane: with a touch of irony.

that most merciful god of yours, who judges not, neither is angry, is minatory. This is proved even by the sentence which immediately follows:  “Whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.”4193

4193 Luke viii. 18.

What shall be given? The increase of faith, or understanding, or even salvation. What shall be taken away? That, of course, which shall be given. By whom shall the gift and the deprivation be made? If by the Creator it be taken away, by Him also shall it be given. If by Marcion’s god it be given, by Marcion’s god also will it be taken away. Now, for whatever reason He threatens the “deprivation,” it will not be the work of a god who knows not how to threaten, because incapable of anger. I am, moreover, astonished when he says that “a candle is not usually hidden,”4194

4194 Luke viii. 16.

who had hidden himself—a greater and more needful light—during so long a time; and when he promises that “everything shall be brought out of its secrecy and made manifest,”4195

4195 Luke viii. 17.

who hitherto has kept his god in obscurity, waiting (I suppose) until Marcion be born. We now come to the most strenuously-plied argument of all those who call in question the Lord’s nativity. They say that He testifies Himself to His not having been born, when He asks, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?”4196

4196 Matt. xii. 48.

In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution,4197

4197 Rationales. “Quæ voces adhibita ratione sunt interpretandæ.”—Oehler.

as in this passage. We, for our part, say in reply, first, that it could not possibly have been told Him that His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to see Him, if He had had no mother and no brethren. They must have been known to him who announced them, either some time previously, or then at that very time, when they desired to see Him, or sent Him their message. To this our first position this answer is usually given by the other side. But suppose they sent Him the message for the purpose of tempting Him? Well, but the Scripture does not say so; and inasmuch as it is usual for it to indicate what is done in the way of temptation (“Behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him;”4198

4198 Luke x. 25.

again, when inquiring about tribute, the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him4199

4199 Luke xx. 20.

), so, when it makes no mention of temptation, it does not admit the interpretation of temptation. However, although I do not allow this sense, I may as well ask, by way of a superfluous refutation, for the reasons of the alleged temptation, To what purpose could they have tempted Him by naming His mother and His brethren? If it was to ascertain whether He had been born or not—when was a question raised on this point, which they must resolve by tempting Him in this way? Who could doubt His having been born, when they4200

4200 Singular in the original, but (to avoid confusion) here made plural.

saw Him before them a veritable man?—whom they had heard call Himself “Son of man?”—of whom they doubted whether He were God or Son of God, from seeing Him, as they did, in the perfect garb of human quality?—supposing Him rather to be a prophet, a great one indeed,4201

4201 In allusion to Luke vii. 16. See above, chap. xviii.

but still one who had been born as man?  Even if it had been necessary that He should thus be tried in the investigation of His birth, surely any other proof would have better answered the trial than that to be obtained from mentioning those relatives which it was quite possible for Him, in spite of His true nativity, not at that moment to have had. For tell me now, does a mother live on contemporaneously4202

4202 Advivit.

with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them?4203

4203 Adgenerantur.

May a man rather not have fathers and sisters (living), or even no relatives at all? But there is historical proof4204

4204 Constat. [Jarvis, Introd. p. 204 and p. 536.]

that at this very time4205

4205 Nunc: i.e., when Christ was told of His mother and brethren.

a census had been taken in Judæa by Sentius Saturninus,4206

4206 “C. Sentius Saturninus, a consular, held this census of the whole empire as principal augur, because Augustus determined to impart the sanction of religion to his institution. The agent through whom Saturninus carried out the census in Judæa was the governor Cyrenius, according to Luke, chap. ii.”—Fr. Junius. Tertullian mentions Sentius Saturninus again in De Pallio, i. Tertullian’s statement in the text has weighed with Sanclemente and others, who suppose that Saturninus was governor of Judæa at the time of our Lord’s birth, which they place in 747 a.u.c.  “It is evident, however,” says Wieseler, “that this argument is far from decisive; for the New Testament itself supplies far better aids for determining this question than the discordant ecclesiastical traditions—different fathers giving different dates, which might be appealed to with equal justice; while Tertullian is even inconsistent with himself, since in his treatise Adv. Jud. viii., he gives 751 a.u.c. as the year of our Lord’s birth” (Wieseler’s Chronological Synopsis by Venables, p. 99, note 2). This Sentius Saturninus filled the office of governor of Syria, 744–748. For the elaborate argument of Aug. W. Zumpt, by which he defends St. Luke’s chronology, and goes far to prove that Publius Sulpicius Quirinus (or “Cyrenius”) was actually the governor of Syria at the time of the Lord’s birth, the reader may be referred to a careful abridgment by the translator of Wieseler’s work, pp. 129–135.

which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it and they “who were standing without” were really “His mother and His brethren.” It remains for us to examine His meaning when He resorts to non-literal4207

4207 Non simpliciter. St. Mark rather than St. Luke is quoted in this interrogative sentence.

words, saying “Who is my mother or my brethren?” It seems as if His language amounted to a denial of His family and His birth; but it arose actually from the absolute nature of the case, and the conditional sense in which His words were to be explained.4208

4208 Ex condicione rationali. See Oehler’s note, just above, on the word “rationales.”

He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him “stood without,” while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow4209

4209 Abdicavit: Rigalt thinks this is harsh, and reminds us that at the cross the Lord had not cast away his Mother. [Elucidation VI.]

them. And therefore, when to the previous question, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?”4210

4210 This is literally from St. Matthew’s narrative, chap. xii. 48.

He added the answer “None but they who hear my words and do them,” He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith. Now no one transfers a thing except from him who possesses that which is transferred. If, therefore, He made them “His mother and His brethren” who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example,4211

4211 In semetipso.

that “whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him.”4212

4212 Matt. x. 37.

Besides,4213

4213 Ceterum.

His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them.  That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offence, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it4214

4214 i.e., the kindred. [N.B. He includes the Mother!]

did not possess.4215

4215 We have translated Oehler’s text of this passage: “Denique nihil magnum, si fidem sanguini, quam non habebat.” For once we venture to differ from that admirable editor (and that although he is supported in his view by Fr. Junius), and prefer the reading of the mss. and the other editions: “Denique nihil magnum, si fidem sanguini, quem non habebat.” To which we would give an ironical turn, usual to Tertullian, “After all, it is not to be wondered at if He preferred faith to flesh and blood, which he did not himself possess!”—in allusion to Marcion’s Docetic opinion of Christ.


Luke viii. 25.

Of course He is the new master and proprietor of the elements, now that the Creator is deposed, and excluded from their possession! Nothing of the kind. But the elements own4217

4217 Agnorant.

their own Maker, just as they had been accustomed to obey His servants also. Examine well the Exodus, Marcion; look at the rod of Moses, as it waves His command to the Red Sea, ampler than all the lakes of Judæa. How the sea yawns from its very depths, then fixes itself in two solidified masses, and so, out of the interval between them,4218

4218 Et pari utrinque stupore discriminis fixum.

makes a way for the people to pass dry-shod across; again does the same rod vibrate, the sea returns in its strength, and in the concourse of its waters the chivalry of Egypt is engulphed! To that consummation the very winds subserved!  Read, too, how that the Jordan was as a sword, to hinder the emigrant nation in their passage across its stream; how that its waters from above stood still, and its current below wholly ceased to run at the bidding of Joshua,4219

4219 Josh. iii. 9–17.

when his priests began to pass over!4220

4220 This obscure passage is thus read by Oehler, from whom we have translated: “Lege extorri familiæ dirimendæ in transitu ejus Jordanis machæram fuisse, cujus impetum atque decursum plane et Jesus docuerat prophetis transmeantibus stare.” The machæram (“sword”) is a metaphor for the river. Rigaltius refers to Virgil’s figure, Æneid, viii. 62, 64, for a justification of the simile. Oehler has altered the reading from the “ex sortefamilæ,” etc., of the mss. to “extorrifamiliæ,” etc. The former reading would mean probably: “Read out of the story of the nation how that Jordan was as a sword to hinder their passage across its stream.” The sorte (or, as yet another variation has it, “et sortes,” “the accounts”) meant the national record, as we have it in the beginning of the book of Joshua. But the passage is almost hopelessly obscure.

What will you say to this? If it be your Christ that is meant above, he will not be more potent than the servants of the Creator.  But I should have been content with the examples I have adduced without addition,4221

4221 Solis.

if a prediction of His present passage on the sea had not preceded Christ’s coming. As psalm is, in fact, accomplished by this4222

4222 Istius.

crossing over the lake. “The Lord,” says the psalmist, “is upon many waters.”4223

4223 Ps. xxix. 3.

When He disperses its waves, Habakkuk’s words are fulfilled, where he says, “Scattering the waters in His passage.”4224

4224 Hab. iii. 10, according to the Septuagint.

When at His rebuke the sea is calmed, Nahum is also verified: He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry,”4225

4225 Nah. i. 4.

including the winds indeed, whereby it was disquieted. With what evidence would you have my Christ vindicated? Shall it come from the examples, or from the prophecies, of the Creator? You suppose that He is predicted as a military and armed warrior,4226

4226 See above, book iii. chap. xiii.

instead of one who in a figurative and allegorical sense was to wage a spiritual warfare against spiritual enemies, in spiritual campaigns, and with spiritual weapons: come now, when in one man alone you discover a multitude of demons calling itself Legion,4227

4227 Luke viii. 30.

of course comprised of spirits, you should learn that Christ also must be understood to be an exterminator of spiritual foes, who wields spiritual arms and fights in spiritual strife; and that it was none other than He,4228

4228 Atque ita ipsum esse.

who now had to contend with even a legion of demons. Therefore it is of such a war as this that the Psalm may evidently have spoken:  “The Lord is strong, The Lord is mighty in battle.”4229

4229 Ps. xxiv. 8.

For with the last enemy death did He fight, and through the trophy of the cross He triumphed. Now of what God did the Legion testify that Jesus was the Son?4230

4230 Luke viii. 28.

No doubt, of that God whose torments and abyss they knew and dreaded. It seems impossible for them to have remained up to this time in ignorance of what the power of the recent and unknown god was working in the world, because it is very unlikely that the Creator was ignorant thereof. For if He had been at any time ignorant that there was another god above Himself, He had by this time at all events discovered that there was one at work4231

4231 Agentem.

below His heaven. Now, what their Lord had discovered had by this time become notorious to His entire family within the same world and the same circuit of heaven, in which the strange deity dwelt and acted.4232

4232 Conversaretur.

As therefore both the Creator and His creatures4233

4233 Substantiæ: including these demons.

must have had knowledge of him, if he had been in existence, so, inasmuch as he had no existence, the demons really knew none other than the Christ of their own God. They do not ask of the strange god, what they recollected they must beg of the Creator—not to be plunged into the Creator’s abyss. They at last had their request granted. On what ground? Because they had lied? Because they had proclaimed Him to be the Son of a ruthless God? And what sort of god will that be who helped the lying, and upheld his detractors? However, no need of this thought, for,4234

4234 Sed enim: the ἀλλὰ γὰρ of the Greek.

inasmuch as they had not lied, inasmuch as they had acknowledged that the God of the abyss was also their God, so did He actually Himself affirm that He was the same whom these demons acknowledged—Jesus, the Judge and Son of the avenging God. Now, behold an inkling4235

4235 Aliquid.

of the Creator’s failings4236

4236 Pusillitatibus.

and infirmities in Christ; for I on my side4237

4237 Ego.

mean to impute to Him ignorance. Allow me some indulgence in my effort against the heretic. Jesus is touched by the woman who had an issue of blood,4238

4238 Luke viii. 43–46.

He knew not by whom. “Who touched me?” He asks, when His disciples alleged an excuse.  He even persists in His assertion of ignorance: “Somebody hath touched me,” He says, and advances some proof: “For I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.” What says our heretic? Could Christ have known the person? And why did He speak as if He were ignorant? Why? Surely it was to challenge her faith, and to try her fear. Precisely as He had once questioned Adam, as if in ignorance:  Adam, where art thou?”4239

4239 See above, book iii. chap. xxv.

Thus you have both the Creator excused in the same way as Christ, and Christ acting similarly to4240

4240 Adæquatum: on a par with.

the Creator. But in this case He acted as an adversary of the law; and therefore, as the law forbids contact with a woman with an issue,4241

4241 Lev. xv. 19.

He desired not only that this woman should touch Him, but that He should heal her.4242

4242 A Marcionite hypothesis.

Here, then, is a God who is not merciful by nature, but in hostility!  Yet, if we find that such was the merit of this woman’s faith, that He said unto her, Thy faith hath saved thee,”4243

4243 Luke viii. 48.

what are you, that you should detect an hostility to the law in that act, which the Lord Himself shows us to have been done as a reward of faith? But will you have it that this faith of the woman consisted in the contempt which she had acquired for the law? Who can suppose, that a woman who had been. hitherto unconscious of any God, uninitiated as yet in any new law, should violently infringe that law by which she was up to this time bound? On what faith, indeed, was such an infringement hazarded? In what God believing? Whom despising? The Creator?  Her touch at least was an act of faith.  And if of faith in the Creator, how could she have violated His law,4244

4244 Ecquomodo legem ejus irrupit.

when she was ignorant of any other God?  Whatever her infringement of the law amounted to, it proceeded from and was proportionate to her faith in the Creator.  But how can these two things be compatible? That she violated the law, and violated it in faith, which ought to have restrained her from such violation? I will tell you how her faith was this above all:4245

4245 Primo.

it made her believe that her God preferred mercy even to sacrifice; she was certain that her God was working in Christ; she touched Him, therefore, nor as a holy man simply, nor as a prophet, whom she knew to be capable of contamination by reason of his human nature, but as very God, whom she assumed to be beyond all possibility of pollution by any uncleanness.4246

4246 Spurcitia.

She therefore, not without reason,4247

4247 Non temere.

interpreted for herself the law, as meaning that such things as are susceptible of defilement become defiled, but not so God, whom she knew for certain to be in Christ. But she recollected this also, that what came under the prohibition of the law4248

4248 In lege taxari.

was that ordinary and usual issue of blood which proceeds from natural functions every month, and in childbirth, not that which was the result of disordered health. Her case, however, was one of long abounding4249

4249 Illa autem redundavit.

ill health, for which she knew that the succour of God’s mercy was needed, and not the natural relief of time. And thus she may evidently be regarded as having discerned4250

4250 Distinxisse.

the law, instead of breaking it. This will prove to be the faith which was to confer intelligence likewise. “If ye will not believe,” says (the prophet), “ye shall not understand.”4251

4251 Isa. vii. 9.

When Christ approved of the faith of this woman, which simply rested in the Creator, He declared by His answer to her,4252

4252 Luke viii. 48.

that He was Himself the divine object of the faith of which He approved. Nor can I overlook the fact that His garment, by being touched, demonstrated also the truth of His body; for of course”4253

4253 Utique.

it was a body, and not a phantom, which the garment clothed.4254

4254 Epiphanius, in Hæres. xlii. Refut. 14, has the same remark.

This indeed is not our point now; but the remark has a natural bearing on the question we are discussing. For if it were not a veritable body, but only a fantastic one, it could not for certain have received contamination, as being an unsubstantial thing.4255

4255 Qua res vacua.

He therefore, who, by reason of this vacuity of his substance, was incapable of contamination, how could he possibly have desired this touch?4256

4256 In allusion to the Marcionite hypothesis mentioned above.

As an adversary of the law, his conduct was deceitful, for he was not susceptible of a real pollution.
Luke ix. 1–6.

Does He here say of what God? He forbids their taking anything for their journey, by way of either food or raiment.  Who would have given such a commandment as this, but He who feeds the ravens and clothes4258

4258 Vestit.

the flowers of the field? Who anciently enjoined for the treading ox an unmuzzled mouth,4259

4259 Libertatem oris.

that he might be at liberty to gather his fodder from his labour, on the principle that the worker is worthy of his hire?4260

4260 Deut. xxv. 4.

Marcion may expunge such precepts, but no matter, provided the sense of them survives.  But when He charges them to shake off the dust of their feet against such as should refuse to receive them, He also bids that this be done as a witness.  Now no one bears witness except in a case which is decided by judicial process; and whoever orders inhuman conduct to be submitted to the trial by testimony,4261

4261 In testationem redigi.

does really threaten as a judge. Again, that it was no new god which recommended4262

4262 Probatum.

by Christ, was clearly attested by the opinion of all men, because some maintained to Herod that Jesus was the Christ; others, that He was John; some, that He was Elias; and others, that He was one of the old prophets.4263

4263 Luke ix. 7, 8.

Now, whosoever of all these He might have been, He certainly was not raised up for the purpose of announcing another god after His resurrection. He feeds the multitude in the desert place;4264

4264 Luke ix. 10–17.

this, you must know4265

4265 Scilicet.

was after the manner of the Old Testament.4266

4266 De pristino more.

Or else,4267

4267 Aut.

if there was not the same grandeur, it follows that He is now inferior to the Creator. For He, not for one day, but during forty years, not on the inferior aliment of bread and fish, but with the manna of heaven, supported the lives4268

4268 Protelavit.

of not five thousand, but of six hundred thousand human beings. However, such was the greatness of His miracle, that He willed the slender supply of food, not only to be enough, but even to prove superabundant;4269

4269 Exuberare.

and herein He followed the ancient precedent.  For in like manner, during the famine in Elijah’s time, the scanty and final meal of the widow of Sarepta was multiplied4270

4270 Redundaverant.

by the blessing of the prophet throughout the period of the famine. You have the third book of the Kings.4271

4271 1 Kings xvii. 7–16.

If you also turn to the fourth book, you will discover all this conduct4272

4272 Ordinem.

of Christ pursued by that man of God, who ordered ten4273

4273 I have no doubt that ten was the word written by our author; for some Greek copies read δέκα, and Ambrose in his Hexaëmeron, book vi. chap. ii., mentions the same number (Fr. Junius).

barley loaves which had been given him to be distributed among the people; and when his servitor, after contrasting the large number of the persons with the small supply of the food, answered, “What, shall I set this before a hundred men?” he said again, “Give them, and they shall eat: for thus saith the Lord, They shall eat, and shall leave thereof, according to the word of the Lord.”4274

4274 2 Kings iv. 42–44.

O Christ, even in Thy novelties Thou art old! Accordingly, when Peter, who had been an eye-witness of the miracle, and had compared it with the ancient precedents, and had discovered in them prophetic intimations of what should one day come to pass, answered (as the mouthpiece of them all) the Lord’s inquiry, “Whom say ye that I am?”4275

4275 Luke ix. 20.

in the words, “Thou art the Christ,” he could not but have perceived that He was that Christ, beside whom he knew of none else in the Scriptures, and whom he was now surveying4276

4276 Recensebat.

in His wonderful deeds. This conclusion He even Himself confirms by thus far bearing with it, nay, even enjoining silence respecting it.4277

4277 Luke ix. 21.

For if Peter was unable to acknowledge Him to be any other than the Creator’s Christ, while He commanded them “to tell no man that saying,” surely4278

4278 Utique.

He was unwilling to have the conclusion promulged which Peter had drawn. No doubt of that,4279

4279 Immo.

you say; but as Peter’s conclusion was a wrong one, therefore He was unwilling to have a lie disseminated. It was, however, a different reason which He assigned for the silence, even because “the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and scribes, and priests, and be slain, and be raised again the third day.”4280

4280 Luke ix. 22.

Now, inasmuch as these sufferings were actually foretold for the Creator’s Christ (as we shall fully show in the proper place4281

4281 See below, chaps. xl.–xliii.

), so by this application of them to His own case4282

4282 Sic quoque.

does He prove that it is He Himself of whom they were predicted. At all events, even if they had not been predicted, the reason which He alleged for imposing silence (on the disciples) was such as made it clear enough that Peter had made no mistake, that reason being the necessity of His undergoing these sufferings. “Whosoever,” says He, “will save his life, shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.”4283

4283 Luke ix. 24.

Surely4284

4284 Certe.

it is the Son of man4285

4285 Compare above, chap. x., towards the end.

who uttered this sentence. Look carefully, then, along with the king of Babylon, into his burning fiery furnace, and there you will discover one “like the Son of man” (for He was not yet really Son of man, because not yet born of man), even as early as then4286

4286 Jam tunc.

appointing issues such as these. He saved the lives of the three brethren,4287

4287 Dan. iii. 25, 26.

who had agreed to lose them for God’s sake; but He destroyed those of the Chaldæans, when they had preferred to save them by the means of their idolatry. Where is that novelty, which you pretend4288

4288 Ista.

in a doctrine which possesses these ancient proofs? But all the predictions have been fulfilled4289

4289 Decucurrerunt.

concerning martyrdoms which were to happen, and were to receive the recompenses of their reward from God. “See,” says Isaiah, “how the righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart; and just men are taken away, and no man considereth.”4290

4290 Isa. lvii. i.

When does this more frequently happen than in the persecution of His saints? This, indeed, is no ordinary matter,4291

4291 We have, by understanding res, treated these adjectives as nouns. Rigalt. applies them to the doctrina of the sentence just previous. Perhaps, however, “persecutione” is the noun.

no common casualty of the law of nature; but it is that illustrious devotion, that fighting for the faith, wherein whosoever loses his life for God saves it, so that you may here again recognize the Judge who recompenses the evil gain of life with its destruction, and the good loss thereof with its salvation. It is, however, a jealous God whom He here presents to me; one who returns evil for evil.  “For whosoever,” says He, “shall be ashamed of me, of him will I also be ashamed.”4292

4292 Luke ix. 26.

Now to none but my Christ can be assigned the occasion4293

4293 Materia conveniat.

of such a shame as this. His whole course4294

4294 Ordo.

was so exposed to shame as to open a way for even the taunts of heretics, declaiming4295

4295 Perorantibus.

with all the bitterness in their power against the utter disgrace4296

4296 Fœditatem.

of His birth and bringing-up, and the unworthiness of His very flesh.4297

4297 Ipsius etiam carnis indignitatem; because His flesh, being capable of suffering and subject to death, seemed to them unworthy of God. So Adv. Judæos, chap. xiv., he says: “Primo sordidis indutus est, id est carnis passibilis et mortalis indignitate.” Or His “indignity” may have been εἶδος οὐκ ἄξιον τυραννίδος, His “unkingly aspect” (as Origen expresses it, Contra Celsum, 6); His “form of a servant,” or slave, as St. Paul says. See also Tertullian’s De Patientia, iii. (Rigalt.)

But how can that Christ of yours be liable to a shame, which it is impossible for him to experience? Since he was never condensed4298

4298 Coagulatur. [Job x. 10.]

into human flesh in the womb of a woman, although a virgin; never grew from human seed, although only after the law of corporeal substance, from the fluids4299

4299 Ex feminæ humore.

of a woman; was never deemed flesh before shaped in the womb; never called fœtus4300

4300 Pecus. Julius Firmicus, iii. 1, uses the word in the same way: “Pecus intra viscera matris artuatim concisum a medicis proferetur.” [Jul. Firmicus Maternus, floruit circa, a.d. 340.]

after such shaping; was never delivered from a ten months’ writhing in the womb;4301

4301 Such is probably the meaning of “non decem mensium cruciatu deliberatus.” For such is the situation of the infant in the womb, that it seems to writhe (cruciari) all curved and contracted (Rigalt.). Latinius read delibratus instead of deliberatus, which means, “suspended or poised in the womb as in a scale.” This has my approbation. I would compare De Carne Christi, chap. iv. (Fr. Junius). Oehler reads deliberatus in the sense of liberatus.

was never shed forth upon the ground, amidst the sudden pains of parturition, with the unclean issue which flows at such a time through the sewerage of the body, forthwith to inaugurate the light4302

4302 Statim lucem lacrimis auspicatus.

of life with tears, and with that primal wound which severs the child from her who bears him;4303

4303 Primo retinaculi sui vulnere: the cutting of the umbilical nerve. [Contrast Jer. Taylor, on the Nativity, Opp. I. p. 34.]

never received the copious ablution, nor the meditation of salt and honey;4304

4304 Nec sale ac melle medicatus. Of this application in the case of a recent childbirth we know nothing; it seems to have been meant for the skin. See Pliny, in his Hist. Nat. xxii. 25.

nor did he initiate a shroud with swaddling clothes;4305

4305 Nec pannis jam sepulturæ involucrum initiatus.

nor afterwards did he ever wallow4306

4306 Volutatus per immunditias.

in his own uncleanness, in his mother’s lap; nibbling at her breast; long an infant; gradually4307

4307 Vix.

a boy; by slow degrees4308

4308 Tarde.

a man.4309

4309 Expositus.

But he was revealed4310

4310 i.e., he never passed through stages like these.

from heaven, full-grown at once, at once complete; immediately Christ; simply spirit, and power, and god. But as withal he was not true, because not visible; therefore he was no object to be ashamed of from the curse of the cross, the real endurance4311

4311 Veritate.

of which he escaped, because wanting in bodily substance. Never, therefore, could he have said, “Whosoever shall be ashamed of me.” But as for our Christ, He could do no otherwise than make such a declaration;4312

4312 Debuit pronuntiasse.

“made” by the Father “a little lower than the angels,”4313

4313 Ps. viii. 6.

“a worm and no man, a reproach of men, and despised of the people;”4314

4314 Ps. xxii. 6.

seeing that it was His will that “with His stripes we should be healed,”4315

4315 Isa. liii. 5.

that by His humiliation our salvation should be established. And justly did He humble Himself4316

4316 Se deposuit.

for His own creature man, for the image and likeness of Himself, and not of another, in order that man, since he had not felt ashamed when bowing down to a stone or a stock, might with similar courage give satisfaction to God for the shamelessness of his idolatry, by displaying an equal degree of shamelessness in his faith, in not being ashamed of Christ.  Now, Marcion, which of these courses is better suited to your Christ, in respect of a meritorious shame?4317

4317 Ad meritum confusionis.

Plainly, you ought yourself to blush with shame for having given him a fictitious existence.4318

4318 Quod illum finxisti.


Luke ix. 28–36.

whom he had come to destroy. This, to be sure,4320

4320 Scilicet, in ironical allusion to a Marcionite opinion.

was what he wished to be understood as the meaning of that voice from heaven: “This is my beloved Son, hear Him”4321

4321 Luke ix. 35.

—Him, that is, not Moses or Elias any longer. The voice alone, therefore, was enough, without the display of Moses and Elias; for, by expressly mentioning whom they were to hear, he must have forbidden all4322

4322 Quoscunque.

others from being heard. Or else, did he mean that Isaiah and Jeremiah and the others whom he did not exhibit were to be heard, since he prohibited those whom he did display? Now, even if their presence was necessary, they surely should not be represented as conversing together, which is a sign of familiarity; nor as associated in glory with him, for this indicates respect and graciousness; but they should be shown in some slough4323

4323 In sordibus aliquibus.

as a sure token of their ruin, or even in that darkness of the Creator which Christ was sent to disperse, far removed from the glory of Him who was about to sever their words and writings from His gospel.  This, then, is the way4324

4324 Sic.

how he demonstrates them to be aliens,4325

4325 To belong to another god.

even by keeping them in his own company!  This is how he shows they ought to be relinquished: he associates them with himself instead! This is how he destroys them: he irradiates them with his glory! How would their own Christ act? I suppose He would have imitated the frowardness (of heresy),4326

4326 Secundum perversitatem.

and revealed them just as Marcion’s Christ was bound to do, or at least as having with Him any others rather than His own prophets! But what could so well befit the Creator’s Christ, as to manifest Him in the company of His own foreannouncers?4327

4327 Prædicatores.

—to let Him be seen with those to whom He had appeared in revelations?—to let Him be speaking with those who had spoken of Him?—to share His glory with those by whom He used to be called the Lord of glory; even with those chief servants of His, one of whom was once the moulder4328

4328 Informator, Moses, as having organized the nation.

of His people, the other afterwards the reformer4329

4329 Reformator, Elias, the great prophet.

thereof; one the initiator of the Old Testament, the other the consummator4330

4330 It was a primitive opinion in the Church that Elijah was to come, with Enoch, at the end of the world. See De Anima, chap. xxxv. and l.; also Irenæus, De Hæres. v. 5. [Vol. I. 530.]

of the New? Well therefore does Peter, when recognizing the companions of his Christ in their indissoluble connection with Him, suggest an expedient: “It is good for us to be here” (good: that evidently means to be where Moses and Elias are); “and let us make three tabernacles, one for Thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. But he knew not what he said.”4331

4331 Luke ix. 33.

How knew not?  Was his ignorance the result of simple error? Or was it on the principle which we maintain4332

4332 This Tertullian seems to have done in his treatise De Ecstasi, which is mentioned by St. Jerome—see his Catalogus Scriptt. Eccles. (in Tertulliano); and by Nicephorus, Hist. Eccles. iv. 22, 34.  On this subject of ecstasy, Tertullian has some observations in De Anima, chap. xxi. and xlv. (Rigalt. and Oehler.)

in the cause of the new prophecy,4333

4333 [Elucidation VII.]

that to grace ecstasy or rapture4334

4334 Amentiam.

is incident. For when a man is rapt in the Spirit, especially when he beholds the glory of God, or when God speaks through him, he necessarily loses his sensation,4335

4335 Excidat sensu.

because he is overshadowed with the power of God,—a point concerning which there is a question between us and the carnally-minded.4336

4336 He calls those the carnally-minded (“psychicos”) who thought that ecstatic raptures and revelations had ceased in the church.  The term arises from a perverse application of 1 Cor. ii. 14: ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ. In opposition to the wild fanaticism of Montanus, into which Tertullian strangely fell, the Catholics believed that the true prophets, who were filled with the Spirit of God, discharged their prophetic functions with a quiet and tranquil mind. See the anonymous author, Contra Cataphrygas, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 17; Epiphanius, Hæres. 48. See also Routh, Rell. Sacræ, i. p. 100; and Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian, edit. 3, pp. 27–36.  (Munter’s Primord. Eccles. Afric. p. 138, quoted by Oehler.)

Now, it is no difficult matter to prove the rapture4337

4337 Amentiam.

of Peter. For how could he have known Moses and Elias, except (by being) in the Spirit? People could not have had their images, or statues, or likenesses; for that the law forbade. How, if it were not that he had seen them in the Spirit? And therefore, because it was in the Spirit that he had now spoken, and not in his natural senses, he could not know what he had said. But if, on the other hand,4338

4338 Ceterum.

he was thus ignorant, because he erroneously supposed that (Jesus) was their Christ, it is then evident that Peter, when previously asked by Christ, “Whom they thought Him to be,” meant the Creator’s Christ, when he answered, “Thou art the Christ;” because if he had been then aware that He belonged to the rival god, he would not have made a mistake here. But if he was in error here because of his previous erroneous opinion,4339

4339 According to the hypothesis.

then you may be sure that up to that very day no new divinity had been revealed by Christ, and that Peter had so far made no mistake, because hitherto Christ had revealed nothing of the kind; and that Christ accordingly was not to be regarded as belonging to any other than the Creator, whose entire dispensation4340

4340 Totum ordinem, in the three periods represented by Moses, and Elijah, and Christ.

he, in fact, here described. He selects from His disciples three witnesses of the impending vision and voice. And this is just the way of the Creator. “In the mouth of three witnesses,” says He, “shall every word be established.”4341

4341 Compare Deut. xix. 15 with Luke ix. 28.

He withdraws to a mountain. In the nature of the place I see much meaning. For the Creator had originally formed His ancient people on a mountain both with visible glory and His voice. It was only right that the New Testament should be attested4342

4342 Consignari.

on such an elevated spot4343

4343 In eo suggestu.

as that whereon the Old Testament had been composed;4344

4344 Conscriptum fuerat.

under a like covering of cloud also, which nobody will doubt, was condensed out of the Creator’s air. Unless, indeed, he4345

4345 Marcion’s god.

had brought down his own clouds thither, because he had himself forced his way through the Creator’s heaven;4346

4346 Compare above, book i. chap. 15, and book iv. chap. 7.

or else it was only a precarious cloud,4347

4347 Precario. This word is used in book v. chap. xii. to describe the transitoriness of the Creator’s paradise and world.

as it were, of the Creator which he used.  On the present (as also on the former)4348

4348 Nec nunc.

occasion, therefore, the cloud was not silent; but there was the accustomed voice from heaven, and the Father’s testimony to the Son; precisely as in the first Psalm He had said, “Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee.”4349

4349 Ps. ii. 7.

By the mouth of Isaiah also He had asked concerning Him, “Who is there among you that feareth God? Let him hear the voice of His Son.”4350

4350 Isa. l. 10, according to the Septuagint.

When therefore He here presents Him with the words, “This is my (beloved) Son,” this clause is of course understood, “whom I have promised.” For if He once promised, and then afterwards says, “This is He,” it is suitable conduct for one who accomplishes His purpose4351

4351 Ejus est exhibentis.

that He should utter His voice in proof of the promise which He had formerly made; but unsuitable in one who is amenable to the retort, Can you, indeed, have a right to say, “This is my son,” concerning whom you have given us no previous information,4352

4352 Non præmisisti. Oehler suggests promisisti, “have given us no promise.”

any more than you have favoured us with a revelation about your own prior existence? “Hear ye Him,” therefore, whom from the beginning (the Creator) had declared entitled to be heard in the name of a prophet, since it was as a prophet that He had to be regarded by the people. “A prophet,” says Moses, “shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your sons” (that is, of course, after a carnal descent4353

4353 Censum: Some read sensum, “sense.”

); “unto Him shall ye hearken, as unto me.”4354

4354 Deut. xviii. 15.

“Every one who will not hearken unto Him, his soul4355

4355 Anima: life.

shall be cut off from amongst his people.”4356

4356 Deut. xviii. 19.

So also Isaiah: “Who is there among you that feareth God? Let him hear the voice of His Son.”4357

4357 Isa. l. 10.

This voice the Father was going Himself to recommend. For, says he,4358

4358 Tertullian, by introducing this statement with an “inquit,” seems to make a quotation of it; but it is only a comment on the actual quotations. Tertullian’s invariable object in this argument is to match some event or word pertaining to the Christ of the New Testament with some declaration of the Old Testament. In this instance the approving words of God upon the mount are in Heb. i. 5 applied to the Son, while in Ps. ii. 7 the Son applies them to Himself. Compare the Adversus Praxean, chap. xix. (Fr. Junius and Oehler). It is, however, more likely that Tertullian really means to quote Isa. xliv. 26, “that confirmeth the word of His servant,” which Tertullian reads, “Sistens verba filii sui,” the Septuagint being, Καὶ ἰστῶν ῥῆμα παιδὸς αὐτοῦ.

He establishes the words of His Son, when He says, “This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him.” Therefore, even if there be made a transfer of the obedient “hearing” from Moses and Elias to4359

4359 In Christo. In with an ablative is often used by our author for in with an accusative.

Christ, it is still not from another God, or to another Christ; but from4360

4360 Or perhaps “by the Creator.”

the Creator to His Christ, in consequence of the departure of the old covenant and the supervening of the new. “Not an ambassador, nor an angel, but He Himself,” says Isaiah, “shall save them;”4361

4361 Isa. lxiii. 9, according to the Septuagint; only he reads faciet for aorist ἔσωσεν.

for it is He Himself who is now declaring and fulfilling the law and the prophets. The Father gave to the Son new disciples,4362

4362 A Marcionite position.

after that Moses and Elias had been exhibited along with Him in the honour of His glory, and had then been dismissed as having fully discharged their duty and office, for the express purpose of affirming for Marcion’s information the fact that Moses and Elias had a share in even the glory of Christ. But we have the entire structure4363

4363 Habitum.

of this same vision in Habakkuk also, where the Spirit in the person of some4364

4364 Interdum.

of the apostles says, “O Lord, I have heard Thy speech, and was afraid.” What speech was this, other than the words of the voice from heaven, This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him? “I considered thy works, and was astonished.” When could this have better happened than when Peter, on seeing His glory, knew not what he was saying? “In the midst of the two Thou shalt be known”—even Moses and Elias.4365

4365 Hab. iii. 2, according to the Septuagint. St. Augustine similarly applied this passage, De Civit. Dei, ii. 32.

These likewise did Zechariah see under the figure of the two olive trees and olive branches.4366

4366 Zech. iv. 3; 14.

For these are they of whom he says, “They are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” And again Habakkuk says, “His glory covered the heavens” (that is, with that cloud), “and His splendour shall be like the light—even the light, wherewith His very raiment glistened.” And if we would make mention of4367

4367 Commemoremur: be reminded, or call to mind.

the promise to Moses, we shall find it accomplished here. For when Moses desired to see the Lord, saying, “If therefore I have found grace in Thy sight, manifest Thyself to me, that I may see Thee distinctly,”4368

4368 Cognoscenter: γνωστῶς, “so as to know Thee.”

the sight which he desired to have was of that condition which he was to assume as man, and which as a prophet he knew was to occur. Respecting the face of God, however, he had already heard, “No man shall see me, and live.” “This thing,” said He, “which thou hast spoken, will I do unto thee.”  Then Moses said, “Show me Thy glory.”  And the Lord, with like reference to the future, replied, “I will pass before thee in my glory,” etc. Then at the last He says, “And then thou shalt see my back.”4369

4369 See Ex. xxxiii. 13–23.

Not loins, or calves of the legs, did he want to behold, but the glory which was to be revealed in the latter days.4370

4370 Posterioribus temporibus. [The awful ribaldry of Voltaire upon this glorious revelation is based upon the Vulgate reading of Exod. xxxiii. 23, needlessly transferred to our Version, but corrected by the late Revisers.]

He had promised that He would make Himself thus face to face visible to him, when He said to Aaron, “If there shall be a prophet among you, I will make myself known to him by vision, and by vision will I speak with him; but not so is my manner to Moses; with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently” (that is to say, in the form of man which He was to assume), “and not in dark speeches.”4371

4371 Num. xii. 6–8.

Now, although Marcion has denied4372

4372 Noluit.

that he is here represented as speaking with the Lord, but only as standing, yet, inasmuch as he stood “mouth to mouth,” he must also have stood “face to face” with him, to use his words,4373

4373 It is difficult to see what this inquit means.

not far from him, in His very glory—not to say,4374

4374 Nedum.

in His presence. And with this glory he went away enlightened from Christ, just as he used to do from the Creator; as then to dazzle the eyes of the children of Israel, so now to smite those of the blinded Marcion, who has failed to see how this argument also makes against him.
Luke ix. 41.

He will immediately have to submit to this remonstrance from me: “Whoever you are, O stranger,4378

4378 ἐπερχόμενε. The true Christ is ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

first tell us who you are, from whom you come, and what right you have over us. Thus far, all you possess4379

4379 Totum apud te.

belongs to the Creator. Of course, if you come from Him, and are acting for Him, we will bear your reproof. But if you come from some other god, I should wish you to tell us what you have ever committed to us belonging to yourself,4380

4380 De tuo commisisti.

which it was our duty to believe, seeing that you are upbraiding us with ‘faithlessness,’ who have never yet revealed to us your own self. How long ago4381

4381 Quam olim.

did you begin to treat with us, that you should be complaining of the delay? On what points have you borne with us, that you should adduce4382

4382 Imputes.

your patience? Like Æsop’s ass, you are just come from the well,4383

4383 This fable is not extant (Oehler).

and are filling every place with your braying.”  I assume, besides,4384

4384 Adhuc.

the person of the disciple, against whom he has inveighed:4385

4385 Insiliit.

“O perverse nation! how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you?” This outburst of his I might, of course, retort upon him most justly in such words as these: “Whoever you are, O stranger, first tell us who you are, from whom you come, what right you have over us. Thus far, I suppose, you belong to the Creator, and so we have followed you, recognising in you all things which are His. Now, if you come from Him, we will bear your reproof. If, however, you are acting for another, prythee tell us what you have ever conferred upon us that is simply your own, which it had become our duty to believe, seeing that you reproach us with ‘faithlessness,’ although up to this moment you show us no credentials. How long since did you begin to plead with us, that you are charging us with delay? Wherein have you borne with us, that you should even boast of your patience? The ass has only just arrived from Æsop’s well, and he is already braying.” Now who would not thus have rebutted the unfairness of the rebuke, if he had supposed its author to belong to him who had had no right as yet to complain?  Except that not even He4386

4386 Nisi quod nec ille. This ille, of course, means the Creator’s Christ.

would have inveighed against them, if He had not dwelt among them of old in the law and by the prophets, and with mighty deeds and many mercies, and had always experienced them to be “faithless.” But, behold, Christ takes4387

4387 Diligit: or, loves.

infants, and teaches how all ought to be like them, if they ever wish to be greater.4388

4388 Luke ix. 47, 48.

The Creator, on the contrary,4389

4389 Autem.

let loose bears against children, in order to avenge His prophet Elisha, who had been mocked by them.4390

4390 2 Kings ii. 23, 24.

This antithesis is impudent enough, since it throws together4391

4391 Committit.

things so different as infants4392

4392 Parvulos.

and children,4393

4393 Pueros: [young lads].

—an age still innocent, and one already capable of discretion—able to mock, if not to blaspheme. As therefore God is a just God, He spared not impious children, exacting as He does honour for every time of life, and especially, of course, from youth.  And as God is good, He so loves infants as to have blessed the midwives in Egypt, when they protected the infants of the Hebrews4394

4394 Partus Hebræos.

which were in peril from Pharaoh’s command.4395

4395 Ex. ii. 15–21.

Christ therefore shares this kindness with the Creator. As indeed for Marcion’s god, who is an enemy to marriage, how can he possibly seem to be a lover of little children, which are simply the issue of marriage? He who hates the seed must needs also detest the fruit. Yea, he ought to be deemed more ruthless than the king of Egypt.4396

4396 See a like comparison in book i. chap. xxix. p. 294.

For whereas Pharaoh forbade infants to be brought up, he will not allow them even to be born, depriving them of their ten months’ existence in the womb. And how much more credible it is, that kindness to little children should be attributed to Him who blessed matrimony for the procreation of mankind, and in such benediction included also the promise of connubial fruit itself, the first of which is that of infancy!4397

4397 Qui de infantia primus est: i.e., cujus qui de infantia, etc. [Elucidation VIII.]

The Creator, at the request of Elias, inflicts the blow4398

4398 Repræsentat plagam.

of fire from heaven in the case of that false prophet (of Baalzebub).4399

4399 2 Kings i. 9–12.

I recognise herein the severity of the Judge. And I, on the contrary, the severe rebuke4400

4400 I translate after Oehler’s text, which is supported by the oldest authorities. Pamelius and Rigaltius, however, read “Christi lenitatem increpantis eandem animadversionem,” etc. (“On the contrary, I recognize the gentleness of Christ, who rebuked His disciples when they,” etc.) This reading is only conjectural, suggested by the “Christi lenitatem” of the context.

of Christ on His disciples, when they were for inflicting4401

4401 Destinantes.

a like visitation on that obscure village of the Samaritans.4402

4402 Luke ix. 51–56.

The heretic, too, may discover that this gentleness of Christ was promised by the selfsame severest Judge. “He shall not contend,” says He, “nor shall His voice be heard in the street; a bruised reed shall He not crush, and smoking flax shall He not quench.”4403

4403 Isa. xlii. 2, 3.

Being of such a character, He was of course much the less disposed to burn men. For even at that time the Lord said to Elias,4404

4404 Compare De Patientia, chap. xv.

“He was not in the fire, but in the still small voice.”4405

4405 1 Kings xix. 12.

Well, but why does this most humane and merciful God reject the man who offers himself to Him as an inseparable companion?4406

4406 Luke ix. 57, 58.

If it were from pride or from hypocrisy that he had said, “I will follow Thee whithersoever Thou goest,’ then, by judicially reproving an act of either pride or hypocrisy as worthy of rejection, He performed the office of a Judge. And, of course, him whom He rejected He condemned to the loss of not following the Saviour.4407

4407 Salutem: i.e., “Christ, who is our salvation” (Fr. Junius).

For as He calls to salvation him whom He does not reject, or him whom He voluntarily invites, so does He consign to perdition him whom He rejects. When, however, He answers the man, who alleged as an excuse his father’s burial, “Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God,”4408

4408 Luke ix. 59, 60.

He gave a clear confirmation to those two laws of the Creator—that in Leviticus, which concerns the sacerdotal office, and forbids the priests to be present at the funerals even of their parents.  “The priest,” says He, “shall not enter where there is any dead person;4409

4409 Animam defunctam.

and for his father he shall not be defiled”4410

4410 Lev. xxi. 1, according to our author’s reading.

; as well as that in Numbers, which relates to the (Nazarite) vow of separation; for there he who devotes himself to God, among other things, is bidden “not to come at any dead body,” not even of his father, or his mother, or his brother.4411

4411 Num. vi. 6, 7.

Now it was, I suppose, for the Nazarite and the priestly office that He intended this man whom He had been inspiring4412

4412 Imbuerat.

to preach the kingdom of God. Or else, if it be not so, he must be pronounced impious enough who, without the intervention of any precept of the law, commanded that burials of parents should be neglected by their sons. When, indeed, in the third case before us, (Christ) forbids the man “to look back” who wanted first “to bid his family farewell,” He only follows out the rule4413

4413 Sectam.

of the Creator. For this (retrospection) He had been against their making, whom He had rescued out of Sodom.4414

4414 Gen. xix. 17.


Apostolos: Luke x. i.

besides the twelve. Now why, if the twelve followed the number of the twelve fountains of Elim,4416

4416 Compare above, book iv. chap. xiii. p. 364.

should not the seventy correspond to the like number of the palms of that place?4417

4417 Ex. xv. 27 and Num. xxxiii. 9.

Whatever be the Antitheses of the comparison, it is a diversity in the causes, not in the powers, which has mainly produced them.  But if one does not keep in view the diversity of the causes,4418

4418 Causarum: “occasions” or circumstances.

he is very apt to infer a difference of powers.4419

4419 Potestatum. In Marcionite terms, “The Gods of the Old and the New Testaments.”

When the children of Israel went out of Egypt, the Creator brought them forth laden with their spoils of gold and silver vessels, and with loads besides of raiment and unleavened dough;4420

4420 Consparsionum. [Punic Latin.] Ex. xii. 34, 35.

whereas Christ commanded His disciples not to carry even a staff4421

4421 Virgam, Luke x. 4; and Matt x. 10.

for their journey. The former were thrust forth into a desert, but the latter were sent into cities. Consider the difference presented in the occasions,4422

4422 Causarum offerentiam.

and you will understand how it was one and the same power which arranged the mission4423

4423 Expeditionem, with the sense also of “supplies” in the next clause.

of His people according to their poverty in the one case, and their plenty in the other. He cut down4424

4424 Circumcidens.

their supplies when they could be replenished through the cities, just as He had accumulated4425

4425 Struxerat.

them when exposed to the scantiness of the desert. Even shoes He forbade them to carry. For it was He under whose very protection the people wore not out a shoe,4426

4426 Deut. xxix. 5.

even in the wilderness for the space of so many years. “No one,” says He, “shall ye salute by the way.”4427

4427 Luke x. 4.

What a destroyer of the prophets, forsooth, is Christ, seeing it is from them that He received his precept also! When Elisha sent on his servant Gehazi before him to raise the Shunammite’s son from death, I rather think he gave him these instructions:4428

4428 See 2 Kings iv. 29.

“Gird up thy loins, and take my staff in thine hand, and go thy way: if thou meet any man, salute him not;4429

4429 Literally, “bless him not, i.e., salute him not.”

and if any salute thee, answer him not again.”4430

4430 Literally, “answer him not, i.e., return not his salvation.”

For what is a wayside blessing but a mutual salutation as men meet? So also the Lord commands: “Into whatsoever house they enter, let them say, Peace be to it.”4431

4431 Luke x. 5.

Herein He follows the very same example. For Elisha enjoined upon his servant the same salutation when he met the Shunammite; he was to say to her: “Peace to thine husband, peace to thy child.”4432

4432 2 Kings iv. 26. He reads the optative instead of the indicative.

Such will be rather our Antitheses; they compare Christ with, instead of sundering Him from, the Creator. “The labourer is worthy of his hire.”4433

4433 Luke x. 7.

Who could better pronounce such a sentence than the Judge? For to decide that the workman deserves his wages, is in itself a judicial act. There is no award which consists not in a process of judgment. The law of the Creator on this point also presents us with a corroboration, for He judges that labouring oxen are as labourers worthy of their hire: “Thou shalt not muzzle,” says He, “the ox when he treadeth out the corn.”4434

4434 Deut. xxv. 4.

Now, who is so good to man4435

4435 Compare above, book ii. chap. 17, p. 311.

as He who is also merciful to cattle?  Now, when Christ pronounced labourers to be worthy of their hire, He, in fact, exonerated from blame that precept of the Creator about depriving the Egyptians of their gold and silver vessels.4436

4436 See this argued at length above, in book ii. chap. 20, p. 313.

For they who had built for the Egyptians their houses and cities, were surely workmen worthy of their hire, and were not instructed in a fraudulent act, but only set to claim compensation for their hire, which they were unable in any other way to exact from their masters.4437

4437 Dominatoribus.

That the kingdom of God was neither new nor unheard of, He in this way affirmed, whilst at the same time He bids them announce that it was near at hand.4438

4438 Luke x. 9.

Now it is that which was once far off, which can be properly said to have become near.  If, however, a thing had never existed previous to its becoming near, it could never have been said to have approached, because it had never existed at a distance. Everything which is new and unknown is also sudden.4439

4439 Subitum.

Everything which is sudden, then, first receives the accident of time4440

4440 Accipit tempus.

when it is announced, for it then first puts on appearance of form.4441

4441 Inducens speciem.

Besides it will be impossible for a thing either to have been tardy4442

4442 Tardasse.

all the while it remained unannounced,4443

4443 The announcement (according to the definition) defining the beginning of its existence in time.

or to have approached4444

4444 Appropinquasse.

from the time it shall begin to be announced.

Luke x. 11.

If He does not enjoin this by way of a commination, the injunction is a most useless one.  For what mattered it to them that the kingdom was at hand, unless its approach was accompanied with judgment?—even for the salvation of such as received the announcement thereof. How, if there can be a threat without its accomplishment, can you have in a threatening god, one that executes also, and in both, one that is a judicial being?4446

4446 Et judicem in utroque.

So, again, He commands that the dust be shaken off against them, as a testimony,—the very particles of their ground which might cleave4447

4447 Hærentia.

to the sandal, not to mention4448

4448 Nedum.

any other sort of communication with them.4449

4449 Luke x. 11.

But if their churlishness4450

4450 Inhumanitas.

and inhospitality were to receive no vengeance from Him, for what purpose does He premise a testimony, which surely forbodes some threats? Furthermore, when the Creator also, in the book of Deuteronomy, forbids the reception of the Ammonites and the Moabites into the church,4451

4451 Ecclesiam. There is force in thus using Christian terms for Jewish ordinances, full as he is of the identity of the God of the old with Him of the new covenant.

because, when His people came from Egypt, they fraudulently withheld provisions from them with inhumanity and inhospitality,4452

4452 Deut. xxiii. 3.

it will be manifest that the prohibition of intercourse descended to Christ from Him. The form of it which He uses—“He that despiseth you, despiseth me”4453

4453 Luke x. 16.

—the Creator had also addressed to Moses:  “Not against thee have they murmured, but against me.”4454

4454 Num. xiv. 27.

Moses, indeed, was as much an apostle as the apostles were prophets. The authority of both offices will have to be equally divided, as it proceeds from one and the same Lord, (the God) of apostles and prophets.  Who is He that shall bestow “the power of treading on serpents and scorpions?”4455

4455 Luke x. 19.

Shall it be He who is the Lord of all living creatures or he who is not god over a single lizard? Happily the Creator has promised by Isaiah to give this power even to little children, of putting their hand in the cockatrice den and on the hole of the young asps without at all receiving hurt.4456

4456 Isa. xi. 8, 9.

And, indeed, we are aware (without doing violence to the literal sense of the passage, since even these noxious animals have actually been unable to do hurt where there has been faith) that under the figure of scorpions and serpents are portended evil spirits, whose very prince is described4457

4457 Deputetur.

by the name of serpent, dragon, and every other most conspicuous beast in the power of the Creator.4458

4458 Penes Creatorem.

This power the Creator conferred first of all upon His Christ, even as the ninetieth Psalm says to Him: “Upon the asp and the basilisk shalt Thou tread; the lion and the dragon shalt Thou trample under foot.”4459

4459 Ps. xci. 13.

So also Isaiah: “In that day the Lord God shall draw His sacred, great, and strong sword” (even His Christ) “against that dragon, that great and tortuous serpent; and He shall slay him in that day.”4460

4460 Isa. xxvii. 1, Sept.

But when the same prophet says, “The way shall be called a clean and holy way; over it the unclean thing shall not pass, nor shall be there any unclean way; but the dispersed shall pass over it, and they shall not err therein; no lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon; it shall not be found there,”4461

4461 Isa. xxxv. 8, 9, Sept.

he points out the way of faith, by which we shall reach to God; and then to this way of faith he promises this utter crippling4462

4462 Evacuationem.

and subjugation of all noxious animals.  Lastly, you may discover the suitable times of the promise, if you read what precedes the passage: “Be strong, ye weak hands and ye feeble knees: then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be articulate.”4463

4463 Isa. xxxv. 3, 5, 6, Sept.

When, therefore, He proclaimed the benefits of His cures, then also did He put the scorpions and the serpents under the feet of His saints—even He who had first received this power from the Father, in order to bestow it upon others and then manifested it forth conformably to the order of prophecy.4464

4464 Secundum ordinem prædicationis.


Luke x. 21.

What things are these? And whose?  And by whom hidden? And by whom revealed? If it was by Marcion’s god that they were hidden and revealed, it was an extremely iniquitous proceeding;4467

4467 Satis inique.

for nothing at all had he ever produced4468

4468 Præmiserat.

in which anything could have been hidden—no prophecies, no parables, no visions, no evidences4469

4469 Argumenta.

of things, or words, or names, obscured by allegories and figures, or cloudy enigmas, but he had concealed the greatness even of himself, which he was with all his might revealing by his Christ.  Now in what respect had the wise and prudent done wrong,4470

4470 Deliquerant.

that God should be hidden from them, when their wisdom and prudence had been insufficient to come to the knowledge of Him?  No way had been provided by himself,4471

4471 On the Marcionite hypothesis.

by any declaration of his works, or any vestiges whereby they might become4472

4472 Deducerentur.

wise and prudent. However, if they had even failed in any duty towards a god whom they knew not, suppose him now at last to be known still they ought not to have found a jealous god in him who is introduced as unlike the Creator.  Therefore, since he had neither provided any materials in which he could have hidden anything, nor had any offenders from whom he could have hidden himself: since, again, even if he had had any, he ought not to have hidden himself from them, he will not now be himself the revealer, who was not previously the concealer; so neither will any be the Lord of heaven nor the Father of Christ but He in whom all these attributes consistently meet.4473

4473 In quem competunt omnia.

For He conceals by His preparatory apparatus of prophetic obscurity, the understanding of which is open to faith (for “if ye will not believe, ye shall not understand”4474

4474 Isa. vii. 9.

); and He had offenders in those wise and prudent ones who would not seek after God, although He was to be discovered in His so many and mighty works,4475

4475 Rom. i. 20–23.

or who rashly philosophized about Him, and thereby furnished to heretics their arts;4476

4476 Ingenia.

and lastly, He is a jealous God.  Accordingly,4477

4477 Denique.

that which Christ thanks God for doing, He long ago4478

4478 Olim.

announced by Isaiah: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of the prudent will I hide.”4479

4479 Isa. xxix. 14, Sept.

So in another passage He intimates both that He has concealed, and that He will also reveal:  “I will give unto them treasures that have been hidden, and secret ones will I discover to them.”4480

4480 Isa. xlv. 3, Sept.

And again:  “Who else shall scatter the tokens of ventriloquists,4481

4481 Ventriloquorum, Greek ἐγγαστριμύθων.

and the devices of those who divine out of their own heart; turning wise men backward, and making their counsels foolish?”4482

4482 Isa. xliv. 25, Sept.

Now, if He has designated His Christ as an enlightener of the Gentiles, saying, “I have set thee for a light of the Gentiles;”4483

4483 Isa. xlii. 6 and xlix. 6.

and if we understand these to be meant in the word babes4484

4484 Luke x. 21.

—as having been once dwarfs in knowledge and infants in prudence, and even now also babes in their lowliness of faith—we shall of course more easily understand how He who had once hidden “these things,” and promised a revelation of them through Christ, was the same God as He who had now revealed them unto babes. Else, if it was Marcion’s god who revealed the things which had been formerly hidden by the Creator, it follows4485

4485 Ergo.

that he did the Creator’s work by setting forth His deeds.4486

4486 Res ejus edisserens.

But he did it, say you, for His destruction, that he might refute them.4487

4487 Uti traduceret eas.

Therefore he ought to have refuted them to those from whom the Creator had hidden them, even the wise and prudent. For if he had a kind intention in what he did, the gift of knowledge was due to those from whom the Creator had detained it, instead of the babes, to whom the Creator had grudged no gift. But after all, it is, I presume, the edification4488

4488 Constructionem.

rather than the demolition4489

4489 Destructionem.

of the law and the prophets which we have thus far found effected in Christ. “All things,” He says, “are delivered unto me of my Father.”4490

4490 Luke x. 22.

You may believe Him, if He is the Christ of the Creator to whom all things belong; because the Creator has not delivered to a Son who is less than Himself all things, which He created by4491

4491 Per.

Him, that is to say, by His Word. If, on the contrary, he is the notorious stranger,4492

4492 ἐπερχόμενος ille; on which see above, chap. xxiii. p. 385.

what are the “all things” which have been delivered to him by the Father? Are they the Creator’s? Then the things which the Father delivered to the Son are good, and the Creator is therefore good, since all His “things” are good; whereas he4493

4493 Marcion’s god.

is no longer good who has invaded another’s good (domains) to deliver it to his son, thus teaching robbery4494

4494 Alieno abstinere.

of another’s goods. Surely he must be a most mendacious being, who had no other means of enriching his son than by helping himself to another’s property!  Or else,4495

4495 Aut si.

if nothing of the Creator’s has been delivered to him by the Father, by what right4496

4496 Ecquomodo.

does he claim for himself (authority over) man?  Or again, if man has been delivered to him, and man alone, then man is not “all things.” But Scripture clearly says that a transfer of all things has been made to the Son. If, however, you should interpret this “all” of the whole human race, that is, all nations, then the delivery of even these to the Son is within the purpose of the Creator:4497

4497 Creatoris est.

“I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession.”4498

4498 Ps. ii. 8.

If, indeed, he has some things of his own, the whole of which he might give to his son, along with the man of the Creator, then show some one thing of them all, as a sample, that I may believe; lest I should have as much reason not to believe that all things belong to him, of whom I see nothing, as I have ground for believing that even the things which I see not are His, to whom belongs the universe, which I see.  But “no man knoweth who the Father is, but the Son; and who the Son is, but the Father, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him.”4499

4499 Luke x. 22.

And so it was an unknown god that Christ preached! And other heretics, too, prop themselves up by this passage; alleging in opposition to it that the Creator was known to all, both to Israel by familiar intercourse, and to the Gentiles by nature. Well, how is it He Himself testifies that He was not known to Israel?  “But Israel doth not know me, and my people doth not consider me;”4500

4500 Isa. i. 3.

nor to the Gentiles: “For, behold,” says He, “of the nations I have no man.”4501

4501 This passage it is not easy to identify. [See Is. lxiii. 3.] The books point to Isa. lxv. 5, but there is there no trace of it.

Therefore He reckoned them “as the drop of a bucket,”4502

4502 Isa. xl. 15. [Compare Is. lxiii. 3. Sept.]

while “Sion He left as a look-out4503

4503 Speculam.

in a vineyard.”4504

4504 When the vintage was gathered, Isa. i. 8.

See, then, whether there be not here a confirmation of the prophet’s word, when he rebukes that ignorance of man toward God which continued to the days of the Son of man. For it was on this account that he inserted the clause that the Father is known by him to whom the Son has revealed Him, because it was even He who was announced as set by the Father to be a light to the Gentiles, who of course required to be enlightened concerning God, as well as to Israel, even by imparting to it a fuller knowledge of God. Arguments, therefore, will be of no use for belief in the rival god which may be suitable4505

4505 Quæ competere possunt.

for the Creator, because it is only such as are unfit for the Creator which will be able to advance belief in His rival.  If you look also into the next words, “Blessed are the eyes which see the things which ye see, for I tell you that prophets have not seen the things which ye see,”4506

4506 Luke x. 23, 24.

you will find that they follow from the sense above, that no man indeed had come to the knowledge of God as he ought to have done,4507

4507 Ut decuit.

since even the prophets had not seen the things which were being seen under Christ. Now if He had not been my Christ, He would not have made any mention of the prophets in this passage. For what was there to wonder at, if they had not seen the things of a god who had been unknown to them, and was only revealed a long time after them? What blessedness, however, could theirs have been, who were then seeing what others were naturally4508

4508 Merito.

unable to see, since it was of things which they had never predicted that they had not obtained the sight;4509

4509 Repræsentationem.

if it were not because they might justly4510

4510 Æque.

have seen the things pertaining to their God, which they had even predicted, but which they at the same time4511

4511 Tamen.

had not seen? This, however, will be the blessedness of others, even of such as were seeing the things which others had only foretold. We shall by and by show, nay, we have already shown, that in Christ those things were seen which had been foretold, but yet had been hidden from the very prophets who foretold them, in order that they might be hidden also from the wise and the prudent. In the true Gospel, a certain doctor of the law comes to the Lord and asks, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?” In the heretical gospel life only is mentioned, without the attribute eternal; so that the lawyer seems to have consulted Christ simply about the life which the Creator in the law promises to prolong,4512

4512 Ex. xx. 12 and Deut. vi. 2.

and the Lord to have therefore answered him according to the law, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength,”4513

4513 Luke x. 27.

since the question was concerning the conditions of mere life. But the lawyer of course knew very well in what way the life which the law meant4514

4514 Legalem.

was to be obtained, so that his question could have had no relation to the life whose rules he was himself in the habit of teaching. But seeing that even the dead were now raised by Christ, and being himself excited to the hope of an eternal life by these examples of a restored4515

4515 Recidivæ.

one, he would lose no more time in merely looking on (at the wonderful things which had made him) so high in hope.4516

4516 This is perhaps the meaning of “ne plus aliquid observationis exigeret sublimior spe.”

He therefore consulted him about the attainment of eternal life. Accordingly, the Lord, being Himself the same,4517

4517 Nec alius.

and introducing no new precept other than that which relates above all others4518

4518 Principaliter.

to (man’s) entire salvation, even including the present and the future life,4519

4519 Et utramque vitam.

places before him4520

4520 Ei opponit.

the very essence4521

4521 Caput.

of the law—that he should in every possible way love the Lord his God. If, indeed, it were only about a lengthened life, such as is at the Creator’s disposal, that he inquired and Christ answered, and not about the eternal life, which is at the disposal of Marcion’s god, how is he to obtain the eternal one?  Surely not in the same manner as the prolonged life. For in proportion to the difference of the reward must be supposed to be also the diversity of the services. Therefore your disciple, Marcion,4522

4522 Dei tui…Marcionites.

will not obtain his eternal life in consequence of loving your God, in the same way as the man who loves the Creator will secure the lengthened life. But how happens it that, if He is to be loved who promises the prolonged life, He is not much more to be loved who offers the eternal life? Therefore both one and the other life will be at the disposal of one and the same Lord; because one and the same discipline is to be followed4523

4523 Captanda.

for one and the other life. What the Creator teaches to be loved, that must He necessarily maintain4524

4524 Præstet.

also by Christ,4525

4525 i.e., he must needs have it taught and recommended by Christ.

for that rule holds good here, which prescribes that greater things ought to be believed of Him who has first lesser proofs to show, than of him for whom no preceding smaller presumptions have secured a claim to be believed in things of higher import. It matters not4526

4526 Viderit.

then, whether the word eternal has been interpolated by us.4527

4527 As Marcion pretended.

It is enough for me, that the Christ who invited men to the eternal—not the lengthened—life, when consulted about the temporal life which he was destroying, did not choose to exhort the man rather to that eternal life which he was introducing.  Pray, what would the Creator’s Christ have done, if He who had made man for loving the Creator did not belong to the Creator? I suppose He would have said that the Creator was not to be loved!
Luke xi. 1.

looking up with insolent and audacious eyes to the heaven of the Creator, by whom in His rough and cruel nature he might have been crushed with hail and lightning—just as it was by Him contrived that he was (afterwards) attached to a cross4529

4529 Suffigi.

at Jerusalem—one of his disciples came to him and said, “Master, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.”  This he said, forsooth, because he thought that different prayers were required for different gods! Now, he who had advanced such a conjecture as this should first show that another god had been proclaimed by Christ. For nobody would have wanted to know how to pray, before he had learned whom he was to pray to. If, however, he had already learned this, prove it. If you find nowhere any proof, let me tell you4530

4530 Scito.

that it was to the Creator that he asked for instruction in prayer, to whom John’s disciples also used to pray.  But, inasmuch as John had introduced some new order of prayer, this disciple had not improperly presumed to think that he ought also to ask of Christ whether they too must not (according to some special rule of their Master) pray, not indeed to another god, but in another manner. Christ accordingly4531

4531 Proinde.

would not have taught His disciple prayer before He had given him the knowledge of God Himself. Therefore what He actually taught was prayer to Him whom the disciple had already known. In short, you may discover in the import4532

4532 Sensum.

of the prayer what God is addressed therein.  To whom can I say, “Father?”4533

4533 Luke xi. 2.

To him who had nothing to do with making me, from whom I do not derive my origin? Or to Him, who, by making and fashioning me, became my parent?4534

4534 Generavit.

Of whom can I ask for His Holy Spirit? Of him who gives not even the mundane spirit;4535

4535 Mundialis spiritus: perhaps “the breath of life.”

or of Him “who maketh His angels spirits,” and whose Spirit it was which in the beginning hovered upon the waters.4536

4536 Gen. i. 2.

Whose kingdom shall I wish to come—his, of whom I never heard as the king of glory; or His, in whose hand are even the hearts of kings? Who shall give me my daily4537

4537 Luke xi. 3.

bread? Shall it be he who produces for me not a grain of millet-seed;4538

4538 Milium.

or He who even from heaven gave to His people day by day the bread of angels?4539

4539 Ps. lxviii. 25.

Who shall forgive me my trespasses?4540

4540 Luke xi. 4.

He who, by refusing to judge them, does not retain them; or He who, unless He forgives them, will retain them, even to His judgment? Who shall suffer us not to be led into temptation? He before whom the tempter will never be able to tremble; or He who from the beginning has beforehand condemned4541

4541 Prædamnavit.

the angel tempter? If any one, with such a form,4542

4542 Hoc ordine.

invokes another god and not the Creator, he does not pray; he only blasphemes.4543

4543 Infamat.

In like manner, from whom must I ask that I may receive? Of whom seek, that I may find? To whom knock, that it may be opened to me?4544

4544 Luke xi. 9.

Who has to give to him that asks, but He to whom all things belong, and whose am I also that am the asker? What, however, have I lost before that other god, that I should seek of him and find it.  If it be wisdom and prudence, it is the Creator who has hidden them. Shall I resort to him, then, in quest of them? If it be health4545

4545 Salutem: perhaps salvation.

and life, they are at the disposal of the Creator. Nor must anything be sought and found anywhere else than there, where it is kept in secret that it may come to light. So, again, at no other door will I knock than at that out of which my privilege has reached me.4546

4546 Unde sum functus. This obscure clause may mean “the right of praying,” or “the right of access, and boldness to knock.”

In fine, if to receive, and to find, and to be admitted, is the fruit of labour and earnestness to him who has asked, and sought, and knocked, understand that these duties have been enjoined, and results promised, by the Creator. As for that most excellent god of yours, coming as he professes gratuitously to help man, who was not his (creature),4547

4547 Ad præstandum non suo homini.

he could not have imposed upon him any labour, or (endowed him with) any earnestness. For he would by this time cease to be the most excellent god, were he not spontaneously to give to every one who does not ask, and permit every one who seeks not to find, and open to every one who does not knock. The Creator, on the contrary,4548

4548 Autem.

was able to proclaim these duties and rewards by Christ, in order that man, who by sinning had offended his God, might toil on (in his probation), and by his perseverance in asking might receive, and in seeking might find, and in knocking might enter. Accordingly, the preceding similitude4549

4549 See Luke xi. 5–8.

represents the man who went at night and begged for the loaves, in the light of a friend and not a stranger, and makes him knock at a friend’s house and not at a stranger’s. But even if he has offended, man is more of a friend with the Creator than with the god of Marcion. At His door, therefore, does he knock to whom he had the right of access; whose gate he had found; whom he knew to possess bread; in bed now with His children, whom He had willed to be born.4550

4550 A sarcastic allusion to the ante-nuptial error of Marcion, which he has exposed more than once (see book i. chap. xxix. and book iv. chap. xxiii. p. 386.).

Even though the knocking is late in the day, it is yet the Creator’s time. To Him belongs the latest hour who owns an entire age4551

4551 Sæculum.

and the end thereof. As for the new god, however, no one could have knocked at his door late, for he has hardly yet4552

4552 Tantum quod = vixdum (Oehler).

seen the light of morning. It is the Creator, who once shut the door to the Gentiles, which was then knocked at by the Jews, that both rises and gives, if not now to man as a friend, yet not as a stranger, but, as He says, “because of his importunity.”4553

4553 Luke xi. 8.

Importunate, however, the recent god could not have permitted any one to be in the short time (since his appearance).4554

4554 Tam cito.

Him, therefore, whom you call the Creator recognise also as “Father.” It is even He who knows what His children require.  For when they asked for bread, He gave them manna from heaven; and when they wanted flesh, He sent them abundance of quails—not a serpent for a fish, nor for an egg a scorpion.4555

4555 Luke xi. 11–13.

It will, however, appertain to Him not to give evil instead of good, who has both one and the other in His power. Marcion’s god, on the contrary, not having a scorpion, was unable to refuse to give what he did not possess; only He (could do so), who, having a scorpion, yet gives it not. In like manner, it is He who will give the Holy Spirit, at whose command4556

4556 Apud quem.

is also the unholy spirit. When He cast out the “demon which was dumb”4557

4557 Luke xi. 14.

(and by a cure of this sort verified Isaiah),4558

4558 Isa. xxix. 18.

and having been charged with casting out demons by Beelzebub, He said, “If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?”4559

4559 Luke xi. 19.

By such a question what does He otherwise mean, than that He ejects the spirits by the same power by which their sons also did—that is, by the power of the Creator?  For if you suppose the meaning to be, “If I by Beelzebub, etc., by whom your sons?”—as if He would reproach them with having the power of Beelzebub,—you are met at once by the preceding sentence, that “Satan cannot be divided against himself.”4560

4560 Luke xi. 18.

So that it was not by Beelzebub that even they were casting out demons, but (as we have said) by the power of the Creator; and that He might make this understood, He adds: “But if I with the finger of God cast out demons, is not the kingdom of God come near unto you?”4561

4561 Luke xi. 20.

For the magicians who stood before Pharaoh and resisted Moses called the power of the Creator “the finger of God.”4562

4562 Ex. viii. 19.

It was the finger of God, because it was a sign4563

4563 Significaret.

that even a thing of weakness was yet abundant in strength. This Christ also showed, when, recalling to notice (and not obliterating) those ancient wonders which were really His own,4564

4564 Vetustatum scilicet suarum.

He said that the power of God must be understood to be the finger of none other God than Him, under4565

4565 Apud.

whom it had received this appellation. His kingdom, therefore, was come near to them, whose power was called His “finger.”  Well, therefore, did He connect4566

4566 Applicuit.

with the parable of “the strong man armed,” whom “a stronger man still overcame,”4567

4567 Luke xi. 21, 22.

the prince of the demons, whom He had already called Beelzebub and Satan; signifying that it was he who was overcome by the finger of God, and not that the Creator had been subdued by another god.  Besides,4568

4568 Ceterum.

how could His kingdom be still standing, with its boundaries, and laws, and functions, whom, even if the whole world were left entire to Him, Marcion’s god could possibly seem to have overcome as “the stronger than He,” if it were not in consequence of His law that even Marcionites were constantly dying, by returning in their dissolution4569

4569 Defluendo.

to the ground, and were so often admonished by even a scorpion, that the Creator had by no means been overcome?4570

4570 The scorpion here represents any class of the lowest animals, especially such as stung.  The Marcionites impiously made it a reproach to the Creator, that He had formed such worthless and offensive creatures.  Compare book i. chap. 17, note 5. p. 283.

“A (certain) mother of the company exclaims, ‘Blessed is the womb that bare Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked;’ but the Lord said, ‘Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.’”4571

4571 Luke xi. 27, 28.

Now He had in precisely similar terms rejected His mother or His brethren, whilst preferring those who heard and obeyed God.4572

4572 See above, on Luke viii. 21.

His mother, however, was not here present with Him. On that former occasion, therefore, He had not denied that He was her son by birth.4573

4573 Natura.

On hearing this (salutation) the second time, He the second time transferred, as He had done before,4574

4574 Proinde.

the “blessedness” to His disciples from the womb and the paps of His mother, from whom, however, unless He had in her (a real mother) He could not have transferred it.
Luke xi. 29.

For a vast age he hides his own light from men, and yet says that a candle must not be hidden, but affirms that it ought to be set upon a candlestick, that it may give light to all.4578

4578 Luke xi. 33.

He forbids cursing again, and cursing much more of course; and yet he heaps his woe upon the Pharisees and doctors of the law.4579

4579 Luke vi. 28, also xi. 37–; 52.

Who so closely resembles my God as His own Christ? We have often already laid it down for certain,4580

4580 Fiximus.

that He could not have been branded4581

4581 Denotari.

as the destroyer of the law if He had promulged another god. Therefore even the Pharisee, who invited Him to dinner in the passage before us,4582

4582 Tunc.

expressed some surprise4583

4583 Retractabat.

in His presence that He had not washed before He sat down to meat, in accordance with the law, since it was the God of the law that He was proclaiming.4584

4584 Circumferret.

Jesus also interpreted the law to him when He told him that they “made clean the outside of the cup and the platter, whereas their inward part was full of ravening and wickedness.” This He said, to signify that by the cleansing of vessels was to be understood before God the purification of men, inasmuch as it was about a man, and not about an unwashed vessel, that even this Pharisee had been treating in His presence. He therefore said: “You wash the outside of the cup,” that is, the flesh, “but you do not cleanse your inside part,”4585

4585 Luke xi. 39.

that is, the soul; adding: “Did not He that made the outside,” that is, the flesh, “also make the inward part,” that is to say, the soul?—by which assertion He expressly declared that to the same God belongs the cleansing of a man’s external and internal nature, both alike being in the power of Him who prefers mercy not only to man’s washing,4586

4586 Lavacro.

but even to sacrifice.4587

4587 Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7; comp. Hos. viii. 6.

For He subjoins the command: “Give what ye possess as alms, and all things shall be clean unto you.”4588

4588 Luke xi. 41.

Even if another god could have enjoined mercy, he could not have done so previous to his becoming known. Furthermore, it is in this passage evident that they4589

4589 The Pharisees and lawyers.

were not reproved concerning their God, but concerning a point of His instruction to them, when He prescribed to them figuratively the cleansing of their vessels, but really the works of merciful dispositions. In like manner, He upbraids them for tithing paltry herbs,4590

4590 Holuscula.

but at the same time “passing over hospitality4591

4591 Marcion’s gospel had κλῆσιν (vocationem, perhaps a general word for hospitality) instead of κρίσιν, judgment,—a quality which M. did not allow in his god. See Epiphanius, Hæres. xlii., Schol. 26 (Oehler and Fr. Junius).

and the love of God.”4592

4592 Luke xi. 42.

The vocation and the love of what God, but Him by whose law of tithes they used to offer their rue and mint? For the whole point of the rebuke lay in this, that they cared about small matters in His service of course, to whom they failed to exhibit their weightier duties when He commanded them: “Thou shalt love with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, the Lord thy God, who hath called thee out of Egypt.”4593

4593 Deut. vi. 5.

Besides, time enough had not yet passed to admit of Christ’s requiring so premature—nay, as yet so distasteful4594

4594 Amaxam.

—a love towards a new and recent, not to say a hardly yet developed,4595

4595 Nondum palam facto.

deity. When, again, He upbraids those who caught at the uppermost places and the honour of public salutations, He only follows out the Creator’s course,4596

4596 Sectam administrat.

who calls ambitious persons of this character “rulers of Sodom,”4597

4597 Isa. i. 10.

who forbids us “to put confidence even in princes,”4598

4598 Ps. cxviii. 9.

and pronounces him to be altogether wretched who places his confidence in man. But whoever4599

4599 Quodsiquis.

aims at high position, because he would glory in the officious attentions4600

4600 Officiis.

of other people, (in every such case,) inasmuch as He forbade such attentions (in the shape) of placing hope and confidence in man, He at the same time4601

4601 Idem.

censured all who were ambitious of high positions. He also inveighs against the doctors of the law themselves, because they were “lading men with burdens grievous to be borne, which they did not venture to touch with even a finger of their own;”4602

4602 Luke xi. 46.

but not as if He made a mock of4603

4603 Suggillans.

the burdens of the law with any feeling of detestation towards it. For how could He have felt aversion to the law, who used with so much earnestness to upbraid them for passing over its weightier matters, alms—giving, hospitality,4604

4604 Vocationem: Marcion’s κλῆσιν.

and the love of God? Nor, indeed, was it only these great things (which He recognized), but even4605

4605 Nedum.

the tithes of rue and the cleansing of cups.  But, in truth, He would rather have deemed them excusable for being unable to carry burdens which could not be borne.  What, then, are the burdens which He censures?4606

4606 Taxat.

None but those which they were accumulating of their own accord, when they taught for commandments the doctrines of men; for the sake of private advantage joining house to house, so as to deprive their neighbour of his own; cajoling4607

4607 Clamantes.

the people, loving gifts, pursuing rewards, robbing the poor of the rights of judgment, that they might have the widow for a prey and the fatherless for a spoil.4608

4608 See Isa. v. 5, 23, and x. 2.

Of these Isaiah also says, “Woe unto them that are strong in Jerusalem!”4609

4609 Isa. xxviii. 14.

and again, “They that demand you shall rule over you.”4610

4610 The books point to Isa. iii. 3, 4 for this; but there is only a slight similarity in the latter clause, even in the Septuagint.

And who did this more than the lawyers?4611

4611 Legis doctores: the νομικοί of the Gospels.

Now, if these offended Christ, it was as belonging to Him that they offended Him.  He would have aimed no blow at the teachers of an alien law. But why is a “woe” pronounced against them for “building the sepulchres of the prophets whom their fathers had killed?”4612

4612 Luke xi. 47.

They rather deserved praise, because by such an act of piety they seemed to show that they did not allow the deeds of their fathers. Was it not because (Christ) was jealous4613

4613 Zelotes.

of such a disposition as the Marcionites denounce,4614

4614 Arguunt.

visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the fourth generation? What “key,” indeed, was it which these lawyers had,4615

4615 Luke xi. 52.

but the interpretation of the law? Into the perception of this they neither entered themselves, even because they did not believe (for “unless ye believe, ye shall not understand”); nor did they permit others to enter, because they preferred to teach them for commandments even the doctrines of men. When, therefore, He reproached those who did not themselves enter in, and also shut the door against others, must He be regarded as a disparager of the law, or as a supporter of it? If a disparager, those who were hindering the law ought to have been pleased; if a supporter, He is no longer an enemy of the law.4616

4616 As Marcion held Him to be.

But all these imprecations He uttered in order to tarnish the Creator as a cruel Being,4617

4617 A Marcionite position.

against whom such as offended were destined to have a “woe.” And who would not rather have feared to provoke a cruel Being,4618

4618 Sævum.

by withdrawing allegiance4619

4619 Deficiendo.

from Him? Therefore the more He represented the Creator to be an object of fear, the more earnestly would He teach that He ought to be served. Thus would it behove the Creator’s Christ to act.
As narrated by St. Luke xii. 1–21.

Are in Keeping with the Will and Purpose of the Creator.

Luke xii. 2.

in order that no one should suppose that He was attempting the revelation and the recognition of an hitherto unknown and hidden god. When He remarks also on their murmurs and taunts, in saying of Him, “This man casteth out devils only through Beelzebub,” He means that all these imputations would come forth to the light of day, and be in the mouths of men in consequence of the promulgation of the Gospel.  He then turns to His disciples with these words, “I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid of them which can only kill the body, and after that have no more power over you.”4623

4623 Luke xii. 4.

They will, however, find Isaiah had already said, “See how the just man is taken away, and no man layeth it to heart.”4624

4624 Isa. lvii. 1.

“But I will show you whom ye shall fear: fear Him who, after He hath killed, hath power to cast into hell” (meaning, of course, the Creator); “yea, I say unto you, fear Him.”4625

4625 Luke xii. 5.

Now, it would here be enough for my purpose that He forbids offence being given to Him whom He orders to be feared; and that He orders Him to be respected4626

4626 Demereri.

whom He forbids to be offended; and that He who gives these commands belongs to that very God for whom He procures this fear, this absence of offence, and this respect. But this conclusion I can draw also from the following words: “For I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before God.”4627

4627 Luke xii. 8.

Now they who shall confess Christ will have to be slain4628

4628 Occidi habebunt.

before men, but they will have nothing more to suffer after they have been put to death by them. These therefore will be they whom He forewarns above not to be afraid of being only killed; and this forewarning He offers, in order that He might subjoin a clause on the necessity of confessing Him: “Every one that denieth me before men shall be denied before God”4629

4629 Luke xii. 9.

—by Him, of course, who would have confessed him, if he had only confessed God.  Now, He who will confess the confessor is the very same God who will also deny the denier of Himself. Again, if it is the confessor who will have nothing to fear after his violent death,4630

4630 Post occisionem.

it is the denier to whom everything will become fearful after his natural death. Since, therefore, that which will have to be feared after death, even the punishment of hell, belongs to the Creator, the denier, too, belongs to the Creator. As with the denier, however, so with the confessor: if he should deny God, he will plainly have to suffer from God, although from men he had nothing more to suffer after they had put him to death.  And so Christ is the Creator’s, because He shows that all those who deny Him ought to fear the Creator’s hell.  After deterring His disciples from denial of Himself, He adds an admonition to fear blasphemy: “Whosoever shall speak against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him.”4631

4631 Luke xii. 10.

Now, if both the remission and the retention of sin savour of a judicial God, the Holy Ghost, who is not to be blasphemed, will belong to Him, who will not forgive the blasphemy; just as He who, in the preceding passage, was not to be denied, belonged to, Him who would, after He had killed, also cast into hell. Now, since it is Christ who averts blasphemy from the Creator, I am at a loss to know in what manner His adversary4632

4632 So full of blasphemy, as he is, against the Creator.

could have come. Else, if by these sayings He throws a black cloud of censure4633

4633 Infuscat.

over the severity of Him who will not forgive blasphemy and will kill even to hell, it follows that the very spirit of that rival god may be blasphemed with impunity, and his Christ denied; and that there is no difference, in fact, between worshipping and despising him; but that, as there is no punishment for the contempt, so there is no reward for the worship, which men need expect. When “brought before magistrates,” and examined, He forbids them “to take thought how they shall answer;” “for,” says He, “the Holy Ghost shall teach you in that very hour what ye ought to say.”4634

4634 Luke xii. 11, 12.

If such an injunction4635

4635 Documentum.

as this comes from the Creator, the precept will only be His by whom an example was previously given. The prophet Balaam, in Numbers, when sent forth by king Balak to curse Israel, with whom he was commencing war, was at the same moment4636

4636 Simul.

filled with the Spirit. Instead of the curse which he was come to pronounce, he uttered the blessing which the Spirit at that very hour inspired him with; having previously declared to the king’s messengers, and then to the king himself, that he could only speak forth that which God should put into his mouth.4637

4637 Num. xxii.–xxiv.

The novel doctrines of the new Christ are such as the Creator’s servants initiated long before! But see how clear a difference there is between the example of Moses and of Christ.4638

4638 A Marcionite objection.

Moses voluntarily interferes with brothers4639

4639 “Two men of the Hebrews.”—A.V.

who were quarrelling, and chides the offender:  “Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow?”  He is, however, rejected by him:  “Who made thee a prince or a judge over us?”4640

4640 Ex. ii. 13, 14.

Christ, on the contrary, when requested by a certain man to compose a strife between him and his brother about dividing an inheritance, refused His assistance, although in so honest a cause. Well, then, my Moses is better than your Christ, aiming as he did at the peace of brethren, and obviating their wrong.  But of course the case must be different with Christ, for he is the Christ of the simply good and non-judicial god. “Who,” says he, “made me a judge over you?”4641

4641 Luke xii. 13, 14.

No other word of excuse was he able to find, without using4642

4642 Ne uteretur.

that with which the wicked, man and impious brother had rejected4643

4643 Excusserat. Oehler interprets the word by temptaverat.

the defender of probity and piety! In short, he approved of the excuse, although a bad one, by his use of it; and of the act, although a bad one, by his refusal to make peace between brothers. Or rather, would He not show His resentment4644

4644 Nunquid indigne tulerit.

at the rejection of Moses with such a word?  And therefore did He not wish in a similar case of contentious brothers, to confound them with the recollection of so harsh a word? Clearly so.  For He had Himself been present in Moses, who heard such a rejection—even He, the Spirit of the Creator.4645

4645 This is an instance of the title “Spirit” being applied to the divine nature of the Son. See Bp. Bull’s Def. Nic. Fid. (by the translator). [See note 13, p. 375, supra.]

I think that we have already, in another passage,4646

4646 Above, chap. xv. of this book, p. 369, supra.

sufficiently shown that the glory of riches is condemned by our God, “who putteth down the mighty from their throne, and exalts the poor from the dunghill.”4647

4647 Comp. 1 Sam. ii. 8 with Ps. cxiii. 7 and Luke i. 52.

From Him, therefore, will proceed the parable of the rich man, who flattered himself about the increase of his fields, and to Whom God said: “Thou fool, this night shall they require thy soul of thee; then whose shall those things be which thou hast provided?”4648

4648 Luke xii. 16–20.

It was just in the like manner that the king Hezekiah heard from Isaiah the sad doom of his kingdom, when he gloried, before the envoys of Babylon,4649

4649 Apud Persas.

in his treasures and the deposits of his precious things.4650

4650 Isa. xxxix.


Luke xii. 22–28.

but He who has provided these things already for man; and who, therefore, while distributing them to us, prohibits all anxiety respecting them as an outrage4653

4653 Æmulam.

against his liberality?—who has adapted the nature of “life” itself to a condition “better than meat,” and has fashioned the material of “the body,” so as to make it “more than raiment;” whose “ravens, too, neither sow nor reap, nor gather into storehouses, and are yet fed” by Himself; whose “lilies and grass also toil not, nor spin, and yet are clothed” by Him; whose “Solomon, moreover, was transcendent in glory, and yet was not arrayed like” the humble flower.4654

4654 Flosculo: see Luke xii. 24–27.

Besides, nothing can be more abrupt than that one God should be distributing His bounty, while the other should bid us take no thought about (so kindly a) distribution—and that, too, with the intention of derogating (from his liberality).  Whether, indeed, it is as depreciating the Creator that he does not wish such trifles to be thought of, concerning which neither the crows nor the lilies labour, because, forsooth, they come spontaneously to hand4655

4655 Ultro subjectis.

by reason of their very worthlessness,4656

4656 Pro sua vilitate.

will appear a little further on.  Meanwhile, how is it that He chides them as being “of little faith?”4657

4657 Luke xii. 28.

What faith?  Does He mean that faith which they were as yet unable to manifest perfectly in a god who has hardly yet revealed,4658

4658 Tantum quod revelato.

and whom they were in process of learning as well as they could; or that faith which they for this express reason owed to the Creator, because they believed that He was of His own will supplying these wants of the human race, and therefore took no thought about them?  Now, when He adds, “For all these things do the nations of the world seek after,”4659

4659 Luke xii. 30.

even by their not believing in God as the Creator and Giver of all things, since He was unwilling that they should be like these nations, He therefore upbraided them as being defective of faith in the same God, in whom He remarked that the Gentiles were quite wanting in faith.  When He further adds, “But your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things,”4660

4660 Luke xii. 30.

I would first ask, what Father Christ would have to be here understood? If He points to their own Creator, He also affirms Him to be good, who knows what His children have need of; but if He refers to that other god, how does he know that food and raiment are necessary to man, seeing that he has made no such provision for him? For if he had known the want, he would have made the provision. If, however, he knows what things man has need of, and yet has failed to supply them, he is in the failure guilty of either malignity or weakness. But when he confessed that these things are necessary to man, he really affirmed that they are good. For nothing that is evil is necessary. So that he will not be any longer a depreciator of the works and the indulgences of the Creator, that I may here complete the answer4661

4661 Expunxerim.

which I deferred giving above. Again, if it is another god who has foreseen man’s wants, and is supplying them, how is it that Marcion’s Christ himself promises them?4662

4662 Luke xii. 31.

Is he liberal with another’s property?4663

4663 De alieno bonus.

“Seek ye,” says he, “the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you”—by himself, of course. But if by himself, what sort of being is he, who shall bestow the things of another?  If by the Creator, whose all things are, then who4664

4664 Qualis.

is he that promises what belongs to another?  If these things are “additions” to the kingdom, they must be placed in the second rank;4665

4665 Secundo gradu.

and the second rank belongs to Him to whom the first also does; His are the food and raiment, whose is the kingdom.  Thus to the Creator belongs the entire promise, the full reality4666

4666 Status.

of its parables, the perfect equalization4667

4667 Peræquatio.

of its similitudes; for these have respect to none other than Him to whom they have a parity of relation in every point.4668

4668 Cui per omnia pariaverint.

We are servants because we have a Lord in our God. We ought “to have our loins girded:”4669

4669 Luke xii. 35.

in other words, we are to be free from the embarrassments of a perplexed and much occupied life; “to have our lights burning,”4670

4670 Luke xii. 35.

that is, our minds kindled by faith, and resplendent with the works of truth. And thus “to wait for our Lord,”4671

4671 Luke xii. 36.

that is, Christ. Whence “returning?” If “from the wedding,” He is the Christ of the Creator, for the wedding is His. If He is not the Creator’s, not even Marcion himself would have gone to the wedding, although invited, for in his god he discovers one who hates the nuptial bed. The parable would therefore have failed in the person of the Lord, if He were not a Being to whom a wedding is consistent. In the next parable also he makes a flagrant mistake, when he assigns to the person of the Creator that “thief, whose hour, if the father of the family had only known, he would not have suffered his house to be broken through.”4672

4672 Luke xii. 39.

How can the Creator wear in any way the aspect of a thief, Lord as He is of all mankind? No one pilfers or plunders his own property, but he4673

4673 Sed ille potius.

rather acts the part of one who swoops down on the things of another, and alienates man from his Lord.4674

4674 A censure on Marcion’s Christ.

Again, when He indicates to us that the devil is “the thief,” whose hour at the very beginning of the world, if man had known, he would never have been broken in upon4675

4675 Suffossus.

by him, He warns us “to be ready,” for this reason, because “we know not the hour when the Son of man shall come”4676

4676 Luke xi. 40.

—not as if He were Himself the thief, but rather as being the judge of those who prepared not themselves, and used no precaution against the thief. Since, then, He is the Son of man, I hold Him to be the Judge, and in the Judge I claim4677

4677 Defendo.

the Creator. If then in this passage he displays the Creator’s Christ under the title “Son of man,” that he may give us some presage4678

4678 Portendat.

of the thief, of the period of whose coming we are ignorant, you still have it ruled above, that no one is the thief of his own property; besides which, there is our principle also unimpaired4679

4679 Salvo.

—that in as far as He insists on the Creator as an object of fear, in so far does He belong to the Creator, and does the Creator’s work. When, therefore, Peter asked whether He had spoken the parable “unto them, or even to all,”4680

4680 Luke xii. 41.

He sets forth for them, and for all who should bear rule in the churches, the similitude of stewards.4681

4681 Actorum.

That steward who should treat his fellow-servants well in his Lord’s absence, would on his return be set as ruler over all his property; but he who should act otherwise should be severed, and have his portion with the unbelievers, when his lord should return on the day when he looked not for him, at the hour when he was not aware4682

4682 Luke xii. 41–46.

—even that Son of man, the Creator’s Christ, not a thief, but a Judge. He accordingly, in this passage, either presents to us the Lord as a Judge, and instructs us in His character,4683

4683 Illi catechizat.

or else as the simply good god; if the latter, he now also affirms his judicial attribute, although the heretic refuses to admit it. For an attempt is made to modify this sense when it is applied to his god,—as if it were an act of serenity and mildness simply to sever the man off, and to assign him a portion with the unbelievers, under the idea that he was not summoned (before the judge), but only returned to his own state! As if this very process did not imply a judicial act!  What folly! What will be the end of the severed ones? Will it not be the forfeiture of salvation, since their separation will be from those who shall attain salvation? What, again, will be the condition of the unbelievers?  Will it not be damnation? Else, if these severed and unfaithful ones shall have nothing to suffer, there will, on the other hand, be nothing for the accepted and the believers to obtain. If, however, the accepted and the believers shall attain salvation, it must needs be that the rejected and the unbelieving should incur the opposite issue, even the loss of salvation. Now here is a judgment, and He who holds it out before us belongs to the Creator.  Whom else than the God of retribution can I understand by Him who shall “beat His servants with stripes,” either “few or many,” and shall exact from them what He had committed to them? Whom is it suitable4684

4684 Decet.

for me to obey, but Him who remunerates?  Your Christ proclaims, “I am come to send fire on the earth.”4685

4685 Luke xii. 49.

That4686

4686 Ille: Marcion’s Christ.

most lenient being, the lord who has no hell, not long before had restrained his disciples from demanding fire on the churlish village. Whereas He4687

4687 Iste: the Creator.

burnt up Sodom and Gomorrah with a tempest of fire. Of Him the psalmist sang, “A fire shall go out before Him, and burn up His enemies round about.”4688

4688 Ps. xcvii. 3.

By Hoses He uttered the threat, “I will send a fire upon the cities of Judah;”4689

4689 Hos. viii. 14.

and4690

4690 Vel: or, “if you please;” indicating some uncertainty in the quotation. The passage is more like Jer. xv. 14 than anything in Isaiah (see, however, Isa. xxx. 27; 30).

by Isaiah, “A fire has been kindled in mine anger.” He cannot lie. If it is not He who uttered His voice out of even the burning bush, it can be of no importance4691

4691 Viderit.

what fire you insist upon being understood.  Even if it be but figurative fire, yet, from the very fact that he takes from my element illustrations for His own sense, He is mine, because He uses what is mine. The similitude of fire must belong to Him who owns the reality thereof. But He will Himself best explain the quality of that fire which He mentioned, when He goes on to say, “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division.”4692

4692 Luke xii. 51.

It is written “a sword,”4693

4693 Pamelius supposes that Tertullian here refers to St. Matthew’s account, where the word is μάχαιραν, on the ground that the mss. and versions of St. Luke’s Gospel invariably read διαμερισμόν. According to Rigaltius, however, Tertullian means that sword is written in Marcion’s Gospel of Luke, as if the heretic had adulterated the passage. Tertullian no doubt professes to quote all along from the Gospel of Luke, according to Marcion’s reading.

but Marcion makes an emendation4694

4694 St. Luke’s word being διαμερισμόν (division), not μάχαιραν (sword).

of the word, just as if a division were not the work of the sword. He, therefore, who refused to give peace, intended also the fire of destruction.  As is the combat, so is the burning.  As is the sword, so is the flame.  Neither is suitable for its lord.  He says at last, “The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law.”4695

4695 Luke xii. 53.

Since this battle among the relatives4696

4696 Parentes.

was sung by the prophet’s trumpet in the very words, I fear that Micah4697

4697 Mic. vii. 6.

must have predicted it to Marcion’s Christ!  On this account He pronounced them “hypocrites,” because they could “discern the face of the sky and the earth, but could not distinguish this time,”4698

4698 Luke xii. 56.

when of course He ought to have been recognised, fulfilling (as he was) all things which had been predicted concerning them, and teaching them so. But then who could know the times of him of whom he had no evidence to prove his existence?  Justly also does He upbraid them for “not even of themselves judging what is right.”4699

4699 Luke xii. 57.

Of old does He command by Zechariah, “Execute the judgment of truth and peace;”4700

4700 Zech. viii. 16.

by Jeremiah, “Execute judgment and righteousness;”4701

4701 Jer. xxii. 3.

by Isaiah, “Judge the fatherless, plead for the widow,”4702

4702 Isa. i. 17.

charging it as a fault upon the vine of Sorech,4703

4703 Tertullian calls by a proper name the vineyard which Isaiah (in his chap. v.) designates “the vineyard of the Lord of hosts,” and interprets to be “the house of Israel” (ver. 7). The designation comes from ver. 2, where the original clause ירשֹ והע[טָיִּוַ is translated in the Septuagint, Καὶ ἐφύτευσα ἄμπελον Σωρήκ. Tertullian is most frequently in close agreement with the LXX.

that when “He looked for righteousness therefrom, there was only a cry”4704

4704 Isa. v. 7.

(of oppression). The same God who had taught them to act as He commanded them,4705

4705 Ex præcepto.

was now requiring that they should act of their own accord.4706

4706 Ex arbitrio.

He who had sown the precept, was now pressing to an abundant harvest from it. But how absurd, that he should now be commanding them to judge righteously, who was destroying God the righteous Judge! For the Judge, who commits to prison, and allows no release out of it without the payment of “the very last mite,”4707

4707 Luke xii. 58, 59.

they treat of in the person of the Creator, with the view of disparaging Him. Which cavil, however, I deem it necessary to meet with the same answer.4708

4708 Eodem gradu.

For as often as the Creator’s severity is paraded before us, so often is Christ (shown to be) His, to whom He urges submission by the motive of fear.
Luke xiii. 15.

When, therefore, He did a work according to the condition prescribed by the law, He affirmed, instead of breaking, the law, which commanded that no work should be done, except what might be done for any living being;4710

4710 Omni animæ.

and if for any one, then how much more for a human life? In the case of the parables, it is allowed that I4711

4711 Recognoscor.

everywhere require a congruity. “The kingdom of God,” says He, “is like a grain of mustard-seed which a man took and cast into his garden.” Who must be understood as meant by the man? Surely Christ, because (although Marcion’s) he was called “the Son of man.” He received from the Father the seed of the kingdom, that is, the word of the gospel, and sowed it in his garden—in the world, of course4712

4712 Utique.

—in man at the present day, for instance.4713

4713 Puta.

Now, whereas it is said, “in his garden,” but neither the world nor man is his property, but the Creator’s, therefore He who sowed seed in His own ground is shown to be the Creator.  Else, if, to evade this snare,4714

4714 Laqueum.

they should choose to transfer the person of the man from Christ to any person who receives the seed of the kingdom and sows it in the garden of his own heart, not even this meaning4715

4715 Materia.

would suit any other than the Creator.  For how happens it, if the kingdom belong to the most lenient god, that it is closely followed up by a fervent judgment, the severity of which brings weeping?4716

4716 Lacrimosa austeritate, see Luke xiii. 28.

With regard, indeed, to the following similitude, I have my fears lest it should somehow4717

4717 Forte.

presage the kingdom of the rival god!  For He compared it, not to the unleavened bread which the Creator is more familiar with, but to leaven.4718

4718 Luke xiii. 20, 21.

Now this is a capital conjecture for men who are begging for arguments. I must, however, on my side, dispel one fond conceit by another,4719

4719 Vanitatem vanitate.

and contend with even leaven is suitable for the kingdom of the Creator, because after it comes the oven, or, if you please,4720

4720 Vel.

the furnace of hell. How often has He already displayed Himself as a Judge, and in the Judge the Creator? How often, indeed, has He repelled, and in the repulse condemned? In the present passage, for instance, He says, “When once the master of the house is risen up;”4721

4721 Luke xiii. 25.

but in what sense except that in which Isaiah said, “When He ariseth to shake terribly the earth?”4722

4722 Isa. ii. 19.

“And hath shut to the door,” thereby shutting out the wicked, of course; and when these knock, He will answer, “I know you not whence ye are;” and when they recount how “they have eaten and drunk in His presence,” He will further say to them, “Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”4723

4723 Luke xiii. 25–28.

But where?  Outside, no doubt, when they shall have been excluded with the door shut on them by Him. There will therefore be punishment inflicted by Him who excludes for punishment, when they shall behold the righteous entering the kingdom of God, but themselves detained without. By whom detained outside? If by the Creator, who shall be within receiving the righteous into the kingdom? The good God. What, therefore, is the Creator about,4724

4724 Quid ergo illuc Creatori.

that He should detain outside for punishment those whom His adversary shut out, when He ought rather to have kindly received them, if they must come into His hands,4725

4725 Si stique.

for the greater irritation of His rival?  But when about to exclude the wicked, he must, of course, either be aware that the Creator would detain them for punishment, or not be aware. Consequently either the wicked will be detained by the Creator against the will of the excluder, in which case he will be inferior to the Creator, submitting to Him unwillingly; or else, if the process is carried out with his will, then he himself has judicially determined its execution; and then he who is the very originator of the Creator’s infamy, will not prove to be one whit better than the Creator. Now, if these ideas be incompatible with reason—of one being supposed to punish, and the other to liberate—then to one only power will appertain both the judgment and the kingdom and while they both belong to one, He who executeth judgment can be none else than the Christ of the Creator.
Luke xiv. 12–14.

Precisely such as he had pointed out by Isaiah: “Deal thy bread to the hungry man; and the beggars—even such as have no home—bring in to thine house,”4727

4727 Isa. lviii. 7.

because, no doubt, they are “unable to recompense” your act of humanity. Now, since Christ forbids the recompense to be expected now, but promises it “at the resurrection,” this is the very plan4728

4728 Forma.

of the Creator, who dislikes those who love gifts and follow after reward. Consider also to which deity4729

4729 Cui parti.

is better suited the parable of him who issued invitations: “A certain man made a great supper, and bade many.”4730

4730 Luke xiv. 16.

The preparation for the supper is no doubt a figure of the abundant provision4731

4731 Saturitatem.

of eternal life. I first remark, that strangers, and persons unconnected by ties of relationship, are not usually invited to a supper; but that members of the household and family are more frequently the favoured guests. To the Creator, then, it belonged to give the invitation, to whom also appertained those who were to be invited—whether considered as men, through their descent from Adam, or as Jews, by reason of their fathers; not to him who possessed no claim to them either by nature or prerogative.  My next remark is,4732

4732 Dehinc.

if He issues the invitations who has prepared the supper, then, in this sense the supper is the Creator’s, who sent to warn the guests. These had been indeed previously invited by the fathers, but were to be admonished by the prophets. It certainly is not the feast of him who never sent a messenger to warn—who never did a thing before towards issuing an invitation, but came down himself on a sudden—only then4733

4733 Tantum quod…jam.

beginning to be known, when already4734

4734 Tantum quod…jam.

giving his invitation; only then inviting, when already compelling to his banquet; appointing one and the same hour both for the supper and the invitation. But when invited, they excuse themselves.4735

4735 Luke xiv. 18.

And fairly enough, if the invitation came from the other god, because it was so sudden; if, however, the excuse was not a fair one, then the invitation was not a sudden one. Now, if the invitation was not a sudden one, it must have been given by the Creator—even by Him of old time, whose call they had at last refused. They first refused it when they said to Aaron, “Make us gods, which shall go before us;”4736

4736 Ex. xxxii. 1.

and again, afterwards, when “they heard indeed with the ear, but did not understand”4737

4737 Isa. vi. 10.

their calling of God. In a manner most germane4738

4738 Pertinentissime.

to this parable, He said by Jeremiah:  “Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and ye shall walk in all my ways, which I have commanded you.”4739

4739 Jer. vii. 23.

This is the invitation of God. “But,” says He, “they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear.”4740

4740 Jer. vii. 24.

This is the refusal of the people. “They departed, and walked every one in the imagination of their evil heart.”4741

4741 Jer. xi. 8.

“I have bought a field—and I have bought some oxen—and I have married a wife.”4742

4742 Luke xiv. 18–20.

And still He urges them: “I have sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early even before daylight.”4743

4743 Bible:Jer.44.4">Jer. vii. 25; also xxv. 4, xxvi. 5, xxxv. 15, xliv. 4.

The Holy Spirit is here meant, the admonisher of the guests. “Yet my people hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck.”4744

4744 Jer. vii. 26.

This was reported to the Master of the family. Then He was moved (He did well to be moved; for, as Marcion denies emotion to his god, He must be therefore my God), and commanded them to invite out of “the streets and lanes of the city.”4745

4745 Luke xiv. 21.

Let us see whether this is not the same in purport as His words by Jeremiah: “Have I been a wilderness to the house of Israel, or a land left uncultivated?”4746

4746 Jer. ii. 31.

That is to say: “Then have I none whom I may call to me; have I no place whence I may bring them?”  “Since my people have said, We will come no more unto thee.”4747

4747 Jer. ii. 31.

Therefore He sent out to call others, but from the same city.4748

4748 Luke xiv. 23.

My third remark is this,4749

4749 Dehinc.

that although the place abounded with people, He yet commanded that they gather men from the highways and the hedges. In other words, we are now gathered out of the Gentile strangers; with that jealous resentment, no doubt, which He expressed in Deuteronomy: “I will hide my face from them, and I will show them what shall happen in the last days4750

4750 ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων ἡμερῶν, Septuagint.

(how that others shall possess their place); for they are a froward generation, children in whom is no faith. They have moved me to jealousy by that which is no god, and they have provoked me to anger with their idols; and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people: I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation”4751

4751 Deut. xxxii. 20, 21.

—even with us, whose hope the Jews still entertain.4752

4752 Gerunt: although vainly at present (“jam vana in Judæis”—Oehler); Semler conjectures “gemunt, bewail.”

But this hope the Lord says they should not realize;4753

4753 Gustaturos.

“Sion being left as a cottage4754

4754 Specula, “a look-out;” σκηνή is the word in LXX.

in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers,”4755

4755 Isa. i. 8.

since the nation rejected the latest invitation to Christ. (Now, I ask,) after going through all this course of the Creator’s dispensation and prophecies, what there is in it which can possibly be assigned to him who has done all his work at one hasty stroke,4756

4756 Semel.

and possesses neither the Creator’s4757

4757 This is probably the meaning of a very involved sentence: “Quid ex hoc ordine secundum dispensationem et prædicationes Creatoris recensendo competit illi, cujus (“Creatoris”—Oehler) nec ordinem habet nec dispositionem ad parabolæ conspirationem qui totum opus semel facit?”

course nor His dispensation in harmony with the parable? Or, again in what will consist his first invitation,4758

4758 “By the fathers.” See above.

and what his admonition4759

4759 “By the prophets.” See also above.

at the second stage? Some at first would surely decline; others afterwards must have accepted.”4760

4760 An obscure sentence, which thus runs in the original: “Ante debent alii excusare, postea alii convenisse.”

But now he comes to invite both parties promiscuously out of the city,4761

4761 The Jews.

out of the hedges,4762

4762 The Gentiles.

contrary to the drift4763

4763 Speculum.

of the parable. It is impossible for him now to condemn as scorners of his invitation4764

4764 Fastidiosos.

those whom he has never yet invited, and whom he is approaching with so much earnestness. If, however, he condemns them beforehand as about to reject his call, then beforehand he also predicts4765

4765 Portendit.

the election of the Gentiles in their stead.  Certainly4766

4766 Plane: This is a Marcionite position (Oehler).

he means to come the second time for the very purpose of preaching to the heathen. But even if he does mean to come again, I imagine it will not be with the intention of any longer inviting guests, but of giving to them their places.  Meanwhile, you who interpret the call to this supper as an invitation to a heavenly banquet of spiritual satiety and pleasure, must remember that the earthly promises also of wine and oil and corn, and even of the city, are equally employed by the Creator as figures of spiritual things. Luke xv. 1–10.

Was it not the loser? But who was the loser? Was it not he who once possessed4768

4768 Habuit.

them? Who, then, was that? Was it not he to whom they belonged?4769

4769 Cujus fuit: i.e., each of the things respectively.

Since, then, man is the property of none other than the Creator, He possessed Him who owned him; He lost him who once possessed him; He sought him who lost him; He found him who sought him; He rejoiced who found him. Therefore the purport4770

4770 Argumentum.

of neither parable has anything whatever to do with him4771

4771 Vacat circa eum.

to whom belongs neither the sheep nor the piece of silver, that is to say, man.  For he lost him not, because he possessed him not; and he sought him not, because he lost him not; and he found him not, because he sought him not; and he rejoiced not, because he found him not.  Therefore, to rejoice over the sinner’s repentance—that is, at the recovery of lost man—is the attribute of Him who long ago professed that He would rather that the sinner should repent and not die.
Luke xvi. 13.

on the ground that while one is pleased4773

4773 Defendi.

the other must needs be displeased,4774

4774 Offendi.

He Himself makes clear, when He mentions God and mammon. Then, if you have no interpreter by you, you may learn again from Himself what He would have understood by mammon.4775

4775 What in the Punic language is called Mammon, says Rigaltius, the Latins call lucrum, “gain or lucre.” See Augustine, Serm. xxxv. de Verbo domini. I would add Jerome, On the VI. of Matthew where he says: “In the Syriac tongue, riches are called mammon.” And Augustine, in another passage, book ii., On the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, says: “Riches in Hebrew are said to be called mammon.  This is evidently a Punic word, for in that language the synonyme for gain (lucrum) is mammon.” Compare the same author on Ps. ciii. (Oehler).

For when advising us to provide for ourselves the help of friends in worldly affairs, after the example of that steward who, when removed from his office,4776

4776 Ab actu.

relieves his lord’s debtors by lessening their debts with a view to their recompensing him with their help, He said, “And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness,” that is to say, of money, even as the steward had done. Now we are all of us aware that money is the instigator4777

4777 Auctorem.

of unrighteousness, and the lord of the whole world. Therefore, when he saw the covetousness of the Pharisees doing servile worship4778

4778 Famulatam.

to it, He hurled4779

4779 Ammentavit.

this sentence against them, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”4780

4780 Luke xvi. 13.

Then the Pharisees, who were covetous of riches, derided Him, when they understood that by mammon He meant money. Let no one think that under the word mammon the Creator was meant, and that Christ called them off from the service of the Creator. What folly! Rather learn therefrom that one God was pointed out by Christ. For they were two masters whom He named, God and mammon—the Creator and money. You cannot indeed serve God—Him, of course whom they seemed to serve—and mammon to whom they preferred to devote themselves.4781

4781 Magis destinabantur: middle voice.

If, however, he was giving himself out as another god, it would not be two masters, but three, that he had pointed out.  For the Creator was a master, and much more of a master, to be sure,4782

4782 Utique.

than mammon, and more to be adored, as being more truly our Master. Now, how was it likely that He who had called mammon a master, and had associated him with God, should say nothing of Him who was really the Master of even these, that is, the Creator? Or else, by this silence respecting Him did He concede that service might be rendered to Him, since it was to Himself alone and to mammon that He said service could not be (simultaneously) rendered?  When, therefore, He lays down the position that God is one, since He would have been sure to mention4783

4783 Nominaturus.

the Creator if He were Himself a rival4784

4784 Alius.

to Him, He did (virtually) name the Creator, when He refrained from insisting”4785

4785 Quem non posuit.

that He was Master alone, without a rival god.  Accordingly, this will throw light upon the sense in which it was said, “If ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?”4786

4786 Luke xvi. 11.

“In the unrighteous mammon,” that is to say, in unrighteous riches, not in the Creator; for even Marcion allows Him to be righteous: “And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who will give to you that which is mine?”4787

4787 Meum: Luke xvi. 12, where, however, the word is τὸ ὑμέτερον, that which is your own.”

For whatever is unrighteous ought to be foreign to the servants of God. But in what way was the Creator foreign to the Pharisees, seeing that He was the proper God of the Jewish nation?  Forasmuch then as the words, “Who will entrust to you the truer riches?” and, “Who will give you that which is mine?” are only suitable to the Creator and not to mammon, He could not have uttered them as alien to the Creator, and in the interest of the rival god. He could only seem to have spoken them in this sense, if, when remarking4788

4788 Notando.

their unfaithfulness to the Creator and not to mammon, He had drawn some distinctions between the Creator (in his manner of mentioning Him) and the rival god—how that the latter would not commit his own truth to those who were unfaithful to the Creator. How then can he possibly seem to belong to another god, if He be not set forth, with the express intention of being separated4789

4789 Ad hoc ut seperatur.

from the very thing which is in question.  But when the Pharisees “justified themselves before men,”4790

4790 Luke xvi. 15.

and placed their hope of reward in man, He censured them in the sense in which the prophet Jeremiah said, “Cursed is the man that trusteth in man.”4791

4791 Jer. xvii. 5.

Since the prophet went on to say, “But the Lord knoweth your hearts,”4792

4792 Jer. xvii. 10, in sense but not in letter.

he magnified the power of that God who declared Himself to be as a lamp, “searching the reins and the heart.”4793

4793 Jer. xx. 12.

When He strikes at pride in the words: “That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God,”4794

4794 Luke xvi. 15.

He recalls Isaiah: “For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is arrogant and lifted up, and they shall be brought low.”4795

4795 Isa. ii. 12 (Sept).

I can now make out why Marcion’s god was for so long an age concealed. He was, I suppose, waiting until he had learnt all these things from the Creator. He continued his pupillage up to the time of John, and then proceeded forthwith to announce the kingdom of God, saying: “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is proclaimed.”4796

4796 Luke xvi. 16.

Just as if we also did not recognise in John a certain limit placed between the old dispensation and the new, at which Judaism ceased and Christianity began—without, however, supposing that it was by the power of another god that there came about a cessation4797

4797 Sedatio: literally, “a setting to rest,” ἠρέμησις.

of the law and the prophets and the commencement of that gospel in which is the kingdom of God, Christ Himself. For although, as we have shown, the Creator foretold that the old state of things would pass away and a new state would succeed, yet, inasmuch as John is shown to be both the forerunner and the preparer of the ways of that Lord who was to introduce the gospel and publish the kingdom of God, it follows from the very fact that John has come, that Christ must be that very Being who was to follow His harbinger John. So that, if the old course has ceased and the new has begun, with John intervening between them, there will be nothing wonderful in it, because it happens according to the purpose of the Creator; so that you may get a better proof for the kingdom of God from any quarter, however anomalous,4798

4798 Ut undeunde magis probetur…regnum Dei.

than from the conceit that the law and the prophets ended in John, and a new state of things began after him. “More easily, therefore, may heaven and earth pass away—as also the law and the prophets—than that one tittle of the Lord’s words should fail.”4799

4799 Luke xvi. 17 and xxi. 23.

“For,” as says Isaiah: “the word of our God shall stand for ever.”4800

4800 Isa. xl. 8.

Since even then by Isaiah it was Christ, the Word and Spirit4801

4801 See above, note on chap. xxviii., towards the end, on this designation of Christ’s divine nature.

of the Creator, who prophetically described John as “the voice of one crying in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord,”4802

4802 Isa. xl. 3.

and as about to come for the purpose of terminating thenceforth the course of the law and the prophets; by their fulfilment and not their extinction, and in order that the kingdom of God might be announced by Christ, He therefore purposely added the assurance that the elements would more easily pass away than His words fail; affirming, as He did, the further fact, that what He had said concerning John had not fallen to the ground.
Luke xvi. 18.

In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman that has been put away. Moses, however, permitted repudiation in Deuteronomy: “When a man hath taken a wife, and hath lived with her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found unchastity in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and send her away out of his house.”4804

4804 Deut. xxiv. 1.

You see, therefore, that there is a difference between the law and the gospel—between Moses and Christ?4805

4805 A Marcionite challenge.

To be sure there is!4806

4806 Plane.

But then you have rejected that other gospel which witnesses to the same verity and the same Christ.4807

4807 St. Matthew’s Gospel.

There, while prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question respecting it: “Moses,” says He, “because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was not so”4808

4808 Matt. xix. 8.

—for this reason, indeed, because He who had “made them male and female” had likewise said, “They twain shall become one flesh; what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”4809

4809 Matt. xix. 4; 6.

Now, by this answer of His (to the Pharisees), He both sanctioned the provision of Moses, who was His own (servant), and restored to its primitive purpose4810

4810 Direxit.

the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was. Since, however, you are to be refuted out of the Scriptures which you have received, I will meet you on your own ground, as if your Christ were mine. When, therefore, He prohibited divorce, and yet at the same time represented4811

4811 Gestans.

the Father, even Him who united male and female, must He not have rather exculpated4812

4812 Excusaverit.

than abolished the enactment of Moses?  But, observe, if this Christ be yours when he teaches contrary to Moses and the Creator, on the same principle must He be mine if I can show that His teaching is not contrary to them. I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition which He now made of divorce; the case supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of4813

4813 Ideo ut.

marrying another. His words are: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery,”4814

4814 Luke xvi. 18.

—“put away,” that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained. For he who marries a woman who is unlawfully put away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one who is un-divorced.  Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry,4815

4815 Nubere. This verb is here used of both sexes, in a general sense.

therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery. Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions,4816

4816 Alias.

when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. In very deed4817

4817 Etiam: first word of the sentence.

His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially4818

4818 Alicubi.

defends, I will not4819

4819 Nondum.

say confirms. If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side4820

4820 Tu.

destroy marriage, not uniting man and woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those who have been united in marriage anywhere else,4821

4821 Alibi: i.e., than in the Marcionite connection.

unless they should agree together to repudiate the fruit of their marriage, and so the very Creator Himself? Well, then, what is a husband to do in your sect,4822

4822 Apud te.

if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle, you know,4823

4823 Scilicet.

does not permit “the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot.”4824

4824 1 Cor. vi. 15.

Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved,4825

4825 Justitia divortii.

has even in Christ a defender. So that Moses for the future must be considered as being confirmed by Him, since he prohibits divorce in the same sense as Christ does, if any unchastity should occur in the wife. For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.”4826

4826 Matt. v. 32.

He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband.  The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife.4827

4827 Deut. xxii. 28, 29.

Now, if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! This has the sanction of the prophet: “Thou shalt not forsake the wife of thy youth.”4828

4828 Mal. ii. 15.

Thus you have Christ following spontaneously the tracks of the Creator everywhere, both in permitting divorce and in forbidding it. You find Him also protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to escape. He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable; He permits divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness. You should blush when you refuse to unite those whom even your Christ has united; and repeat the blush when you disunite them without the good reason why your Christ would have them separated. I have4829

4829 Debeo.

now to show whence the Lord derived this decision4830

4830 Sententiam.

of His, and to what end He directed it.  It will thus become more fully evident that His object was not the abolition of the Mosaic ordinance4831

4831 Literally, “Moses.”

by any suddenly devised proposal of divorce; because it was not suddenly proposed, but had its root in the previously mentioned John. For John reproved Herod, because he had illegally married the wife of his deceased brother, who had a daughter by her (a union which the law permitted only on the one occasion of the brother dying childless,4832

4832 Illiberis. [N.B.  He supposes Philip to have been dead.]

when it even prescribed such a marriage, in order that by his own brother, and from his own wife,4833

4833 Costa: literally, “rib” or “side.”

seed might be reckoned to the deceased husband),4834

4834 Deut. xxv. 5, 6.

and was in consequence cast into prison, and finally, by the same Herod, was even put to death. The Lord having therefore made mention of John, and of course of the occurrence of his death, hurled His censure4835

4835 Jaculatus est.

against Herod in the form of unlawful marriages and of adultery, pronouncing as an adulterer even the man who married a woman that had been put away from her husband. This he said in order the more severely to load Herod with guilt, who had taken his brother’s wife, after she had been loosed from her husband not less by death than by divorce; who had been impelled thereto by his lust, not by the prescription of the (Levirate) law—for, as his brother had left a daughter, the marriage with the widow could not be lawful on that very account;4836

4836 The condition being that the deceased brother should have left “no child” see (Deut. xxv. 5).

and who, when the prophet asserted against him the law, had therefore put him to death. The remarks I have advanced on this case will be also of use to me in illustrating the subsequent parable of the rich man4837

4837 Ad subsequens argumentum divitis.

tormented in hell, and the poor man resting in Abraham’s bosom.4838

4838 Luke xvi. 19–31.

For this passage, so far as its letter goes, comes before us abruptly; but if we regard its sense and purport, it naturally4839

4839 Ipsum.

fits in with the mention of John wickedly slain, and of Herod, who had been condemned by him for his impious marriage.4840

4840 Suggillati Herodis male maritati.

It sets forth in bold outline4841

4841 Deformans.

the end of both of them, the “torments” of Herod and the “comfort” of John, that even now Herod might hear that warning:  “They have there Moses and the prophets, let them hear them.”4842

4842 Luke xvi. 29.

Marcion, however, violently turns the passage to another end, and decides that both the torment and the comfort are retributions of the Creator reserved in the next life4843

4843 Apud inferos. [Note the origin of this doctrine.]

for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets; whilst he defines the heavenly bosom and harbour to belong to Christ and his own god. Our answer to this is, that the Scripture itself which dazzles4844

4844 Revincente: perhaps “reproves his eyesight,” in the sense of refutation.

his sight expressly distinguishes between Abraham’s bosom, where the poor man dwells, and the infernal place of torment.  “Hell” (I take it) means one thing, and “Abraham’s bosom” another. “A great gulf” is said to separate those regions, and to hinder a passage from one to the other. Besides, the rich man could not have “lifted up his eyes,”4845

4845 Luke xvi. 23.

and from a distance too, except to a superior height, and from the said distance all up through the vast immensity of height and depth. It must therefore be evident to every man of intelligence who has ever heard of the Elysian fields, that there is some determinate place called Abraham’s bosom, and that it is designed for the reception of the souls of Abraham’s children, even from among the Gentiles (since he is “the father of many nations,” which must be classed amongst his family), and of the same faith as that wherewithal he himself believed God, without the yoke of the law and the sign of circumcision. This region, therefore, I call Abraham’s bosom. Although it is not in heaven, it is yet higher than hell,4846

4846 Sublimiorem inferis. [Elucidation VIII.]

and is appointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of all things shall complete the resurrection of all men with the “full recompense of their reward.”4847

4847 Compare Heb. ii. 2 with x. 35 and xi. 26.

This consummation will then be manifested in heavenly promises, which Marcion, however, claims for his own god, just as if the Creator had never announced them.  Amos, however, tells us of “those stories towards heaven”4848

4848 Ascensum in cœlum: Sept. ἀνάβασιν εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, Amos ix. 6. See on this passage the article Heaven in Kitto’s Cyclopædia (3d edit.), vol. ii. p. 245, where the present writer has discussed the probable meaning of the verse.

which Christ “builds”—of course for His people.  There also is that everlasting abode of which Isaiah asks, “Who shall declare unto you the eternal place, but He (that is, of course, Christ) who walketh in righteousness, speaketh of the straight path, hateth injustice and iniquity?”4849

4849 Isa. xxxiii. 14–16, according to the Septuagint, which has but slight resemblance to the Hebrew.

Now, although this everlasting abode is promised, and the ascending stories (or steps) to heaven are built by the Creator, who further promises that the seed of Abraham shall be even as the stars of heaven, by virtue certainly of the heavenly promise, why may it not be possible,4850

4850 Cur non capiat.

without any injury to that promise, that by Abraham’s bosom is meant some temporary receptacle of faithful souls, wherein is even now delineated an image of the future, and where is given some foresight of the glory4851

4851 Candida quædam prospiciatur: where candida is a noun substantive (see above, chap. vii. p. 353).

of both judgments? If so, you have here, O heretics, during your present lifetime, a warning that Moses and the prophets declare one only God, the Creator, and His only Christ, and how that both awards of everlasting punishment and eternal salvation rest with Him, the one only God, who kills and who makes alive.  Well, but the admonition, says Marcion, of our God from heaven has commanded us not to hear Moses and the prophets, but Christ; Hear Him is the command.4852

4852 There seems to be here an allusion to Luke ix. 35.

This is true enough. For the apostles had by that time sufficiently heard Moses and the prophets, for they had followed Christ, being persuaded by Moses and the prophets. For even Peter would not have been able4853

4853 Nec accepisset.

to say, “Thou art the Christ,”4854

4854 Luke ix. 20.

unless he had beforehand heard and believed Moses and the prophets, by whom alone Christ had been hitherto announced.  Their faith, indeed, had deserved this confirmation by such a voice from heaven as should bid them hear Him, whom they had recognized as preaching peace, announcing glad tidings, promising an everlasting abode, building for them steps upwards into heaven.4855

4855 See Isa. lii. 7, xxxiii. 14 (Sept.), and Amos ix. 6.

Down in hell, however, it was said concerning them: “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them!”—even those who did not believe them or at least did not sincerely4856

4856 Omnino.

believe that after death there were punishments for the arrogance of wealth and the glory of luxury, announced indeed by Moses and the prophets, but decreed by that God, who deposes princes from their thrones, and raiseth up the poor from dunghills.4857

4857 See 1 Sam. ii. 6–8, Ps. cxiii. 7, and Luke i. 52.

Since, therefore, it is quite consistent in the Creator to pronounce different sentences in the two directions of reward and punishment, we shall have to conclude that there is here no diversity of gods,4858

4858 Divinitatum; “divine powers.”

but only a difference in the actual matters4859

4859 Ipsarum materiarum.

before us.
Luke xvii. 1, 2.

that is, one of His disciples. Judge, then, what the sort of punishment is which He so severely threatens. For it is no stranger who is to avenge the offence done to His disciples. Recognise also in Him the Judge, and one too, who expresses Himself on the safety of His followers with the same tenderness as that which the Creator long ago exhibited: “He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of my eye.”4861

4861 Zech. ii. 8.

Such identity of care proceeds from one and the same Being. A trespassing brother He will have rebuked.4862

4862 Luke xvii. 3.

If one failed in this duty of reproof, he in fact sinned, either because out of hatred he wished his brother to continue in sin, or else spared him from mistaken friendship,4863

4863 Ex acceptione personæ. The Greek προσωποληψία, “respect of persons.”

although possessing the injunction in Leviticus: “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; thy neighbor thou shalt seriously rebuke, and on his account shalt not contract sin.”4864

4864 Lev. xix. 17. The last clause in A.V. runs, “And not suffer sin upon him;” but the Sept gives this reading, καὶ οὐ λήψῃ δι᾽ αὐτὸν ἁμαρτίαν; nor need the Hebrew mean other than this. The prenominal particle וייֹע may be well rendered δι᾽ αὐτόι on his account.

Nor is it to be wondered at, if He thus teaches who forbids your refusing to bring back even your brother’s cattle, if you find them astray in the road; much more should you bring back your erring brother to himself. He commands you to forgive your brother, should he trespass against you even “seven times.”4865

4865 Luke xvii. 4.

But that surely, is a small matter; for with the Creator there is a larger grace, when He sets no limits to forgiveness, indefinitely charging you “not to bear any malice against your brother,”4866

4866 Lev. xix. 18.

and to give not merely to him who asks, but even to him who does not ask. For His will is, not that you should forgive4867

4867 Dones.

an offence, but forget it. The law about lepers had a profound meaning as respects4868

4868 Erga: i.q. circa.

the forms of the disease itself, and of the inspection by the high priest.4869

4869 See Lev. xiii. and xiv.

The interpretation of this sense it will be our task to ascertain. Marcion’s labour, however, is to object to us the strictness4870

4870 Morositatem.

of the law, with the view of maintaining that here also Christ is its enemy—forestalling4871

4871 Prævenientem.

its enactments even in His cure of the ten lepers. These He simply commanded to show themselves to the priest; “and as they went, He cleansed them”4872

4872 Luke xvii. 11–19.

—without a touch, and without a word, by His silent power and simple will. Well, but what necessity was there for Christ, who had been once for all announced as the healer of our sicknesses and sins, and had proved Himself such by His acts,4873

4873 Or, perhaps, “had proved the prophecy true by His accomplishment of it.”

to busy Himself with inquiries4874

4874 Retractari.

into the qualities and details of cures; or for the Creator to be summoned to the scrutiny of the law in the person of Christ? If any part of this healing was effected by Him in a way different from the law, He yet Himself did it to perfection; for surely the Lord may by Himself, or by His Son, produce after one manner, and after another manner by His servants the prophets, those proofs of His power and might especially, which (as excelling in glory and strength, because they are His own acts) rightly enough leave in the distance behind them the works which are done by His servants. But enough has been already said on this point in a former passage.4875

4875 See above in chap. ix.

Now, although He said in a preceding chapter,4876

4876 Præfatus est: see Luke iv. 27.

that “there were many lepers in Israel in the days of Eliseus the prophet, and none of them was cleansed saving Naaman the Syrian,” yet of course the mere number proves nothing towards a difference in the gods, as tending to the abasement4877

4877 Destructionem.

of the Creator in curing only one, and the pre-eminence of Him who healed ten. For who can doubt that many might have been cured by Him who cured one more easily than ten by him who had never healed one before? But His main purpose in this declaration was to strike at the unbelief or the pride of Israel, in that (although there were many lepers amongst them, and a prophet was not wanting to them) not one had been moved even by so conspicuous an example to betake himself to God who was working in His prophets. Forasmuch, then, as He was Himself the veritable4878

4878 Authenticus. “He was the true, the original Priest, of whom the priests under the Mosaic law were only copies” (Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian, pp. 293, 294, and note 8).

High Priest of God the Father, He inspected them according to the hidden purport of the law, which signified that Christ was the true distinguisher and extinguisher of the defilements of mankind.  However, what was obviously required by the law He commanded should be done: “Go,” said He, “show yourselves to the priests.”4879

4879 Luke xvii. 14.

Yet why this, if He meant to cleanse them first? Was it as a despiser of the law, in order to prove to them that, having been cured already on the road, the law was now nothing to them, nor even the priests?  Well, the matter must of course pass as it best may,4880

4880 Et utique viderit.

if anybody supposes that Christ had such views as these!4881

4881 Tam opiniosus.

But there are certainly better interpretations to be found of the passage, and more deserving of belief: how that they were cleansed on this account, because4882

4882 Qua: “I should prefer quia” (Oehler).

they were obedient, and went as the law required, when they were commanded to go to the priests; and it is not to be believed that persons who observed the law could have found a cure from a god that was destroying the law. Why, however, did He not give such a command to the leper who first returned?4883

4883 Pristino leproso: but doubtful.

Because Elisha did not in the case of Naaman the Syrian, and yet was not on that account less the Creator’s agent? This is a sufficient answer. But the believer knows that there is a profounder reason. Consider, therefore, the true motives.4884

4884 Causas.

The miracle was performed in the district of Samaria, to which country also belonged one of the lepers.4885

4885 Luke xvii. 17.

Samaria, however, had revolted from Israel, carrying with it the disaffected nine tribes,4886

4886 Schisma illud ex novem tribubus. There is another reading which substitutes the word decem. “It is, however, immaterial; either number will do roundly. If ‘ten’ be the number, it must be understood that the tenth is divided, accurately making nine and a half tribes. If ‘nine’ be read, the same amount is still made up, for Simeon was reckoned with Judah, and half of the tribe of Benjamin remained loyal” (Fr. Junius).

which, having been alienated4887

4887 Avulsas.

by the prophet Ahijah,4888

4888 1 Kings xi. 29–; 39 and xii. 15.

Jeroboam settled in Samaria. Besides, the Samaritans were always pleased with the mountains and the wells of their ancestors. Thus, in the Gospel of John, the woman of Samaria, when conversing with the Lord at the well, says, “No doubt4889

4889 Næ.

Thou art greater,” etc.; and again, “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; but ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”4890

4890 John iv. 12; 20.

Accordingly, He who said, “Woe unto them that trust in the mountain of Samaria,”4891

4891 Amos vi. 1.

vouchsafing now to restore that very region, purposely requests the men “to go and show themselves to the priests,” because these were to be found only there where the temple was; submitting4892

4892 Subiciens: or “subjecting.”

the Samaritan to the Jew, inasmuch as “salvation was of the Jews,”4893

4893 John iv. 22.

whether to the Israelite or the Samaritan.  To the tribe of Judah, indeed, wholly appertained the promised Christ,4894

4894 Tota promissio Christus.

in order that men might know that at Jerusalem were both the priests and the temple; that there also was the womb4895

4895 Matricem.

of religion, and its living fountain, not its mere “well.”4896

4896 Fontem non puteum salutis.

Seeing, therefore, that they recognised4897

4897 Agnovisse.

the truth that at Jerusalem the law was to be fulfilled, He healed them, whose salvation was to come4898

4898 Justificandos.

of faith4899

4899 Luke xvii. 19.

without the ceremony of the law. Whence also, astonished that one only out of the ten was thankful for his release to the divine grace, He does not command him to offer a gift according to the law, because he had already paid his tribute of gratitude when “he glorified God”;4900

4900 Luke xvii. 15.

for thus did the Lord will that the law’s requirement should be interpreted. And yet who was the God to whom the Samaritan gave thanks, because thus far not even had an Israelite heard of another god? Who else but He by whom all had hitherto been healed through Christ? And therefore it was said to him, “Thy faith hath made thee whole,”4901

4901 Luke xvii. 19.

because he had discovered that it was his duty to render the true oblation to Almighty God—even thanksgiving—in His true temple, and before His true High Priest Jesus Christ. But it is impossible either that the Pharisees should seem to have inquired of the Lord about the coming of the kingdom of the rival god, when no other god has ever yet been announced by Christ; or that He should have answered them concerning the kingdom of any other god than Him of whom they were in the habit of asking Him. “The kingdom of God,” He says, “cometh not with observation; neither do they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”4902

4902 Luke xvii. 20, 21.

Now, who will not interpret the words “within you” to mean in your hand, within your power, if you hear, and do the commandment of God? If, however, the kingdom of God lies in His commandment, set before your mind Moses on the other side, according to our antitheses, and you will find the self-same view of the case.4903

4903 Una sententia.

“The commandment is not a lofty one,4904

4904 Excelsum: Sept. ὑπέρογχος.

neither is it far off from thee. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, ‘Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?’ nor is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?’ But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, and in thy hands, to do it.”4905

4905 Deut. xxx. 11–13.

This means, “Neither in this place nor that place is the kingdom of God; for, behold, it is within you.”4906

4906 Luke xvii. 21.

And if the heretics, in their audacity, should contend that the Lord did not give an answer about His own kingdom, but only about the Creator’s kingdom, concerning which they had inquired, then the following words are against them. For He tells them that “the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected,” before His coming,4907

4907 Luke xvii. 25.

at which His kingdom will be really4908

4908 Substantialiter.

revealed. In this statement He shows that it was His own kingdom which His answer to them had contemplated, and which was now awaiting His own sufferings and rejection. But having to be rejected and afterwards to be acknowledged, and taken up4909

4909 Assumi.

and glorified, He borrowed the very word “rejected” from the passage, where, under the figure of a stone, His twofold manifestation was celebrated by David—the first in rejection, the second in honour: “The stone,” says He, “which the builders rejected, is become the head-stone of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing.”4910

4910 Ps. cxviii. 21.

Now it would be idle, if we believed that God had predicted the humiliation, or even the glory, of any Christ at all, that He could have signed His prophecy for any but Him whom He had foretold under the figure of a stone, and a rock, and a mountain.4911

4911 See Isa. viii. 14 and 1 Cor. x. 4.

If, however, He speaks of His own coming, why does He compare it with the days of Noe and of Lot,4912

4912 Luke xvii. 26–30.

which were dark and terrible—a mild and gentle God as He is? Why does He bid us “remember Lot’s wife,”4913

4913 Luke xvii. 32.

who despised the Creator’s command, and was punished for her contempt, if He does not come with judgment to avenge the infraction of His precepts? If He really does punish, like the Creator,4914

4914 Ut ille.

if He is my Judge, He ought not to have adduced examples for the purpose of instructing me from Him whom He yet destroys, that He4915

4915 Ille: emphatic.

might not seem to be my instructor. But if He does not even here speak of His own coming, but of the coming of the Hebrew Christ,4916

4916 That is, the Creator’s Christ from the Marcionite point of view.

let us still wait in expectation that He will vouchsafe to us some prophecy of His own advent; meanwhile we will continue to believe that He is none other than He whom He reminds us of in every passage.
Luke xviii. 1–8.

He show us that it is God the judge whom we must importune with prayer, and not Himself, if He is not Himself the judge. But He added, that “God would avenge His own elect.”4918

4918 Luke xviii. 7, 8.

Since, then, He who judges will also Himself be the avenger, He proved that the Creator is on that account the specially good God,4919

4919 Meliorem Deum.

whom He represented as the avenger of His own elect, who cry day and night to Him. And yet, when He introduces to our view the Creator’s temple, and describes two men worshipping therein with diverse feelings—the Pharisee in pride, the publican in humility—and shows us how they accordingly went down to their homes, one rejected,4920

4920 Reprobatum.

the other justified,4921

4921 Luke xviii. 10–14.

He surely, by thus teaching us the proper discipline of prayer, has determined that that God must be prayed to from whom men were to receive this discipline of prayer—whether condemnatory of pride, or justifying in humility.4922

4922 Sive reprobatricem superbiæ, sive justificatricem humilitatis.

I do not find from Christ any temple, any suppliants, any sentence (of approval or condemnation) belonging to any other god than the Creator. Him does He enjoin us to worship in humility, as the lifter-up of the humble, not in pride, because He brings down4923

4923 Destructorem.

the proud. What other god has He manifested to me to receive my supplications?  With what formula of worship, with what hope (shall I approach him?) I trow, none.  For the prayer which He has taught us suits, as we have proved,4924

4924 See above, chap. xxvi. p. 392.

none but the Creator. It is, of course, another matter if He does not wish to be prayed to, because He is the supremely and spontaneously good God! But who is this good God? There is, He says, “none but one.”4925

4925 Luke xviii. 19.

It is not as if He had shown us that one of two gods was the supremely good; but He expressly asserts that there is one only good God, who is the only good, because He is the only God. Now, undoubtedly,4926

4926 Utique.

He is the good God who “sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust, and maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good;”4927

4927 Matt. v. 45.

sustaining and nourishing and assisting even Marcionites themselves! When afterwards “a certain man asked him, ‘Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’” (Jesus) inquired whether he knew (that is, in other words, whether he kept) the commandments of the Creator, in order to testify4928

4928 Ad contestandum.

that it was by the Creator’s precepts that eternal life is acquired.4929

4929 Luke xviii. 18–20.

Then, when he affirmed that from his youth up he had kept all the principal commandments, (Jesus) said to him: “One thing thou yet lackest: sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”4930

4930 Luke xviii. 21, 22.

Well now, Marcion, and all ye who are companions in misery, and associates in hatred4931

4931 See above, chap. ix., near the beginning.

with that heretic, what will you dare say to this? Did Christ rescind the forementioned commandments: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother?” Or did He both keep them, and then add4932

4932 Adjecit quod deerat.

what was wanting to them? This very precept, however, about giving to the poor, was very largely4933

4933 Ubique.

diffused through the pages of the law and the prophets. This vainglorious observer of the commandments was therefore convicted4934

4934 Traduceretur.

of holding money in much higher estimation (than charity). This verity of the gospel then stands unimpaired: “I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them.”4935

4935 Matt. v. 17.

He also dissipated other doubts, when He declared that the name of God and of the Good belonged to one and the same being, at whose disposal were also the everlasting life and the treasure in heaven and Himself too—whose commandments He both maintained and augmented with His own supplementary precepts. He may likewise be discovered in the following passage of Micah, saying: “He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to be ready to follow the Lord thy God?”4936

4936 Mic. vi. 8. The last clause agrees with the Septuagint: καὶ ἕτοιμον εἶναι τοῦ πορεύεσθαι μετὰ Κυρίου Θεοῦ σου.

Now Christ is the man who tells us what is good, even the knowledge of the law. “Thou knowest,” says He, “the commandments.” “To do justly”—“Sell all that thou hast;” “to love mercy”—“Give to the poor:” “and to be ready to walk with God”—“And come,” says He, “follow me.”4937

4937 The clauses of Christ’s words, which are here adapted to Micah’s, are in every case broken with an inquit.

The Jewish nation was from its beginning so carefully divided into tribes and clans, and families and houses, that no man could very well have been ignorant of his descent—even from the recent assessments of Augustus, which were still probably extant at this time.4938

4938 Tunc pendentibus: i.e., at the time mentioned in the story of the blind man.

But the Jesus of Marcion (although there could be no doubt of a person’s having been born, who was seen to be a man), as being unborn, could not, of course, have possessed any public testimonial4939

4939 Notitiam.

of his descent, but was to be regarded as one of that obscure class of whom nothing was in any way known.  Why then did the blind man, on hearing that He was passing by, exclaim, “Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me?”4940

4940 Luke xviii. 38.

unless he was considered, in no uncertain manner,4941

4941 Non temere.

to be the Son of David (in other words, to belong to David’s family) through his mother and his brethren, who at some time or other had been made known to him by public notoriety? “Those, however, who went before rebuked the blind man, that he should hold his peace.”4942

4942 Luke xviii. 39.

And properly enough; because he was very noisy, not because he was wrong about the son of David. Else you must show me, that those who rebuked him were aware that Jesus was not the Son of David, in order that they may be supposed to have had this reason for imposing silence on the blind man. But even if you could show me this, still (the blind man) would more readily have presumed that they were ignorant, than that the Lord could possibly have permitted an untrue exclamation about Himself. But the Lord “stood patient.”4943

4943 Luke xviii. 40.

Yes; but not as confirming the error, for, on the contrary, He rather displayed the Creator.  Surely He could not have first removed this man’s blindness, in order that he might afterwards cease to regard Him as the Son of David! However,4944

4944 Atquin.

that you may not slander4945

4945 Infameretis.

His patience, nor fasten on Him any charge of dissimulation, nor deny Him to be the Son of David, He very pointedly confirmed the exclamation of the blind man—both by the actual gift of healing, and by bearing testimony to his faith: “Thy faith,” say Christ, “hath made thee whole.”4946

4946 Luke xviii. 42.

What would you have the blind man’s faith to have been? That Jesus was descended from that (alien) god (of Marcion), to subvert the Creator and overthrow the law and the prophets? That He was not the destined offshoot from the root of Jesse, and the fruit of David’s loins, the restorer4947

4947 Remunerator.

also of the blind? But I apprehend there were at that time no such stone-blind persons as Marcion, that an opinion like this could have constituted the faith of the blind man, and have induced him to confide in the mere name,4948

4948 That is, in the sound only, and phantom of the word; an allusion to the Docetic absurdity of Marcion.

of Jesus, the Son of David. He, who knew all this of Himself,4949

4949 That is, that He was “Son of David,” etc.

and wished others to know it also, endowed the faith of this man—although it was already gifted with a better sight, and although it was in possession of the true light—with the external vision likewise, in order that we too might learn the rule of faith, and at the same time find its recompense. Whosoever wishes to see Jesus the Son of David must believe in Him; through the Virgin’s birth.4950

4950 Censum: that is, must believe Him born of her.

He who will not believe this will not hear from Him the salutation, “Thy faith hath saved thee.” And so he will remain blind, falling into Antithesis after Antithesis, which mutually destroy each other,4951

4951 This, perhaps, is the meaning in a clause which is itself more antithetical than clear: “Ruens in antithesim, ruentem et ipsam antithesim.”

just as “the blind man leads the blind down into the ditch.”4952

4952 In book iii. chap. vii. (at the beginning), occurs the same proverb of Marcion and the Jews. See p. 327.

For (here is one of Marcion’s Antitheses): whereas David in old time, in the capture of Sion, was offended by the blind who opposed his admission (into the stronghold)4953

4953 See 2 Sam. v. 6–8.

—in which respect (I should rather say) that they were a type of people equally blind,4954

4954 The Marcionites.

who in after-times would not admit Christ to be the son of David—so, on the contrary, Christ succoured the blind man, to show by this act that He was not David’s son, and how different in disposition He was, kind to the blind, while David ordered them to be slain.4955

4955 See 2 Sam. v. 8.

If all this were so, why did Marcion allege that the blind man’s faith was of so worthless4956

4956 Fidei equidem pravæ: see preceding page, note 3.

a stamp? The fact is,4957

4957 Atquin.

the Son of David so acted,4958

4958 Et hoc filius David: i.e., præstitit, “showed Himself good,” perhaps.

that the Antithesis must lose its point by its own absurdity.4959

4959 De suo retundendam. Instead of contrast, he shows the similarity of the cases.

Those persons who offended David were blind, and the man who now presents himself as a suppliant to David’s son is afflicted with the same infirmity.4960

4960 Ejusdem carnis: i.e., infirmæ (Oehler).

Therefore the Son of David was appeased with some sort of satisfaction by the blind man when He restored him to sight, and added His approval of the faith which had led him to believe the very truth, that he must win to his help4961

4961 Exorandum sibi.

the Son of David by earnest entreaty.  But, after all, I suspect that it was the audacity (of the old Jebusites) which offended David, and not their malady.
Luke xix. 9.

For what reason? Was it because he also believed that Christ came by Marcion? But the blind man’s cry was still sounding in the ears of all:  “Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.” And “all the people gave praise unto God”—not Marcion’s, but David’s. Now, although Zacchæus was probably a Gentile,4963

4963 The older reading, which we here follow, is: “Enimvero Zacchæus etsi allophylus fortasse,” etc.  Oehler, however, points the passage thus: “Enimvero Zacchæus etsi allophylus, fortasse,” etc., removing the doubt, and making Zacchæus “of another race” than the Jewish, for certain. This is probably more than Tertullian meant to say.

he yet from his intercourse with Jews had obtained a smattering4964

4964 Aliqua notitia afflatus.

of their Scriptures, and, more than this, had, without knowing it, fulfilled the precepts of Isaiah: “Deal thy bread,” said the prophet, “to the hungry, and bring the poor that are cast out into thine house.”4965

4965 Isa. lviii. 7.

This he did in the best possible way, by receiving the Lord, and entertaining Him in his house. “When thou seest the naked cover him.”4966

4966 In the same passage.

This he promised to do, in an equally satisfactory way, when he offered the half of his goods for all works of mercy.4967

4967 For the history of Zacchæus, see Luke xix. 1–10.

So also “he loosened the bands of wickedness, undid the heavy burdens, let the oppressed go free, and broke every yoke,”4968

4968 Isa. lviii. 6.

when he said, “If I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.”4969

4969 Luke xix. 8.

Therefore the Lord said, “This day is salvation come to this house.”4970

4970 Luke xix. 9.

Thus did He give His testimony, that the precepts of the Creator spoken by the prophet tended to salvation.4971

4971 Salutaria esse.

But when He adds, “For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost,”4972

4972 Luke xix. 10.

my present contention is not whether He was come to save what was lost, to whom it had once belonged, and from whom what He came to save had fallen away; but I approach a different question. Man, there can be no doubt of it, is here the subject of consideration. Now, since he consists of two parts,4973

4973 Substantiis.

body and soul, the point to be inquired into is, in which of these two man would seem to have been lost? If in his body, then it is his body, not his soul, which is lost. What, however, is lost, the Son of man saves. The body,4974

4974 Caro: “the flesh,” here a synonym with the corpus of the previous clauses.

therefore, has the salvation. If, (on the other hand,) it is in his soul that man is lost, salvation is designed for the lost soul; and the body which is not lost is safe. If, (to take the only other supposition,) man is wholly lost, in both his natures, then it necessarily follows that salvation is appointed for the entire man; and then the opinion of the heretics is shivered to pieces,4975

4975 Elisa est.

who say that there is no salvation of the flesh. And this affords a confirmation that Christ belongs to the Creator, who followed the Creator in promising the salvation of the whole man. The parable also of the (ten) servants, who received their several recompenses according to the manner in which they had increased their lord’s money by trading4976

4976 Secundum rationem feneratæ.

proves Him to be a God of judgment—even a God who, in strict account,4977

4977 Ex parte severitatis.

not only bestows honour, but also takes away what a man seems to have.4978

4978 This phrase comes not from the present passage, but from Luke viii. 18, where the words are ὅ δοκεῖ ἔχειν; here the expression is ὅ ἔχει only.

Else, if it is the Creator whom He has here delineated as the “austere man,” who “takes up what he laid not down, and reaps what he did not sow,”4979

4979 Luke xix. 22.

my instructor even here is He, (whoever He may be,) to whom belongs the money He teaches me fruitfully to expend.4980

4980 The original of this obscure sentence is as follows: “Aut si et hic Creatorem finxerit austerum…..hic quoque me ille instruit eujus pecuniam ut fenerem edocet.


Luke xx. 4.

Then why did He ask them, as if He knew not? He knew that the Pharisees would not give Him an answer; then why did He ask in vain? Was it that He might judge them out of their own mouth, or their own heart? Suppose you refer these points to an excuse of the Creator, or to His comparison with Christ; then consider what would have happened if the Pharisees had replied to His question.  Suppose their answer to have been, that John’s baptism was “of men,” they would have been immediately stoned to death.4982

4982 Luke xx. 6.

Some Marcion, in rivalry to Marcion, would have stood up4983

4983 Existeret.

and said: O most excellent God; how different are his ways from the Creator’s!  Knowing that men would rush down headlong over it, He placed them actually4984

4984 Ipse.

on the very precipice. For thus do men treat of the Creator respecting His law of the tree.4985

4985 “Of knowledge of good and evil.” The “law” thereof occurs in Gen. iii. 3.

But John’s baptism was “from heaven.” “Why, therefore,” asks Christ, “did ye not believe him?”4986

4986 Luke xx. 5.

He therefore who had wished men to believe John, purposing to censure4987

4987 Increpaturus.

them because they had not believed him, belonged to Him whose sacrament John was administering. But, at any rate,4988

4988 Certe. [The word sacrament not technical here.]

when He actually met their refusal to say what they thought, with such reprisals as, “Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things,”4989

4989 Luke xx. 8.

He returned evil for evil! “Render unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.”4990

4990 Luke xx. 25.

What will be “the things which are God’s?” Such things as are like Cæsar’s denarius—that is to say, His image and similitude. That, therefore, which he commands to be “rendered unto God,” the Creator, is man, who has been stamped with His image, likeness, name, and substance.4991

4991 Materia.

Let Marcion’s god look after his own mint.4992

4992 Monetam.

Christ bids the denarius of man’s imprint to be rendered to His Cæsar, (His Cæsar I say,) not the Cæsar of a strange god.4993

4993 Non alieno.

The truth, however, must be confessed, this god has not a denarius to call his own! In every question the just and proper rule is, that the meaning of the answer ought to be adapted to the proposed inquiry. But it is nothing short of madness to return an answer altogether different from the question submitted to you. God forbid, then, that we should expect from Christ4994

4994 Quo magis absit a Christo.

conduct which would be unfit even to an ordinary man! The Sadducees, who said there was no resurrection, in a discussion on that subject, had proposed to the Lord a case of law touching a certain woman, who, in accordance with the legal prescription, had been married to seven brothers who had died one after the other. The question therefore was, to which husband must she be reckoned to belong in the resurrection?4995

4995 Luke xx. 27–33.

This, (observe,) was the gist of the inquiry, this was the sum and substance of the dispute.  And to it Christ was obliged to return a direct answer. He had nobody to fear; that it should seem advisable4996

4996 Ut videatur.

for Him either to evade their questions, or to make them the occasion of indirectly mooting4997

4997 Subostendisse.

a subject which He was not in the habit of teaching publicly at any other time. He therefore gave His answer, that “the children of this world marry.”4998

4998 Luke xx. 34.

You see how pertinent it was to the case in point. Because the question concerned the next world, and He was going to declare that no one marries there, He opens the way by laying down the principles that here, where there is death, there is also marriage. “But they whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; forasmuch as they cannot die any more, since they become equal to the angels, being made the children of God and of the resurrection.”4999

4999 Luke xx. 35, 36.

If, then, the meaning of the answer must not turn on any other point than on the proposed question, and since the question proposed is fully understood from this sense of the answer,5000

5000 Surely Oehler’s responsio ought to be responsionis, as the older books have it.

then the Lord’s reply admits of no other interpretation than that by which the question is clearly understood.5001

5001 Absolvitur.

You have both the time in which marriage is permitted, and the time in which it is said to be unsuitable, laid before you, not on their own account, but in consequence of an inquiry about the resurrection. You have likewise a confirmation of the resurrection itself, and the whole question which the Sadducees mooted, who asked no question about another god, nor inquired about the proper law of marriage. Now, if you make Christ answer questions which were not submitted to Him, you, in fact, represent Him as having been unable to solve the points on which He was really consulted, and entrapped of course by the cunning of the Sadducees. I shall now proceed, by way of supererogation,5002

5002 Ex abundanti.

and after the rule (I have laid down about questions and answers),5003

5003 We have translated here, post præscriptionem, according to the more frequent sense of the word, præscriptio. But there is another meaning of the word, which is not unknown to our author, equivalent to our objection or demurrer, or (to quote Oehler’s definition) “clausula qua reus adversarii intentionem oppugnat—the form by which the defendant rebuts the plaintiff’s charge.” According to this sense, we read: “I shall now proceed…and after putting in a demurrer (or taking exception) against the tactics of my opponent.”

to deal with the arguments which have any consistency in them.5004

5004 Cohærentes.

They procured then a copy of the Scripture, and made short work with its text, by reading it thus:5005

5005 Decucurrerunt in legendo: or, “they ran through it, by thus reading.”

“Those whom the god of that world shall account worthy.” They add the phrase “of that world” to the word “god,” whereby they make another god “the god of that world;” whereas the passage ought to be read thus: “Those whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world” (removing the distinguishing phrase “of this world” to the end of the clause,5006

5006 We have adapted, rather than translated, Tertullian’s words in this parenthesis.  His words of course suit the order of the Latin, which differs from the English. The sentence in Latin is, “Quos autem dignatus est Deus illius ævi possessione et resurrectione a mortuis.” The phrase in question is illius ævi.  Where shall it stand? The Marcionites placed it after “Deus” in government, but Tertullian (following the undoubted meaning of the sentence) says it depends on “possessione et resurrectione,” i.e., “worthy of the possession, etc., of that world.” To effect this construction, he says, “Ut facta hic distinctione post deum ad sequentia pertineat illius ævi;” i.e., he requests that a stop be placed after the word “deus,” whereby the phrase “illius ævi” will belong to the words which follow—“possessione et resurrectione a mortuis.”

in other words, “Those whom God shall account worthy of obtaining and rising to that world.” For the question submitted to Christ had nothing to do with the god, but only with the state, of that world. It was: “Whose wife should this woman be in that world after the resurrection?”5007

5007 Luke xx. 33.

They thus subvert His answer respecting the essential question of marriage, and apply His words, “The children of this world marry and are given in marriage,” as if they referred to the Creator’s men, and His permission to them to marry; whilst they themselves whom the god of that world—that is, the rival god—accounted worthy of the resurrection, do not marry even here, because they are not children of this world. But the fact is, that, having been consulted about marriage in that world, not in this present one, He had simply declared the non-existence of that to which the question related. They, indeed, who had caught the very force of His voice, and pronunciation, and expression, discovered no other sense than what had reference to the matter of the question. Accordingly, the Scribes exclaimed, “Master, Thou hast well said.”5008

5008 Luke xx. 39.

For He had affirmed the resurrection, by describing the form5009

5009 Formam: “its conditions” or “process.”

thereof in opposition to the opinion of the Sadducees. Now, He did not reject the attestation of those who had assumed His answer to bear this meaning. If, however, the Scribes thought Christ was David’s Son, whereas (David) himself calls Him Lord,5010

5010 Luke xx. 41–44.

what relation has this to Christ? David did not literally confute5011

5011 Non obtundebat.

an error of the Scribes, yet David asserted the honour of Christ, when he more prominently affirmed that He was his Lord than his Son,—an attribute which was hardly suitable to the destroyer of the Creator. But how consistent is the interpretation on our side of the question! For He, who had been a little while ago invoked by the blind man as “the Son of David,”5012

5012 Luke xviii. 38.

then made no remark on the subject, not having the Scribes in His presence; whereas He now purposely moots the point before them, and that of His own accord,5013

5013 Luke xx. 41.

in order that He might show Himself whom the blind man, following the doctrine of the Scribes, had simply declared to be the Son of David, to be also his Lord. He thus honoured the blind man’s faith which had acknowledged His Sonship to David; but at the same time He struck a blow at the tradition of the Scribes, which prevented them from knowing that He was also (David’s) Lord.  Whatever had relation to the glory of the Creator’s Christ, no other would thus guard and maintain5014

5014 Tueretur.

but Himself the Creator’s Christ.
Luke xxi. 8.

they will be received by you, who have already received one altogether like them.5020

5020 Consimilem: of course Marcion’s Christ; the Marcionite being challenged in the “you.”

Christ, however, comes in His own name. What will you do, then, when He Himself comes who is the very Proprietor of these names, the Creator’s Christ and Jesus? Will you reject Him? But how iniquitous, how unjust and disrespectful to the good God, that you should not receive Him who comes in His own name, when you have received another in His name! Now, let us see what are the signs which He ascribes to the times. “Wars,” I observe, “and kingdom against kingdom, and nation against nation, and pestilence, and famines, and earthquakes, and fearful sights, and great signs from heaven”5021

5021 Luke xxi. 9–11.

—all which things are suitable for a severe and terrible God. Now, when He goes on to say that “all these things must needs come to pass,”5022

5022 Compare, in Bible:Luke.21.35-Luke.21.36">Luke xxi., verses 9, 22, 28, 31–33, 35, and 36.

what does He represent Himself to be?  The Destroyer, or the Defender of the Creator? For He affirms that these appointments of His must fully come to pass; but surely as the good God, He would have frustrated rather than advanced events so sad and terrible, if they had not been His own (decrees). “But before all these,” He foretells that persecutions and sufferings were to come upon them, which indeed were “to turn for a testimony to them,” and for their salvation.5023

5023 Verses 12, 13.

Hear what is predicted in Zechariah: “The Lord of hosts5024

5024 Omnipotens: παντοκράτωρ (Sept.); of hosts—A.V.

shall protect them; and they shall devour them, and subdue them with sling-stones; and they shall drink their blood like wine, and they shall fill the bowls as it were of the altar. And the Lord shall save them in that day, even His people, like sheep; because as sacred stones they roll,”5025

5025 Zech. ix. 15, 16 (Septuagint).

etc. And that you may not suppose that these predictions refer to such sufferings as await them from so many wars with strangers,5026

5026 Allophylis.

consider the nature (of the sufferings).  In a prophecy of wars which were to be waged with legitimate arms, no one would think of enumerating stones as weapons, which are better known in popular crowds and unarmed tumults.  Nobody measures the copious streams of blood which flow in war by bowlfuls, nor limits it to what is shed upon a single altar. No one gives the name of sheep to those who fall in battle with arms in hand, and while repelling force with force, but only to those who are slain, yielding themselves up in their own place of duty and with patience, rather than fighting in self-defence. In short, as he says, “they roll as sacred stones,” and not like soldiers fight.  Stones are they, even foundation stones, upon which we are ourselves edified—“built,” as St. Paul says, “upon the foundation of the apostles,”5027

5027 Eph. ii. 20.

who, like “consecrated stones,” were rolled up and down exposed to the attack of all men. And therefore in this passage He forbids men “to meditate before what they answer” when brought before tribunals,5028

5028 Luke xxi. 12–14.

even as once He suggested to Balaam the message which he had not thought of,5029

5029 Num. xxii.–xxiv.

nay, contrary to what he had thought; and promised “a mouth” to Moses, when he pleaded in excuse the slowness of his speech,5030

5030 Ex. iv. 10–12.

and that wisdom which, by Isaiah, He showed to be irresistible: “One shall say, I am the Lord’s, and shall call himself by the name of Jacob, and another shall subscribe himself by the name of Israel.”5031

5031 Isa. xliv. 5.

Now, what plea is wiser and more irresistible than the simple and open5032

5032 Exserta.

confession made in a martyr’s cause, who “prevails with God”—which is what “Israel” means?5033

5033 See Gen. xxxii. 28.

Now, one cannot wonder that He forbade “premeditation,” who actually Himself received from the Father the ability of uttering words in season: “The Lord hath given to me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season (to him that is weary);”5034

5034 Isa. l. 4.

except that Marcion introduces to us a Christ who is not subject to the Father. That persecutions from one’s nearest friends are predicted, and calumny out of hatred to His name,5035

5035 Luke xxi. 16, 17.

I need not again refer to. But “by patience,”5036

5036 Per tolerantiam: “endurance.”

says He, “ye shall yourselves be saved.”5037

5037 Comp. Luke xxi. 19 with Matt. xxiv. 13.

Of this very patience the Psalm says, “The patient endurance of the just shall not perish for ever;”5038

5038 Ps. ix. 18.

because it is said in another Psalm, “Precious (in the sight of the Lord) is the death of the just”—arising, no doubt, out of their patient endurance, so that Zechariah declares: “A crown shall be to them that endure.”5039

5039 After the Septuagint he makes a plural appellative (“eis qui toleraverint,” LXX. τοῖς ὑπομένονσι) of the Hebrew םלֶח”לְ, which in A.V. and the Vulgate (and also Gesenius and Fuerst) is the dative of a proper name.

But that you may not boldly contend that it was as announcers of another god that the apostles were persecuted by the Jews, remember that even the prophets suffered the same treatment of the Jews, and that they were not the heralds of any other god than the Creator. Then, having shown what was to be the period of the destruction, even “when Jerusalem should begin to be compassed with armies,”5040

5040 Luke xxi. 20.

He described the signs of the end of all things: “portents in the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity—like the sea roaring—by reason of their expectation of the evils which are coming on the earth.”5041

5041 Luke xxi. 25, 26.

Luke xxi. 26.

you may find in Joel: “And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth—blood and fire, and pillars of smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.”5043

5043 Joel iii. 30, 31.

In Habakkuk also you have this statement: “With rivers shall the earth be cleaved; the nations shall see thee, and be in pangs. Thou shalt disperse the waters with thy step; the deep uttered its voice; the height of its fear was raised;5044

5044 Elata: “fear was raised to its very highest.”

the sun and the moon stood still in their course; into light shall thy coruscations go; and thy shield shall be (like) the glittering of the lightning’s flash; in thine anger thou shalt grind the earth, and shalt thresh the nations in thy wrath.”5045

5045 Hab. iii. 9–12 (Septuagint).

There is thus an agreement, I apprehend, between the sayings of the Lord and of the prophets touching the shaking of the earth, and the elements, and the nations thereof. But what does the Lord say afterwards? “And then shall they see the Son of man coming from the heavens with very great power.  And when these things shall come to pass, ye shall look up, and raise your heads; for your redemption hath come near,” that is, at the time of the kingdom, of which the parable itself treats.5046

5046 Luke xxi. 27, 28.

“So likewise ye, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.”5047

5047 Luke xxi. 31.

This will be the great day of the Lord, and of the glorious coming of the Son of man from heaven, of which Daniel wrote: “Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven,”5048

5048 Dan. vii. 13.

etc. “And there was given unto Him the kingly power,”5049

5049 Dan. vii. 14.

which (in the parable) “He went away into a far country to receive for Himself,” leaving money to His servants wherewithal to trade and get increase5050

5050 Luke xix. 12, 13, etc.

—even (that universal kingdom of) all nations, which in the Psalm the Father had promised to give to Him: Ask of me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance.”5051

5051 Ps. ii. 8.

“And all that glory shall serve Him; His dominion shall be an everlasting one, which shall not be taken from Him, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed,”5052

5052 Dan. vii. 14.

because in it “men shall not die, neither shall they marry, but be like the angels.”5053

5053 Luke xx. 35, 36.

It is about the same advent of the Son of man and the benefits thereof that we read in Habakkuk: “Thou wentest forth for the salvation of Thy people, even to save Thine anointed ones,”5054

5054 Hab. iii. 13.

—in other words, those who shall look up and lift their heads, being redeemed in the time of His kingdom. Since, therefore, these descriptions of the promises, on the one hand, agree together, as do also those of the great catastrophes, on the other—both in the predictions of the prophets and the declarations of the Lord, it will be impossible for you to interpose any distinction between them, as if the catastrophes could be referred to the Creator, as the terrible God, being such as the good god (of Marcion) ought not to permit, much less expect—whilst the promises should be ascribed to the good god, being such as the Creator, in His ignorance of the said god, could not have predicted. If, however, He did predict these promises as His own, since they differ in no respect from the promises of Christ, He will be a match in the freeness of His gifts with the good god himself; and evidently no more will have been promised by your Christ than by my Son of man. (If you examine) the whole passage of this Gospel Scripture, from the inquiry of the disciples5055

5055 In Luke xxi. 7.

down to the parable of the fig-tree5056

5056 Luke xxi. 33.

you will find the sense in its connection suit in every point the Son of man, so that it consistently ascribes to Him both the sorrows and the joys, and the catastrophes and the promises; nor can you separate them from Him in either respect. For as much, then, as there is but one Son of man whose advent is placed between the two issues of catastrophe and promise, it must needs follow that to that one Son of man belong both the judgments upon the nations, and the prayers of the saints. He who thus comes in midway so as to be common to both issues, will terminate one of them by inflicting judgment on the nations at His coming; and will at the same time commence the other by fulfilling the prayers of His saints: so that if (on the one hand) you grant that the coming of the Son of man is (the advent) of my Christ, then, when you ascribe to Him the infliction of the judgments which precede His appearance, you are compelled also to assign to Him the blessings which issue from the same. If (on the other hand) you will have it that it is the coming of your Christ, then, when you ascribe to him the blessings which are to be the result of his advent, you are obliged to impute to him likewise the infliction of the evils which precede his appearance.  For the evils which precede, and the blessings which immediately follow, the coming of the Son of man, are both alike indissolubly connected with that event. Consider, therefore, which of the two Christs you choose to place in the person of the Son of man, to whom you may refer the execution of the two dispensations. You make either the Creator a most beneficent God, or else your own god terrible in his nature! Reflect, in short, on the picture presented in the parable: “Behold the fig-tree, and all the trees; when they produce their fruit, men know that summer is at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is very near.”5057

5057 Luke xxi. 29–31.

Now, if the fructification of the common trees5058

5058 Arbuscularum.

be an antecedent sign of the approach of summer, so in like manner do the great conflicts of the world indicate the arrival of that kingdom which they precede. But every sign is His, to whom belong the thing of which it is the sign; and to everything is appointed its sign by Him to whom the thing belongs.  If, therefore, these tribulations are the signs of the kingdom, just as the maturity of the trees is of the summer, it follows that the kingdom is the Creator’s to whom are ascribed the tribulations which are the signs of the kingdom. Since the beneficent Deity had premised that these things must needs come to pass, although so terrible and dreadful, as they had been predicted by the law and the prophets, therefore He did not destroy the law and the prophets, when He affirmed that what had been foretold therein must be certainly fulfilled.  He further declares, “that heaven and earth shall not pass away till all things be fulfilled.”5059

5059 Luke xxi. 33.

What things, pray, are these? Are they the things which the Creator made? Then the elements will tractably endure the accomplishment of their Maker’s dispensation.  If, however, they emanate from your excellent god, I much doubt whether5060

5060 Nescio an.

the heaven and earth will peaceably allow the completion of things which their Creator’s enemy has determined! If the Creator quietly submits to this, then He is no “jealous God.” But let heaven and earth pass away, since their Lord has so determined; only let His word remain for evermore! And so Isaiah predicted that it should.5061

5061 Isa. xl. 8.

Let the disciples also be warned, “lest their hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and cares of this world; and so that day come upon them unawares, like a snare”5062

5062 Luke xxi. 34, 35. [Here follows a rich selection of parallels to Luke xxi. 34–38.]

—if indeed they should forget God amidst the abundance and occupation of the world. Like this will be found the admonition of Moses,—so that He who delivers from “the snare” of that day is none other than He who so long before addressed to men the same admonition.5063

5063 Comp. Deut. viii. 12–14.

Some places there were in Jerusalem where to teach; other places outside Jerusalem whither to retire5064

5064 Luke xxi. 37.

—“in the day-time He was teaching in the temple;” just as He had foretold by Hosea: “In my house did they find me, and there did I speak with them.”5065

5065 Hosea xii. 4. One reading of the LXX. is, ἐν τῳ οἴκῳ μου εὕρεσάν με.

“But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives.” For thus had Zechariah pointed out: “And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives.”5066

5066 Zech. xiv. 4.

Fit hours for an audience there also were. “Early in the morning”5067

5067 Luke xxi. 38.

must they resort to Him, who (having said by Isaiah, “The Lord giveth me the tongue of the learned”) added, “He hath appointed me the morning, and hath also given me an ear to hear.”5068

5068 Isa. l. 4.

Now if this is to destroy the prophets,5069

5069 Literally, “the prophecies.”

what will it be to fulfil them?
Luke xxii. i.

In this Moses had declared that there was a sacred mystery:5071

5071 Sacramentum.

“It is the Lord’s passover.”5072

5072 Lev. xxiii. 5.

How earnestly, therefore, does He manifest the bent of His soul: “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.”5073

5073 Luke xxii. 15.

What a destroyer of the law was this, who actually longed to keep its passover!  Could it be that He was so fond of Jewish lamb?5074

5074 Vervecina Judaica. In this rough sarcasm we have of course our author’s contempt of Marcionism.

But was it not because He had to be “led like a lamb to the slaughter; and because, as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so was He not to open His mouth,”5075

5075 Isa. liii. 7.

that He so profoundly wished to accomplish the symbol of His own redeeming blood? He might also have been betrayed by any stranger, did I not find that even here too He fulfilled a Psalm: “He who did eat bread with me hath lifted up5076

5076 Levabit: literally, “shall lift up,” etc.

his heel against me.”5077

5077 Ps. xli. 9.

And without a price might He have been betrayed. For what need of a traitor was there in the case of one who offered Himself to the people openly, and might quite as easily have been captured by force as taken by treachery? This might no doubt have been well enough for another Christ, but would not have been suitable in One who was accomplishing prophecies. For it was written, “The righteous one did they sell for silver.”5078

5078 Amos ii. 6.

The very amount and the destination5079

5079 Exitum.

of the money, which on Judas’ remorse was recalled from its first purpose of a fee,5080

5080 Revocati.

and appropriated to the purchase of a potter’s field, as narrated in the Gospel of Matthew, were clearly foretold by Jeremiah:5081

5081 This passage more nearly resembles Zech. xi. 12 and 13 than anything in Jeremiah, although the transaction in Jer. xxxii. 7–15 is noted by the commentators, as referred to. Tertullian had good reason for mentioning Jeremiah and not Zechariah, because the apostle whom he refers to (Matt. xxvii. 3–10) had distinctly attributed the prophecy to Jeremiah (“Jeremy the prophet,” ver. 9). This is not the place to do more than merely refer to the voluminous controversy which has arisen from the apostle’s mention of Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. It is enough to remark that Tertullian’s argument is unaffected by the discrepancy in the name of the particular prophet. On all hands the prophecy is admitted, and this at once satisfies our author’s argument.  For the ms. evidence in favour of the unquestionably correct reading, τότε ἐπληρώθη τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ ῾Ιερεμίου τοῦ προφήτου, κ.τ.λ., the reader is referred to Dr. Tregelles’ Critical Greek Testament, in loc.; only to the convincing amount of evidence collected by the very learned editor must now be added the subsequently obtained authority of Tischendorf’s Codex Sinaiticus.

“And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued5082

5082 Appretiati vel honorati. There is nothing in the original or the Septuagint to meet the second word honorati, which may refer to the “honorarium,” or “fee paid on admission to a post of honour,”—a term of Roman law, and referred to by Tertullian himself.

and gave them for the potter’s field.”  When He so earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,”5083

5083 Luke xxii. 19. [See Jewell’s Challenge, p. 266, supra.]

that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body.5084

5084 Corpus veritatis: meant as a thrust against Marcion’s Docetism.

An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body,5085

5085 Ad vanitatem Marcionis. [Note 9, p. 289.]

that bread should have been crucified!  But why call His body bread, and not rather (some other edible thing, say) a melon,5086

5086 Peponem. In his De Anima, c. xxxii., he uses this word in strong irony: “Cur non magis et pepo, tam insulsus.”

which Marcion must have had in lieu of a heart!  He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: “I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that5087

5087 [This text, imperfectly quoted in the original, is filled out by Dr. Holmes.]

they devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His bread,”5088

5088 So the Septuagint in Jer. xi. 19, Ξύλον εἰς τὸν ἄρτον αὐτοῦ (A.V. “Let us destroy the tree with the fruit”). See above, book iii. chap. xix. p. 337.

which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies,5089

5089 Illuminator antiquitatum. This general phrase includes typical ordinances under the law, as well as the sayings of the prophets.

He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new testament to be sealed “in His blood,”5090

5090 Luke xxii. 20.

affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, “Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?”5091

5091 Isa. lxiii. 1 (Sept. slightly altered).

The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood.  Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch,5092

5092 In Juda.

saying, “He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes”5093

5093 Gen. xlix. 11.

—in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.
Luke xxii. 22.

Now it is certain that in this woe must be understood the imprecation and threat of an angry and incensed Master, unless Judas was to escape with impunity after so vast a sin. If he were meant to escape with impunity, the “woe” was an idle word; if not, he was of course to be punished by Him against whom he had committed the sin of treachery.  Now, if He knowingly permitted the man, whom He5095

5095 Ipse.

deliberately elected to be one of His companions, to plunge into so great a crime, you must no longer use an argument against the Creator in Adam’s case, which may now recoil on your own God:5096

5096 This is an argumentum ad hominem against Marcion for his cavil, which was considered above in book ii. chap. v.–viii. p. 300.

either that he was ignorant, and had no foresight to hinder the future sinner;5097

5097 Obstitit peccaturo.

or that he was unable to hinder him, even if he was ignorant;5098

5098 Si ignorabat. One would have expected “si non ignorabat,” like the “si sciebat” of the next step in the argument.

or else that he was unwilling, even if he had the foreknowledge and the ability; and so deserved the stigma of maliciousness, in having permitted the man of his own choice to perish in his sin. I advise you therefore (willingly) to acknowledge the Creator in that god of yours, rather than against your will to be assimilating your excellent god to Him.  For in the case of Peter,5099

5099 The original of this not very clear sentence is: “Nam et Petrum præsumptorie aliquid elocutum negationi potius destinando zeloten deum tibi ostendit.”

too, he gives you proof that he is a jealous God, when he destined the apostle, after his presumptuous protestations of zeal, to a flat denial of him, rather than prevent his fall.5100

5100 Luke xxii. 34 and 54–; 62.

The Christ of the prophets was destined, moreover, to be betrayed with a kiss,5101

5101 Luke xxii. 47–49.

for He was the Son indeed of Him who was “honoured with the lips” by the people.5102

5102 Isa. xxix. 13.

When led before the council, He is asked whether He is the Christ.5103

5103 Luke xxii. 66, 67.

Of what Christ could the Jews have inquired5104

5104 Oehler’s admirable edition is also carefully printed for the most part, but surely his quæsisset must here be quæsissent.

but their own? Why, therefore, did He not, even at that moment, declare to them the rival (Christ)? You reply, In order that He might be able to suffer. In other words, that this most excellent god might plunge men into crime, whom he was still keeping in ignorance. But even if he had told them, he would yet have to suffer. For he said, “If I tell you, ye will not believe.”5105

5105 Luke xxii. 67.

And refusing to believe, they would have continued to insist on his death. And would he not even more probably still have had to suffer, if had announced himself as sent by the rival god, and as being, therefore, the enemy of the Creator? It was not, then, in order that He might suffer, that He at that critical moment refrained from proclaiming5106

5106 Supersedit ostendere.

Himself the other Christ, but because they wanted to extort a confession from His mouth, which they did not mean to believe even if He had given it to them, whereas it was their bounden duty to have acknowledged Him in consequence of His works, which were fulfilling their Scriptures. It was thus plainly His course to keep Himself at that moment unrevealed,5107

5107 i.e., not to answer that question of theirs. This seems to be the force of the perfect tense, “occultasse se.”

because a spontaneous recognition was due to Him. But yet for all this, He with a solemn gesture5108

5108 He makes Jesus stretch forth His hand, porrigens manum inquit.

says, “Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.”5109

5109 Luke xxii. 69.

For it was on the authority of the prophecy of Daniel that He intimated to them that He was “the Son of man,”5110

5110 Dan. vii. 13.

and of David’s Psalm, that He would “sit at the right hand of God.”5111

5111 Ps. cx. 1.

Accordingly, after He had said this, and so suggested a comparison of the Scripture, a ray of light did seem to show them whom He would have them understand Him to be; for they say: “Art thou then the Son of God?”5112

5112 Luke xxii. 70.

Of what God, but of Him whom alone they knew? Of what God but of Him whom they remembered in the Psalm as having said to His Son, “Sit Thou on my right hand?” Then He answered, “Ye say that I am;”5113

5113 Luke xxii. 70.

as if He meant: It is ye who say this—not I. But at the same time He allowed Himself to be all that they had said, in this their second question.5114

5114 Or does he suppose that they repeated this same question twice? His words are, “dum rursus interrogant.”

By what means, however, are you going to prove to us that they pronounced the sentence “Ergo tu filius Dei es” interrogatively, and not affirmatively?5115

5115 Either, “Art thou,” or, “Thou art, then, the Son of God.”

Just as, (on the one hand,) because He had shown them in an indirect manner,5116

5116 Oblique.

by passages of Scripture, that they ought to regard Him as the Son of God, they therefore meant their own words, “Thou art then the Son of God,” to be taken in a like (indirect) sense,5117

5117 Ut, quia…sic senserunt.

as much as to say, “You do not wish to say this of yourself plainly,”5118

5118 Aperte.

so, (on the other hand,) He likewise answered them, “Ye say that I am,” in a sense equally free from doubt, even affirmatively;5119

5119 Æque ita et ille confirmative respondit.

and so completely was His statement to this effect, that they insisted on accepting that sense which His statement indicated.5120

5120 Ut perseveraverint in eo quod pronuntiatio sapiebat.…See Luke xxii. 71.


“King Messiah;” λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν Χριστὸν βασιλέα εἶναι, Luke xxiii. 1, 2.

that is, undoubtedly, as the Son of God, who was to sit at God’s right hand. They would, however, have burdened Him5123

5123 Gravassent.

with some other title, if they had been uncertain whether He had called Himself the Son of God—if He had not pronounced the words, “Ye say that I am,” so as (to admit) that He was that which they said He was. Likewise, when Pirate asked Him, “Art thou Christ (the King)?” He answered, as He had before (to the Jewish council)5124

5124 Proinde.

“Thou sayest that I am”5125

5125 Luke xxiii. 3.

in order that He might not seem to have been driven by a fear of his power to give him a fuller answer. “And so the Lord hath stood on His trial.”5126

5126 Constitutus est in judicio. The Septuagint is καταστήσεται εἰς κρίσιν, “shall stand on His trial.”

And he placed His people on their trial. The Lord Himself comes to a trial with “the elders and rulers of the people,” as Isaiah predicted.5127

5127 Isa. iii. 13, 14 (Septuagint).

And then He fulfilled all that had been written of His passion. At that time “the heathen raged, and the people imagined vain things; the kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers gathered themselves together against the Lord and against His Christ.”5128

5128 Ps. ii. 1, 2.

The heathen were Pilate and the Romans; the people were the tribes of Israel; the kings were represented in Herod, and the rulers in the chief priests. When, indeed, He was sent to Herod gratuitously5129

5129 Velut munus. This is a definition, in fact, of the xenium in the verse from Hosea. This ξένιον was the Roman lautia, “a state entertainment to distinguished foreigners in the city.”

by Pilate,5130

5130 Luke xxiii. 7.

the words of Hosea were accomplished, for he had prophesied of Christ: “And they shall carry Him bound as a present to the king.”5131

5131 Hos. x. 6 (Sept. ξένια τῷ βασιλεῖ).

Herod was “exceeding glad” when he saw Jesus, but he heard not a word from Him.5132

5132 Luke xxiii. 8, 9.

For, “as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so He opened not His mouth,”5133

5133 Isa. liii. 7.

because “the Lord had given to Him a disciplined tongue, that he might know how and when it behoved Him to speak”5134

5134 Isa. l. 4 (Sept.).

—even that “tongue which clove to His jaws,” as the Psalm5135

5135 Ps. xxii. 15.

said it should, through His not speaking.  Then Barabbas, the most abandoned criminal, is released, as if he were the innocent man; while the most righteous Christ is delivered to be put to death, as if he were the murderer.5136

5136 Luke xxiii. 25.

Moreover two malefactors are crucified around Him, in order that He might be reckoned amongst the transgressors.5137

5137 Comp. Luke xxiii. 33 with Isa. liii. 12.

Although His raiment was, without doubt, parted among the soldiers, and partly distributed by lot, yet Marcion has erased it all (from his Gospel),5138

5138 This remarkable suppression was made to escape the wonderful minuteness of the prophetic evidence to the details of Christ’s death.

for he had his eye upon the Psalm: “They parted my garments amongst them, and cast lots upon my vesture.”5139

5139 Ps. xxii. 18.

You may as well take away the cross itself! But even then the Psalm is not silent concerning it: “They pierced my hands and my feet.”5140

5140 Ps. xxii. 16.

Indeed, the details of the whole event are therein read: “Dogs compassed me about; the assembly of the wicked enclosed me around. All that looked upon me laughed me to scorn; they did shoot out their lips and shake their heads, (saying,) He hoped in God, let Him deliver Him.”5141

5141 Ps. xxii. 16, 7, 8.

Of what use now is (your tampering with) the testimony of His garments? If you take it as a booty for your false Christ, still all the Psalm (compensates) the vesture of Christ.5142

5142 We append the original of these obscure sentences: “Quo jam testimonium vestimentorum? Habe falsi tui prædam; totus psalmus vestimenta sunt Christi.” The general sense is apparent. If Marcion does suppress the details about Christ’s garments at the cross, to escape the inconvenient proof they afford that Christ is the object of prophecies, yet there are so many other points of agreement between this wonderful Psalm and St. Luke’s history of the crucifixion (not expunged, as it would seem, by the heretic), that they quite compensate for the loss of this passage about the garments (Oehler).

But, behold, the very elements are shaken. For their Lord was suffering. If, however, it was their enemy to whom all this injury was done, the heaven would have gleamed with light, the sun would have been even more radiant, and the day would have prolonged its course5143

5143 Comp. Josh. x. 13.

—gladly gazing at Marcion’s Christ suspended on his gibbet! These proofs5144

5144 Argumenta.

would still have been suitable for me, even if they had not been the subject of prophecy. Isaiah says: “I will clothe the heavens with blackness.”5145

5145 Isa. l. 3.

This will be the day, concerning which Amos also writes: And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord, that the sun shall go down at noon and the earth shall be dark in the clear day.”5146

5146 Amos viii. 9.

(At noon)5147

5147 Here you have the meaning of the sixth hour.

the veil of the temple was rent”5148

5148 Luke xxiii. 45.

by the escape of the cherubim,5149

5149 Ezek. xi. 22, 23.

which “left the daughter of Sion as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers.”5150

5150 Isa. i. 8.

With what constancy has He also, in Psalm xxx., laboured to present to us the very Christ! He calls with a loud voice to the Father, “Into Thine hands I commend my spirit,”5151

5151 Comp. Luke xxiii. 46 with Ps. xxxi. 5.

that even when dying He might expend His last breath in fulfilling the prophets. Having said this, He gave up the ghost.”5152

5152 Luke xxiii. 46.

Who?  Did the spirit5153

5153 Spiritus: or “breath.”

give itself up; or the flesh the spirit?  But the spirit could not have breathed itself out. That which breathes is one thing, that which is breathed is another. If the spirit is breathed it must needs be breathed by another.  If, however, there had been nothing there but spirit, it would be said to have departed rather than expired.5154

5154 Expirasse: considered actively, “breathed out,” in reference to the “expiravit” of the verse 46 above.

What, however, breathes out spirit but the flesh, which both breathes the spirit whilst it has it, and breathes it out when it loses it? Indeed, if it was not flesh (upon the cross), but a phantom5155

5155 A sharp rebuke of Marcion’s Docetism here follows.

of flesh (and5156

5156 Autem.

a phantom is but spirit, and5157

5157 Autem.

so the spirit breathed its own self out, and departed as it did so), no doubt the phantom departed, when the spirit which was the phantom departed: and so the phantom and the spirit disappeared together, and were nowhere to be seen.5158

5158 Nusquam comparuit phantasma cum spiritu.

Nothing therefore remained upon the cross, nothing hung there, after “the giving up of the ghost;”5159

5159 Post expirationem.

there was nothing to beg of Pilate, nothing to take down from the cross, nothing to wrap in the linen, nothing to lay in the new sepulchre.5160

5160 See these stages in Luke xxiii. 47–55.

Still it was not nothing5161

5161 Non nihil: “a something.”

that was there. What was there, then? If a phantom Christ was yet there. If Christ had departed, He had taken away the phantom also. The only shift left to the impudence of the heretics, is to admit that what remained there was the phantom of a phantom! But what if Joseph knew that it was a body which he treated with so much piety?5162

5162 This argument is also used by Epiphanius to prove the reality of Christ’s body, Hæres. xl. Confut. 74. The same writer also employs for the same purpose the incident of the women returning from the sepulchre, which Tertullian is going to adduce in his next chapter, Confut. 75 (Oehler).

That same Joseph “who had not consented” with the Jews in their crime?5163

5163 Luke xxiii. 51.

The “happy man who walked not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful.”5164

5164 Ps. i. 1.


Luke xxiv. 1.

For of this incident it is said by Hosea: “To seek my face they will watch till day-light, saying unto me, Come, and let us return to the Lord: for He hath taken away, and He will heal us; He hath smitten, and He will bind us up; after two days will He revive us: in the third day He will raise us up.”5167

5167 Hos. v. 15 and vi. 1; 2.

For who can refuse to believe that these words often revolved5168

5168 Volutata.

in the thought of those women between the sorrow of that desertion with which at present they seemed to themselves to have been smitten by the Lord, and the hope of the resurrection itself, by which they rightly supposed that all would be restored to them? But when “they found not the body (of the Lord Jesus),”5169

5169 Luke xxiv. 3.

“His sepulture was removed from the midst of them,”5170

5170 Isa. lvii. 2, according to the Septuagint, ἡ ταφὴ αὐτοῦ ἠρται ἐκ τοῦ μέσου.

according to the prophecy of Isaiah.  “Two angels however, appeared there.”5171

5171 Luke xxiv. 4.

For just so many honorary companions5172

5172 Tot fere laterensibus.

were required by the word of God, which usually prescribes “two witnesses.”5173

5173 Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15, compared with Matt. xviii. 16 and 2 Cor. xiii. 1.

Moreover, the women, returning from the sepulchre, and from this vision of the angels, were foreseen by Isaiah, when he says, “Come, ye women, who return from the vision;”5174

5174 Isa. xxvii. 11, according to the Septuagint, γυναῖκες ἐρχόμεναι ἀπὸ θέας, δεῦτε.

that is, “come,” to report the resurrection of the Lord. It was well, however, that the unbelief of the disciples was so persistent, in order that to the last we might consistently maintain that Jesus revealed Himself to the disciples as none other than the Christ of the prophets.  For as two of them were taking a walk, and when the Lord had joined their company, without its appearing that it was He, and whilst He dissembled His knowledge of what had just taken place,5175

5175 Luke xxiv. 13–19.

they say: “But we trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel,”5176

5176 Luke xxiv. 21.

—meaning their own, that is, the Creator’s Christ.  So far had He been from declaring Himself to them as another Christ! They could not, however, deem Him to be the Christ of the Creator; nor, if He was so deemed by them, could He have tolerated this opinion concerning Himself, unless He were really He whom He was supposed to be. Otherwise He would actually be the author of error, and the prevaricator of truth, contrary to the character of the good God. But at no time even after His resurrection did He reveal Himself to them as any other than what, on their own showing, they had always thought Him to be. He pointedly5177

5177 Plane.

reproached them: “O fools, and slow of heart in not believing that which He spake unto you.”5178

5178 Luke xxiv. 25.

By saying this, He proves that He does not belong to the rival god, but to the same God.  For the same thing was said by the angels to the women: “Remember how He spake unto you when He was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered up, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.”5179

5179 Luke xxiv. 6, 7.

“Must be delivered up;” and why, except that it was so written by God the Creator? He therefore upbraided them, because they were offended solely at His passion, and because they doubted of the truth of the resurrection which had been reported to them by the women, whereby (they showed that) they had not believed Him to have been the very same as they had thought Him to be. Wishing, therefore, to be believed by them in this wise, He declared Himself to be just what they had deemed Him to be—the Creator’s Christ, the Redeemer of Israel. But as touching the reality of His body, what can be plainer? When they were doubting whether He were not a phantom—nay, were supposing that He was one—He says to them, “Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? See5180

5180 Videte. The original is much stronger ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε, “handle me, and see.” Two sentences thrown into one.

my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have.”5181

5181 Luke xxiv. 37–39.

Now Marcion was unwilling to expunge from his Gospel some statements which even made against him—I suspect, on purpose, to have it in his power from the passages which he did not suppress, when he could have done so, either to deny that he had expunged anything, or else to justify his suppressions, if he made any. But he spares only such passages as he can subvert quite as well by explaining them away as by expunging them from the text.  Thus, in the passage before us, he would have the words, “A spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have,” so transposed, as to mean, “A spirit, such as ye see me to be, hath not bones;” that is to say, it is not the nature of a spirit to have bones. But what need of so tortuous a construction, when He might have simply said, “A spirit hath not bones, even as you observe that I have not?”  Why, moreover, does He offer His hands and His feet for their examination—limbs which consist of bones—if He had no bones? Why, too, does He add, “Know that it is I myself,”5182

5182 Luke xxiv. 39.

when they had before known Him to be corporeal?  Else, if He were altogether a phantom, why did He upbraid them for supposing Him to be a phantom? But whilst they still believed not, He asked them for some meat,5183

5183 Luke xxiv. 41.

for the express purpose of showing them that He had teeth.5184

5184 An additional proof that He was no phantom.

Luke xxiv. 47 and Matt. xxviii. 19.

for He thus fulfilled the psalm: “Their sound is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.”5189

5189 Ps. xix. 4.

Marcion, I pity you; your labour has been in vain. For the Jesus Christ who appears in your Gospel is mine.
1. The former contained nothing more than a mutilated, and sometimes interpolated, edition of St. Luke; the name of that evangelist, however, he expunged from the beginning of his copy. Chaps. i. and ii. he rejected entirely, and began at iii. 1, reading the opening verse thus: “In the xv. year of Tiberius Cæsar, God descended into Capernaum, a city of Galilee.”

2. According to Irenæus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, he rejected the genealogy and baptism of Christ; whilst from Tertullian’s statement (chap. vii.) it seems likely that he connected what part of chap. iii.—vers. 1, 2—he chose to retain, with chap. iv. 31, at a leap.

3. He further eliminated the history of the temptation.  That part of chap. iv. which narrates Christ’s going into the synagogue at Nazareth and reading out of Isaiah he also rejected, and all afterwards to the end of ver. 30.

4. Epiphanius mentions sundry slight alterations in capp. v. 14, 24, vi. 5, 17. In chap. viii. 19 he expunged ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ. From Tertullian’s remarks (chap. xix.), it would seem at first as if Marcion had added to his Gospel that answer of our Saviour which we find related by St. Matthew, chap. xii. 48: “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” For he represents Marcion (as in De carne Christi, vii., he represents other heretics, who deny the nativity) as making use of these words for his favourite argument. But, after all, Marcion might use these words against those who allowed the authenticity of Matthew’s Gospel, without inserting them in his own Gospel; or else Tertullian might quote from memory, and think that to be in Luke which was only in Matthew—as he has done at least in three instances. (Lardner refers two of these instances to passages in chap. vii. of this Book iv., where Tertullian mentions, as erasures from Luke, what really are found in Matthew v. 17 and xv. 24. The third instance referred to by Lardner probably occurs at the end of chap. ix. of this same Book iv., where Tertullian again mistakes Matt. v. 17 for a passage of Luke, and charges Marcion with expunging it; curiously enough, the mistake recurs in chap. xii of the same Book.) In Luke x. 21 Marcion omitted the first πάτερ and the words καὶ τῆς γῆς, that he might not allow Christ to call His Father the Lord of earth, or of this world. The second πατήρ in this verse, not open to any inconvenience, he retained. In chap. xi. 29 he omitted the last words concerning the sign of the prophet Jonah; he also omitted all the 30th, 31st, and 32d; in ver. 42 he read κλῆσιν, ‘calling,’ instead of κρίσιν ‘judgment.’ He rejected verses 49, 50, 51, because the passage related to the prophets. He entirely omitted chap. xii. 6; whilst in ver. 8 he read ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ instead of ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ Θεοῦ. He seems to have left out all the 28th verse, and expunged ὑμῶν from verses 30 and 32, reading only ὁ πατήρ. In ver. 38, instead of the words ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ φυλακῇ, καὶ ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ φυλακῇ, he read ἐν τῇ ἑσπερινῇ φυλακῇ. In chap. xiii. he omitted the first five verses, whilst in the 28th verse of the same chapter, where we read, “When ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and ye yourselves thrust out,” he read (by altering, adding, and transposing), “When ye shall see all the just in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves cast out, and bound without, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” He likewise excluded all the remaining verses of this chapter. All chap. xv. after the 10th verse, in which is contained the parable of the prodigal son, he eliminated from his Gospel. In xvii. 10 he left out all the words after λέγετε. He made many alterations in the story of the ten lepers; he left out part of ver. 12, all of ver. 13, and altered ver. 14, reading thus: “There met Him ten lepers; and He sent them away, saying, Show yourselves to the priest;” after which he inserted a clause from chap. iv. 27: “There were many lepers in the days of Eliseus the prophet, but none of them were cleansed, but Naaman the Syrian.” In chap. xviii. 19 he added the words ὁ πατήρ, and in ver. 20 altered οἶδας, thou knowest, into the first person. He entirely omitted verses 31–33, in which our blessed Saviour declares that the things foretold by the prophets concerning His sufferings, and death, and resurrection, should all be fulfilled. He expunged nineteen verses out of chap. xix., from the end of ver. 27 to the beginning of ver. 47. In chap. xx. he omitted ten verses, from the end of ver. 8 to the end of ver. 18. He rejected also verses 37 and 38, in which there is a reference to Moses. Marcion also erased of chap. xxi. the first eighteen verses, as well as verses 21 and 22, on account of this clause, “that all things which are written may be fulfilled;” xx. 16 was left out by him, so also verses 35–; 37, 50, and 51 (and, adds Lardner, conjecturally, not herein following his authority Epiphanius, also vers. 38 and 49). In chap. xxiii. 2, after the words “perverting the nation,” Marcion added, “and destroying the law and the prophets;” and again, after “forbidding to give tribute unto Cæsar,” he added, “and perverting women and children.” He also erased ver. 43. In chap. xxiv. he omitted that part of the conference between our Saviour and the two disciples going to Emmaus, which related to the prediction of His sufferings, and which is contained in verses 26 and 27. These two verses he omitted, and changed the words at the end of ver. 25, ἐλάλησαν οἱ προφῆται, into ἐλάλησα ὑμῖν. Such are the alterations, according to Epiphanius, which Marcion made in his Gospel from St. Luke. Tertullian says (in the 4th chapter of the preceding Book) that Marcion erased the passage which gives an account of the parting of the raiment of our Saviour among the soldiers. But the reason he assigns for the erasure—‘respiciens Psalmi prophetiam’—shows that in this, as well as in the few other instances which we have already named, where Tertullian has charged Marcion with so altering passages, his memory deceived him into mistaking Matthew for Luke, for the reference to the passage in the Psalm is only given by St. Matthew xxvii. 35.

To maintain a modern and wholly uncatholic system of Penitence, the schoolmen invented a technical scheme of sins mortal and sins venial, which must not be read into the Fathers, who had no such technicalities in mind. By “deadly sins” they meant all such as St. John recognizes (1 John v. 16–17) and none other; that is to say sins of surprise and infirmity, sins having in them no malice or wilful disobedience, such as an impatient word, or a momentary neglect of duty. Should a dying man commit a deliberate sin and then expire, even after a life of love and obedience, who could fail to recognize the fearful nature of such an end?  But, should his last word be one of infirmity and weakness, censurable but not involving wilful disobedience, surely we may consider it as provided for by the comfortable words—“there is a sin not unto death.” Yet “all unrighteousness is sin,” and the Fathers held that all sin should be repented of and confessed before God; because all sin when it is finished bringeth forth death.”

In St. Augustine’s time, when moral theology became systematized in the West, by his mighty genius and influence, the following were recognized degrees of guilt: (1.) Sins deserving excommunication. (2.) Sins requiring to be confessed to the brother offended in order to God’s forgiveness, and (3.) sins covered by God’s gracious covenant, when daily confessed in the Lord’s Prayer, in public, or in private. And this classification was professedly based on Holy Scripture. Thus: (1.) on the text—“To deliver such an one unto Satan, etc.” (1 Cor. v. 4–5). (2.) On the text—(Matt. xviii. 15), “Confess your sins one to another, brethren” (James v. 16), and (3.) on the text—(Matt. vi. 12) “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us.”  This last St. Augustine5190

5190 Opp. Tom. vi. p. 228. Ed. Migne.

regards as the “daily medication” of our ordinary life, habitual penitence and faith and the baptismal covenant being presupposed.

It is important, here, to observe the heretical origin of a sinful superstition which becomes conspicuous in the history of Constantine. If the church tolerated it in his case, it was doubtless in view of this extraordinary instance of one, who was a heathen still, at heart, becoming a guardian and protector of the persecuted Faithful. It is probable that he was regarded as a Cyrus or a Nebuchadnezzar whom God had raised up to protect and to deliver His people; who was to be honoured and obeyed as “God’s minister” (Rom. xiii. 4.) in so far, and for this purpose. The church was scrupulous and he was superstitious; it would have been difficult to discipline him and worse not to discipline him. Tacitly, therefore, he was treated as a catechumen, but was not formally admitted even to that class. He permitted Heathenism, and while he did so, how could he be received as a Christian? The Christian church never became responsible for his life and character, but strove to reform him and to prepare him for a true confession of Christ at some “convenient season.” In this, there seems to have been a great fault somewhere, chargeable perhaps to Eusebius or to some other Christian counsellor; but, when could any one say—“the emperor is sincere and humble and penitent and ought now to be received into the church.” It was a political conversion, and as such was accepted, and Constantine was a heathen till near his death. As to his final penitence and acceptance—“Forbear to judge.” 2 Kings x. 29–31. Concerning his baptism, see Eusebius, de Vita Const. iv. 61, see also, Mosheim’s elaborate and candid views of the whole subject: First Three Centuries, Vol. II. 460–471.

The interpretation of Tertullian, however, has the all-important merit (which Bacon and Hooker recognize as cardinal) of flowing from the Scripture without squeezing. (1.) Our Lord sent the message to John as a personal and tender assurance to him. (2.) The story illustrates the decrease of which the Baptist had spoken prophetically (John iii. 30.); and (3.) it sustains the great principle that Christ alone is without sin, this being the one fault recorded of the Baptist, otherwise a singular instance of sinlessness. The B. Virgin’s fault (gently reproved by the Lord, John ii. 4.), seems in like manner introduced on this principle of exhibiting the only sinless One, in His Divine perfections as without spot. So even Joseph and Moses (Psalm cvi. 33., and Gen. xlvii. 20.) are shewn “to be but men.” The policy of Joseph has indeed been extravagantly censured.

Tertullian seems with reflect the early view of the church as to our Lord’s total abnegation of all filial relations with the Virgin, when He gave to her St. John, instead of Himself, on the Cross. For this purpose He had made him the beloved disciple and doubtless charged him with all the duties with which he was to be clothed.  Thus He fulfilled the figurative law of His priesthood, as given by Moses, (Deut. xxxiii. 9.) and crucified himself, from the beginning, according to his own Law (Luke xiv. 26–27.) which he identifies with the Cross, here and also in Matt. x. 37–38. These then are the steps of His own holy example, illustrating His own precept, for doubtless, as “the Son of man,” His filial love was superlative and made the sacrifice the sharper: (1.) He taught Joseph that He had no earthly father, when he said—“Wist ye not that I must be in my Father’s house,” (Luke iii. 49., Revised); but, having established this fact, he then became “subject” to both his parents, till His public ministry began. (2.) At this time, He seems to have admonished His mother, that He could not recognize her authority any longer, (John ii. 4.) having now entered upon His work as the Son of God. (3.) Accordingly, He refused, thenceforth, to know her save only as one of His redeemed, excepting her in nothing from this common work for all the Human Race, (Matt. xii. 48) in the passage which Tertullian so forcibly expounds. (4.) Finally, when St. Mary draws near to the cross, apparently to claim the final recognition of the previous understanding (John ii. 4.) to which the Lord had referred her at Cana—He fulfils His last duty to her in giving her a son instead of Himself, and thereafter (5) recognizes her no more; not even in His messages after the Resurrection, nor when He met her with other disciples. He rewards her, instead, with the infinite love He bears to all His saints, and with the brightest rewards which are bestowed upon Faith. In this consists her superlative excellence and her conspicuous glory among the Redeemed (Luke i. 47–48.) in Christ’s account.

In this beautiful testimony of our author to the sanctity of marriage, and the blessedness of its fruits, I see his austere spirit reflecting the spirit of Christ so tenderly and so faithfully, in the love of children, that I am warmly drawn to him. I cannot give him up to Montanism at this period of his life and labours. Surely, he was as yet merely persuaded that the prophetic charismata were not extinct, and that they had been received by his Phrygian friends, although he may still have regarded them as prophesying subject to all the infirmities which St. Paul attributes even to persons elevated by spiritual gifts. (1 Cor. xiv.) Why not recognize him in all his merits, until his open and senile lapse is complete?

A caricature may sometimes illustrate characteristic features more powerfully than a true portrait. The French call the highest gallery in theatres, paradis; and I have sometimes explained it by the fact that the modern drama originated in the monkish Mysteries, revived so profanely in our own day. To reconcile the poor to a bad place they gave it the name of Paradise, thus illustrating their Mediæval conceptions; for trickling down from Tertullian his vivid notions seem to have suffused all Western theology on this subject. Thus, then, one vast receptacle receives all the dead. The pit, as we very appropriately call it in English, answers to the place of lost spirits, where the rich man was in torments.  Above, are ranged the family of Abraham reclining, as it were, in their father’s bosom, by turns. Far above, under skylights, (for the old Mysteries were celebrated in the day-time) is the Paradise, where the Martyrs see God, and are represented as “under the altar” of heaven itself. Now, abandoning our grotesque illustration, but using it for its topography, let us conceive of our own globe, as having a world-wide concavity such as they imagined, from literalizing the under-world of Sheol. In its depths is the Phylace (1 Peter iii. 19.) of “spirits in prison.” In a higher region repose the blessed spirits in “Abraham’s bosom.”  Yet nearer to the ethereal vaults, are the martyrs in Paradise, looking out into heavenly worlds. The immensity of the scale does not interfere with the vision of spirits, nor with such communications as Abraham holds with his lost son in the history of Dives and Lazarus. Here indeed Science comes to our aid, for if the telephone permits such conversations while we are in the flesh, we may at least imagine that the subtile spirit can act in like manner, apart from such contrivances. Now, so far as Tertullian is consistent with himself, I think these explanations may clarify his words and references. The Eastern Theology is less inconsistent and bears the marks alike of Plato and of Origen.  But of this hereafter. Of a place, such as the Mediæval Purgatory, affirmed as de fide by the Trent creed, the Fathers knew nothing at all. See Vol. II. p. 490, also 522, this Series. Easy enough, by the LXX. See Isaiah lxiii. 3. καὶ τῶν εθνῶν οὐκ ἔστιν ἀνὴρ μετ᾽ εμοῦ. The first verse, referring to Edom, leads our author to accentuate this point of Gentile ignorance. Ex incursu: in allusion to St. Paul’s sudden conversion, Acts ix. 3–8. [On St. Paul’s Epistles, see p. 324, supra.]

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,5202

5202 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.]

if you have never taken on board your small craft5203

5203 In acatos tuas.

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 lading5204

5204 Quo symbolo.

you admitted the Apostle Paul on board, who ticketed him,5205

5205 Quis illum tituli charactere percusserit.

what owner forwarded him,5206

5206 Quis transmiserit tibi.

who handed him to you,5207

5207 Quis imposuerit.

that so you may land him without any misgiving,5208

5208 Constanter.

lest he should turn out to belong to him,5209

5209 Ne illius probetur, i.e., to the Catholic, for Marcion did not admit all St. Paul’s epistles (Semler).

who can substantiate his claim to him by producing all his apostolic writings.5210

5210 Omnia apostolatus ejus instrumenta.

He professes himself to be “an apostle”—to use his own, words—“not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ.”5211

5211 Gal. i. 1.

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;5212

5212 Subscribit.

one man appends his seal, another registers in the public records.5213

5213 Actis refert.

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.”5214

5214 Luke xxi. 8.

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 appear5215

5215 Conversor.

in the character of a disciple and an inquirer; that so I may even thus5216

5216 Jam hinc.

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.”5217

5217 Gen. xlix. 27, Septuagint, the latter clause being καὶ εἰς τὸ ἑσπέρας δίδωσι τροφήν.

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,5218

5218 Satisfactio.

on his receiving from him good for evil, we have nothing else than an anticipation5219

5219 Non aliud portendebat quam.

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.5220

5220 Secundum Virginis censum.

Should you, however, disapprove of these types,5221

5221 Figurarum sacramenta.

the Acts of the Apostles,5222

5222 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, 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).

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;”5223

5223 Gal. i. 1.

thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason for rejecting your defence of him,5224

5224 Inde te a defensione ejus expello.

and for bearing fearlessly your taunt.  “Then you deny the Apostle Paul.”  I do not calumniate him whom I defend.5225

5225 An insinuation that Marcion’s defence of Paul was, in fact, a calumny of the apostle.

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.5226

5226 Præstruant eam.

Either prove the truth of what you believe, or failing in your proof, (tell us) how you believe. Else what conduct is yours,5227

5227 Qualis es.

believing in opposition to Him from whom alone comes the proof of that which you believe? Take now from my point of view5228

5228 Habe nunc de meo.

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,5229

5229 In ipso gradu præscriptionis.

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 teaching5230

5230 Oportere docere…sapere…velle.

nothing, knowing nothing, wishing nothing in favour of the Creator whilst it would be a first principle with him to set forth5231

5231 Edicere.

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 regarded5232

5232 Ne non haberetur.

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;5233

5233 Nullum alium deum circumlatum.

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 find5234

5234 Præjudicasse debebit.

the epistles also mutilated by him with like perverseness—and that even as respects their number.5235

5235 Marcion only received ten of St. Paul’s epistles, and these altered by himself.


Comp. Isa. xliii. 18, 19, and lxv. 17, with 2 Cor. v. 17.

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”5239

5239 Luke xvi. 16.

—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 instance5240

5240 Apud quem.

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,5241

5241 Porro.

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,5242

5242 Immo quia.

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,5243

5243 Disciplina.

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,5244

5244 Ultro.

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 supersession5245

5245 Discessionem.

of the law comes from the appointment of the Creator—a point, which we shall still have to keep in mind.5246

5246 Ut adhuc suggeremus.

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”5247

5247 Gal. i. 6, 7.

—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 of5248

5248 Deberet.

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 from5249

5249 Moverat illos a.

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,”5250

5250 Gal. i. 7.

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.”5251

5251 Isa. xl. 9 (Septuagint).

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”5252

5252 Isa. lii. 7.

—even proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles, because He also says, “In His name shall the Gentiles trust;”5253

5253 We have here an instance of the high authority of the Septuagint version. It comes from the Seventy: Καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνοματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν (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.

that is, in the name of Christ, to whom He says, “I have given thee as a light of the Gentiles.”5254

5254 Isa. xlii. 6.

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 for5255

5255 Apud: “administered by.”

two gods; and the apostle made a great mistake when he said that “there is not another” gospel,5256

5256 Gal. i. 7.

since there is (on the hypothesis)5257

5257 Cum sit.

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,”5258

5258 Gal. i. 8.

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.”5259

5259 Gal. i. 8.

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 apply5260

5260 Referret.

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,5261

5261 A similar remark occurs in Præscript. Hæretic. c. xxiii. p. 253.

in which book may be found the very subject5262

5262 Ipsa materia.

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.”5263

5263 See Gal. i. 11–24, compared with Acts xv. 5–; 29.

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 these5264

5264 “The Acts of the Apostles” is always a plural phrase in Tertullian.

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 follow5265

5265 Ut non secutus sit.

the preaching of the apostles when he received from them the prescription5266

5266 Formam.

of not teaching the Law.5267

5267 Dedocendæ legis; i.e., of Moses.


Gal. ii. 1, 2.

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.5271

5271 Formam.

So great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you wish on all occasions5272

5272 Si quando.

to be understood as in alliance with Judaism!  When indeed he says, that “neither was Titus circumcised,”5273

5273 Gal. ii. 3.

he for the first time shows us that circumcision was the only question connected with the maintenance5274

5274 Ex defensione.

of the law, which had been as yet agitated by those whom he therefore calls “false brethren unawares brought in.”5275

5275 Gal. ii. 4.

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 Scripture5276

5276 Interpolatione Scripturæ.

as should enable them to expunge5277

5277 Qua effingerent.

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.”5278

5278 Gal. ii. 4, 5.

Let us only attend to the clear5279

5279 Ipsi.

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,”5280

5280 Gal. ii. 3, 4.

etc., he gives us an insight into his reason5281

5281 Incipit reddere rationem.

for acting in a clean contrary way,5282

5282 Contrarii utique facti. [Farrar, St. Paul, pp. 232 and 261.]

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 then5283

5283 Denique.

I want you to tell us whether they would have yielded to the subjection that was demanded,5284

5284 See Conybeare and Howson, in loc.

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.5285

5285 Fuerunt propter quos crederetur.

For their rudimentary belief, which was still in suspense about the observance of the law, deserved this concessive treatment,5286

5286 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 imperfect…Many 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.)

when even the apostle himself had some suspicion that he might have run, and be still running, in vain.5287

5287 Gal. ii. 2.

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.5288

5288 Ex censu eorum: see Gal. ii. 9, 10.

He therefore made some concession, as was necessary, for a time; and this was the reason why he had Timothy circumcised,5289

5289 Acts xvi. 3.

and the Nazarites introduced into the temple,5290

5290 Acts xxi. 23–26.

which incidents are described in the Acts.  Their truth may be inferred from their agreement with the apostle’s own profession, how “to the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and to them that were under the law, as under the law,”—and so here with respect to those who come in secretly,—“and lastly, how he became all things to all men, that he might gain all.”5291

5291 1 Cor. ix. 20; 22.

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.5292

5292 Gal. ii. 9.

Their agreement, also, “to remember the poor”5293

5293 Gal. ii. 10.

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.5294

5294 See above, book iv. chap. xiv. p. 365.

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,”5295

5295 Victus: see Gal. ii. 12; or, living, see ver. 14.

which he varied according to the sort of persons (whom he associated with) “fearing them which were of the circumcision,”5296

5296 Gal. ii. 12.

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:”5297

5297 Gal. ii. 16.

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.”5298

5298 Gal. ii. 18 (see Conybeare and Howson).

The law, indeed, had to be overthrown, from the moment when John “cried in the wilderness, Prepare ye the ways of the Lord,” that valleys5299

5299 Rivi: the wadys of the East.

and hills and mountains may be filled up and levelled, and the crooked and the rough ways be made straight and smooth5300

5300 Luke iii. 4, 5.

—in other words, that the difficulties of the law might be changed into the facilities of the gospel.

Ps. ii. 3.

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,”5302

5302 Ps. ii. 1, 2.

in order that thenceforward man might be justified by the liberty of faith, not by servitude to the law,5303

5303 Gal. ii. 16 and iii. 11.

“because the just shall live by his faith.”5304

5304 Hab. ii. 4.

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 by5305

5305 Apud.

the Creator: “Behold,” says He, “I have set before you a blessing and a curse.”5306

5306 Deut. xi. 26.

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,”5307

5307 Gal. iii. 13.

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,”5308

5308 The LXX. version of Deut. xxi. 23 is quoted by St. Paul in Gal. iii. 13.

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,5309

5309 Apud te.

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.5310

5310 According to the promise of a prophet of the Creator. See Hab. ii. 4.

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,”5311

5311 Gal. iii. 26.

it becomes clear 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,”5312

5312 Gal. iii. 7, 9, 29.

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;”5313

5313 Gal. iii. 6.

since, also, he deserved for that reason to be called “the father of many nations,” whilst we, who are even more like him5314

5314 Magis proinde: as sharing in the faith he had, “being yet uncircumcised.” See Rom. iv. 11.

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,5315

5315 Patris fidei.

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?5316

5316 In integritate carnis.

In short,5317

5317 Denique.

faith in one of two gods cannot possibly admit us to the dispensation5318

5318 Formam: “plan” or “arrangement.”

of the other,5319

5319 Alterius dei…dei alterius.

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 shown5320

5320 Revincatur.

by the natural meaning.5321

5321 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 allowed to guess from the manner in which Tertullian expresseth himself, I should imagine that Marcion erased the whole of chap. iii. after the word λέγω in ver. 15, and the beginning of chap. iv., until you come to the word ὅτε in ver. 3. Then the words will be connected thus: ‘Brethren, I speak after the manner of men…when 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.’ 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, σὺν τῷ πιστῷ ᾽Αβραάμ, which seems to have been the case, according to T.’s manner of stating the argument against him” (Works, History of Heretics, x. 43).

This, however, was not said “after the manner of men.” For there is no figure5323

5323 Exemplum.

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 to5324

5324 Suspicit.

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.”5325

5325 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.

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.”5326

5326 Gal. iii. 16.

Fie on5327

5327 Erubescat.

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.5328

5328 So, instead of pursuing the contents of chap. iii., he proceeds to such of chap. iv. as Marcion reserved.

“But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son”5329

5329 Gal. iv. 4.

—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.5330

5330 In extremitatem temporum.

“It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain (of the house) of the Lord shall be manifested”;5331

5331 Isa. ii. 2 (Sept).

“and in the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh”5332

5332 Joel iii. 28, as quoted by St. Peter, Acts ii. 17.

as Joel says. It was characteristic of Him (only)5333

5333 Ipsius.

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,”5334

5334 Gal. iv. 5.

in other words, to “make the crooked ways straight, and the rough places smooth,” as Isaiah says5335

5335 Isa. xl. 4.

—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,”5336

5336 Isa. ii. 3.

and “that we might receive the adoption of sons,”5337

5337 Gal. iv. 5.

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.”5338

5338 Isa. xlii. 4; 6.

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.”5339

5339 Gal. iv. 6.

For “in the last days,” saith He, “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.”5340

5340 Joel iii. 28, as given in Acts ii. 17.

Gal. iv. 9.

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,”5342

5342 Gal. iv. 8.

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.5343

5343 Nec sic taxans.

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”5344

5344 Gal. iv. 10.

—the sabbaths, I suppose, and “the preparations,”5345

5345 Cœnas puras: probably the παρασκευαί mentioned in John xix. 31.

and the fasts, and the “high days.”5346

5346 See also John xix. 31.

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;”5347

5347 Isa. i. 13, 14.

also by Amos, “I hate, I despise your feast-days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies;”5348

5348 Amos v. 21.

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.”5349

5349 Hos. ii. 11.

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.5350

5350 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.

“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”5351

5351 Allegorica: on the importance of rendering ἀλληγορούμενα 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.

(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),5352

5352 Ostensiones: revelationes perhaps.

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 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.”5353

5353 Gal. iv. 21–; 26, 31.

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,5354

5354 Apud quem.

as we have found, they were both sketched out beforehand. When he speaks of “the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,”5355

5355 Gal. v. 1.

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.5356

5356 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.

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”5357

5357 Gal. v. 1.

—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.”5358

5358 Ps. ii. 3; 2.

All those, therefore, who had been delivered from the yoke of slavery he would earnestly have to obliterate the very mark of slavery—even circumcision, on the authority of the prophet’s prediction. He remembered how that Jeremiah had said, “Circumcise the foreskins of your heart;”5359

5359 Jer. iv. 4.

as Moses likewise had enjoined, “Circumcise your hard hearts”5360

5360 Deut. x. 16.

—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?”5361

5361 Gal. v. 6.

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.

Isa. xlii. 4.

—of that faith “which,” he says “worketh by love.”5364

5364 Gal. v. 6.

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;”5365

5365 Deut. vi. 5.

and also the second in another passage:  “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”5366

5366 Lev. xix. 18.

“But he that troubleth you shall have to bear judgment.”5367

5367 Gal. v. 10.

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.’”5368

5368 Gal. v. 14.

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,5369

5369 Dispendium.

but the favour of a compendious acceptance;5370

5370 Compendium: the terseness of the original cannot be preserved in the translation.

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,”5371

5371 Gal. vi. 2.

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,5372

5372 Erratis: literally, “ye are deceived.”

God is not mocked.”5373

5373 Gal. vi. 7.

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.”5374

5374 Gal. vi. 7.

It is then the God of recompense and judgment who threatens5375

5375 Intentat.

this. “Let us not be weary in well-doing;”5376

5376 Gal. vi. 9.

and “as we have opportunity, let us do good.”5377

5377 Gal. vi. 10.

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 death5378

5378 Corruptionis.

and of life. But “in due time we shall reap;”5379

5379 Gal. vi. 9.

because in Ecclesiastes it is said, “For everything there will be a time.”5380

5380 Eccles. iii. 17.

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,”5381

5381 Gal. vi. 14.

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.”5382

5382 See Gal. vi. 17, κόπους μοι μηδεὶς παρεχέτω, “let no one harass me.”

But when he adds, that “he bare in his body the scars5383

5383 Stigmata: the scars not of circumcision, but of wounds suffered for His sake (Conybeare and Howson).

of Christ”—since scars, of course, are accidents of body5384

5384 Corporalia.

—he therefore expressed the truth, that the flesh of Christ is not putative, but real and substantial,5385

5385 Solidam.

the scars of which he represents as borne upon his body.
1 Cor. i. 3.

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 other5389

5389 Appellant.

with the greeting of “peace,” and formerly in their Scriptures they did the same. But I understand him by his practice5390

5390 Officio.

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!”5391

5391 Isa. lii. 7.

For the herald of good, that is, of God’s “grace” was well aware that along with it “peace” also was to be proclaimed.5392

5392 Pacem quam præferendam.

Now, when he announces these blessings as “from God the Father and the Lord Jesus,”5393

5393 1 Cor. i. 3.

he uses titles that are common to both, and which are also adapted to the mystery of our faith;5394

5394 Competentibus nostro quoque sacramento.

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.5395

5395 Nisi ex accedentibus cui magis competant.

First, then, I assert that none other than the Creator and Sustainer of both man and the universe can be acknowledged as Father and Lord; next, that to the Father also the title of Lord accrues by reason of His power, and that the Son too receives the same through the Father; then that “grace and peace” are not only His who had them published, but His likewise to whom offence had been given. For neither does grace exist, except after offence; nor peace, except after war. Now, both the people (of Israel) by their transgression of His laws,5396

5396 Disciplinæ.

and the whole race of mankind by their neglect of natural duty,5397

5397 Per naturæ dissimulationem. This Fr. Junius explains by τὴν φύσεως ἀφοσίωσιν, in the sense of “original sin” (ἀφοσιοῦσθαι seems to point to sin requiring expiation).

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.”5398

5398 1 Cor. i. 18.

And then, that we may know 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.’”5399

5399 1 Cor. i. 19; from Isa. xxix. 14.

Now, since these are the Creator’s words, and since what pertains to the doctrine5400

5400 Causam.

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 if5401

5401 Aut si: introducing a Marcionite cavil.

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 Lord5402

5402 Apud dominum.

who is so very good, and so profuse in mercy, some carry off salvation, when they believe the cross to be the wisdom and power of God, whilst others incur perdition, to whom the cross of Christ is accounted folly;—(how happens it, I repeat,) unless it is in the Creator’s dispensation to have punished both the people of Israel and the human race, for some great offence committed against Him, with the loss of wisdom and prudence? What follows will confirm this suggestion, when he asks, “Hath not God infatuated the wisdom of this world?”5403

5403 1 Cor. i. 20.

and when he adds the reason why: “For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God5404

5404 Boni duxit Deus, εὐδόκησεν ὁ Θεός.

by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.”5405

5405 1 Cor. i. 21.

But first a word about the expression “the world;” because in this passage particularly,5406

5406 Hic vel maxime.

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 world5407

5407 That is, “man who lives in the world, not God who made 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,”5408

5408 1 Cor. i. 22.

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 angry5409

5409 Æmula.

and a judicial retribution. Since, then, the causes5410

5410 Causæ: the reasons of His retributive providence.

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,”5411

5411 1 Cor. i. 23.

points unmistakeably5412

5412 Consignat.

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.”5413

5413 Isa. viii. 14.

This rock or stone is Christ.5414

5414 Isa. xxviii. 16.

This stumbling-stone Marcion retains still.5415

5415 “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. Hæres. xlii. Schol. 55.

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,”5416

5416 1 Cor. i. 25.

but the nativity and incarnation5417

5417 Caro.

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 really5418

5418 Vere.

are not), “to bring to nothing things which are” (that is, which really are).5419

5419 1 Cor. i. 27.

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 Creator5420

5420 Apud Creatorem etiam vetera: (vetera, i.e.) “veteris testamenti institutiones” (Oehler).

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?5421

5421 Lev. xv. passim.

What more dishonourable than the discoloration of the reddening skin?5422

5422 Lev. xiii. 2–6.

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 after5423

5423 Æmulatur.

(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.”5424

5424 1 Cor. i. 29; 31.

In what Lord?  Surely in Him who gave this precept.5425

5425 By Jeremiah, chap. ix. 23, 24.

Unless, forsooth, the Creator enjoined us to glory in the god of Marcion.
1 Cor. ii. 6, 7.

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 folly5427

5427 Infatuavit.

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,”5428

5428 Isa. xlii. 6.

by the Creator who promised through the mouth of Isaiah that He would discover “the hidden treasures, which eye had not seen.”5429

5429 Isa. xlv. 3 (Septuagint).

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 nothing5430

5430 Nedum.

of any of his religious ordinances.5431

5431 Sacramenta.

The Creator, on the contrary, was as well known in Himself as His ordinances were.  These, we know, were publicly instituted5432

5432 Palam decurrentia.

in Israel; but they lay overshadowed with latent meanings, in which the wisdom of God was concealed,5433

5433 Delitescebat.

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.”5434

5434 1 Cor. ii. 7.

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”),5435

5435 Gen. i. 14, inexactly quoted.

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 were5436

5436 Quodammodo.

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.5437

5437 Introductione sæculi.

But when he does this almost at the very expiration of all the ages5438

5438 Pæne jam totis sæculis prodactis.

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.

1 Cor. ii. 8.

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 recoil5440

5440 Ut et hoc recidat.

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 princes5441

5441 Virtutibus.

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 me5442

5442 Sed jam nec mihi competit.

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,5443

5443 Matt. iv. 1–11.

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.5444

5444 Luke iv. 34.

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:5445

5445 In Creatoris accipitur apud Marcionem.

therefore the Creator could not have been ignorant any longer of the God of glory, since He is overcome by him;5446

5446 Considered, in the hypothesis, as Marcion’s god.

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 Gospel5447

5447 Apud me.

that “Satan entered into Judas.”5448

5448 Luke xxii. 3.

According to Marcion, however, the apostle in the passage under consideration5449

5449 1 Cor. ii. 8.

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) evidently5450

5450 Videtur.

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,5451

5451 Et quo.

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 Scripture5452

5452 Instrumento.

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?”5453

5453 Isa. xl. 13.

So says Isaiah. What has he also to do with illustrations from our God? For when (the apostle) calls himself “a wise master-builder,”5454

5454 1 Cor. iii. 10.

we find that the Creator by Isaiah designates the teacher who sketches5455

5455 Depalatorem.

out the divine discipline by the same title, “I will take away from Judah the cunning artificer,”5456

5456 So the A.V. of Isa. iii. 3; but the Septuagint and St. Paul use the self-same term, σοφὸς ἀρχιτέκτων.

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?”5457

5457 1 Cor. iii. 11.

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.”5458

5458 Isa. xxviii. 16.

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.5459

5459 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 superædificatio, 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.

“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”5460

5460 1 Cor. iii. 16.

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”5461

5461 The text has vitiabitur, “shall be defiled.”

—of course, by the God of the temple.5462

5462 1 Cor. iii. 17.

If you threaten an avenger, you threaten us with the Creator. “Ye must become fools, that ye may be wise.”5463

5463 1 Cor. iii. 18.

Wherefore?  “Because the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.”5464

5464 1 Cor. iii. 19.

With what God? Even if the ancient Scriptures have contributed nothing in support of our view thus far,5465

5465 The older reading, “adhuc sensum pristina præjudicaverunt,” we have preferred to Oehler’s “ad hunc sensum,” etc.

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.”5466

5466 1 Cor. iii. 19, 20; Job v. 13; Ps. xciv. 11.

For in general we may conclude for certain that he could not possibly have cited the authority of that God whom he was bound to destroy, since he would not teach for Him.5467

5467 Si non illi doceret.

“Therefore,” says he, “let no man glory in man;”5468

5468 1 Cor. iii. 21.

an injunction which is in accordance with the teaching of the Creator, “wretched is the man that trusteth in man;”5469

5469 Jer. xvii. 5.

again, “It is better to trust in the Lord than to confide in man;”5470

5470 Ps. cxviii. 8.

and the same thing is said about glorying (in princes).5471

5471 Ps. cxviii. 9.


1 Cor. iv. 5.

even by Christ; for He has promised Christ to be a Light,5473

5473 Isa. xlii. 6.

and Himself He has declared to be a lamp, “searching the hearts and reins.”5474

5474 Ps. vii. 9.

From Him also shall “praise be had by every man,”5475

5475 1 Cor. iv. 5.

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.”5476

5476 1 Cor. iv. 9.

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.5477

5477 Our author’s version is no doubt right. The Greek does not admit the co-ordinate, triple conjunction of the A.V.: Θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ—καὶ ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀνθρώποις.

Of course,5478

5478 Nimirum: introducing a strong ironical sentence against Marcion’s conceit.

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!5479

5479 Nisi exserte.

I quite admit, that, according to the Creator’s law,5480

5480 Lev. xviii. 8.

the man was an offender “who had his father’s wife.”5481

5481 1 Cor. v. 1.

He followed, no doubt,5482

5482 Secutus sit.

the principles of natural and public law.  When, however, he condemns the man “to be delivered unto Satan,”5483

5483 1 Cor. v. 5.

he becomes the herald of an avenging God.  It does not matter5484

5484 Viderit.

that he also said, “For the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord,”5485

5485 1 Cor. v. 5.

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,”5486

5486 1 Cor. v. 13.

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.”5487

5487 1 Cor. v. 7.

The unleavened bread was therefore, in the Creator’s ordinance, a figure of us (Christians). “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.”5488

5488 1 Cor. v. 7.

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?5489

5489 Ex. xii.

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,”5490

5490 1 Cor. vi. 13.

just as the temple is for God, and God for the temple. A temple will therefore pass away5491

5491 Peribit.

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.”5492

5492 1 Cor. vi. 14.

In the body will He raise us, because the body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And suitably does he add the question: “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?”5493

5493 1 Cor. vi. 15.

What has the heretic to say? That these members of Christ will not rise again, for they are no longer our own?  “For,” he says, “ye are bought with a price.”5494

5494 1 Cor. vi. 20.

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,5495

5495 1 Cor. vi. 20.

which is doomed to perish? We must now encounter the subject of marriage, which Marcion, more continent5496

5496 Constantior: ironically predicated.

than the apostle, prohibits. For the apostle, although preferring the grace of continence,5497

5497 1 Cor. vii. 7, 8.

yet permits the contraction of marriage and the enjoyment of it,5498

5498 1 Cor. vii. 9, 13, 14.

and advises the continuance therein rather than the dissolution thereof.5499

5499 1 Cor. vii. 27.

Christ plainly forbids divorce, Moses unquestionably permits it.5500

5500 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 particular place St. Paul mentions his injunction as Christ’s especially, οὐκ ἐγὼ, αλλ᾽ ὁ Κύριος, 1 Cor. vii. 10.

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,”5503

5503 1 Cor. vii. 10, 11.

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.”5504

5504 1 Cor. vii. 29.

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,”5505

5505 1 Cor. vii. 39.

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 heaven or in earth,”5506

5506 1 Cor. viii. 5.

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.”5507

5507 1 Cor. viii. 4.

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.”5508

5508 1 Cor. viii. 6.

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.”5509

5509 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22.

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.5510

5510 1 Cor. iii. 23.

When he teaches that every man ought to live of his own industry,5511

5511 1 Cor. ix. 13.

he begins with a copious induction of examples—of soldiers, and shepherds, and husbandmen.5512

5512 1 Cor. ix. 7.

But he5513

5513 He turns to Marcion’s god.

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,”5514

5514 1 Cor. ix. 9 and Deut. xxv. 4.

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.”5515

5515 1 Cor. xi. 10.

Thus he showed that the law had a symbolic reference to ourselves, and that it gives its sanction in favour of those who live of the gospel. (He showed) also, that those who preach the gospel are on this account sent by no other god but Him to whom belongs the law, which made provision for them, when he says: “For our sakes was this written.”5516

5516 Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 13, 14, with Deut. xviii. 1; 2.

Still he declined to use this power which the law gave him, because he preferred working without any restraint.5517

5517 Gratis.

Of this he boasted, and suffered no man to rob him of such glory5518

5518 1 Cor. ix. 15.

—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,”5519

5519 1 Cor. x. 4.

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?5520

5520 Figuram extranei sacramenti.

Was it to teach the very truth, that ancient things prefigured the Christ who was to be educed5521

5521 Recensendum.

out of them? For, being about to take a cursory view of what befell the people (of Israel) he begins with saying: “Now these things happened as examples for us.”5522

5522 1 Cor. x. 6.

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 alarm5523

5523 Me terret sibi.

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?5524

5524 1 Cor. x. 7–10.

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 encouraging5525

5525 Magis quam foveat.

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.”5526

5526 1 Cor. x. 11.

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.5527

5527 1 Cor. x. 25–27.

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.5528

5528 Novationem.

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.
1 Cor. xi. 3.

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.”5530

5530 1 Cor. xi. 7.

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”5531

5531 Gen. i. 26.

), 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?”5532

5532 1 Cor. xi. 10.

If it is because “she was created for the man,”5533

5533 1 Cor. xi. 9.

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.”5534

5534 1 Cor. xi. 10.

What angels?  In other words, whose angels? If he means the fallen angels of the Creator,5535

5535 See more concerning these in chap. xviii. of this book.  Comp. Gen. vi. 1–4.

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 evil5536

5536 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19.

among “works of the flesh,” and that he would have those persons accounted estimable5537

5537 Probabiles: “approved.”

who shun heresies as an evil thing. In like manner, when treating of the gospel,5538

5538 See above, in book iv. chap. xl.

we have proved from the sacrament of the bread and the cup5539

5539 Luke xxii. 15–20 and 1 Cor. xi. 23–; 29.

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,”5540

5540 1 Cor. xii. 1.

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 flower5541

5541 Flos: Sept. ἂνθος.

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.5542

5542 Religionis: Sept. εὐσεβείας.

And with the fear of the Lord5543

5543 Timor Dei: Sept. φόβος Θεοῦ.

shall the Spirit fill Him.”5544

5544 Isa. xi. 1–3.

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;5545

5545 We have more than once shown that by Tertullian and other ancient fathers, the divine nature of Christ was frequently designated “Spirit.”

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,5546

5546 Floruisset in carne.

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;”5547

5547 See Isa. iii. 2, 3.

that so it might prove true that “the law and the prophets were until John.”5548

5548 Luke xvi. 16.

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,”5549

5549 1 Cor. xii. 4–11; Eph. iv. 8, and Ps. lxviii. 18.

that is, the gratuities, which we call charismata. He says specifically “sons of men,”5550

5550 He argues from his own reading, filiis hominum.

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;”5551

5551 1 Cor. iv. 15.

and “Ye are my children, of whom I travail again in birth.”5552

5552 Gal. iv. 19.

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.”5553

5553 Joel ii. 28, 29, applied by St. Peter, Acts ii. 17, 18.

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;”5554

5554 Gal. iv. 4.

and again, “This I say, brethren, that the time is short”5555

5555 1 Cor. vii. 29. [The verse filled out by the translator.]

), 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.”5556

5556 Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 8–11 and Isa. xi. 1–; 3.

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,5557

5557 1 Cor. xii. 12–; 30, compared with Eph. iv. 16.

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,)5558

5558 This seems to be the force of the subjunctive verb noluerit.

meant not5559

5559 Noluerit.

that the service5560

5560 Meritum.

of these gifts should be in the body,5561

5561 They are spiritual gifts, not endowments of body.

nor did He place them in the human body); and on the subject of the superiority of love5562

5562 De dilectione præferenda.

above all these gifts, He even taught the apostle that it was the chief commandment,5563

5563 Compare 1 Cor. xii. 31; xiii. 1, 13.

just as Christ has shown it to be: “Thou shalt love the Lord with all thine heart and soul,5564

5564 Totis præcordiis.

with all thy strength, and with all thy mind, and thy neighbour as thine own self.”5565

5565 Luke x. 27.

When he mentions the fact that “it is written in the law,”5566

5566 “Here, as in John x. 34; xii. 34; xv. 25, ‘the law’ is used for the Old Testament generally, instead of being, as usual, confined to the Pentateuch.  The passage is from Isa. xxviii. 11.” (Dean Stanley, On the Corinthians, in loc.).

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.5567

5567 1 Cor. xiv. 21.

In precisely the same manner,5568

5568 Æque.

when enjoining on women silence in the church, that they speak not for the mere sake5569

5569 Duntaxat gratia.

of learning5570

5570 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35.

(although that even they have the right of prophesying, he has already shown5571

5571 1 Cor. xi. 5, 6. [See Kaye, p. 228.]

when he covers the woman that prophesies with a veil), he goes to the law for his sanction that woman should be under obedience.5572

5572 1 Cor. xiv. 34; where Gen. iii. 16 is referred to.

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 if5573

5573 Et si: These words introduce the Marcionite theory.

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 manifest5574

5574 Traduxerint.

the secrets of the heart;5575

5575 1 Cor. xiv. 25.

let him produce a psalm, a vision, a prayer5576

5576 1 Cor. xiv. 26.

—only let it be by the Spirit,5577

5577 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?]

in an ecstasy, that is, in a rapture,5578

5578 Amentia.

whenever an interpretation of tongues has occurred to him; let him show to me also, that any woman of boastful tongue5579

5579 Magnidicam.

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 severally5580

5580 Erit.

to my God. Here, then, is my frank avowal for any one who cares to require it.
1 Cor. xv. 12.

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 dead5583

5583 See his treatise, De Resur. Carnis, chap. i. (Oehler).

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,5584

5584 An allusion to the deaths of martyrs.

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.5585

5585 Compendio.

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.5586

5586 Defendi.

The word dead expresses simply what has lost the vital principle,5587

5587 Animam.

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.5588

5588 The reader will readily see how the English fails to complete the illustration with the ease of the Latin, “surgere,” “iterum surgere,” “resurgere.”

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.”5589

5589 Gen. iii. 19. [“Was not said unto the Soul”—says our own Longfellow, in corresponding words.]

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.”5590

5590 1 Cor. xv. 21.

Here in the word man, who consists of bodily substance, as we have often shown already, is presented to me the body of Christ.  But if we are all so made alive in Christ, as we die in Adam, it follows of necessity that we are made alive in Christ as a bodily substance, since we died in Adam as a bodily substance. The similarity, indeed, is not complete, unless our revival5591

5591 Vivificatio.

in Christ concur in identity of substance with our mortality5592

5592 Mortificatio.

in Adam. But at this point5593

5593 Adhuc.

(the apostle) has made a parenthetical statement5594

5594 Interposuit aliquid.

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,”5595

5595 1 Cor. xv. 25; 27.

we can see at once5596

5596 Jam quidem.

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.”5597

5597 Ps. cx. 1, 2; and viii. 6.

It is necessary for me to lay claim to those Scriptures which the Jews endeavour to deprive us of, and to show that they sustain my view. Now they say that this Psalm5598

5598 Ps. cx.

was a chant in honour of Hezekiah,5599

5599 In Ezechiam cecinisse.

because “he went up to the house of the Lord,”5600

5600 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.

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,”5601

5601 Tertullian, as usual, argues from the Septuagint, which in the latter clause of Ps. cx. 3 has ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐγέννησά σε; 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 latter view D. Kimchi agrees with him.  Others find in Solomon 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 appeared 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.

are applicable to Hezekiah, and to the birth of Hezekiah. We on our side5602

5602 Nos.

have published Gospels (to the credibility of which we have to thank5603

5603 Debemus.

them5604

5604 Istos: that is, the Jews (Rigalt.).

for having given some confirmation, indeed, already in so great a subject5605

5605 Utique jam in tanto opere.

); 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,5606

5606 Natum esse quum maxime.

and again from the place of the birth, for it is towards night that persons arrive at the (eastern) “inn.” Perhaps, too, there was a mystic purpose in Christ’s being born at night, destined, as He was, to be the light of the truth amidst the dark shadows of ignorance. Nor, again, would God have said, “I have begotten Thee,” except to His true Son.  For although He says of all the people (Israel), “I have begotten5607

5607 Generavi: Sept. ἐγέννησα.

children,”5608

5608 Isa. i. 2.

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 care5609

5609 Curiosius.

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 body5610

5610 Deputans carni: a note against Docetism.

that it should come out of a womb. What is here added (in the Psalm), “Thou art a priest for ever,”5611

5611 Ps. cx. 4.

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,”5612

5612 Ps. lxxii. 1.

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,5613

5613 Super vellus: so Sept. ἐπὶ πόκον.

and like dropping showers upon the earth,”5614

5614 Ps. lxxii. 6.

describing His descent from heaven to the flesh as gentle and unobserved.5615

5615 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 birth.”

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.5616

5616 Simpliciora.

“He shall have dominion,” says the Psalmist, “from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.”5617

5617 Ps. lxx. 8.

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.”5618

5618 Ps. lxx. 11.

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.”5619

5619 Ps. lxx. 17.

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.”5620

5620 Ps. lxx. 17.

(On what ground?) Because blessed is the Lord God of Israel, who only doeth wonderful things.”5621

5621 Ps. lxx. 18.

“Blessed also is His glorious name, and with His glory shall all the earth be filled.”5622

5622 Ps. lxx. 19.

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”5623

5623 Ps. lxx. 9.

(of course, as having been, (to use the apostle’s phrase,) “put under His feet”5624

5624 1 Cor. xv. 25; 27.

), 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 down5625

5625 Consecuturus.

this conclusion, that none but He can be believed to be the Christ of the Creator.
1 Cor. xv. 29.

Now, never mind5628

5628 Viderit.

that practice, (whatever it may have been.)  The Februarian lustrations5629

5629 Kalendæ Februariæ. 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 kalendæ 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 doctrine 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, περὶ νεκρῶν, 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.

will perhaps5630

5630 Si forte.

answer him (quite as well), by praying for the dead.5631

5631 τῷ εὔχεσθαι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν (Rigalt.).

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.”5632

5632 Eph. iv. 5.

To be “baptized for the dead” therefore means, in fact, to be baptized for the body;5633

5633 Pro corporibus.

for, as we have shown, it is the body which becomes dead.  What, then, shall they do who are baptized for the body,5634

5634 Eph. iv. 5.

if the body5635

5635 Corpora.

rises not again? We stand, then, on firm ground (when we say) that5636

5636 Ut, with the subjunctive verb induxerit.

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?’”5637

5637 1 Cor. xv. 35.

Having established the doctrine of the resurrection which was denied, it was natural5638

5638 Consequens erat.

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,5639

5639 Porro.

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;”5640

5640 1 Cor. xv. 37, 38.

since also he says, that “to every seed is its own body;”5641

5641 1 Cor. xv. 38.

that, consequently,5642

5642 Ut.

“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”5643

5643 1 Cor. xv. 39–41.

—does he not therefore intimate that there is to be5644

5644 Portendit.

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.”5645

5645 1 Cor. xv. 42.

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.”5646

5646 1 Cor. xv. 42, 43.

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.”5647

5647 1 Cor. xv. 44.

Now, although the natural principle of life5648

5648 Anima: we will call it soul in the context.

and the spirit have each a body proper to itself, so that the “natural body” may fairly be taken5649

5649 Possit videri.

to signify the soul,5650

5650 Animam.

and “the spiritual body” the spirit, yet that is no reason for supposing5651

5651 Non ideo.

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,5652

5652 Animam.

admits of being called animal (or natural5653

5653 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 Hæresibus.]

) will become 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.”5654

5654 1 Cor. xv. 46.

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.”5655

5655 1 Cor. xv. 45.

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;”5656

5656 ὁ ἔσχατος ᾽Αδάμ into ὁ ἔσχατος Κύριος.

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.5657

5657 Vel auctoris.

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.5658

5658 Par.

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.”5659

5659 1 Cor. xv. 47.

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?5660

5660 Marcion seems to have changed man into Lord, or rather to have omitted the ἄνθρωπος of the second clause, letting the verse run thus: ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκὁς, ὁ δεύτερος Κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. Anything to cut off all connection with the Creator.

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.”5661

5661 The οἱ ἐπουράνιοι, the “de cœlo homines,” of this ver. 48 are Christ’s risen people; comp. Phil. iii. 20, 21 (Alford).

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 condition5662

5662 Secundum exitum.

) 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,”5663

5663 1 Cor. xv. 49. T. argues from the reading φορέσωμεν (instead of φορέσομεν), which indeed was read by many of the fathers, and (what is still more important) is found in the Codex Sinaiticus. We add the critical note of Dean Alford on this reading: “ACDFKL rel latt copt goth, Theodotus, Basil, Cæsarius, Cyril, Macarius, Methodius (who prefixes ἕνα), Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Ps. Athanasius, Damascene, Irenæus (int), Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Jerome.”  Alford retains the usual φορέσομεν, on the strength chiefly of the Codex Vaticanus.

—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.”5664

5664 1 Cor. xv. 50.

He means the works of the flesh and blood, which, in his Epistle to the Galatians, deprive men of the kingdom of God.5665

5665 Gal. v. 19–21.

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.”5666

5666 Rom. viii. 8.

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 to5667

5667 Merebitur.

the kingdom of God, after the deeds done in the body have been atoned 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.5668

5668 1 Cor. xv. 52.

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,”5669

5669 1 Cor. xv. 53.

in order, indeed, that it may be rendered a fit substance for the kingdom of God. “For we shall be like the angels.”5670

5670 Matt. xxii. 30 and Luke xx. 36.

This will be the perfect change of our flesh—only after its resurrection.5671

5671 Sed resuscitatæ.

Now if, on the contrary,5672

5672 Aut si.

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;”5673

5673 1 Cor. xv. 50.

for this (honour) does he ascribe to the changed condition5674

5674 Demutationi.

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?5675

5675 Suggested by the ἰσχυσας of Sept. in Isa. xxv. 8.

“O death, where is thy sting?”5676

5676 1 Cor. xv. 55.

—written, I say, by the Creator, for He wrote them by His prophet5677

5677 Isa. xxv. 8 and (especially) Hos. xiii. 14.

—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 expression5678

5678 The Septuagint version of the passage in Hosea is, ποῦ ἡ δίκη σου, θάνατε; ποῦ τὸ κέντνον σου, ᾅδη, which is very like the form of the apostrophe in 1 Cor. xv. 55.

of the exulting and triumphant challenge to the mortal foe.
1 Cor. viii. 5.

), yet “the blessed God,” (who is “the Father) of our Lord Jesus Christ,”5680

5680 2 Cor. i. 3.

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,5681

5681 Gen. i. 22.

and is Himself “blessed by all things,” as Daniel tells us.5682

5682 Dan. ii. 19, 20; iii. 28, 29; iv. 34, 37" id="v.iv.vi.xi-p6.1" parsed="|Dan|2|19|2|20;|Dan|3|28|3|29;|Dan|4|34|0|0;|Dan|4|37|0|0" osisRef="Bible:Dan.2.19-Dan.2.20 Bible:Dan.3.28-Dan.3.29 Bible:Dan.4.34 Bible:Dan.4.37">Dan. ii. 19, 20; iii. 28, 29; iv. 34, 37.

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,”5683

5683 2 Cor. i. 3.

and (in the prophets) has been described as “full of compassion, and gracious, and plenteous in mercy.”5684

5684 Ps. lxxxvi. 15; cxii. 4; cxlv. 8; Jonah iv. 2.

In Jonah you find the signal act of His mercy, which He showed to the praying Ninevites.5685

5685 Jonah iii. 8.

How inflexible was He at the tears of Hezekiah!5686

5686 2 Kings xx. 3; 5.

How ready to forgive Ahab, the husband of Jezebel, the blood of Naboth, when he deprecated His anger.5687

5687 1 Kings xxi. 27; 29.

How prompt in pardoning David on his confession of his sin5688

5688 2 Sam. xii. 13.

—preferring, indeed, the sinner’s repentance to his death, of course because of His gracious attribute of mercy.5689

5689 Ezek. xxxiii. 11.

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,5690

5690 Atquin et nos.

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 accidents5691

5691 The Contingent qualities in logic.

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;”5692

5692 2 Cor. iii. 6.

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.”5693

5693 Joel ii. 28.

Even if “the letter killeth, yet the Spirit giveth life;”5694

5694 2 Cor. iii. 6.

and both belong to Him who says: “I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal.”5695

5695 Deut. xxxii. 39.

We have already made good the Creator’s claim to this twofold character of judgment and goodness5696

5696 See above in book ii. [cap. xi. p. 306.]

—“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.5697

5697 Apud unum recenseri prævenerunt.

He alludes to Moses’ veil, covered with which “his face could not be stedfastly seen by the children of Israel.”5698

5698 2 Cor. iii. 7; 13.

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,”5699

5699 2 Cor. iii. 7, 8.

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”5700

5700 Obtunsi: “blunted,” 2 Cor. iii. 14.

—of the world; certainly not the Creator’s mind, but the minds of the people which are in the world.5701

5701 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.

Of Israel he says, Even unto this day the same veil is upon their heart;”5702

5702 2 Cor. iii. 15.

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,”5703

5703 2 Cor. iii. 16.

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.”5704

5704 2 Cor. iii. 18.

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”5705

5705 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, καθάπερ ἀπὸ Κυρίου Πνεύματος, “by the Lord the Spirit.”

—he testifies that the whole Mosaic system5706

5706 Moysi ordinem totum.

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,”5707

5707 2 Cor. iv. 4.

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.”5708

5708 He would stop off the phrase τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου from ὁ Θεὸς, and remove it to the end of the sentence as a qualification of τῶν ἀπίστων. 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 Irenæus [Hæres. iv. 48, Origen, Tertullian (v. 11, contra Marcion)], Chrysostom, Œcumenius, Theodoret, Theophylact, all repudiate, in their zeal against the Manichæans, the grammatical rendering, and take τῶν ἀπίστων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου together” (Greek Testament, in loc.). [I have corrected Alford’s reference to Tertullian which he makes B. iv. 11.]

“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,”5709

5709 Isa. xxix. 13.

in these angry words: “Ye shall hear with your ears, and not understand; and see with your eyes, but not perceive;”5710

5710 Isa. vi. 10 (only adapted).

and, “If ye will not believe, ye shall not understand;”5711

5711 Isa. vii. 9, Sept.

and again, “I will take away the wisdom of their wise men, and bring to nought5712

5712 Sept. κρὐψω, “will hide.”

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,5713

5713 Said concessively, in reference to M.’s position above mentioned.

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.5714

5714 Marcion’s “God of this world” being the God of the Old Testament.

Content with my advantage, I can willingly refrain from noticing to any greater length5715

5715 Hactenus: pro non amplius (Oehler) tractasse.

this point of ambiguous punctuation, so as not to give my adversary any advantage,5716

5716 “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).

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.”5717

5717 Isa. xiv. 14.

The whole superstition, indeed, of this world has got into his hands,5718

5718 Mancipata est illi.

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.”5719

5719 2 Cor. iv. 6.

Now who was it that said; “Let there be light?”5720

5720 Gen. i. 3.

And who was it that said to Christ concerning giving light to the world: “I have set Thee as a light to the Gentiles”5721

5721 Isa. xlix. 6 (Sept. quoted in Acts xiii. 47).

—to them, that is, “who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death?”5722

5722 Isa. ix. 2 and Matt. iv. 16.

(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.”5723

5723 Ps. iv. 7 (Sept.).

Now the countenance (or person5724

5724 Persona: the πρόσωπον of the Septuagint.

) of the Lord here is Christ. Wherefore the apostle said above: “Christ, who is the image of God.”5725

5725 2 Cor. iv. 4.

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 tells5726

5726 Ait.

them to remember, that at the time when they were Gentiles they were without Christ, aliens from (the commonwealth of) Israel, without intercourse, without the covenants and any hope of promise, nay, without God, even in his own world,5727

5727 Eph. ii. 12.

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”5728

5728 2 Cor. iv. 7.

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,5729

5729 2 Cor. iv. 8–12.

in which we bear about with us the very dying of God,5730

5730 Oehler, after Fr. Junius, defends the reading “mortificationem dei,” instead of Domini, in reference to Marcion, who seems to have so corrupted the reading.

(Marcion’s) god is really ungrateful and unjust, if he does not mean to restore this same 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.5731

5731 2 Cor. iv. 10.

For he gives prominence to the statement, “That the life also of Christ may be manifested in our body,”5732

5732 2 Cor. iv. 10.

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 eternal5733

5733 2 Cor. iv. 16–18.

—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,5734

5734 2 Cor. iv. 11.

then he has clearly predicted the resurrection of the flesh.5735

5735 2 Cor. iv. 14.

He says, too, that “our outward man perishes,”5736

5736 2 Cor. iv. 16.

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.”5737

5737 2 Cor. iv. 16.

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 tear5738

5738 Vexatione.

of its trials, and the renewal of the soul5739

5739 Animi.

by its contemplation of the promises.
2 Cor. v. 1.

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.5741

5741 As Marcion would have men believe.

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,5742

5742 2 Cor. v. 2, 3.

if so be, that having been unclothed,5743

5743 Despoliati.

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 oppressed5744

5744 Gravemur.

with an unwillingness to be unclothed, but (we wish) to be clothed upon.”5745

5745 2 Cor. v. 4.

He here says expressly, what he touched but lightly5746

5746 Strinxit.

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).5747

5747 1 Cor. xv. 52.

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.5748

5748 Superinduti magis quod de cœlo quam exuti corpus.

So that whilst these shall put on over their (changed) body this, heavenly raiment, the dead also shall for their part5749

5749 Utique et mortui.

recover their body, over which they too have a supervesture to put on, even the incorruption of heaven;5750

5750 De cœlo.

because of these it was that he said:  “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”5751

5751 1 Cor. xv. 53.

The one put on this (heavenly) apparel,5752

5752 Induunt.

when they recover their bodies; the others put it on as a supervesture,5753

5753 Superinduunt.

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;”5754

5754 2 Cor. v. 4.

in other words, as wishing not to undergo death, but to be surprised into life,5755

5755 Vita præveniri.

“that this moral (body) might be swallowed up of life,”5756

5756 2 Cor. v. 4; and see his treatise, De Resurrect. Carnis, cap. xlii.

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”5757

5757 2 Cor. v. 5.

(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;”5758

5758 2 Cor. v. 6.

moreover, that we ought on this account to prefer5759

5759 Boni ducere.

“rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord,”5760

5760 2 Cor. v. 8.

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.”5761

5761 2 Cor. v. 10.

Since, however, there is then to be a retribution according to men’s merits, how will any be able to reckon with5762

5762 Deputari cum.

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,5763

5763 2 Cor. v. 10.

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,5764

5764 Per id, per quod, i.e., corpus.

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;”5765

5765 2 Cor. v. 17.

and so is accomplished the prophecy of Isaiah.5766

5766 Isa. xliii. 19.

When also he (in a later passage) enjoins us “to cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and blood”5767

5767 His reading of 2 Cor. vii. 1.

(since this substance enters not the kingdom of God5768

5768 1 Cor. xv. 50.

); when, again, he “espouses the church as a chaste virgin to Christ,”5769

5769 2 Cor. xi. 2.

a spouse to a spouse in very deed,5770

5770 Utique ut sponsam sponso.

an image cannot be combined and compared with what is opposed to the real nature of the thing (with which it is compared). So when he designates “false apostles, deceitful workers transforming themselves” into likenesses of himself,5771

5771 2 Cor. xi. 13.

of course by their hypocrisy, he charges them with the guilt of disorderly conversation, rather than of false doctrine.5772

5772 Prædicationis adulteratæ.

The contrariety, therefore, was one of conduct, not of gods.5773

5773 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 evidence.

If “Satan himself, too, is transformed into an angel of light,”5774

5774 2 Cor. xi. 14.

such an assertion must not be used to the prejudice of the Creator. The Creator is not an angel, but God. Into a god of light, and not an angel of light, must Satan then have been said to be transformed, if he did not mean to call him “the angel,” which both we and Marcion know him to be. On Paradise is the title of a treatise of ours, in which is discussed all that the subject admits of.5775

5775 Patitur. The work here referred to is not extant; it is, however, referred to in the De Anima, c. lv.

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.5776

5776 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.

And yet of the removal of a man from earth to heaven we have an instance afforded us by the Creator in Elijah.5777

5777 2 Kings ii. 11.

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,5778

5778 2 Cor. xii. 7, 8.

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.”5779

5779 1 Sam. ii. 7, 8; Ps. cxlvii. 6; Luke i. 52.

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?”5780

5780 Job i. 12 and 2 Cor. xii. 9.

How is it that the censurer of the Galatians5781

5781 Gal. i. 6–9.

still retains the very formula of the law:  “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established?”5782

5782 2 Cor. xiii. 1.

How again is it that he threatens sinners “that he will not spare” them5783

5783 2 Cor. xiii. 2.

—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!”5784

5784 2 Cor. xiii. 10.

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!
Rom. i. 16, 17.

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,5790

5790 Utique.

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,”5791

5791 Rom. i. 18.

(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,”5792

5792 Rom. ii. 2.

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, that5793

5793 Aliud est si.

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.5794

5794 Nostri instrumenti.

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)5795

5795 Rom. ii. 12–16.

—surely the God who shall judge is He to whom belong both the law, and that nature which is the rule5796

5796 Instar legis: “which is as good as a law to them,” etc.

to them who know not the law. But how will He conduct this judgment?  “According to my gospel,” says (the apostle), “by (Jesus) Christ.”5797

5797 Rom. ii. 16.

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.5798

5798 Rom. ii. 2.

The wrath, therefore, which is to vindicate truth, can only be revealed from heaven by the God of wrath;5799

5799 Rom. i. 18.

so that this sentence, which is quite in accordance with that previous one wherein the judgment is declared to be the Creator’s,5800

5800 See the remarks on verses 16 and 17 above.

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.5801

5801 Rom. ii. 21.

(This invective he utters) in perfect homage5802

5802 Ut homo.

to the law of God, not as if he meant to censure the Creator Himself with having commanded5803

5803 Ex. iii. 22.

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,5804

5804 Ex. xx. 15; see above, book iv. chap. xxiv. p. 387.

—adopting such methods as they are apt (shamelessly) to charge upon Him in other particulars also. Are we then to suppose5805

5805 Scilicet verebatur.

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).”5806

5806 Rom. ii. 24.

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.5807

5807 Rom. ii. 29.

Since this is the circumcision recommended by Jeremiah: “Circumcise (yourselves to the Lord, and take away) the foreskins of your heart;”5808

5808 Jer. iv. 4.

and even of Moses: “Circumcise, therefore, the hardness of your heart,”5809

5809 Deut. x. 16 (Sept.).

—the Spirit which circumcises the heart will proceed from Him who prescribed the letter also which clips5810

5810 Metens.

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;”5811

5811 Rom. ii. 28.

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 once5812

5812 Tunc.

the law; now it is “the righteousness of God which is by the faith of (Jesus) Christ.”5813

5813 Rom. iii. 21, 22.

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.5814

5814 Tertullian, by the word “enjoins” (monet), seems to have read the passage in Rom. v. 1 in the hortatory sense with ἔχωμεν, “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 ἔχομεν, “we have,” etc. We subjoin Alford’s critical note in support of the ἔχωμεν, which (with Lachmann) he yet admits into his more recent text: “AB (originally) CDKLfh (originally) m 17 latt (including F-lat); of the versions the older Syriac (Peschito) (and Copt;of the fathers, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Damascene, Thephylact, Œcumenius, Rufinus, Pelagius, Orosius, Augustine, Cassiodorus,” before whom I would insert Tertullian, and the Codex Sinaiticus, in its original state; although, like its great rival in authority, the Codex Vaticanus, it afterwards received the reading ἔχομεν. These second readings of these mss., and the later Syriac (Philoxenian), with Epiphanius, Didymus, and Sedulius, are the almost only authorities quoted for the received text.  [Dr. H. over-estimates the “rival” Codices.]

With what God? Him whose enemies we have never, in any dispensation,5815

5815 Nusquam.

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’s5816

5816 Ejus.

enemies can ever be reduced to peace.  “Moreover,” says he, “the law entered, that the offence might abound.”5817

5817 Rom. v. 20.

And wherefore this? “In order,” he says, “that (where sin abounded), grace might much more abound.”5818

5818 Rom. v. 20.

Whose grace, if not of that God from whom also came the law? Unless it be, forsooth, that5819

5819 Nisi si: an ironical particle.

the Creator intercalated His law for the mere purpose of5820

5820 Ideo ut.

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 dispensation5821

5821 Apud ipsum.

“reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto (eternal) life by Jesus Christ,”5822

5822 Rom. v. 21.

His own antagonist! For this (I suppose it was, that) the law of the Creator had “concluded all under sin,”5823

5823 Gal. iii. 22.

and had brought in “all the world as guilty (before God),” and had “stopped every mouth,”5824

5824 Rom. iii. 19.

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.”5825

5825 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.

It may be contended that Christ’s body is indeed a body, but not exactly5826

5826 Statim (or, perhaps, in respect of the derivation), “firmly” or “stedfastly.”

flesh. Now, whatever may be the substance, since he mentions “the body of Christ,”5827

5827 Ejus.

whom he immediately after states to have been “raised from the dead,”5828

5828 Rom. vii. 4.

none other body can be understood than that of the flesh,5829

5829 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. “Σὰρξ is not = σῶμα, but as in John i. 14, the material of which man is in the body compounded” (Alford).

in respect of which the law was called (the law) of death.5830

5830 Compare the first part of ver. 4 with vers. 5 and 6 and viii. 2; 3.

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.”5831

5831 Rom. vii. 7.

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.5832

5832 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.

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!5833

5833 Per quam liquuit delictum latere: a playful paradox, in the manner of our author, between liquere and latere.

It was not the law, therefore, which led me astray, but “sin, taking occasion by the commandment.”5834

5834 Rom. vii. 8.

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.”5835

5835 Rom. vii. 13.

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”5836

5836 Rom. vii. 14.

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.
Rom. viii. 3.

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.”5838

5838 Sensus νοός in Rom. vii. 23.

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.5839

5839 Pari.

For it would be no great matter if the Spirit of God remedied the flesh; but when a flesh, which is the very copy5840

5840 Consimilis.

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 quality5841

5841 Titulum.

of the sinfulness, and not to any falsity5842

5842 Mendacium.

of the substance. Because he would not have added the attribute “sinful,”5843

5843 This vindication 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 ἁμαρτωλοῦ, but the substantive ἁμαρτίας, amounting to “flesh of sin,” i.e. (as Dean Alford interprets it) “the flesh whose attribute and character is sin.” “The words ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, De Wette observes, appear almost to border on Docetism, but in reality contain a perfectly true and consistent sentiment; σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας; is flesh, or human nature, possessed with sin.…The likeness, predicated in Rom. viii. 3, must be referred not only to σάρξ, but also to the epithet τῆς ἁμαρτίας” (Greek Testament, in loc.).

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,”)5844

5844 Carnis peccati.

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 suppose5845

5845 Puta nunc.

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 condition5846

5846 Statu.

with our own; but true still, as being of a nature5847

5847 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 parents’ names (Oehler).

not really unlike ours.5848

5848 It is better that we should give the original of this sentence.  Its structure is characteristically 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, that 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.”

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).5849

5849 Dum alterius par est.

But a phantom, which is merely such and nothing else,5850

5850 Qua hoc tantum est.

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 flesh5851

5851 See Rom. viii. 5–13.

—he shows that when he wrote the words, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,”5852

5852 1 Cor. xv. 50.

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,5853

5853 Non ad reatum substantiæ sed ad conversationis pertinebunt.

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,”5854

5854 Rom. viii. 10.

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 body5855

5855 Understand “corpus” (Oehler).

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.”5856

5856 Rom. viii. 11.

In these words he both affirmed the resurrection of the flesh (without which nothing can rightly be called5857

5857 Dici capit: capit, like the Greek ἐνδέχεται, means, “is capable or susceptible;” often so in Tertullian.

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;5858

5858 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 epistle” (Lardner).

however, I alight on the place where the apostle bears record of Israel “that they have a zeal of God”—their own God, of course—“but not according to knowledge. For,” says he, “being ignorant of (the righteousness of) God, and going about to establish their own righteousness, they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God; for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”5859

5859 Rom. x. 2–4.

Hereupon we shall be confronted with an argument of the heretic, that the Jews were ignorant of the superior God,5860

5860 The god of the New Testament, according to Marcion.

since, in opposition to him, they set up their own righteousness—that is, the righteousness of their law—not receiving Christ, the end (or finisher) of the law. But how then is it that he bears testimony to their zeal for their own God, if it is not in respect of the same God that he upbraids them for their ignorance?  They were affected indeed with zeal for God, but it was not an intelligent zeal: they were, in fact, ignorant of Him, because they were ignorant of His dispensations by Christ, who was to bring about the consummation of the law; and in this way did they maintain their own righteousness in opposition to Him. But so does the Creator Himself testify to their ignorance concerning Him: “Israel hath not known me; my people have not understood me;”5861

5861 Isa. i. 3.

and as to their preferring the establishment of their own righteousness, (the Creator again describes them as) “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men;”5862

5862 Isa. xxix. 13 (Sept.)

moreover, as “having gathered themselves together against the Lord and against His Christ”5863

5863 Ps. ii. 2.

—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!”5864

5864 Rom. xi. 33.

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.5865

5865 In fidem Christi ex lege venientem. By “the law” he means the Old Testament in general, and probably refers to Rom. x. 17.

If Marcion had an object in his erasures,5866

5866 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.

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.”5867

5867 Isa. xlv. 3.

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?”5868

5868 Isa. xl. 13, quoted (according to the Sept.) by the apostle in Rom. xi. 34, 35.

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 mistake5869

5869 Plane: ironically.

the precepts of your new god: “Abhor that which is evil, and cleave to that which is good.”5870

5870 Rom. xii. 9.

Well, is the precept different in the Creator’s teaching? “Take away the evil from you, depart from it, and be doing good.”5871

5871 Ps. xxxiv. 14.

Then again: “Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love.”5872

5872 Rom. xii. 10.

Now is not this of the same import as: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self?”5873

5873 Lev. xix. 18.

(Again, your apostle says:) “Rejoicing in hope;”5874

5874 Rom. xii. 12.

that is, of God. So says the Creator’s Psalmist:  “It is better to hope in the Lord, than to hope even in princes.”5875

5875 Ps. cxviii. 9.

“Patient in tribulation.”5876

5876 Rom. xii. 12.

You have (this in) the Psalm: “The Lord hear thee in the day of tribulation.”5877

5877 Ps. xx. 1.

“Bless, and curse not,”5878

5878 Rom. xii. 12.

(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.”5879

5879 Rom. xii. 16.

For against such a disposition Isaiah pronounces a woe.5880

5880 Isa. v. 21.

“Recompense to no man evil for evil.”5881

5881 Rom. xii. 17.

(Like unto which is the Creator’s precept:) “Thou shalt not remember thy brother’s evil against thee.”5882

5882 Lev. xix. 17, 18.

(Again:)  “Avenge not yourselves;”5883

5883 Rom. xii. 19.

for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.”5884

5884 Rom. xii. 19; quoted from Deut. xxxii. 25.

“Live peaceably with all men.”5885

5885 Rom. xii. 18.

The retaliation of the law, therefore, permitted not retribution for an injury; it rather repressed any attempt thereat by the fear of a recompense.  Very properly, then, did he sum up the entire teaching of the Creator in this precept of His: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”5886

5886 Rom. xiii. 9.

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).5887

5887 Ironically said. He has been quoting all along from Marcion’s text of St. Paul, turning its testimony against Marcion.

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?”5888

5888 Matt. v. 17.

In vain has (our man of) Pontus laboured to deny this statement.5889

5889 For although he rejected St. Matthew’s Gospel, which contains the statement, he retained St. Paul’s epistle, from which the statement is clearly proved.

If the gospel has not fulfilled the law, then all I can say is,5890

5890 Ecce.

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,5891

5891 Promerendum.

if he holds Him thus up as an object to be feared.
1 Thess. ii. 15.

I may ask, What has this to do with the apostle of the rival god, one so amiable withal, who could hardly be said to condemn even the failings of his own people; and who, moreover, has himself some hand in making away with the same prophets whom he is destroying? What injury did Israel commit against him in slaying those whom he too has reprobated, since he was the first to pass a hostile sentence on them? But Israel sinned against their own God. He upbraided their iniquity to whom the injured God pertains; and certainly he is anything but the adversary of the injured Deity. Else he would not have burdened them with the charge of killing even the Lord, in the words, “Who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets,” although (the pronoun) their own be an addition of the heretics.5894

5894 All the best mss., including the Codices Alex., Vat., and Sinait., omit the ἰδίους, as do Tertullian and Origen. Marcion has Chrysostom and the received text, followed by our A.V., with him.

Now, what was there so very acrimonious5895

5895 Amarum.

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.5896

5896 Status exaggerationis.

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 possible5897

5897 Ergo exaggerari non potuit nisi.

by the sin having been in fact committed against one and the same Lord in the two respective circumstances.5898

5898 Ex utroque titulo.

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.”5899

5899 1 Thess. iv. 3, 4.

In what way?  “Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles.”5900

5900 1 Thess. iv. 5.

Concupiscence, however, is not ascribed to marriage even among the Gentiles, but to extravagant, unnatural, and enormous sins.5901

5901 Portentuosis.

The law of nature5902

5902 The rule of Gentile life.

is opposed to luxury as well as to grossness and uncleanness;5903

5903 We have here followed Oehler’s reading, which is more intelligible than the four or five others given by him.

it does not forbid connubial intercourse, but concupiscence; and it takes care of5904

5904 Tractet.

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 against5905

5905 Retundo.

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.”5906

5906 1 Thess. iv. 15–17.

I find it was in their foresight of all this, that the heavenly intelligences gazed with admiration on “the Jerusalem which is above,”5907

5907 Gal. iv. 26.

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?”5908

5908 Isa. lx. 8.

Now, as Christ has prepared for us this ascension into heaven, He must be the Christ of whom Amos5909

5909 Oehler and Fr. Junius here read Amos, but all the other readings give Hosea; but see above, book iii. chap. xxiv., where Amos was read by all.

spoke: “It is He who builds His ascent up to the heavens,”5910

5910 Amos ix. 6.

even for Himself and His people. Now, from whom shall I expect (the fulfilment 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?”5911

5911 1 Thess. v. 19, 20.

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.5912

5912 Nihil fecit. This is precisely St. Paul’s ἐξουθενεῖν, “to annihilate” (A.V. “despise”), in 1 Thess. v. 20.

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 rule5913

5913 Formam.

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.5914

5914 Celebratur.

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,5915

5915 Si quando corpus in hujus modi prænominatur.

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?”5916

5916 1 Thess. v. 23. For a like application of this passage, see also our author’s treatise, De Resurrect. Carnis, cap. xlvii. [Elucidation I.]

Now he has here propounded the soul and the body as two several and distinct things.5917

5917 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 separation 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.

For although the soul has a kind of body of a quality of its own,5918

5918 On this paradox, that souls are corporeal, see his treatise De Anima, v., and following chapters (Oehler).  [See also cap. x. supra.]

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 flesh5919

5919 Quæ = caro.

is expressly called by the name “body.”
2 Thess. i. 6–8.

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”5923

5923 2 Thess. i. 8, 9.

—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 flames5924

5924 Crematoris Dei.

(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,”5925

5925 2 Thess. i. 8.

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.5926

5926 Non omnibus scibilis.

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,”5927

5927 2 Thess. i. 9.

he uses the words of Isaiah who for the express reason makes the self-same Lord “arise to shake terribly the earth.”5928

5928 Isa. ii. 19. The whole verse is to the point.

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?”5929

5929 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.

According indeed to our view, he is Antichrist; as it is taught us in both the ancient and the new prophecies,5930

5930 The prophets of the Old and the New Testament.

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,5931

5931 1 John iv. 1–3.

and do not acknowledge5932

5932 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 Irenæus, 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 πᾶν πνεῦμα ὅ λύει τὸν ᾽Ιησοῦν. 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 ᾽Ιησοῦν; and in ver. 3 read the old lection to which Socrates refers instead of πᾶν πνεῦμα ὅ μὴ ὁμολογεὶ.

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?”5933

5933 2 Thess. ii. 9.

“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 delusion5934

5934 Instinctum fallaciæ.

(to believe a lie), that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”5935

5935 2 Thess. ii. 10–12.

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 substitute5936

5936 Summissu erroris.

—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 he5937

5937 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.

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 function5938

5938 Habens fungi…Creatori.

of inspiring men with their love of untruth?  In short, it is incontestable that the emissary,5939

5939 Angelum: the Antichrist sent by the Creator.

and the truth, and the salvation belong to Him to whom also appertain the wrath, and the jealousy,5940

5940 Æmulatio.

and “the sending of the strong delusion,”5941

5941 2 Thess. ii. 11.

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 right 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,5942

5942 Plagis: “heavy strokes,” in opposition to the previous “beneficiis.”

and indications (of His divinity),5943

5943 Prædicationibus: see Rom. i. 20.

but who in spite of all this evidence has not been acknowledged; or he who has been brought out to view5944

5944 Productus est.

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 occasions5945

5945 Materia.

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,”5946

5946 2 Thess. iii. 10.

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.”5947

5947 Deut. xxv. 4.


Eph. i. 9, 10.

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?”5954

5954 Eph. i. 12.

Now who could have first trusted—i.e. previously trusted5955

5955 He explains “præsperasse by ante sperasse.”

—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.”5956

5956 Eph. i. 13.

Of what promise? That which was made through Joel: “In the last days will I pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh,”5957

5957 Joel ii. 28.

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”5958

5958 Eph. ii. 17.

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.”5959

5959 Ps. xxiv. 10.

From Him also is besought “the spirit of wisdom,”5960

5960 Eph. i. 17.

at whose disposal is enumerated that sevenfold distribution of the spirit of grace by Isaiah.5961

5961 Isa. xi. 2.

He likewise will grant “the enlightenment of the eyes of the understanding,”5962

5962 Eph. i. 18.

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.”5963

5963 Isa. xlii. 19 (Sept.).

In His gift, too, are “the riches (of the glory) of His inheritance in the saints,”5964

5964 Eph. i. 18.

who promised such an inheritance in the call of the Gentiles: “Ask of me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance.”5965

5965 Ps. ii. 8.

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”5966

5966 Eph. i. 19–22.

—even the same who said: “Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”5967

5967 Ps. cx. 1.

For in another passage the Spirit says to the Father concerning the Son: “Thou hast put all things under His feet.”5968

5968 Ps. viii. 7.

Now, if from all these facts which are found in the Creator there is yet to be deduced5969

5969 Infertur.

another god and another Christ, let us go in quest of the Creator. I suppose, forsooth,5970

5970 Plane.

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.”5971

5971 Eph. ii. 1, 2.

But Marcion must not here interpret the world as meaning the God of the world.5972

5972 Deo mundi: i.e. the God who made 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 instigator5973

5973 Operator: in reference to the expression in ver. 2, “who now worketh,” etc.

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 that5974

5974 Sufficit igitur si.

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.”5975

5975 Isa. xiv. 13, 14. An inexact quotation from the Septuagint.

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.5976

5976 On this and another meaning given to the phrase in 2 Cor. iv. 4, see above, chap. xi.

For he has filled the whole world with the lying pretence of his own divinity. To be sure,5977

5977 Plane: an ironical particle here.

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,”5978

5978 Eph. ii. 3.

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.”5979

5979 Eph. ii. 3.

Let the heretic, however, not contend that, because the Creator called the Jews children, therefore the Creator is the lord of wrath.5980

5980 In Marcion’s sense.

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 last, “even as others,”5981

5981 Eph. ii. 3.

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,5982

5982 Captante.

which he has already infected with the implanted germ of sin. “We,” says he, “are His workmanship, created in Christ.”5983

5983 Eph. ii. 10.

It is one thing to make (as a workman), another thing to create. But he assigns both to One. Man is the workmanship of the Creator. He therefore who made man (at first), created him also in Christ.  As touching the substance of nature, He “made” him; as touching the work of grace, He “created” him. Look also at what follows in connection with these words:  “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which has the name of circumcision in the flesh made by the hand—that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,5984

5984 Literally, “the covenants and their promise.”

having no hope, and without God in the world.”5985

5985 Eph. ii. 11, 12.

Now, without what God and without what Christ were these Gentiles? Surely, without Him to whom the commonwealth5986

5986 Conversatio: rather, “intercourse with Israel.”

of Israel belonged, and the covenants and the promise. “But now in Christ,” says he, “ye who were sometimes far off are made nigh by His blood.”5987

5987 Eph. ii. 13.

From whom were they far off before? From the (privileges) whereof he speaks above, even from the Christ of the Creator, from the commonwealth of Israel, from the covenants, from the hope of the promise, from God Himself. Since this is the case, the Gentiles are consequently now in Christ made nigh to these (blessings), from which they were once far off. But if we are in Christ brought so very nigh to the commonwealth of Israel, which comprises the religion of the divine Creator, and to the covenants and to the promise, yea to their very God Himself, it is quite ridiculous (to suppose that) the Christ of the other god has brought us to this proximity to the Creator from afar. The apostle had in mind that it had been predicted concerning the call of the Gentiles from their distant alienation in words like these: “They who were far off from me have come to my righteousness.”5988

5988 This is rather an allusion to, than a quotation of, Isa. xlvi. 12, 13.

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”5989

5989 Eph. ii. 14.

—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.”5990

5990 Eph. ii. 15.

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.5991

5991 “The law of commandments contained in ordinances.”

And thus you have (as I have said elsewhere) exhibited the stupidity of Pontus, rather than the adroitness of a Marrucinian,5992

5992 He expresses the proverbial adage very tersely, “non Marrucine, sed Pontice.”

for you here deny him flesh to whom in the verse above you allowed blood! Since, however, He has made the law obsolete5993

5993 Vacuam fecit.

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.5994

5994 Ex adjutore.

“For to create5995

5995 Conderet: “create,” to keep up the distinction between this and facere, “to make.”

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”),5996

5996 Eph. ii. 10.

“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”5997

5997 Eph. ii. 15–16.

(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.”5998

5998 Eph. ii. 16.

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”5999

5999 Eph. ii. 17–20.

—(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,6000

6000 “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 denied” (Lardner).

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,”6001

6001 Eph. ii. 20.

but from the figure given him in the Psalm:  “The stone which the builders rejected is become the head (stone) of the corner?”6002

6002 Ps. cxviii. 22.


Eph. iii. 8, 9.

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.”6004

6004 The passage of St. Paul, as Tertullian expresses it, “Quæ dispensatio sacramenti occulti ab ævis in Deo, qui omnia condidit.” According to Marcion’s alteration, the latter part runs, “Occulti ab ævis Deo, qui omnia condidit.” The original is, Τίς ἡ οἰκονομία τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ ἀποκεκρυμμένου ἀπὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐν τῷ Θεῷ (compare Col. iii. 3) τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι. Marcion’s removal of the ἐν has no warrant of ms. authority; it upsets St. Paul’s doctrine, as attested in other passages, and destroys the grammatical structure.

The falsification, however, is flagrantly6005

6005 Emicat.

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.”6006

6006 Eph. iii. 10.

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 understood6007

6007 Debebat.

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?”6008

6008 Isa. xl. 13.

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,6009

6009 Marcion’s god, of course.

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.6010

6010 Eph. iv. 8 and Ps. lxviii. 19.

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,”6011

6011 Ps. xlv. 3.

or by Isaiah as “taking away the spoils of Samaria and the power of Damascus,”6012

6012 Isa. viii. 4.

you make Him out to be6013

6013 Extundis.

really and truly a warrior confest to the eye.6014

6014 See above, book iii. chap. xiii. and xiv. p. 332.

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;”6015

6015 Eph. iv. 25.

and again, using the very words in which the Psalm6016

6016 Ps. iv. 4.

expresses his meaning, (he says,) “Be ye angry, and sin not;”6017

6017 Eph. iv. 26.

“Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.”6018

6018 Eph. iv. 26.

“Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness;”6019

6019 Eph. v. 11.

for (in the Psalm it is written,) “With the holy man thou shalt be holy, and with the perverse thou shalt be perverse;”6020

6020 Ps. xviii. 26.

and, “Thou shalt put away evil from among you.”6021

6021 Deut. xxi. 21; quoted also in 1 Cor. v. 13.

Again, “Go ye out from the midst of them; touch not the unclean thing; separate yourselves, ye that bear the vessels of the Lord.”6022

6022 Isa. lii. 11; quoted in 2 Cor. vi. 17.

(The apostle says further:) “Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess,”6023

6023 Eph. v. 18.

—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.”6024

6024 Amos ii. 12.

This prohibition from drink was given also to the high priest Aaron and his sons, “when they went into the holy place.”6025

6025 Lev. x. 9.

The command, to “sing to the Lord with psalms and hymns,”6026

6026 Eph. v. 19.

comes suitably from him who knew that those who “drank wine with drums and psalteries” were blamed by God.6027

6027 Isa. v. 11, 12.

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:”6028

6028 Eph. v. 22; 24.

what reason does he give for this? “Because,” says he, “the husband is the head of the wife.”6029

6029 Eph. v. 23.

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;”6030

6030 Eph. v. 23.

and again, in like manner: “He who loveth his wife, loveth his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church.”6031

6031 Eph. v. 25; 28.

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.”6032

6032 Eph. v. 29.

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.6033

6033 Proinde.

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,6034

6034 Ego.

to prove that the same God is (the God) of the man6035

6035 Masculi.

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.”6036

6036 Eph. v. 31, 32.

In passing,6037

6037 Inter ista.

(I would say that) it is enough for me that the works of the Creator are great mysteries6038

6038 Magna sacramenta.

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.”6039

6039 Eph. v. 32.

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.”6040

6040 Eph. vi. 1.

Now, although Marcion has erased (the next clause), “which is the first commandment with promise,”6041

6041 Eph. vi. 2. “He did this (says Lardner) in order that the Mosaic law might not be thought to be thus established.”

still the law says plainly, “Honour thy father and thy mother.”6042

6042 Ex. xx. 12.

Again, (the apostle writes:) “Parents, bring up your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.”6043

6043 Eph. vi. 4.

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.”6044

6044 Ex. x. 2.

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,”6045

6045 Eph. vi. 12.

what a host of Creator Gods there must be!6046

6046 An ironical allusion to Marcion’s interpretation, which he has considered in a former chapter, of the title God of this world.

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,”6047

6047 Eph. vi. 11.

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 rulers of the darkness of this world,”6048

6048 Eph. vi. 12.

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?6049

6049 Apud Creatorem.

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 perversion6050

6050 Ex qua delatura.

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,6051

6051 Illius arbusculæ.

from any apprehension that they would become gods; His prohibition was meant to prevent their dying after the transgression.  But “the spiritual wickedness”6052

6052 Spiritalia nequitiæ: “wicked spirits.”

did not signify the Creator, because of the apostle’s additional description, “in heavenly places;”6053

6053 Eph. vi. 12.

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.6054

6054 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.

But how happened it that (the apostle) resorted to ambiguous descriptions, and I know not what obscure enigmas, for the purpose of disparaging6055

6055 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 the Creator.

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?6056

6056 Eph. vi. 19, 20.


Col. i. 5, 6.

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,6059

6059 Antoniniani Marcionis: see above in book i. chap. xix.

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.”6060

6060 Ps. xix. 4.

He calls Christ “the image of the invisible God.”6061

6061 Col. i. 15.

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.”6062

6062 Ex. xxxiii. 20.

If Christ is not “the first-begotten before every creature,”6063

6063 Col. i. 15. Our author’s “primogenitus conditionis” is St. Paul’s πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, for the meaning of which see Bp. Ellicott, in loc.

as that “Word of God by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made;”6064

6064 John i. 3.

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.”6065

6065 Ante omnes.

For how is He before all, if He is not before all things?6066

6066 Ante amina.

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?6067

6067 Creatoris is our author’s word.

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?”6068

6068 Col. i. 19.

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,6069

6069 Aut si.

our false apostles and Judaizing gospellers6070

6070 Evangelizatores.

have introduced all these things out of their own stores, and Marcion 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,6071

6071 Ceterum quale.

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,”6072

6072 Col. i. 20.

but to Him whom those very things had altogether6073

6073 “Una ipsa” is Oehler’s reading instead of universa.

offended, against whom they had rebelled by transgression, (but) to whom they had at last returned?6074

6074 Cujus novissime fuerant.

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”6075

6075 Col. i. 21.

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,6076

6076 Eph. i. 23.

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.”6077

6077 Col. i. 24.

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;”6078

6078 Col. i. 22.

meaning, of course, that He died in that body wherein death was possible through the flesh: (therefore he adds,) not through the Church6079

6079 As if only in a metaphorical body, in which sense the Church is “His body.”

(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),6080

6080 Col. ii. 8.

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;6081

6081 “Dominum inferens hebetem;” with which may be compared Cicero (De Divin. ii. 50, 103): “Videsne Epicurum quem hebetem et rudem dicere solent Stoici…qui 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 mæror, aut Empedoclis furor persuaserunt.”

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.6082

6082 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.”

He also denies the resurrection of the flesh,—a truth which none of the schools of philosophy agreed together to hold.6083

6083 Pliny, Nat. Hist. vii. 55, refers to the peculiar opinion of Democritus on this subject (Fr. Junius).

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”6084

6084 1 Cor. i. 27.

—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.”6085

6085 Isa. xxix. 14, quoted 1 Cor. i. 19; comp. Jer. viii. 9 and Job v. 12, 13.

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,”6086

6086 Col. ii. 13.

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?”6087

6087 Col. ii. 16, 17.

We do not now treat of the law, further than (to remark) that the apostle here teaches clearly how it has been abolished, even by passing from shadow to substance—that is, from figurative types to the reality, which is Christ. The shadow, therefore, is His to whom belongs the body also; in other words, the law is His, and so is Christ. If you separate the law and Christ, assigning one to one god and the other to another, it is the same as if you were to attempt to separate the shadow from the body of which it is the shadow. Manifestly Christ has relation to the law, if the body has to its shadow. But when he blames those who alleged visions of angels as their authority for saying that men must abstain from meats—“you must not touch, you must not taste”—in a voluntary humility, (at the same time) “vainly puffed up in the fleshly mind, and not holding the Head,”6088

6088 Col. ii. 18, 19; 21.

(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,”6089

6089 Col. ii. 22.

he refers to the conduct of those persons who “held not the Head,” even Him in whom all things are gathered together;6090

6090 Recensentur: Eph. i. 10.

for they are all recalled to Christ, and concentrated in Him as their initiating principle6091

6091 Initium.

—even the meats and drinks which were indifferent in their nature. All the rest of his precepts,6092

6092 Contained in Vol. iii. and iv.

as we have shown sufficiently, when treating of them as they occurred in another epistle,6093

6093 In the Epistle to the Laodiceans or Ephesians; see his remarks in the preceding chapter of this book v.

emanated from the Creator, who, while predicting that “old things were to pass away,” and that He would “make all things new,”6094

6094 Isa. xliii. 18, 19, and lxv. 17; 2 Cor. v. 17.

commanded men “to break up fresh ground for themselves,”6095

6095 Jer. iv. 3. This and the passage of Isaiah just quoted are also cited together above, book iv. chap. i. and ii. p. 345.

and thereby taught them even then to put off the old man and put on the new.
Phil. i. 14–17.

he had a favourable opportunity, no doubt,6097

6097 Utique.

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,6098

6098 Regulas sacramentorum.

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,”6099

6099 Phil. i. 18.

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,6100

6100 Nihilominus.

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 course6101

6101 Plane.

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;6102

6102 Compare the treatise, De Resur. Carnis, c. vi. (Oehler).

but emptied6103

6103 Exhausit ἐκένωσε.

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,”6104

6104 Phil. ii. 6, 7.

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.”6105

6105 Col. i. 15.

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 propounded6106

6106 Posuit.

Him as thus “found” in the manner6107

6107 Inventum ratione.

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,”6108

6108 Phil. ii. 8.

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.”6109

6109 Phil. ii. 8.

For he could hardly mean this to be a climax6110

6110 Non enim exaggeraret.

to the human suffering, to extol the virtue6111

6111 Virtutem: perhaps the power.

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 virtue6112

6112 See the preceding note.

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 Pharisee6113

6113 Candidæ pharisaeæ: see Phil. iii. 4–6.

—he now reckons to be only “loss” to himself;6114

6114 Phil. iii. 7.

(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”6115

6115 Phil. iii. 8.

(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.”6116

6116 Phil. iii. 9.

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.”6117

6117 Phil. iii. 20.

I here recognise the Creator’s ancient promise to Abraham: “I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven.”6118

6118 Gen. xxii. 17.

Therefore “one star differeth from another star in glory.”6119

6119 1 Cor. xv. 41.

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,”6120

6120 Phil. iii. 21. [I have adhered to the original Greek, by a trifling verbal change, because Tertullian’s argument requires it.]

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 flesh6121

6121 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.

at the advent of God, and who shall have to be changed,”6122

6122 Deputari, which is an old reading, should certainly be demutari, and so say the best authorities. Oehler reads the former, but contends for the latter.

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).”6123

6123 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.

Then, if we are to be caught up alone with them, surely we shall likewise be changed together with them. 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 Thess. v. 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 deserves study.

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 xx. 29, 30.

Quoting Gen. i. 28, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Rigalt.).

and yet despises it in respect of his art.6137

6137 Disregarding the law when it forbids the representation of idols.  (Rigalt.).

He falsifies by a twofold process—with his cautery and his pen.6138

6138 Et cauterio et stilo. The former instrument was used by the encaustic painters for burning in the wax colours into the ground of their pictures (Westropp’s Handbook of Archæology, p. 219).  Tertullian charges Hermogenes with using his encaustic art to the injury of the scriptures, by practically violating their precepts in his artistic works; and with using his pen (stilus) in corrupting the doctrine thereof by his heresy.

He is a thorough adulterer, both doctrinally and carnally, since he is rank indeed with the contagion of your marriage-hacks,6139

6139 By the nubentium contagium, Tertullian, in his Montanist rigour, censures those who married more than once.

and has also failed in cleaving to the rule of faith as much as the apostle’s own Hermogenes.6140

6140 2 Tim. i. 15.

However, never mind the man, when it is his doctrine which I question. He does not appear to acknowledge any other Christ as Lord,6141

6141 Thus differing from Marcion.

though he holds Him in a different way; but by this difference in his faith he really makes Him another being,—nay, he takes from Him everything which is God, since he will not have it that He made all things of nothing. For, turning away from Christians to the philosophers, from the Church to the Academy and the Porch, he learned there from the Stoics how to place Matter (on the same level) with the Lord, just as if it too had existed ever both unborn and unmade, having no beginning at all nor end, out of which, according to him,6142

6142 The force of the subjunctive, ex qua fecerit.

the Lord afterwards created all things.
Porro.

it was in no way possible for Him to be regarded as always Lord, in the same manner as He had been always God, if there had not been always, in the previous eternity,6152

6152 Retro.

a something of which He could be regarded as evermore the Lord. So he concludes6153

6153 Itaque.

that God always had Matter co-existent with Himself as the Lord thereof. Now, this tissue6154

6154 Conjecturam.

of his I shall at once hasten to pull abroad.  I have been willing to set it out in form to this length, for the information of those who are unacquainted with the subject, that they may know that his other arguments likewise need only be6155

6155 Tam…quam.

understood to be refuted. We affirm, then, that the name of God always existed with Himself and in Himself—but not eternally so the Lord.  Because the condition of the one is not the same as that of the other. God is the designation of the substance itself, that is, of the Divinity; but Lord is (the name) not of substance, but of power. I maintain that the substance existed always with its own name, which is God; the title Lord was afterwards added, as the indication indeed6156

6156 Scilicet.

of something accruing. For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God.  For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord.  But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.  Do I seem to you to be weaving arguments,6157

6157 Argumentari: in the sense of argutari.

Hermogenes? How neatly does Scripture lend us its aid,6158

6158 Naviter nobis patrocinatur.

when it applies the two titles to Him with a distinction, and reveals them each at its proper time! For (the title) God, indeed, which always belonged to Him, it names at the very first: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;”6159

6159 Gen. i. 1.

and as long as He continued making, one after the other, those things of which He was to be the Lord, it merely mentions God.  “And God said,” “and God made,” “and God saw;”6160

6160 Gen. i. 3, etc.

but nowhere do we yet find the Lord. But when He completed the whole creation, and especially man himself, who was destined to understand His sovereignty in a way of special propriety, He then is designated6161

6161 Cognominatur: as if by way of surname, Deus Dominus.

Lord. Then also the Scripture added the name Lord: “And the Lord God, Deus Dominus, took the man, whom He had formed;”6162

6162 Gen. ii. 15.

“And the Lord God commanded Adam.”6163

6163 Gen. ii. 16.

Thenceforth He, who was previously God only, is the Lord, from the time of His having something of which He might be the Lord.  For to Himself He was always God, but to all things was He only then God, when He became also Lord. Therefore, in as far as (Hermogenes) shall suppose that Matter was eternal, on the ground that the Lord was eternal, in so far will it be evident that nothing existed, because it is plain that the Lord as such did not always exist. Now I mean also, on my own part,6164

6164 Et ego.

to add a remark for the sake of ignorant persons, of whom Hermogenes is an extreme instance,6165

6165 Extrema linea. Rhenanus sees in this phrase a slur against Hermogenes, who was an artist.  Tertullian, I suppose, meant that Hermogenes was extremely ignorant.

and actually to retort against him his own arguments.6166

6166 Experimenta.

For when he denies that Matter was born or made, I find that, even on these terms, the title Lord is unsuitable to God in respect of Matter, because it must have been free,6167

6167 Libera: and so not a possible subject for the Lordship of God.

when by not having a beginning it had not an author. The fact of its past existence it owed to no one, so that it could be a subject to no one.  Therefore ever since God exercised His power over it, by creating (all things) out of Matter, although it had all along experienced God as its Lord, yet Matter does, after all, demonstrate that God did not exist in the relation of Lord to it,6168

6168 Matter having, by the hypothesis, been independent of God, and so incapable of giving Him any title to Lordship.

although all the while He was really so.6169

6169 Fuit hoc utique. In Hermogenes’ own opinion, which is thus shown to have been contradictory to itself, and so absurd.


1 Cor. viii. 5.

whence the greater reason why, in our view,6174

6174 Apud nos.

that which is the property6175

6175 The property of being eternal.

of God ought to be regarded as pertaining to God alone, and why (as I have already said) that should cease to be such a property, when it is shared by another being. Now, since He is God, it must necessarily be a unique mark of this quality,6176

6176 Unicum sit necesse est.

that it be confined to One. Else, what will be unique and singular, if that is not which has nothing equal to it? What will be principal, if that is not which is above all things, before all things, and from which all things proceed? By possessing these He is God alone, and by His sole possession of them He is One.  If another also shared in the possession, there would then be as many gods as there were possessors of these attributes of God. Hermogenes, therefore, introduces two gods: he introduces Matter as God’s equal. God, however, must be One, because that is God which is supreme; but nothing else can be supreme than that which is unique; and that cannot possibly be unique which has anything equal to it; and Matter will be equal with God when it is held to be6177

6177 Censetur.

eternal.
But God is God, and Matter is Matter. As if a mere difference in their names prevented equality,6178

6178 Comparationi.

when an identity of condition is claimed for them! Grant that their nature is different; assume, too, that their form is not identical,—what matters it so long as their absolute state have but one mode?6179

6179 Ratio.

God is unborn; is not Matter also unborn? God ever exists; is not Matter, too, ever existent? Both are without beginning; both are without end; both are the authors of the universe—both He who created it, and the Matter of which He made it. For it is impossible that Matter should not be regarded as the author6180

6180 Auctrix.

of all things, when the universe is composed of it. What answer will he give? Will he say that Matter is not then comparable with God as soon as6181

6181 Statim si.

it has something belonging to God; since, by not having total (divinity), it cannot correspond to the whole extent of the comparison? But what more has he reserved for God, that he should not seem to have accorded to Matter the full amount of the Deity?6182

6182 Totum Dei.

He says in reply, that even though this is the prerogative of Matter, both the authority and the substance of God must remain intact, by virtue of which He is regarded as the sole and prime Author, as well as the Lord of all things.  Truth, however, maintains the unity of God in such a way as to insist that whatever belongs to God Himself belongs to Him alone. For so will it belong to Himself if it belong to Him alone; and therefore it will be impossible that another god should be admitted, when it is permitted to no other being to possess anything of God. Well, then, you say, we ourselves at that rate possess nothing of God. But indeed we do, and shall continue to do—only it is from Him that we receive it, and not from ourselves. For we shall be even gods, if we, shall deserve to be among those of whom He declared, “I have said, Ye are gods,”6183

6183 Ps. lxxxii. 6.

and, “God standeth in the congregation of the gods.”6184

6184 Ver. 1.

But this comes of His own grace, not from any property in us, because it is He alone who can make gods. The property of Matter, however, he6185

6185 Hermogenes.

makes to be that which it has in common with God. Otherwise, if it received from God the property which belongs to God,—I mean its attribute6186

6186 Ordinem: or course.

of eternity—one might then even suppose that it both possesses an attribute in common with God, and yet at the same time is not God. But what inconsistency is it for him6187

6187 Quale autem est: “how comes it to pass that.”

to allow that there is a conjoint possession of an attribute with God, and also to wish that what he does not refuse to Matter should be, after all, the exclusive privilege of God!
Isa. xlv. 23.

Hermogenes, however, will make Him a liar. For Matter will be such a God as He—being unmade, unborn, without beginning, and without end. God will say, “I am the first!”6189

6189 Isa. xli. 4; xliv. 6; xlviii. 12.

Yet how is He the first, when Matter is co-eternal with Him? Between co-eternals and contemporaries there is no sequence of rank.6190

6190 Ordo.

Is then, Matter also the first? “I,” says the Lord, “have stretched out the heavens alone.”6191

6191 Isa. xliv. 24.

But indeed He was not alone, when that likewise stretched them out, of which He made the expanse. When he asserts the position that Matter was eternal, without any encroachment on the condition of God, let him see to it that we do not in ridicule turn the tables on him, that God similarly was eternal without any encroachment on the condition of Matter—the condition of Both being still common to Them. The position, therefore, remains unimpugned6192

6192 Salvum ergo erit.

both in the case of Matter, that it did itself exist, only along with God; and that God existed alone, but with Matter.  It also was first with God, as God, too, was first with it; it, however, is not comparable with God, as God, too, is not to be compared with it; with God also it was the Author (of all things), and with God their Sovereign. In this way he proposes that God has something, and yet not the whole, of Matter. For Him, accordingly, Hermogenes has reserved nothing which he had not equally conferred on Matter, so that it is not Matter which is compared with God, but rather God who is compared with Matter. Now, inasmuch as those qualities which we claim as peculiar to God—to have always existed, without a beginning, without an end, and to have been the First, and Alone, and the Author of all things—are also compatible to Matter, I want to know what property Matter possesses different and alien from God, and hereby special to itself, by reason of which it is incapable of being compared with God? That Being, in which occur6193

6193 Recensentur.

all the properties of God, is sufficiently predetermined without any further comparison.
Of course, according to Hermogenes, whom Tertullian refutes with an argumentum ad hominem.

Therefore, of the two Beings which are eternal, as being unborn and unmade—God and Matter—by reason of the identical mode of their common condition (both of them equally possessing that which admits neither of diminution nor subjection—that is, the attribute of eternity), we affirm that neither of them is less or greater than the other, neither of them is inferior or superior to the other; but that they both stand on a par in greatness, on a par in sublimity, and on the same level of that complete and perfect felicity of which eternity is reckoned to consist.  Now we must not resemble the heathen in our opinions; for they, when constrained to acknowledge God, insist on having other deities below Him. The Divinity, however, has no degrees, because it is unique; and if it shall be found in Matter—as being equally unborn and unmade and eternal—it must be resident in both alike,6196

6196 Aderit utrobique.

because in no case can it be inferior to itself. In what way, then, will Hermogenes have the courage to draw distinctions; and thus to subject matter to God, an eternal to the Eternal, an unborn to the Unborn, an author to the Author? seeing that it dares to say, I also am the first; I too am before all things; and I am that from which all things proceed; equal we have been, together we have been—both alike without beginning, without end; both alike without an Author, without a God.6197

6197 That is, having no God superior to themselves.

What God, then, is He who subjects me to a contemporaneous, co-eternal power? If it be He who is called God, then I myself, too, have my own (divine) name. Either I am God, or He is Matter, because we both are that which neither of us is. Do you suppose, therefore, that he6198

6198 Hermogenes.

has not made Matter equal with God, although, forsooth, he pretends it to be inferior to Him?
Ex illa usus est.

for the creation of the world, Matter is already found to be the superior, inasmuch as it furnished Him with the means of effecting His works; and God is thereby clearly subjected to Matter, of which the substance was indispensable to Him. For there is no one but requires that which he makes use of;6201

6201 De cujus utitur.

no one but is subject to the thing which he requires, for the very purpose of being able to make use of it. So, again, there is no one who, from using what belongs to another, is not inferior to him of whose property he makes use; and there is no one who imparts6202

6202 Præstat.

of his own for another’s use, who is not in this respect superior to him to whose use he lends his property. On this principle,6203

6203 Itaque.

Matter itself, no doubt,6204

6204 Quidem.

was not in want of God, but rather lent itself to God, who was in want of it—rich and abundant and liberal as it was—to one who was, I suppose, too small, and too weak, and too unskilful, to form what He willed out of nothing. A grand service, verily,6205

6205 Revera.

did it confer on God in giving Him means at the present time whereby He might be known to be God, and be called Almighty—only that He is no longer Almighty, since He is not powerful enough for this, to produce all things out of nothing. To be sure,6206

6206 Sane.

Matter bestowed somewhat on itself also—even to get its own self acknowledged with God as God’s co-equal, nay more, as His helper; only there is this drawback, that Hermogenes is the only man that has found out this fact, besides the philosophers—those patriarchs of all heresy.6207

6207 They are so deemed in the de Præscript. Hæret. c. vii.

For the prophets knew nothing about it, nor the apostles thus far, nor, I suppose, even Christ.
He cannot say that it was as its Lord that God employed Matter for His creative works, for He could not have been the Lord of a substance which was co-equal with Himself. Well, but perhaps it was a title derived from the will of another,6208

6208 We have rather paraphrased the word “precario”—“obtained by prayer.” [See p. 456.]

which he enjoyed—a precarious holding, and not a lordship,6209

6209 Domino: opposed to “precario.”

and that to such a degree, that6210

6210 Ideo…ut.

although Matter was evil, He yet endured to make use of an evil substance, owing, of course, to the restraint of His own limited power,6211

6211 Mediocritatis.

which made Him impotent to create out of nothing, not in consequence of His power; for if, as God, He had at all possessed power over Matter which He knew to be evil, He would first have converted it into good—as its Lord and the good God—that so He might have a good thing to make use of, instead of a bad one. But being undoubtedly good, only not the Lord withal, He, by using such power6212

6212 Tali: i.e. potestate.

as He possessed, showed the necessity He was under of yielding to the condition of Matter, which He would have amended if He had been its Lord. Now this is the answer which must be given to Hermogenes when he maintains that it was by virtue of His Lordship that God used Matter—even of His non-possession of any right to it, on the ground, of course, of His not having Himself made it.  Evil then, on your terms,6213

6213 Jam ergo: introducing an argumentum ad hominem against Hermogenes.

must proceed from God Himself, since He is—I will not say the Author of evil, because He did not form it, but—the permitter thereof, as having dominion over it.6214

6214 Quia dominator.

If indeed Matter shall prove not even to belong to God at all, as being evil, it follows,6215

6215 Ergo.

that when He made use of what belonged to another, He used it either on a precarious title6216

6216 Aut precario: “as having begged for it.”

because He was in need of it, or else by violent possession because He was stronger than it. For by three methods is the property of others obtained,—by right, by permission, by violence; in other words, by lordship, by a title derived from the will of another,6217

6217 Precario: See above, note 2, p. 482.

by force. Now, as lordship is out of the question, Hermogenes must choose which (of the other methods) is suitable to God. Did He, then, make all things out of Matter, by permission, or by force?  But, in truth, would not God have more wisely determined that nothing at all should be created, than that it should be created by the mere sufferance of another, or by violence, and that, too, with6218

6218 De is often in Tertullian the sign of an instrumental noun.

a substance which was evil?
1 Cor. v. 13.

in that case, moreover, God vainly gives us such a command and precept; nay more, in vain has God appointed any judgment at all, when He means, indeed,6236

6236 Utique: with a touch of irony, in the argumentum ad hominem.

to inflict punishment with injustice.  But if, on the other hand, there is to be an end of evil, when the chief thereof, the devil, shall “go away into the fire which God hath prepared for him and his angels”6237

6237 Matt. xxv. 41.

—having been first “cast into the bottomless pit;”6238

6238 Rev. xx. 3.

when likewise “the manifestation of the children of God”6239

6239 Rom. viii. 19.

shall have “delivered the creature”6240

6240 Rom. viii. 21.

from evil, which had been “made subject to vanity;”6241

6241 Rom. viii. 20.

when the cattle restored in the innocence and integrity of their nature6242

6242 Conditionis: “creation.”

shall be at peace6243

6243 Condixerint.

with the beasts of the field, when also little children shall play with serpents;6244

6244 Isa. xi. 6.

when the Father shall have put beneath the feet of His Son His enemies,6245

6245 Ps. cx. 1.

as being the workers of evil,—if in this way an end is compatible with evil, it must follow of necessity that a beginning is also compatible with it; and Matter will turn out to have a beginning, by virtue of its having also an end. For whatever things are set to the account of evil,6246

6246 Male deputantur.

have a compatibility with the condition of evil.
Matt. iii. 9.

Will “generations of vipers not bring forth the fruit of repentance?”6249

6249 Verses 7, 8.

And “children of wrath” fail to become sons of peace, if nature be unchangeable?  Your reference to such examples as these, my friend,6250

6250 O homo.

is a thoughtless6251

6251 Temere.

one. For things which owe their existence to birth such as stones and vipers and human beings—are not apposite to the case of Matter, which is unborn; since their nature, by possessing a beginning, may have also a termination.  But bear in mind6252

6252 Tene.

that Matter has once for all been determined to be eternal, as being unmade, unborn, and therefore supposably of an unchangeable and incorruptible nature; and this from the very opinion of Hermogenes himself, which he alleges against us when he denies that God was able to make (anything) of Himself, on the ground that what is eternal is incapable of change, because it would lose—so the opinion runs6253

6253 Scilicet.

—what it once was, in becoming by the change that which it was not, if it were not eternal. But as for the Lord, who is also eternal, (he maintained) that He could not be anything else than what He always is. Well, then, I will adopt this definite opinion of his, and by means thereof refute him. I blame Matter with a like censure, because out of it, evil though it be—nay, very evil—good things have been created, nay, “very good” ones: “And God saw that they were good, and God blessed them”6254

6254 Gen. i. 21, 22.

—because, of course, of their very great goodness; certainly not because they were evil, or very evil. Change is therefore admissible in Matter; and this being the case, it has lost its condition of eternity; in short,6255

6255 Denique.

its beauty is decayed in death.6256

6256 That is, of course, by its own natural law.

Eternity, however, cannot be lost, because it cannot be eternity, except by reason of its immunity from loss. For the same reason also it is incapable of change, inasmuch as, since it is eternity, it can by no means be changed.
Matt. vii. 18.

since there is no God who is not good; nor does an evil tree yield good fruit, since there is not Matter except what is very evil. Or if we were to grant him that there is some germ of good in it, then there will be no longer a uniform nature (pervading it), that is to say, one which is evil throughout; but instead thereof (we now encounter) a double nature, partly good and partly evil; and again the question will arise, whether, in a subject which is good and evil, there could possibly have been found a harmony for light and darkness, for sweet and bitter? So again, if qualities so utterly diverse as good and evil have been able to unite together,6260

6260 Concurrisse.

and have imparted to Matter a double nature, productive of both kinds of fruit, then no longer will absolutely6261

6261 Ipsa.

good things be imputable to God, just as evil things are not ascribed to Him, but both qualities will appertain to Matter, since they are derived from the property of Matter. At this rate, we shall owe to God neither gratitude for good things, nor grudge6262

6262 Invidiam.

for evil ones, because He has produced no work of His own proper character.6263

6263 Ingenio.

From which circumstance will arise the clear proof that He has been subservient to Matter.
Rom. xi. 34, 35; comp. Isa. xl. 14.

Surely none!  Because there was present with Him no power, no material, no nature which belonged to any other than Himself.  But if it was with some (portion of Matter)6289

6289 De aliquo.

that He effected His creation, He must have received from that (Matter) itself both the design and the treatment of its order as being “the way of wisdom and knowledge.” For He had to operate conformably with the quality of the thing, and according to the nature of Matter, not according to His own will in consequence of which He must have made6290

6290 Adeo ut fecerit.

even evil things suitably to the nature not of Himself, but of Matter.
1 Cor. ii. 11.

Now His wisdom is that Spirit. This was His counsellor, the very way of His wisdom and knowledge.6294

6294 Isa. xl. 14.

Of this He made all things, making them through It, and making them with It.  “When He prepared the heavens,” so says (the Scripture6295

6295 Or the “inquit” may indicate the very words of “Wisdom.”

), “I was present with Him; and when He strengthened above the winds the lofty clouds, and when He secured the fountains6296

6296 Fontes. Although Oehler prefers Junius’ reading “montes,” he yet retains “fontes,” because Tertullian (in ch. xxxii. below) has the unmistakable reading “fontes” in a like connection.

which are under the heaven, I was present, compacting these things6297

6297 Compingens.

along with Him. I was He6298

6298 Ad quem: the expression is masculine.

in whom He took delight; moreover, I daily rejoiced in His presence: for He rejoiced when He had finished the world, and amongst the sons of men did He show forth His pleasure.”6299

6299 Prov. viii. 27–31.

Now, who would not rather approve of6300

6300 Commendet.

this as the fountain and origin of all things—of this as, in very deed, the Matter of all Matter, not liable to any end,6301

6301 “Non fini subditam” is Oehler’s better reading than the old “sibi subditam.”

not diverse in condition, not restless in motion, not ungraceful in form, but natural, and proper, and duly proportioned, and beautiful, such truly as even God might well have required, who requires His own and not another’s? Indeed, as soon as He perceived It to be necessary for His creation of the world, He immediately creates It, and generates It in Himself. “The Lord,” says the Scripture, “possessed6302

6302 Condidit: created.

me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works. Before the worlds He founded me; before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled in their places; moreover, before the hills He generated me, and prior to the depths was I begotten.”6303

6303 See Prov. viii.

Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord6304

6304 Intra Dominum.

was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning,—I mean6305

6305 Scilicet.

His wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thought of God It began to assume motion6306

6306 Cœpti agitari.

for the arrangement of His creative works,—how much more impossible6307

6307 Multo magis non capit.

is it that anything should have been without a beginning which was extrinsic to the Lord!6308

6308 Extra Dominum.

But if this same Wisdom is the Word of God, in the capacity6309

6309 Sensu.

of Wisdom, and (as being He) without whom nothing was made, just as also (nothing) was set in order without Wisdom, how can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word?  Not to say that6310

6310 Nedum.

what is unbegotten is stronger than that which is born, and what is not made more powerful than that which is made.  Because that which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that which had an author to bring it into being. On this principle, then,6311

6311 Proinde.

if evil is indeed unbegotten, whilst the Son of God is begotten (“for,” says God, “my heart hath emitted my most excellent Word”6312

6312 On this version of Ps. xlv. 1., and its application by Tertullian, see our Anti-Marcion (p. 299, note 5).

), I am not quite sure that evil may not be introduced by good, the stronger by the weak, in the same way as the unbegotten is by the begotten. Therefore on this ground Hermogenes puts Matter even before God, by putting it before the Son. Because the Son is the Word, and “the Word is God,”6313

6313 John i. 1.

and “I and my Father are one.”6314

6314 John x. 30.

But after all, perhaps,6315

6315 Nisi quod.

the Son will patiently enough submit to having that preferred before Him which (by Hermogenes), is made equal to the Father!
Gen. i. 1.

just as it would have said, “At last God made the heaven and the earth,” if God had created these after all the rest.  Now, if the beginning is a substance, the end must also be material. No doubt, a substantial thing6320

6320 Substantivum aliquid.

may be the beginning of some other thing which may be formed out of it; thus the clay is the beginning of the vessel, and the seed is the beginning of the plant. But when we employ the word beginning in this sense of origin, and not in that of order, we do not omit to mention also the name of that particular thing which we regard as the origin of the other. On the other hand,6321

6321 De cetero.

if we were to make such a statement as this, for example, “In the beginning the potter made a basin or a water-jug,” the word beginning will not here indicate a material substance (for I have not mentioned the clay, which is the beginning in this sense, but only the order of the work, meaning that the potter made the basin and the jug first, before anything else—intending afterwards to make the rest. It is, then, to the order of the works that the word beginning has reference, not to the origin of their substances. I might also explain this word beginning in another way, which would not, however, be inapposite.6322

6322 Non ab re tamen.

The Greek term for beginning, which is ἀρχή, admits the sense not only of priority of order, but of power as well; whence princes and magistrates are called ἀρχοντες. Therefore in this sense too, beginning may be taken for princely authority and power. It was, indeed, in His transcendent authority and power, that God made the heaven and the earth.
Prov. viii. 22.

For since all things were made by the Wisdom of God, it follows that, when God made both the heaven and the earth in principio—that is to say, in the beginning—He made them in His Wisdom. If, indeed, beginning had a material signification, the Scripture would not have informed us that God made so and so in principio, at the beginning, but rather ex principio, of the beginning; for He would not have created in, but of, matter. When Wisdom, however, was referred to, it was quite right to say, in the beginning.  For it was in Wisdom that He made all things at first, because by meditating and arranging His plans therein,6326

6326 In qua: in Wisdom.

He had in fact already done (the work of creation); and if He had even intended to create out of matter, He would yet have effected His creation when He previously meditated on it and arranged it in His Wisdom, since It6327

6327 Wisdom.

was in fact the beginning of His ways:  this meditation and arrangement being the primal operation of Wisdom, opening as it does the way to the works by the act of meditation and thought.6328

6328 De cogitatu.

This authority of Scripture I claim for myself even from this circumstance, that whilst it shows me the God who created, and the works He created, it does not in like manner reveal to me the source from which He created. For since in every operation there are three principal things, He who makes, and that which is made, and that of which it is made, there must be three names mentioned in a correct narrative of the operation—the person of the maker the sort of thing which is made,6329

6329 Species facti.

and the material of which it is formed. If the material is not mentioned, while the work and the maker of the work are both mentioned, it is manifest that He made the work out of nothing.  For if He had had anything to operate upon, it would have been mentioned as well as (the other two particulars).6330

6330 Proinde.

In conclusion, I will apply the Gospel as a supplementary testimony to the Old Testament.  Now in this there is all the greater reason why there should be shown the material (if there were any) out of which God made all things, inasmuch as it is therein plainly revealed by whom He made all things. “In the beginning was the Word”6331

6331 John i. 1.

—that is, the same beginning, of course, in which God made the heaven and the earth6332

6332 Gen. i. 1.

—“and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  All things were made by Him, and without Him nothing was made.”6333

6333 John i. 1–3.

Now, since we have here clearly told us who the Maker was, that is, God, and what He made, even all things, and through whom He made them, even His Word, would not the order of the narrative have required that the source out of which all things were made by God through the Word should likewise be declared, if they had been in fact made out of anything? What, therefore, did not exist, the Scripture was unable to mention; and by not mentioning it, it has given us a clear proof that there was no such thing: for if there had been, the Scripture would have mentioned it. Gen. i. 11, 12.

And again:  “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life, and fowl that may fly above the earth through the firmament of heaven. And it was so. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind.”6339

6339 Gen. i. 20, 21.

Again afterwards: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beasts of the earth after their kind.”6340

6340 Ver. 24.

If therefore God, when producing other things out of things which had been already made, indicates them by the prophet, and tells us what He has produced from such and such a source6341

6341 Quid unde protulerit: properly a double question ="what was produced, and whence?”

(although we might ourselves suppose them to be derived from some source or other, short of nothing;6342

6342 Unde unde…dumne.

since there had already been created certain things, from which they might easily seem to have been made); if the Holy Ghost took upon Himself so great a concern for our instruction, that we might know from what everything was produced,6343

6343 Quid unde processerit: properly a double question ="what was produced, and whence?”

would He not in like manner have kept us well informed about both the heaven and the earth, by indicating to us what it was that He made them of, if their original consisted of any material substance, so that the more He seemed to have made them of nothing, the less in fact was there as yet made, from which He could appear to have made them?  Therefore, just as He shows us the original out of which He drew such things as were derived from a given source, so also with regard to those things of which He does not point out whence He produced them, He confirms (by that silence our assertion) that they were produced out of nothing. “In the beginning,” then, “God made the heaven and the earth.”6344

6344 Gen. i. 1.

I revere6345

6345 Adoro: reverently admire.

the fulness of His Scripture, in which He manifests to me both the Creator and the creation. In the gospel, moreover, I discover a Minister and Witness of the Creator, even His Word.6346

6346 John i. 3.

But whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes’ shop6347

6347 Officina.

must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add to or take away from the written word.6348

6348 Rev. xxii. 18, 19.

Gen. i. 2.

For he resolves6350

6350 Redigit in.

the word earth into Matter, because that which is made out of it is the earth.  And to the word was he gives the same direction, as if it pointed to what had always existed unbegotten and unmade. It was without form, moreover, and void, because he will have Matter to have existed shapeless and confused, and without the finish of a maker’s hand.6351

6351 Inconditam: we have combined the two senses of the word.

Now these opinions of his I will refute singly; but first I wish to say to him, by way of general answer: We are of opinion that Matter is pointed at in these terms. But yet does the Scripture intimate that, because Matter was in existence before all, anything of like condition6352

6352 Tale aliquid.

was even formed out of it? Nothing of the kind. Matter might have had existence, if it so pleased—or rather if Hermogenes so pleased. It might, I say, have existed, and yet God might not have made anything out of it, either as it was unsuitable to Him to have required the aid of anything, or at least because He is not shown to have made anything out of Matter. Its existence must therefore be without a cause, you will say. Oh, no! certainly6353

6353 Plane: ironical.

not without cause. For even if the world were not made out of it, yet a heresy has been hatched there from; and a specially impudent one too, because it is not Matter which has produced the heresy, but the heresy has rather made Matter itself. Gen. i. 2.

Of course, if I were to ask, to which of the two earths the name earth is best suited,6361

6361 Quæ cui nomen terræ accommodare debeat. This is literally a double question, asking about the fitness of the name, and to which earth it is best adapted.

I shall be told that the earth which was made derived the appellation from that of which it was made, on the ground that it is more likely that the offspring should get its name from the original, than the original from the offspring. This being the case, another question presents itself to us, whether it is right and proper that this earth which God made should have derived its name from that out of which He made it? For I find from Hermogenes and the rest of the Materialist heretics,6362

6362 He means those who have gone wrong on the eternity of matter.

that while the one earth was indeed “without form, and void,” this one of ours obtained from God in an equal degree6363

6363 Proinde.

both form, and beauty, and symmetry; and therefore that the earth which was created was a different thing from that out of which it was created. Now, having become a different thing, it could not possibly have shared with the other in its name, after it had declined from its condition. If earth was the proper name of the (original) Matter, this world of ours, which is not Matter, because it has become another thing, is unfit to bear the name of earth, seeing that that name belongs to something else, and is a stranger to its nature. But (you will tell me) Matter which has undergone creation, that is, our earth, had with its original a community of name no less than of kind. By no means. For although the pitcher is formed out of the clay, I shall no longer call it clay, but a pitcher; so likewise, although electrum6364

6364 A mixed metal, of the colour of amber.

is compounded of gold and silver, I shall yet not call it either gold or silver, but electrum. When there is a departure from the nature of any thing, there is likewise a relinquishment of its name—with a propriety which is alike demanded by the designation and the condition. How great a change indeed from the condition of that earth, which is Matter, has come over this earth of ours, is plain even from the fact that the latter has received this testimony to its goodness in Genesis, “And God saw that it was good;”6365

6365 Gen. i. 31.

while the former, according to Hermogenes, is regarded as the origin and cause of all evils. Lastly, if the one is Earth because the other is, why also is the one not Matter as the other is? Indeed, by this rule both the heaven and all creatures ought to have had the names of Earth and Matter, since they all consist of Matter. I have said enough touching the designation Earth, by which he will have it that Matter is understood. This, as everybody knows, is the name of one of the elements; for so we are taught by nature first, and afterwards by Scripture, except it be that credence must be given to that Silenus who talked so confidently in the presence of king Midas of another world, according to the account of Theopompus. But the same author informs us that there are also several gods.
Gen. i. 1.

The Scripture, which at its very outset proposes to run through the order thereof tells us as its first information that it was created; it next proceeds to set forth what sort of earth it was.6367

6367 Qualitatem ejus: unless this means “how He made it,” like the “qualiter fecerit” below.

In like manner with respect to the heaven, it informs us first of its creation—“In the beginning God made the heaven:”6368

6368 Gen. i. 1.

it then goes on to introduce its arrangement; how that God both separated “the water which was below the firmament from that which was above the firmament,”6369

6369 Gen. i. 7.

and called the firmament heaven,6370

6370 Ver. 8.

—the very thing He had created in the beginning.  Similarly it (afterwards) treats of man:  “And God created man, in the image of God made He him.”6371

6371 Gen. i. 27.

It next reveals how He made him: “And (the Lord) God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”6372

6372 Gen. ii. 7.

Now this is undoubtedly6373

6373 Utique.

the correct and fitting mode for the narrative.  First comes a prefatory statement, then follow the details in full;6374

6374 Prosequi.

first the subject is named, then it is described.6375

6375 Primo præfari, postea prosequi; nominare, deinde describere. This properly is an abstract statement, given with Tertullian’s usual terseness: “First you should (‘decet’) give your preface, then follow up with details:  first name your subject, then describe it.”

How absurd is the other view of the account,6376

6376 Alioquin.

when even before he6377

6377 Hermogenes, whose view of the narrative is criticised.

had premised any mention of his subject, i.e. Matter, without even giving us its name, he all on a sudden promulged its form and condition, describing to us its quality before mentioning its existence,—pointing out the figure of the thing formed, but concealing its name! But how much more credible is our opinion, which holds that Scripture has only subjoined the arrangement of the subject after it has first duly described its formation and mentioned its name!  Indeed, how full and complete6378

6378 Integer.

is the meaning of these words: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; but6379

6379 Autem.

the earth was without form, and void,”6380

6380 Gen. i. 1, 2.

—the very same earth, no doubt, which God made, and of which the Scripture had been speaking at that very moment.6381

6381 Cum maxime edixerat.

For that very “but”6382

6382 The “autem” of the note just before this.

is inserted into the narrative like a clasp,6383

6383 Fibula.

(in its function) of a conjunctive particle, to connect the two sentences indissolubly together: “But the earth.” This word carries back the mind to that earth of which mention had just been made, and binds the sense thereunto.6384

6384 Alligat sensum.

Take away this “but,” and the tie is loosened; so much so that the passage, “But the earth was without form, and void,” may then seem to have been meant for any other earth.
Isa. xlv. 18.

Therefore after it was made, and while awaiting its perfect state,6406

6406 Futura etiam perfecta.

it was “without form, and void:” “void” indeed, from the very fact that it was without form (as being not yet perfect to the sight, and at the same time unfurnished as yet with its other qualities);6407

6407 De reliquo nondum instructa.

and “without form,” because it was still covered with waters, as if with the rampart of its fecundating moisture,6408

6408 Genitalis humoris.

by which is produced our flesh, in a form allied with its own. For to this purport does David say:6409

6409 Canit: “sing,” as the Psalmist.

“The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof; the world, and all that dwell therein:  He hath founded it upon the seas, and on the streams hath He established it.”6410

6410 Ps. xxiv. 1.

It was when the waters were withdrawn into their hollow abysses that the dry land became conspicuous,6411

6411 Emicantior.

which was hitherto covered with its watery envelope. Then it forthwith becomes “visible,”6412

6412 “Visibilis” is here the opposite of the term “invisibilis,” which Tertullian uses for the Scripture phrase “without form.”

God saying, “Let the water be gathered together into one mass,6413

6413 In congregatione una.

and let the dry land appear.”6414

6414 Gen. i. 9.

“Appear,” says He, not “be made.” It had been already made, only in its invisible condition it was then waiting6415

6415 Sustinebat: i.e. expectabat (Oehler).

to appear. “Dry,” because it was about to become such by its severance from the moisture, but yet “land.” “And God called the dry land Earth,”6416

6416 Gen. i. 10.

not Matter. And so, when it afterwards attains its perfection, it ceases to be accounted void, when God declares, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and according to its likeness, and the fruit-tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself, after its kind.”6417

6417 Ver. 11.

Again:  “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, after their kind.”6418

6418 Ver. 24.

Thus the divine Scripture accomplished its full order. For to that, which it had at first described as “without form (invisible) and void,” it gave both visibility and completion. Now no other Matter was “without form (invisible) and void.” Henceforth, then, Matter will have to be visible and complete. So that I must6419

6419 Volo.

see Matter, since it has become visible.  I must likewise recognize it as a completed thing, so as to be able to gather from it the herb bearing seed, and the tree yielding fruit, and that living creatures, made out of it, may minister to my need. Matter, however, is nowhere,6420

6420 He means, of course, the theoretic “Matter” of Hermogenes.

but the Earth is here, confessed to my view.  I see it, I enjoy it, ever since it ceased to be “without form (invisible), and void.” Concerning it most certainly did Isaiah speak when he said, “Thus saith the Lord that created the heavens, He was the God that formed the earth, and made it.”6421

6421 Isa. xlv. 18.

The same earth for certain did He form, which He also made. Now how did He form6422

6422 Demonstravit: “make it visible.” Tertullian here all along makes form and visibility synonymous.

it? Of course by saying, “Let the dry land appear.”6423

6423 Gen. i. 9.

Why does He command it to appear, if it were not previously invisible? His purpose was also, that He might thus prevent His having made it in vain, by rendering it visible, and so fit for use. And thus, throughout, proofs arise to us that this earth which we inhabit is the very same which was both created and formed6424

6424 Ostensam: “manifested” (see note 10, p. 96.)

by God, and that none other was “Without form, and void,” than that which had been created and formed. It therefore follows that the sentence, “Now the earth was without form, and void,” applies to that same earth which God mentioned separately along with the heaven.6425

6425 Cum cælo separavit: Gen. i. 1.


Gen. i. 2.

as if these blended6427

6427 Confusæ.

substances, presented us with arguments for his massive pile of Matter.6428

6428 Massalis illius molis.

Now, so discriminating an enumeration of certain and distinct elements (as we have in this passage), which severally designates “darkness,” “the deep,” “the Spirit of God,” “the waters,” forbids the inference that anything confused or (from such confusion) uncertain is meant. Still more, when He ascribed to them their own places,6429

6429 Situs.

“darkness on the face of the deep,” “the Spirit upon the face of the waters,” He repudiated all confusion in the substances; and by demonstrating their separate position,6430

6430 Dispositionem.

He demonstrated also their distinction.  Most absurd, indeed, would it be that Matter, which is introduced to our view as “without form,” should have its “formless” condition maintained by so many words indicative of form,6431

6431 Tot formarum vocabulis.

without any intimation of what that confused body6432

6432 Corpus confusionis.

is, which must of course be supposed to be unique,6433

6433 Unicum.

since it is without form.6434

6434 Informe.

For that which is without form is uniform; but even6435

6435 Autem.

that which is without form, when it is blended together6436

6436 Confusum.

from various component parts,6437

6437 Ex varietate.

must necessarily have one outward appearance;6438

6438 Unam speciem.

and it has not any appearance, until it has the one appearance (which comes) from many parts combined.6439

6439 Unam ex multis speciem.

Now Matter either had those specific parts6440

6440 Istas species.

within itself, from the words indicative of which it had to be understood—I mean “darkness,” and “the deep,” and “the Spirit,” and “the waters”—or it had them not. If it had them, how is it introduced as being “without form?”6441

6441 Non habens formas.

If it had them not, how does it become known?6442

6442 Agnoscitur.


Gen. ii. 7.

Now, although it here mentions the nostrils,6453

6453 Both in the quotation and here, Tertullian read “faciem” where we read “nostrils.”

it does not say that they were made by God; so again it speaks of skin6454

6454 Cutem: another reading has “costam,” rib.

and bones, and flesh and eyes, and sweat and blood, in subsequent passages,6455

6455 See Bible:Gen.4.10">Gen. ii. 21, 23; iii. 5, 19; iv. 10.

and yet it never intimated that they had been created by God. What will Hermogenes have to answer? That the human limbs must belong to Matter, because they are not specially mentioned as objects of creation? Or are they included in the formation of man? In like manner, the deep and the darkness, and the spirit and the waters, were as members of the heaven and the earth. For in the bodies the limbs were made, in the bodies the limbs too were mentioned. No element but what is a member of that element in which it is contained. But all elements are contained in the heaven and the earth.
Prov. viii. 24.

in order that you may believe that the depths were also “brought forth”—that is, created—just as we create sons also, though we “bring them forth.” It matters not whether the depth was made or born, so that a beginning be accorded to it, which however would not be, if it were subjoined6459

6459 Subjecta.

to matter. Of darkness, indeed, the Lord Himself by Isaiah says, “I formed the light, and I created darkness.”6460

6460 Isa. xlv. 7.

Of the wind6461

6461 De spiritu. This shows that Tertullian took the spirit of Gen. i. 2 in the inferior sense.

also Amos says, “He that strengtheneth the thunder6462

6462 So also the Septuagint.

, and createth the wind, and declareth His Christ6463

6463 So also the Septuagint.

unto men;”6464

6464 Amos iv. 13.

thus showing that that wind was created which was reckoned with the formation of the earth, which was wafted over the waters, balancing and refreshing and animating all things: not (as some suppose) meaning God Himself by the spirit,6465

6465 The “wind.”

on the ground that “God is a Spirit,”6466

6466 John iv. 24.

because the waters would not be able to bear up their Lord; but He speaks of that spirit of which the winds consist, as He says by Isaiah, “Because my spirit went forth from me, and I made every blast.”6467

6467 Flatum: “breath;” so LXX. of Isa. lvii. 16.

In like manner the same Wisdom says of the waters, “Also when He made the fountains strong, things which6468

6468 Fontes, quæ.

are under the sky, I was fashioning6469

6469 Modulans.

them along with Him.”6470

6470 Prov. viii. 28.

Now, when we prove that these particular things were created by God, although they are only mentioned in Genesis, without any intimation of their having been made, we shall perhaps receive from the other side the reply, that these were made, it is true,6471

6471 Plane.

but out of Matter, since the very statement of Moses, “And darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved on the face of the waters,”6472

6472 Gen. i. 2.

refers to Matter, as indeed do all those other Scriptures here and there,6473

6473 In disperso.

which demonstrate that the separate parts were made out of Matter. It must follow, then,6474

6474 Ergo: Tertullian’s answer.

that as earth consisted of earth, so also depth consisted of depth, and darkness of darkness, and the wind and waters of wind and waters. And, as we said above,6475

6475 Ch. xxx., towards the end.

Matter could not have been without form, since it had specific parts, which were formed out of it—although as separate things6476

6476 Ut et aliæ.

—unless, indeed, they were not separate, but were the very same with those out of which they came. For it is really impossible that those specific things, which are set forth under the same names, should have been diverse; because in that case6477

6477 Jam.

the operation of God might seem to be useless,6478

6478 Otiosa.

if it made things which existed already; since that alone would be a creation,6479

6479 Generatio: creation in the highest sense of matter issuing from the maker. Another reading has “generosiora essent,” for our “generatio sola esset,” meaning that, “those things would be nobler which had not been made,” which is obviously quite opposed to Tertullian’s argument.

when things came into being, which had not been (previously) made. Therefore, to conclude, either Moses then pointed to Matter when he wrote the words: “And darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved on the face of the waters;” or else, inasmuch as these specific parts of creation are afterwards shown in other passages to have been made by God, they ought to have been with equal explicitness6480

6480 Æque.

shown to have been made out of the Matter which, according to you, Moses had previously mentioned;6481

6481 Præmiserat.

or else, finally, if Moses pointed to those specific parts, and not to Matter, I want to know where Matter has been pointed out at all.
Isa. xxxiv. 4; Matt. xxiv. 29; 2 Pet. iii. 10; Rev. vi. 14.

nay, it shall come to nothing along with the earth itself, with which it was made in the beginning. “Heaven and earth shall pass away,”6491

6491 Matt. xxiv. 35.

says He. “The first heaven and the first earth passed away,”6492

6492 Rev. xxi. 1.

“and there was found no place for them,”6493

6493 Rev. xx. 11.

because, of course, that which comes to an end loses locality. In like manner David says, “The heavens, the works of Thine hands, shall themselves perish.  For even as a vesture shall He change them, and they shall be changed.”6494

6494 Ps. cii. 25, 26.

Now to be changed is to fall from that primitive state which they lose whilst undergoing the change. “And the stars too shall fall from heaven, even as a fig-tree casteth her green figs6495

6495 Acerba sua “grossos suos” (Rigalt.). So our marginal reading.

when she is shaken of a mighty wind.”6496

6496 Rev. vi. 13.

“The mountains shall melt like wax at the presence of the Lord;”6497

6497 Ps. xcvii. 5.

that is, “when He riseth to shake terribly the earth.”6498

6498 Isa. ii. 19.

“But I will dry up the pools;”6499

6499 Isa. xlii. 15.

and “they shall seek water, and they shall find none.”6500

6500 Isa. xli. 17.

Even “the sea shall be no more.”6501

6501 Etiam mare hactenus, Rev. xxi. 1.

Now if any person should go so far as to suppose that all these passages ought to be spiritually interpreted, he will yet be unable to deprive them of the true accomplishment of those issues which must come to pass just as they have been written. For all figures of speech necessarily arise out of real things, not out of chimerical ones; because nothing is capable of imparting anything of its own for a similitude, except it actually be that very thing which it imparts in the similitude. I return therefore to the principle6502

6502 Causam.

which defines that all things which have come from nothing shall return at last to nothing. For God would not have made any perishable thing out of what was eternal, that is to say, out of Matter; neither out of greater things would He have created inferior ones, to whose character it would be more agreeable to produce greater things out of inferior ones,—in other words, what is eternal out of what is perishable. This is the promise He makes even to our flesh, and it has been His will to deposit within us this pledge of His own virtue and power, in order that we may believe that He has actually6503

6503 Etiam.

awakened the universe out of nothing, as if it had been steeped in death,6504

6504 Emortuam.

in the sense, of course, of its previous non-existence for the purpose of its coming into existence.6505

6505 In hoc, ut esset. Contrasted with the “non erat” of the previous sentence, this must be the meaning, as if it were “ut fieret.”

Matt. iii. 9.

Surely by such means you not only compare the Lord with Matter, but you even put Him below6533

6533 Subicis.

it, since you affirm that6534

6534 This is the force of the subjunctive verb.

the nature of Matter could not possibly be brought under control by Him, and trained to something better. But although you are here disinclined to allow that Matter is by nature evil, yet in another passage you will deny having made such an admission.6535

6535 Te confessum.


Dan. iii. 21.

How immense the place, where God kept Himself so far aloof from Matter as to have neither appeared nor approached to it before the creation of the world! I suppose He journeyed to it from a long distance, as soon as He wished to appear and approach to it.
Prov. viii. 22, 23.

Then that the Word was produced, “through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made.”6594

6594 John i. 3.

Indeed, “by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all their hosts by the breath of His mouth.”6595

6595 Spiritu Ipsius: “by His Spirit.” See Ps. xxxiii. 6.

He is the Lord’s right hand,6596

6596 Isa. xlviii. 13.

indeed His two hands, by which He worked and constructed the universe. “For,” says He, “the heavens are the works of Thine hands,”6597

6597 Ps. cii. 25.

wherewith “He hath meted out the heaven, and the earth with a span.”6598

6598 Isa. xl. 12 and xlviii. 13.

Do not be willing so to cover God with flattery, as to contend that He produced by His mere appearance and simple approach so many vast substances, instead of rather forming them by His own energies. For this is proved by Jeremiah when he says, “God hath made the earth by His power, He hath established the world by His wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by His understanding.”6599

6599 Jer. li. 15.

These are the energies by the stress of which He made this universe.6600

6600 Ps. lxiv. 7.

His glory is greater if He laboured. At length on the seventh day He rested from His works. Both one and the other were after His manner. If, on the contrary,6601

6601 Aut si.

He made this world simply by appearing and approaching it, did He, on the completion of His work, cease to appear and approach it any more. Nay rather,6602

6602 Atquin.

God began to appear more conspicuously and to be everywhere accessible6603

6603 Ubique conveniri.

from the time when the world was made.  You see, therefore, how all things consist by the operation of that God who “made the earth by His power, who established the world by His wisdom, and stretched out the heaven by His understanding;” not appearing merely, nor approaching, but applying the almighty efforts of His mind, His wisdom, His power, His understanding, His word, His Spirit, His might. Now these things were not necessary to Him, if He had been perfect by simply appearing and approaching. They are, however, His “invisible things,” which, according to the apostle, “are from the creation of the world clearly seen by the things that are made;”6604

6604 Rom. i. 20.

they are no parts of a nondescript6605

6605 Nescio quæ.

Matter, but they are the sensible6606

6606 Sensualia.

evidences of Himself. “For who hath known the mind of the Lord,”6607

6607 Rom. xi. 34.

of which (the apostle) exclaims: “O the depth of the riches both of His wisdom and knowledge! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!”6608

6608 Ver. 33.

Now what clearer truth do these words indicate, than that all things were made out of nothing? They are incapable of being found out or investigated, except by God alone.  Otherwise, if they were traceable or discoverable in Matter, they would be capable of investigation. Therefore, in as far as it has become evident that Matter had no prior existence (even from this circumstance, that it is impossible6609

6609 Nec competat.

for it to have had such an existence as is assigned to it), in so far is it proved that all things were made by God out of nothing. It must be admitted, however,6610

6610 Nisi quod.

that Hermogenes, by describing for Matter a condition like his own—irregular, confused, turbulent, of a doubtful and precipate and fervid impulse—has displayed a specimen of his own art, and painted his own portrait. In Which the Author Gives a Concise Account of, Together with Sundry Caustic Animadversions on, the Very Fantastic Theology of the Sect. This Treatise is Professedly Taken from the Writings of Justin, Miltiades, Irenæus, and Proculus.

Chapter I.—Introductory. Tertullian Compares the Heresy to the Old Eleusinian Mysteries.  Both Systems Alike in Preferring Concealment of Error and Sin to Proclamation of Truth and Virtue.

The Valentinians, who are no doubt a very large body of heretics—comprising as they do so many apostates from the truth, who have a propensity for fables, and no discipline to deter them (therefrom) care for nothing so much as to obscure6611

6611 Occultant. [This tract may be assigned to any date not earlier than a.d. 207. Of this Valentinus, see cap. iv. infra, and de Præscript. capp. 29, 30, supra.]

what they preach, if indeed they (can be said to) preach who obscure their doctrine. The officiousness with which they guard their doctrine is an officiousness which betrays their guilt.6612

6612 We are far from certain whether we have caught the sense of the original, which we add, that the reader may judge for himself, and at the same time observe the terseness of our author: “Custodiæ officium conscientiæ officium est, confusio prædicatur, dum religio asseveratur.”

Their disgrace is proclaimed in the very earnestness with which they maintain their religious system. Now, in the case of those Eleusinian mysteries, which are the very heresy of Athenian superstition, it is their secrecy that is their disgrace. Accordingly, they previously beset all access to their body with tormenting conditions;6613

6613 Et aditum prius cruciant.

and they require a long initiation before they enrol (their members),6614

6614 Antequam consignant.

even instruction during five years for their perfect disciples,6615

6615 Epoptas: see Suidas, s.v. ᾽Επόπται.

in order that they may mould6616

6616 Ædificent.

their opinions by this suspension of full knowledge, and apparently raise the dignity of their mysteries in proportion to the craving for them which they have previously created. Then follows the duty of silence. Carefully is that guarded, which is so long in finding.  All the divinity, however, lies in their secret recesses:6617

6617 Adytis.

there are revealed at last all the aspirations of the fully initiated,6618

6618 Epoptarum.

the entire mystery of the sealed tongue, the symbol of virility. But this allegorical representation,6619

6619 Dispositio.

under the pretext of nature’s reverend name, obscures a real sacrilege by help of an arbitrary symbol,6620

6620 Patrocinio coactæ figuræ.

and by empty images obviates6621

6621 Excusat.

the reproach of falsehood!6622

6622 “Quid enim aliud est simulachrum nisi falsum?” (Rigalt.)

In like manner, the heretics who are now the object of our remarks,6623

6623 Quos nunc destinamus.

the Valentinians, have formed Eleusinian dissipations6624

6624 Lenocinia.

of their own, consecrated by a profound silence, having nothing of the heavenly in them but their mystery.6625

6625 Taciturnitate.

By the help of the sacred names and titles and arguments of true religion, they have fabricated the vainest and foulest figment for men’s pliant liking,6626

6626 Facili caritati. Oehler, after Fr. Junius, gives, however, this phrase a subjective turn thus: “by affecting a charity which is easy to them, costing nothing.”

out of the affluent suggestions of Holy Scripture, since from its many springs many errors may well emanate. If you propose to them inquiries sincere and honest, they answer you with stern6627

6627 Concreto.

look and contracted brow, and say, “The subject is profound.” If you try them with subtle questions, with the ambiguities of their double tongue, they affirm a community of faith (with yourself). If you intimate to them that you understand their opinions, they insist on knowing nothing themselves. If you come to a close engagement with them they destroy your own fond hope of a victory over them by a self-immolation.6628

6628 Sua cæde.

Not even to their own disciples do they commit a secret before they have made sure of them. They have the knack of persuading men before instructing them; although truth persuades by teaching, but does not teach by first persuading.
For this reason we are branded6629

6629 Notamur.

by them as simple, and as being merely so, without being wise also; as if indeed wisdom were compelled to be wanting in simplicity, whereas the Lord unites them both: “Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and simple as doves.”6630

6630 Matt. x. 16.

Now if we, on our parts, be accounted foolish because we are simple, does it then follow that they are not simple because they are wise? Most perverse, however, are they who are not simple, even as they are most foolish who are not wise. And yet, (if I must choose) I should prefer taking6631

6631 In the original the phrase is put passively: “malim eam partem meliori sumi vitio.”

the latter condition for the lesser fault; since it is perhaps better to have a wisdom which falls short in quantity, than that which is bad in quality6632

6632 How terse is the original! minus sapere quam pejus.

—better to be in error than to mislead. Besides, the face of the Lord6633

6633 Facies Dei.

is patiently waited for by those who “seek Him in simplicity of heart,” as says the very Wisdom—not of Valentinus, but—of Solomon.6634

6634 Wisd. of Sol. i. 1.

Then, again, infants have borne6635

6635 Litaverunt: “consecrated.”

by their blood a testimony to Christ.  (Would you say) that it was children who shouted “Crucify Him”?6636

6636 Tertullian’s words are rather suggestive of sense than of syntax:  “Pueros vocem qui crucem clamant?”

They were neither children nor infants; in other words, they were not simple. The apostle, too, bids us to “become children again” towards God,6637

6637 Secundum Deum: “according to God’s will.”

“to be as children in malice” by our simplicity, yet as being also “wise in our practical faculties.”6638

6638 1 Cor. xiv. 20, where Tertullian renders the ταῖς φρεσί (A.V. “understanding”) by “sensibus.”

At the same time, with respect to the order of development in Wisdom, I have admitted6639

6639 Dedi.

that it flows from simplicity. In brief, “the dove” has usually served to figure Christ; “the serpent,” to tempt Him. The one even from the first has been the harbinger of divine peace; the other from the beginning has been the despoiler of the divine image.  Accordingly, simplicity alone6640

6640 i.e., without wisdom.

will be more easily able to know and to declare God, whereas wisdom alone will rather do Him violence,6641

6641 Concutere.

and betray Him.
Per anfractus.

let him tortuously crawl, though not all at once,6644

6644 Nec semel totus.

beast as he is that skulks the light. Of our dove, however, how simple is the very home!—always in high and open places, and facing the light! As the symbol of the Holy Spirit, it loves the (radiant) East, that figure of Christ.6645

6645 By this remark it would seem that Tertullian read sundry passages in his Latin Bible similarly to the subsequent Vulgate version. For instance, in Zech. vi. 12, the prophet’s words וֹמשְׁ המַצ” שׁיאִ־הנּ”הִ (“Behold the Man, whose name is the Branch”), are rendered in the Vulgate, “Ecce Vir Oriens nomen ejus.” Similarly in Zech. iii. 8, “Servum meum adducam Orientem.” (Compare Luke i. 78, where the ᾽Ανατολὴ ἐξ ὕψ·ους (“the day-spring from on high”) is in the same version “Oriens ex alto.”)

Nothing causes truth a blush, except only being hidden, because no man will be ashamed to give ear thereto. No man will be ashamed to recognise Him as God whom nature has already commended to him, whom he already perceives in all His works,6646

6646 Or, perhaps, “whom it (nature) feels in all its works.”

—Him indeed who is simply, for this reason, imperfectly known; because man has not thought of Him as only one, because he has named Him in a plurality (of gods), and adored Him in other forms. Yet,6647

6647 Alioquin.

to induce oneself to turn from this multitude of deities to another crowd,6648

6648 Alloquin a turba eorum et aliam frequentiam suadere: which perhaps is best rendered, “But from one rabble of gods to frame and teach men to believe in another set,” etc.

to remove from a familiar authority to an unknown one, to wrench oneself from what is manifest to what is hidden, is to offend faith on the very threshold. Now, even suppose that you are initiated into the entire fable, will it not occur to you that you have heard something very like it from your fond nurse6649

6649 A nutricula.

when you were a baby, amongst the lullabies she sang to you6650

6650 Inter somni difficultates.

about the towers of Lamia, and the horns of the sun?6651

6651 These were child’s stories at Carthage in Tertullian’s days.

Let, however, any man approach the subject from a knowledge of the faith which he has otherwise learned, as soon as he finds so many names of Æons, so many marriages, so many offsprings, so many exits, so many issues, felicities and infelicities of a dispersed and mutilated Deity, will that man hesitate at once to pronounce that these are “the fables and endless genealogies” which the inspired apostle6652

6652 Apostoli spiritus: see 1 Tim. i. 4.

by anticipation condemned, whilst these seeds of heresy were even then shooting forth? Deservedly, therefore, must they be regarded as wanting in simplicity, and as merely prudent, who produce such fables not without difficulty, and defend them only indirectly, who at the same time do not thoroughly instruct those whom they teach. This, of course, shows their astuteness, if their lessons are disgraceful; their unkindness, if they are honourable. As for us, however, who are the simple folk, we know all about it. In short, this is the very first weapon with which we are armed for our encounter; it unmasks6653

6653 Detectorem.

and brings to view6654

6654 Designatorem.

the whole of their depraved system.6655

6655 Totius conscientiæ illorum.

And in this we have the first augury of our victory; because even merely to point out that which is concealed with so great an outlay of artifice,6656

6656 Tanto impendio.

is to destroy it.
Martyrii.

had given him, he broke with the church of the true faith. Just like those (restless) spirits which, when roused by ambition, are usually inflamed with the desire of revenge, he applied himself with all his might6659

6659 Conversus.

to exterminate the truth; and finding the clue6660

6660 Semitam.

of a certain old opinion, he marked out a path for himself with the subtlety of a serpent. Ptolemæus afterwards entered on the same path, by distinguishing the names and the numbers of the Ænons into personal substances, which, however, he kept apart from God. Valentinus had included these in the very essence of the Deity, as senses and affections of motion. Sundry bypaths were then struck off therefrom, by Heraclean and Secundus and the magician Marcus. Theotimus worked hard about “the images of the law.” Valentinus, however, was as yet nowhere, and still the Valentinians derive their name from Valentinus. Axionicus at Antioch is the only man who at the present time does honour6661

6661 Consolatur.

to the memory of Valentinus, by keeping his rules6662

6662 Regularum: the particulars of his system. [Here comes in the word, borrowed from heresy, which shaped Monasticism in after times and created the regular orders.]

to the full. But this heresy is permitted to fashion itself into as many various shapes as a courtezan, who usually changes and adjusts her dress every day. And why not?  When they review that spiritual seed of theirs in every man after this fashion, whenever they have hit upon any novelty, they forthwith call their presumption a revelation, their own perverse ingenuity a spiritual gift; but (they deny all) unity, admitting only diversity.6663

6663 Nec unitatem, sed diversitatem: scil. appellant.

And thus we clearly see that, setting aside their customary dissimulation, most of them are in a divided state, being ready to say (and that sincerely) of certain points of their belief, “This is not so;” and, “I take this in a different sense;” and, “I do not admit that.” By this variety, indeed, innovation is stamped on the very face of their rules; besides which, it wears all the colourable features of ignorant conceits.6664

6664 Colores ignorantiarum.


In a good sense, from the elegance of his style.

of the churches; Irenæus, that very exact inquirer into all doctrines;6669

6669 [See Vol. I. p. 326, of this series. Tertullian appropriates the work of Irenæus, (B. i.) against the Gnostics without further ceremony: translation excepted.]

our own Proculus, the model6670

6670 Dignitas. [Of this Proculus see Kaye, p. 55.]

of chaste old age and Christian eloquence.  All these it would be my desire closely to follow in every work of faith, even as in this particular one.  Now if there are no heresies at all but what those who refute them are supposed to have fabricated, then the apostle who predicted them6671

6671 1 Cor. xi. 19.

must have been guilty of falsehood. If, however, there are heresies, they can be no other than those which are the subject of discussion. No writer can be supposed to have so much time on his hands6672

6672 Otiosus.

as to fabricate materials which are already in his possession.
Beginning with Ennius,6680

6680 Primus omnium.

the Roman poet, he simply spoke of “the spacious saloons6681

6681 Cœnacula: dining halls.

of heaven,”—either on account of their elevated site, or because in Homer he had read about Jupiter banqueting therein.  As for our heretics, however, it is marvellous what storeys upon storeys6682

6682 Supernitates supernitatum.

and what heights upon heights, they have hung up, raised and spread out as a dwelling for each several god of theirs. Even our Creator has had arranged for Him the saloons of Ennius in the fashion of private rooms,6683

6683 Ædicularum.

with chamber piled upon chamber, and assigned to each god by just as many staircases as there were heresies. The universe, in fact, has been turned into “rooms to let.”6684

6684 Meritorium.

Such storeys of the heavens you would imagine to be detached tenements in some happy isle of the blessed,6685

6685 This is perhaps a fair rendering of “Insulam Feliculam credas tanta tabulata cœlorum, nescio ubi.” “Insula” is sometimes “a detached house.” It is difficult to say what “Felicula” is; it seems to be a diminutive of Felix. It occurs in Arrian’s Epictetica as the name of a slave.

I know not where. There the god even of the Valentinians has his dwelling in the attics. They call him indeed, as to his essence, Αἰῶν τέλειος (Perfect Æon), but in respect of his personality, Προαρχή (Before the Beginning), ῾Η ᾽Αρχή (The Beginning), and sometimes Bythos (Depth),6686

6686 We follow Tertullian’s mode of designation all through. He, for the most part, gives the Greek names in Roman letters, but not quite always.

a name which is most unfit for one who dwells in the heights above! They describe him as unbegotten, immense, infinite, invisible, and eternal; as if, when they described him to be such as we know that he ought to be, they straightway prove him to be a being who may be said to have had such an existence even before all things else. I indeed insist upon6687

6687 Expostulo: “I postulate as a first principle.”

it that he is such a being; and there is nothing which I detect in beings of this sort more obvious, than that they who are said to have been before all things—things, too, not their own—are found to be behind all things. Let it, however, be granted that this Bythos of theirs existed in the infinite ages of the past in the greatest and profoundest repose, in the extreme rest of a placid and, if I may use the expression, stupid divinity, such as Epicurus has enjoined upon us. And yet, although they would have him be alone, they assign to him a second person in himself and with himself, Ennoea (Thought), which they also call both Charis (Grace) and Sige (Silence). Other things, as it happened, conduced in this most agreeable repose to remind him of the need of by and by producing out of himself the beginning of all things.  This he deposits in lieu of seed in the genital region, as it were, of the womb of his Sige. Instantaneous conception is the result: Sige becomes pregnant, and is delivered, of course in silence; and her offspring is Nus (Mind), very like his father and his equal in every respect. In short, he alone is capable of comprehending the measureless and incomprehensible greatness of his father. Accordingly he is even called the Father himself, and the Beginning of all things, and, with great propriety, Monogenes (The Only-begotten). And yet not with absolute propriety, since he is not born alone. For along with him a female also proceeded, whose name was Veritas6688

6688 Tertullian is responsible for this Latin word amongst the Greek names. The strange mixture occurs often.

(Truth). But how much more suitably might Monogenes be called Protogenes (First begotten), since he was begotten first! Thus Bythos and Sige, Nus and Veritas, are alleged to be the first fourfold team6689

6689 Quadriga.

of the Valentinian set (of gods)6690

6690 Factionis.

the parent stock and origin of them all.  For immediately when6691

6691 Ibidem simul.

Nus received the function of a procreation of his own, he too produces out of himself Sermo (the Word) and Vita (the Life). If this latter existed not previously, of course she existed not in Bythos. And a pretty absurdity would it be, if Life existed not in God! However, this offspring also produces fruit, having for its mission the initiation of the universe and the formation of the entire Pleroma: it procreates Homo (Man) and Ecclesia (the Church). Thus you have an Ogdoad, a double Tetra, out of the conjunctions of males and females—the cells6692

6692 Cellas.

(so to speak) of the primordial Æons, the fraternal nuptials of the Valentinian gods, the simple originals6693

6693 Census.

of heretical sanctity and majesty, a rabble6694

6694 Turbam.

—shall I say of criminals6695

6695 Criminum.

or of deities?6696

6696 Numinum.

—at any rate, the fountain of all ulterior fecundity.
Cogor.

here quoting from a like example what may serve to show the import of these names. In the schools of Carthage there was once a certain Latin rhetorician, an excessively cool fellow,6703

6703 Frigidissimus.

whose name was Phosphorus. He was personating a man of valour, and wound up6704

6704 Cum virum fortem peroraret…inquit.

with saying, “I come to you, excellent citizens, from battle, with victory for myself, with happiness for you, full of honour, covered with glory, the favourite of fortune, the greatest of men, decked with triumph.” And forthwith his scholars begin to shout for the school of Phosphorus, φεῦ6705

6705 Tertullian’s joke lies in the equivocal sense of this cry, which may mean either admiration and joy, or grief and rage.

(ah!).  Are you a believer in6706

6706 Audisti: interrogatively.

Fortunata, and Hedone, and Acinetus, and Theletus? Then shout out your φεῦ for the school of Ptolemy.6707

6707 See above, chap. iv. p. 505.

This must be that mystery of the Pleroma, the fulness of the thirty-fold divinity. Let us see what special attributes6708

6708 Privilegia.

belong to these numbers—four, and eight, and twelve. Meanwhile with the number thirty all fecundity ceases. The generating force and power and desire of the Æons is spent.6709

6709 Castrata.

As if there were not still left some strong rennet for curdling numbers.6710

6710 Tanta numerorum coagula.

As if no other names were to be got out of the page’s hall!6711

6711 The pædagogium was either the place where boys were trained as pages (often for lewd purposes), or else the boy himself of such a character.

For why are there not sets of fifty and of a hundred procreated? Why, too, are there no comrades and boon companions6712

6712 Oehler reads, “hetæri (ἑταῖροι) et syntrophi.” Another reading, supported by Rigaltius, is “sterceiæ,” instead of the former word, which gives a very contemptuous sense, suitable to Tertullian’s irony.

named for them?
Tertullian has, above, remarked on the silent and secret practices of the Valentinians: see chap. i. p. 503.

although they affirm that this is done at the will of the Father, who will have all to be inflamed with a longing after himself. Thus, while they are tormenting themselves with these internal desires, while they are burning with the secret longing to know the Father, the crime is almost accomplished. For of the twelve Æons which Homo and Ecclesia had produced, the youngest by birth (never mind the solecism, since Sophia (Wisdom) is her name), unable to restrain herself, breaks away without the society of her husband Theletus, in quest of the Father and contracts that kind of sin which had indeed arisen amongst the others who were conversant with Nus but had flowed on to this Æon,6715

6715 In hunc derivaret.

that is, to Sophia; as is usual with maladies which, after arising in one part of the body, spread abroad their infection to some other limb. The fact is,6716

6716 Sed enim.

under a pretence of love to the Father, she was overcome with a desire to rival Nus, who alone rejoiced in the knowledge of the Father.6717

6717 De Patre.

But when Sophia, straining after impossible aims, was disappointed of her hope, she is both overcome with difficulty, and racked with affection. Thus she was all but swallowed up by reason of the charm and toil (of her research),6718

6718 Præ vi dulcedinis et laboris.

and dissolved into the remnant of his substance;6719

6719 It is not easy to say what is the meaning of the words, “Et in reliquam substantiam dissolvi.” Rigaltius renders them: “So that whatever substance was left to her was being dissolved.” This seems to be forcing the sentence unnaturally. Irenæus (according to the Latin translator) says:  “Resolutum in universam substantiam,” “Resolved into his (the Father’s) general substance,” i. 2, 2.  [Vol. I. p. 317.]

nor would there have been any other alternative for her than perdition, if she had not by good luck fallen in with Horus (Limit). He too had considerable power. He is the foundation of the great6720

6720 Illius.

universe, and, externally, the guardian thereof. To him they give the additional names of Crux (Cross), and Lytrotes (Redeemer,) and Carpistes (Emancipator).6721

6721 So Grabe; but Reaper, according to Neander.

When Sophia was thus rescued from danger, and tardily persuaded, she relinquished further research after the Father, found repose, and laid aside all her excitement,6722

6722 Animationem.

or Enthymesis (Desire,) along with the passion which had come over her.
[A shocking reference to the Spirit which I modify to one of the Divine Persons.]

must be a female, and so the male is discredited6737

6737 Vulneratur.

by the female. One divinity is assigned in the case of all these, to procure a complete adjustment among the Æons. Even from this fellowship in a common duty two schools actually arise, two chairs,6738

6738 Cathedræ.

and, to some extent,6739

6739 Quædam.

the inauguration of a division in the doctrine of Valentinus. It was the function of Christ to instruct the Æons in the nature of their conjugal relations6740

6740 Conjugiorum.

(you see what the whole thing was, of course!), and how to form some guess about the unbegotten,6741

6741 Innati conjectationem.

and to give them the capacity of generating within themselves the knowledge of the Father; it being impossible to catch the idea of him, or comprehend him, or, in short, even to enjoy any perception of him, either by the eye or the ear, except through Monogenes (the Only-begotten). Well, I will even grant them what they allege about knowing the Father, so that they do not refuse us (the attainment of) the same. I would rather point out what is perverse in their doctrine, how they were taught that the incomprehensible part of the Father was the cause of their own perpetuity,6742

6742 Perpetuitatis: i.e. “what was unchangeable in their condition and nature.”

whilst that which might be comprehended of him was the reason6743

6743 Rationem: perhaps “the means.”

of their generation and formation. Now by these several positions6744

6744 Hac dispositione.

the tenet, I suppose, is insinuated, that it is expedient for God not to be apprehended, on the very ground that the incomprehensibility of His character is the cause of perpetuity; whereas what in Him is comprehensible is productive, not of perpetuity, but rather of conditions which lack perpetuity—namely, nativity and formation.  The Son, indeed, they made capable of comprehending the Father. The manner in which He is comprehended, the recently produced Christ fully taught them.  To the Holy Spirit, however, belonged the special gifts, whereby they, having been all set on a complete par in respect of their earnestness to learn, should be enabled to offer up their thanksgiving, and be introduced to a true tranquillity.
Col. i. 16.

), with a retinue and cortege of contemporary angels, and (as one may suppose) with the dozen fasces. Hereupon Achamoth, being quite struck with the pomp of his approach, immediately covered herself with a veil, moved at first with a dutiful feeling of veneration and modesty; but afterwards she surveys him calmly, and his prolific equipage.6792

6792 Fructiferumque suggestum.

With such energies as she had derived from the contemplation, she meets him with the salutation, Κύριε, χαῖρε (“Hail, Lord”)! Upon this, I suppose, he receives her, confirms and conforms her in knowledge, as well as cleanses6793

6793 Expumicat.

her from all the outrages of Passion, without, however, utterly severing them, with an indiscriminateness like that which had happened in the casualties which befell her mother. For such vices as had become inveterate and confirmed by practice he throws together; and when he had consolidated them in one mass, he fixes them in a separate body, so as to compose the corporeal condition of Matter, extracting out of her inherent, incorporeal passion such an aptitude of nature6794

6794 Habilitatem atque naturam. We have treated this as a “hendiadys.”

as might qualify it to attain to a reciprocity of bodily substances,6795

6795 Æquiparantias corpulentiarum.

which should emulate one another, so that a twofold condition of the substances might be arranged; one full of evil through its faults, the other susceptible of passion from conversion.  This will prove to be Matter, which has set us in battle array against Hermogenes, and all others who presume to teach that God made all things out of Matter, not out of nothing. Isa. xlv. 5; xlvi. 9.

But for all that, he at least was aware that he had not himself existed before. He understood, therefore, that he had been created, and that there must be a creator of a creature of some sort or other.  How happens it, then, that he seemed to himself to be the only being, notwithstanding his uncertainty, and although he had, at any rate, some suspicion of the existence of some creator? Irenæus’ word is Κοσμοκράτωρ; see also Eph. vi. 12.

(Ruler of the World), and maintain that, as he is of a spiritual nature, he has a better knowledge of the things above than the Demiurge, an animal being. He deserves from them the pre-eminence which all heresies provide him with.
Matt. viii. 5, 6.

And being enlightened by him on all points, he learns from him also of his own prospect how that he is to succeed to his mother’s place. Being thenceforth free from all care, he carries on the administration of this world, mainly under the plea of protecting the church, for as long a time as may be necessary and proper.
Isa. xl. 6.

and amongst these is the soul of mortal man, except when it has found salvation by faith. The souls of just men, that is to say, our souls, will be conveyed to the Demiurge in the abodes of the middle region. We are duly thankful; we shall be content to be classed with our god, in whom lies our own origin.6904

6904 See above, in ch. xxiv. p. 515.

Into the palace of the Pleroma nothing of the animal nature is admitted—nothing but the spiritual swarm of Valentinus. There, then, the first process is the despoiling of men themselves, that is, men within the Pleroma.6905

6905 Interiores.

Now this despoiling consists of the putting off of the souls in which they appear to be clothed, which they will give back to their Demiurge as they had obtained6906

6906 Averterant.

them from him. They will then become wholly intellectual spirits—impalpable,6907

6907 Neque detentui obnoxii.

invisible6908

6908 Neque conspectui obnoxii.

—and in this state will be readmitted invisibly to the Pleroma—stealthily, if the case admits of the idea.6909

6909 Si ita est: or, “since such is the fact.”

What then?  They will be dispersed amongst the angels, the attendants on Soter. As sons, do you suppose? Not at all.  As servants, then? No, not even so. Well, as phantoms? Would that it were nothing more! Then in what capacity, if you are ashamed to tell us? In the capacity of brides. Then will they end6910

6910 Claudent.

their Sabine rapes with the sanction of wedlock. This will be the guerdon of the spiritual, this the recompense of their faith! Such fables have their use. Although but a Marcus or a Gaius,6911

6911 But slaves, in fact.

full-grown in this flesh of ours, with a beard and such like proofs (of virility,) it may be a stern husband, a father, a grandfather, a great-grandfather (never mind what, in fact, if only a male), you may perhaps in the bridal-chamber of the Pleroma—I have already said so tacitly6912

6912 This parenthetic clause, “tacendo jam dixi,” perhaps means, “I say this with shame,” “I would rather not have to say it.”

—even become the parent by an angel of some Æon of high numerical rank.6913

6913 The common reading is, “Onesimum Æonem,” an Æon called Onesimus, in supposed allusion to Philemon’s Onesimus. But this is too far-fetched. Oehler discovers in “Onesimum” the corruption of some higher number ending in “esimum.”

For the right celebration of these nuptials, instead of the torch and veil, I suppose that secret fire is then to burst forth, which, after devastating the whole existence of things, will itself also be reduced to nothing at last, after everything has been reduced to ashes; and so their fable too will be ended.6914

6914 This is Oehler’s idea of “et nulla jam fabula.” Rigaltius, however, gives a good sense to this clause: “All will come true at last; there will be no fable.”

But I, too, am no doubt a rash man, in having exposed so great a mystery in so derisive a way: I ought to be afraid that Achamoth, who did not choose to make herself known even to her own son, would turn mad, that Theletus would be enraged, that Fortune6915

6915 The same as Macariotes, in ch. viii. above, p. 507.

would be irritated. But I am yet a liege-man of the Demiurge. I have to return after death to the place where there is no more giving in marriage, where I have to be clothed upon rather than to be despoiled,—where, even if I am despoiled of my sex, I am classed with angels—not a male angel, nor a female one. There will be no one to do aught against me, nor will they then find any male energy in me. On the Flesh of Christ.6939

6939 In his work On the Resurrection of the Flesh (chap. ii.), Tertullian refers to this tract, and calls it “De Carne Domini adversus quatuor hæreses”: the four heresies being those of Marcion, Apelles, Basilides, and Valentinus. Pamelius, indeed, designates the tract by this fuller title instead of the usual one, “De Carne Christi.” [This tract contains references to works written while our author was Montanistic, but it contains no positive Montanism. It should not be dated earlier than a.d. 207.]

This was written by our author in confutation of certain heretics who denied the reality of Christ’s flesh, or at least its identity with human flesh—fearing that, if they admitted the reality of Christ’s flesh, they must also admit his resurrection in the flesh; and, consequently, the resurrection of the human body after death.

————————————

 They who are so anxious to shake that belief in the resurrection which was firmly settled6940

6940 Moratam.

before the appearance of our modern Sadducees,6941

6941 The allusion is to Matt. xxii. 23; comp. De Præscr. Hæret. 33 (Fr. Junius).

as even to deny that the expectation thereof has any relation whatever to the flesh, have great cause for besetting the flesh of Christ also with doubtful questions, as if it either had no existence at all, or possessed a nature altogether different from human flesh. For they cannot but be apprehensive that, if it be once determined that Christ’s flesh was human, a presumption would immediately arise in opposition to them, that that flesh must by all means rise again, which has already risen in Christ. Therefore we shall have to guard our belief in the resurrection6942

6942 Tertullian’s phrase is “carnis vota”—the future prospects of the flesh.

from the same armoury, whence they get their weapons of destruction. Let us examine our Lord’s bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed.6943

6943 Certum est.

It is His flesh that is in question. Its verity and quality are the points in dispute. Did it ever exist? whence was it derived? and of what kind was it? If we succeed in demonstrating it, we shall lay down a law for our own resurrection. Marcion, in order that he might deny the flesh of Christ, denied also His nativity, or else he denied His flesh in order that he might deny His nativity; because, of course, he was afraid that His nativity and His flesh bore mutual testimony to each other’s reality, since there is no nativity without flesh, and no flesh without nativity. As if indeed, under the prompting of that licence which is ever the same in all heresy, he too might not very well have either denied the nativity, although admitting the flesh,—like Apelles, who was first a disciple of his, and afterwards an apostate,—or, while admitting both the flesh and the nativity, have interpreted them in a different sense, as did Valentinus, who resembled Apelles both in his discipleship and desertion of Marcion. At all events, he who represented the flesh of Christ to be imaginary was equally able to pass off His nativity as a phantom; so that the virgin’s conception, and pregnancy, and child-bearing, and then the whole course6944

6944 Ordo.

of her infant too, would have to be regarded as putative.6945

6945 Τῷ δοκεῖν haberentur. This term gave name to the Docetic errors.

These facts pertaining to the nativity of Christ would escape the notice of the same eyes and the same senses as failed to grasp the full idea6946

6946 Opinio.

of His flesh.
Luke i. 26–38.

But what has he to do with the Creator’s angel?6948

6948 This is said in opposition to Marcion, who held the Creator’s angel, and everything else pertaining to him, to be evil.

The conception in the virgin’s womb is also set plainly before us. But what concern has he with the Creator’s prophet, Isaiah?6949

6949 A reference to Isa. vii. 14.

He6950

6950 Marcion.

will not brook delay, since suddenly (without any prophetic announcement) did he bring down Christ from heaven.6951

6951 See also our Anti-Marcion, iv. 7.

“Away,” says he, “with that eternal plaguey taxing of Cæsar, and the scanty inn, and the squalid swaddling-clothes, and the hard stable.6952

6952 Luke ii. 1–7.

We do not care a jot for6953

6953 Viderit.

that multitude of the heavenly host which praised their Lord at night.6954

6954 Luke ii. 13.

Let the shepherds take better care of their flock,6955

6955 Luke ii. 8.

and let the wise men spare their legs so long a journey;6956

6956 Matt. ii. 1.

let them keep their gold to themselves.6957

6957 Matt. ii. 11.

Let Herod, too, mend his manners, so that Jeremy may not glory over him.6958

6958 Matt. ii. 16–; 18, and Jer. xxxi. 15.

Spare also the babe from circumcision, that he may escape the pain thereof; nor let him be brought into the temple, lest he burden his parents with the expense of the offering;6959

6959 Luke ii. 22–24.

nor let him be handed to Simeon, lest the old man be saddened at the point of death.6960

6960 Luke ii. 25–35.

Let that old woman also hold her tongue, lest she should bewitch the child.”6961

6961 Luke ii. 36–38.

After such a fashion as this, I suppose you have had, O Marcion, the hardihood of blotting out the original records (of the history) of Christ, that His flesh may lose the proofs of its reality. But, prithee, on what grounds (do you do this)? Show me your authority. If you are a prophet, foretell us a thing; if you are an apostle, open your message in public; if a follower of apostles,6962

6962 Apostolicus.

side with apostles in thought; if you are only a (private) Christian, believe what has been handed down to us: if, however, you are nothing of all this, then (as I have the best reason to say) cease to live.6963

6963 Morere.

For indeed you are already dead, since you are no Christian, because you do not believe that which by being believed makes men Christian,—nay, you are the more dead, the more you are not a Christian; having fallen away, after you had been one, by rejecting6964

6964 Rescindendo.

what you formerly believed, even as you yourself acknowledge in a certain letter of yours, and as your followers do not deny, whilst our (brethren) can prove it.6965

6965 Compare our Anti-Marcion, i. 1, iv. 4 and de Præscr. Hær. c. xxx.

Rejecting, therefore, what you once believed, you have completed the act of rejection, by now no longer believing:  the fact, however, of your having ceased to believe has not made your rejection of the faith right and proper; nay, rather,6966

6966 Atquin.

by your act of rejection you prove that what you believed previous to the said act was of a different character.6967

6967 Aliter fuisse.

What you believed to be of a different character, had been handed down just as you believed it. Now6968

6968 Porro.

that which had been handed down was true, inasmuch as it had been transmitted by those whose duty it was to hand it down.  Therefore, when rejecting that which had been handed down, you rejected that which was true. You had no authority for what you did. However, we have already in another treatise availed ourselves more fully of these prescriptive rules against all heresies.  Our repetition of them hereafter that large (treatise) is superfluous,6969

6969 Ex abundanti. [Dr. Holmes, in this sentence actually uses the word lengthy, for which I have said large.]

when we ask the reason why you have formed the opinion that Christ was not born.
Quatenus.

you think that this lay within the competency of your own arbitrary choice, you must needs have supposed that being born6971

6971 Nativitatem.

was either impossible for God, or unbecoming to Him. With God, however, nothing is impossible but what He does not will. Let us consider, then, whether He willed to be born (for if He had the will, He also had the power, and was born). I put the argument very briefly. If God had willed not to be born, it matters not why, He would not have presented Himself in the likeness of man. Now who, when he sees a man, would deny that he had been born?  What God therefore willed not to be, He would in no wise have willed the seeming to be. When a thing is distasteful, the very notion6972

6972 Opinio.

of it is scouted; because it makes no difference whether a thing exist or do not exist, if, when it does not exist, it is yet assumed to exist.  It is of course of the greatest importance that there should be nothing false (or pretended) attributed to that which really does not exist.6973

6973 If Christ’s flesh was not real, the pretence of it was wholly wrong.

But, say you, His own consciousness (of the truth of His nature) was enough for Him.  If any supposed that He had been born, because they saw Him as a man, that was their concern.6974

6974 Viderint homines.

Yet with how much more dignity and consistency would He have sustained the human character on the supposition that He was truly born; for if He were not born, He could not have undertaken the said character without injury to that consciousness of His which you on your side attribute to His confidence of being able to sustain, although not born, the character of having been born even against!  His own consciousness!6975

6975 It did not much matter (according to the view which Tertullian attributes to Marcion) if God did practise deception in affecting the assumption of a humanity which He knew to be unreal. Men took it to be real, and that answered every purpose. God knew better: and He was moreover, strong enough to obviate all inconveniences of the deception by His unfaltering fortitude, etc. All this, however, seemed to Tertullian to be simply damaging and perilous to the character of God, even from Marcion’s own point of view.

Why, I want to know,6976

6976 Edoce.

was it of so much importance, that Christ should, when perfectly aware what He really was, exhibit Himself as being that which He was not? You cannot express any apprehension that,6977

6977 Non potes dicere ne, etc.

if He had been born and truly clothed Himself with man’s nature, He would have ceased to be God, losing what He was, while becoming what He was not. For God is in no danger of losing His own state and condition. But, say you, I deny that God was truly changed to man in such wise as to be born and endued with a body of flesh, on this ground, that a being who is without end is also of necessity incapable of change. For being changed into something else puts an end to the former state. Change, therefore, is not possible to a Being who cannot come to an end. Without doubt, the nature of things which are subject to change is regulated by this law, that they have no permanence in the state which is undergoing change in them, and that they come to an end from thus wanting permanence, whilst they lose that in the process of change which they previously were. But nothing is equal with God; His nature is different6978

6978 Distat.

from the condition of all things. If, then, the things which differ from God, and from which God differs, lose what existence they had whilst they are undergoing change, wherein will consist the difference of the Divine Being from all other things except in His possessing the contrary faculty of theirs,—in other words, that God can be changed into all conditions, and yet continue just as He is? On any other supposition, He would be on the same level with those things which, when changed, lose the existence they had before; whose equal, of course, He is not in any other respect, as He certainly is not in the changeful issues6979

6979 In exitu conversionis.

of their nature. You have sometimes read and believed that the Creator’s angels have been changed into human form, and have even borne about so veritable a body, that Abraham even washed their feet,6980

6980 Gen. xviii.

and Lot was rescued from the Sodomites by their hands;6981

6981 Gen. xix.

an angel, moreover, wrestled with a man so strenuously with his body, that the latter desired to be let loose, so tightly was he held.6982

6982 Gen. xxxii.

Has it, then, been permitted to angels, which are inferior to God, after they have been changed into human bodily form,6983

6983 See below in chap. vi. and in the Anti-Marcion, iii. 9.

nevertheless to remain angels? and will you deprive God, their superior, of this faculty, as if Christ could not continue to be God, after His real assumption of the nature of man? Or else, did those angels appear as phantoms of flesh? You will not, however, have the courage to say this; for if it be so held in your belief, that the Creator’s angels are in the same condition as Christ, then Christ will belong to the same God as those angels do, who are like Christ in their condition. If you had not purposely rejected in some instances, and corrupted in others, the Scriptures which are opposed to your opinion, you would have been confuted in this matter by the Gospel of John, when it declares that the Spirit descended in the body6984

6984 Corpore.

of a dove, and sat upon the Lord.6985

6985 Matt. iii. 16.

When the said Spirit was in this condition, He was as truly a dove as He was also a spirit; nor did He destroy His own proper substance by the assumption of an extraneous substance. But you ask what becomes of the dove’s body, after the return of the Spirit back to heaven, and similarly in the case of the angels. Their withdrawal was effected in the same manner as their appearance had been.  If you had seen how their production out of nothing had been effected, you would have known also the process of their return to nothing. If the initial step was out of sight, so was also the final one. Still there was solidity in their bodily substance, whatever may have been the force by which the body became visible. What is written cannot but have been.
Since, therefore, you do not reject the assumption of a body6986

6986 Corporationem.

as impossible or as hazardous to the character of God, it remains for you to repudiate and censure it as unworthy of Him.  Come now, beginning from the nativity itself, declaim6987

6987 Compare similar passages in the Anti-Marcion, iii. 1 and iv. 21.

against the uncleanness of the generative elements within the womb, the filthy concretion of fluid and blood, of the growth of the flesh for nine months long out of that very mire. Describe the womb as it enlarges6988

6988 Insolescentem.

from day to day, heavy, troublesome, restless even in sleep, changeful in its feelings of dislike and desire. Inveigh now likewise against the shame itself of a woman in travail6989

6989 Enitentis.

which, however, ought rather to be honoured in consideration of that peril, or to be held sacred6990

6990 Religiosum.

in respect of (the mystery of) nature.  Of course you are horrified also at the infant, which is shed into life with the embarrassments which accompany it from the womb;6991

6991 Cum suis impedimentis profusum.

you likewise, of course, loathe it even after it is washed, when it is dressed out in its swaddling-clothes, graced with repeated anointing,6992

6992 Unctionibus formatur.

smiled on with nurse’s fawns. This reverend course of nature,6993

6993 Hanc venerationem naturæ. Compare Tertullian’s phrase, “Illa sanctissima et reverenda opera naturæ,” in the Anti-Marcion, iii. 11.

you, O Marcion, (are pleased to) spit upon; and yet, in what way were you born? You detest a human being at his birth; then after what fashion do you love anybody? Yourself, of course, you had no love of, when you departed from the Church and the faith of Christ. But never mind,6994

6994 Videris.

if you are not on good terms with yourself, or even if you were born in a way different from other people. Christ, at any rate, has loved even that man who was condensed in his mother’s womb amidst all its uncleannesses, even that man who was brought into life out of the said womb, even that man who was nursed amidst the nurse’s simpers.6995

6995 Per ludibria nutritum. Compare the phrase just before, “smiled on with nurse’s fawns”—“blanditiis deridetur.” Oehler, however, compares the phrase with Tertullian’s expression (“puerperii spurcos, anxios, ludicros exitus,”) in the Anti-Marcion, iv. 21.

For his sake He came down (from heaven), for his sake He preached, for his sake “He humbled Himself even unto death—the death of the cross.”6996

6996 Phil. ii. 8.

He loved, of course, the being whom He redeemed at so great a cost. If Christ is the Creator’s Son, it was with justice that He loved His own (creature); if He comes from another god, His love was excessive, since He redeemed a being who belonged to another. Well, then, loving man He loved his nativity also, and his flesh as well. Nothing can be loved apart from that through which whatever exists has its existence. Either take away nativity, and then show us your man; or else withdraw the flesh, and then present to our view the being whom God has redeemed—since it is these very conditions6997

6997 Hæc: i.e. man’s nativity and his flesh.

which constitute the man whom God has redeemed.  And are you for turning these conditions into occasions of blushing to the very creature whom He has redeemed, (censuring them), too, as unworthy of Him who certainly would not have redeemed them had He not loved them?  Our birth He reforms from death by a second birth from heaven;6998

6998 Literally, “by a heavenly regeneration.”

our flesh He restores from every harassing malady; when leprous, He cleanses it of the stain; when blind, He rekindles its light; when palsied, He renews its strength; when possessed with devils, He exorcises it; when dead, He reanimates it,—then shall we blush to own it? If, to be sure,6999

6999 Revera. [I cannot let the words which follow, stand in the text; they are sufficiently rendered.]

He had chosen to be born of a mere animal, and were to preach the kingdom of heaven invested with the body of a beast either wild or tame, your censure (I imagine) would have instantly met Him with this demurrer: “This is disgraceful for God, and this is unworthy of the Son of God, and simply foolish.” For no other reason than because one thus judges. It is of course foolish, if we are to judge God by our own conceptions. But, Marcion, consider well this Scripture, if indeed you have not erased it: “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise.”7000

7000 1 Cor. i. 27.

Now what are those foolish things? Are they the conversion of men to the worship of the true God, the rejection of error, the whole training in righteousness, chastity, mercy, patience, and innocence?  These things certainly are not “foolish.” Inquire again, then, of what things he spoke, and when you imagine that you have discovered what they are will you find anything to be so “foolish” as believing in a God that has been born, and that of a virgin, and of a fleshly nature too, who wallowed in all the before-mentioned humiliations of nature?  But some one may say, “These are not the foolish things; they must be other things which God has chosen to confound the wisdom of the world.” And yet, according to the world’s wisdom, it is more easy to believe that Jupiter became a bull or a swan, if we listen to Marcion, than that Christ really became a man.
1 Cor. ii. 2.

falsely has he impressed upon us that He was buried; falsely inculcated that He rose again. False, therefore, is our faith also. And all that we hope for from Christ will be a phantom. O thou most infamous of men, who acquittest of all guilt7007

7007 Excusas.

the murderers of God! For nothing did Christ suffer from them, if He really suffered nothing at all. Spare the whole world’s one only hope, thou who art destroying the indispensable dishonour of our faith.7008

7008 The humiliation which God endured, so indispensable a part of the Christian faith.

Whatsoever is unworthy of God, is of gain to me. I am safe, if I am not ashamed of my Lord. “Whosoever,” says He, “shall be ashamed of me, of him will I also be ashamed.”7009

7009 Matt. x. 33, Mark viii. 38, and Luke ix. 26.

Other matters for shame find I none which can prove me to be shameless in a good sense, and foolish in a happy one, by my own contempt of shame. The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed because men must needs be ashamed of it.  And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.7010

7010 Ineptum.

And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible.  But how will all this be true in Him, if He was not Himself true—if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again? I mean this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, a flesh which knew how to be born, and how to die, human without doubt, as born of a human being. It will therefore be mortal in Christ, because Christ is man and the Son of man.  Else why is Christ man and the Son of man, if he has nothing of man, and nothing from man? Unless it be either that man is anything else than flesh, or man’s flesh comes from any other source than man, or Mary is anything else than a human being, or Marcion’s man is as Marcion’s god.7011

7011 That is, imaginary and unreal.

Otherwise Christ could not be described as being man without flesh, nor the Son of man without any human parent; just as He is not God without the Spirit of God, nor the Son of God without having God for His father. Thus the nature7012

7012 Census: “the origin.”

of the two substances displayed Him as man and God,—in one respect born, in the other unborn; in one respect fleshly, in the other spiritual; in one sense weak, in the other exceeding strong; in one sense dying, in the other living. This property of the two states—the divine and the human—is distinctly asserted7013

7013 Dispuncta est.

with equal truth of both natures alike, with the same belief both in respect of the Spirit7014

7014 This term is almost a technical designation of the divine nature of Christ in Tertullian. (See our translation of the Anti-Marcion, p. 247, note 7, Edin.)

and of the flesh. The powers of the Spirit,7015

7015 This term is almost a technical designation of the divine nature of Christ in Tertullian. (See our translation of the Anti-Marcion, p. 247, note 7, Edin.)

proved Him to be God, His sufferings attested the flesh of man. If His powers were not without the Spirit7016

7016 This term is almost a technical designation of the divine nature of Christ in Tertullian. (See our translation of the Anti-Marcion, p. 247, note 7, Edin.)

in like manner, were not His sufferings without the flesh. If His flesh with its sufferings was fictitious, for the same reason was the Spirit false with all its powers. Wherefore halve7017

7017 Dimidias.

Christ with a lie? He was wholly the truth. Believe me, He chose rather to be born, than in any part to pretend—and that indeed to His own detriment—that He was bearing about a flesh hardened without bones, solid without muscles, bloody without blood, clothed without the tunic of skin,7018

7018 See his Adv. Valentin, chap. 25.

hungry without appetite, eating without teeth, speaking without a tongue, so that His word was a phantom to the ears through an imaginary voice. A phantom, too, it was of course after the resurrection, when, showing His hands and His feet for the disciples to examine, He said, “Behold and see that it is I myself, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have;”7019

7019 Luke xxiv. 39.

without doubt, hands, and feet, and bones are not what a spirit possesses, but only the flesh. How do you interpret this statement, Marcion, you who tell us that Jesus comes only from the most excellent God, who is both simple and good? See how He rather cheats, and deceives, and juggles the eyes of all, and the senses of all, as well as their access to and contact with Him! You ought rather to have brought Christ down, not from heaven, but from some troop of mountebanks, not as God besides man, but simply as a man, a magician; not as the High Priest of our salvation, but as the conjurer in a show; not as the raiser of the dead, but as the misleader7020

7020 Avocatorem.

of the living,—except that, if He were a magician, He must have had a nativity!
Sine præjudicio tamen. “Without prejudice to their denial, etc.”

their denial of His nativity. He might have had, they say, a flesh which was not at all born. So we have found our way “out of a frying-pan,” as the proverb runs, “into the fire,”7023

7023 The Roman version of the proverb is “out of the lime-kiln into the coal-furnace.”

—from Marcion to Apelles. This man having first fallen from the principles of Marcion into (intercourse with) a woman, in the flesh, and afterwards shipwrecked himself, in the spirit, on the virgin Philumene,7024

7024 See Tertullian, de Præscr. Hæret. c. xxx.

proceeded from that time7025

7025 Ab eo: or, “from that event of the carnal contact.”  A good reading, found in most of the old books, is ab ea, that is, Philumene.

to preach that the body of Christ was of solid flesh, but without having been born. To this angel, indeed, of Philumene, the apostle will reply in tones like those in which he even then predicted him, saying, “Although an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”7026

7026 Gal. i. 8.

To the arguments, however, which have been indicated just above, we have now to show our resistance. They allow that Christ really had a body. Whence was the material of it, if not from the same sort of thing as7027

7027 Ex ea qualitate in qua.

that in which He appeared? Whence came His body, if His body were not flesh?  Whence came His flesh, if it were not born? Inasmuch as that which is born must undergo this nativity in order to become flesh.  He borrowed, they say, His flesh from the stars, and from the substances of the higher world. And they assert it for a certain principle, that a body without nativity is nothing to be astonished at, because it has been submitted to angels to appear even amongst ourselves in the flesh without the intervention of the womb.  We admit, of course, that such facts have been related. But then, how comes it to pass that a faith which holds to a different rule borrows materials for its own arguments from the faith which it impugns? What has it to do with Moses, who has rejected the God of Moses? Since the God is a different one, everything belonging to him must be different also.  But let the heretics always use the Scriptures of that God whose world they also enjoy. The fact will certainly recoil on them as a witness to judge them, that they maintain their own blasphemies from examples derived from Him.7028

7028 Ipsius: the Creator.

But it is an easy task for the truth to prevail without raising any such demurrer against them. When, therefore, they set forth the flesh of Christ after the pattern of the angels, declaring it to be not born, and yet flesh for all that, I should wish them to compare the causes, both in Christ’s case and that of the angels, wherefore they came in the flesh. Never did any angel descend for the purpose of being crucified, of tasting death, and of rising again from the dead. Now, since there never was such a reason for angels becoming embodied, you have the cause why they assumed flesh without undergoing birth. They had not come to die, therefore they also (came not) to be born. Christ, however, having been sent to die, had necessarily to be also born, that He might be capable of death; for nothing is in the habit of dying but that which is born. Between nativity and mortality there is a mutual contrast. The law7029

7029 Forma.

which makes us die is the cause of our being born. Now, since Christ died owing to the condition which undergoes death, but that undergoes death which is also born, the consequence was—nay, it was an antecedent necessity—that He must have been born also,7030

7030 Æque.

by reason of the condition which undergoes birth; because He had to die in obedience to that very condition which, because it begins with birth, ends in death.7031

7031 Quod, quia nascitur, moritur.

It was not fitting for Him not to be born under the pretence7032

7032 Pro.

that it was fitting for Him to die. But the Lord Himself at that very time appeared to Abraham amongst those angels without being born, and yet in the flesh without doubt, in virtue of the before-mentioned diversity of cause.  You, however, cannot admit this, since you do not receive that Christ, who was even then rehearsing7033

7033 Ediscebat. Compare a fine passage of Tertullian on this subject in our Anti-Marcion, note 10, p. 112, Edin.

how to converse with, and liberate, and judge the human race, in the habit of a flesh which as yet was not born, because it did not yet mean to die until both its nativity and mortality were previously (by prophecy) announced. Let them, then, prove to us that those angels derived their flesh from the stars. If they do not prove it because it is not written, neither will the flesh of Christ get its origin therefrom, for which they borrowed the precedent of the angels. It is plain that the angels bore a flesh which was not naturally their own; their nature being of a spiritual substance, although in some sense peculiar to themselves, corporeal; and yet they could be transfigured into human shape, and for the time be able to appear and have intercourse with men. Since, therefore, it has not been told us whence they obtained their flesh, it remains for us not to doubt in our minds that a property of angelic power is this, to assume to themselves bodily shape out of no material substance. How much more, you say, is it (within their competence to take a body) out of some material substance? That is true enough. But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing. Then, again,7034

7034 Ceterum.

how should they who are able to form themselves into that which by nature they are not, be unable to do this out of no material substance? If they become that which they are not, why cannot they so become out of that which is not? But that which has not existence when it comes into existence, is made out of nothing. This is why it is unnecessary either to inquire or to demonstrate what has subsequently become of their7035

7035 The angels’.

bodies. What came out of nothing, came to nothing. They, who were able to convert themselves into flesh have it in their power to convert nothing itself into flesh. It is a greater thing to change a nature than to make matter. But even if it were necessary to suppose that angels derived their flesh from some material substance, it is surely more credible that it was from some earthly matter than from any kind of celestial substances, since it was composed of so palpably terrene a quality that it fed on earthly ailments. Suppose that even now a celestial flesh7036

7036 Sidera. Drawn, as they thought, from the stars.

had fed on earthly aliments, although it was not itself earthly, in the same way that earthly flesh actually fed on celestial aliments, although it had nothing of the celestial nature (for we read of manna having been food for the people: “Man,” says the Psalmist, “did eat angels’ bread,”7037

7037 Ps. lxxviii. 24.

) yet this does not once infringe the separate condition of the Lord’s flesh, because of His different destination.  For One who was to be truly a man, even unto death, it was necessary that He should be clothed with that flesh to which death belongs. Now that flesh to which death belongs is preceded by birth.
Matt. xii. 48; Luke viii. 20, 21.

Let, therefore, Apelles hear what was our answer to Marcion in that little work, in which we challenged his own (favourite) gospel to the proof, even that the material circumstances of that remark (of the Lord’s) should be considered.7039

7039 See our Anti-Marcion, iv. 19.

First of all, nobody would have told Him that His mother and brethren were standing outside, if he were not certain both that He had a mother and brethren, and that they were the very persons whom he was then announcing,—who had either been known to him before, or were then and there discovered by him; although heretics7040

7040 Literally, “heresies.”

have removed this passage from the gospel, because those who were admiring His doctrine said that His supposed father, Joseph the carpenter, and His mother Mary, and His brethren, and His sisters, were very well known to them. But it was with the view of tempting Him, that they had mentioned to Him a mother and brethren which He did not possess. The Scripture says nothing of this, although it is not in other instances silent when anything was done against Him by way of temptation.  “Behold,” it says, “a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him.”7041

7041 Luke x. 25.

And in another passage: “The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him.” Who7042

7042 Literally, “nobody prevented its being, etc.”

was to prevent its being in this place also indicated that this was done with the view of tempting Him? I do not admit what you advance of your own apart from Scripture. Then there ought to be suggested7043

7043 Subesse.

some occasion7044

7044 Materia.

for the temptation. What could they have thought to be in Him which required temptation?  The question, to be sure, whether He had been born or not? For if this point were denied in His answer, it might come out on the announcement of a temptation. And yet no temptation, when aiming at the discovery of the point which prompts the temptation by its doubtfulness, falls upon one so abruptly, as not to be preceded by the question which compels the temptation whilst raising the doubt.  Now, since the nativity of Christ had never come into question, how can you contend that they meant by their temptation to inquire about a point on which they had never raised a doubt?  Besides,7045

7045 Eo adicimus etiam.

if He had to be tempted about His birth, this of course was not the proper way of doing it,—by announcing those persons who, even on the supposition of His birth, might possibly not have been in existence. We have all been born, and yet all of us have not either brothers or mother. He might with more probability have had even a father than a mother, and uncles more likely than brothers. Thus is the temptation about His birth unsuitable, for it might have been contrived without any mention of either His mother or His brethren. It is clearly more credible that, being certain that He had both a mother and brothers, they tested His divinity rather than His nativity, whether, when within, He knew what was without; being tried by the untrue announcement of the presence of persons who were not present. But the artifice of a temptation might have been thwarted thus:  it might have happened that He knew that those whom they were announcing to be “standing without,” were in fact absent by the stress either of sickness, or of business, or a journey which He was at the time aware of. No one tempts (another) in a way in which he knows that he may have himself to bear the shame of the temptation. There being, then, no suitable occasion for a temptation, the announcement that His mother and His brethren had actually turned up7046

7046 Supervenissent.

recovers its naturalness. But there is some ground for thinking that Christ’s answer denies His mother and brethren for the present, as even Apelles might learn. “The Lord’s brethren had not yet believed in Him.”7047

7047 John vii. 5.

So is it contained in the Gospel which was published before Marcion’s time; whilst there is at the same time a want of evidence of His mother’s adherence to Him, although the Marthas and the other Marys were in constant attendance on Him.  In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent. By and by they turn up, and keep outside; but they do not go in, because, forsooth, they set small store7048

7048 Non computantes scilicet.

on that which was doing within; nor do they even wait,7049

7049 Nec sustinent saltem.

as if they had something which they could contribute more necessary than that which He was so earnestly doing; but they prefer to interrupt Him, and wish to call Him away from His great work. Now, I ask you, Apelles, or will you Marcion, please (to tell me), if you happened to be at a stage play, or had laid a wager7050

7050 Contendens: “videlicet sponsionibus” (Oehler)

on a foot race or a chariot race, and were called away by such a message, would you not have exclaimed, “What are mother and brothers to me?”7051

7051 Literally, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?”—Christ’s own words.

And did not Christ, whilst preaching and manifesting God, fulfilling the law and the prophets, and scattering the darkness of the long preceding age, justly employ this same form of words, in order to strike the unbelief of those who stood outside, or to shake off the importunity of those who would call Him away from His work? If, however, He had meant to deny His own nativity, He would have found place, time, and means for expressing Himself very differently,7052

7052 The alius is a genitive, and must be taken with sermonis.

and not in words which might be uttered by one who had both a mother and brothers. When denying one’s parents in indignation, one does not deny their existence, but censures their faults. Besides, He gave others the preference; and since He shows their title to this favour—even because they listened to the word (of God)—He points out in what sense He denied His mother and His brethren. For in whatever sense He adopted as His own those who adhered to Him, in that did He deny as His7053

7053 Abnegavit: “repudiated.”

those who kept aloof from Him. Christ also is wont to do to the utmost that which He enjoins on others. How strange, then, would it certainly7054

7054 Force of the indicative quale erat.

have been, if, while he was teaching others not to esteem mother, or father, or brothers, as highly as the word of God, He were Himself to leave the word of God as soon as His mother and brethren were announced to Him! He denied His parents, then, in the sense in which He has taught us to deny ours—for God’s work. But there is also another view of the case: in the abjured mother there is a figure of the synagogue, as well as of the Jews in the unbelieving brethren. In their person Israel remained outside, whilst the new disciples who kept close to Christ within, hearing and believing, represented the Church, which He called mother in a preferable sense and a worthier brotherhood, with the repudiation of the carnal relationship. It was in just the same sense, indeed, that He also replied to that exclamation (of a certain woman), not denying His mother’s “womb and paps,” but designating those as more “blessed who hear the word of God.”7055

7055 Luke xi. 27, 28. See also our Anti-Marcion, p. 292, Edin.


Matt. vii. 17.

The flesh of Christ, therefore, if composed of celestial elements, consists of faulty materials, sinful by reason of its sinful origin;7062

7062 Censu.

so that it must be a part of that substance which they disdain to clothe Christ with, because of its sinfulness,—in other words, our own. Then, as there is no difference in the point of ignominy, let them either devise for Christ some substance of a purer stamp, since they are displeased with our own, or else let them recognise this too, than which even a heavenly substance could not have been better. We read in so many words:7063

7063 Plane.

“The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.”7064

7064 1 Cor. xv. 47.

This passage, however, has nothing to do with any difference of substance; it only contrasts with the once7065

7065 Retro.

“earthy” substance of the flesh of the first man, Adam, the “heavenly” substance of the spirit of the second man, Christ. And so entirely does the passage refer the celestial man to the spirit and not to the flesh, that those whom it compares to Him evidently become celestial—by the Spirit, of course—even in this “earthy flesh.” Now, since Christ is heavenly even in regard to the flesh, they could not be compared to Him, who are not heavenly in reference to their flesh.7066

7066 Secundum carnem.

If, then, they who become heavenly, as Christ also was, carry about an “earthy” substance of flesh, the conclusion which is affirmed by this fact is, that Christ Himself also was heavenly, but in an “earthy” flesh, even as they are who are put on a level with Him.7067

7067 Ei adæquantur.


Metalla.

of flesh. All these marks of the earthy origin were in Christ; and it is they which obscured Him as the Son of God, for He was looked on as man, for no other reason whatever than because He existed in the corporeal substance of a man. Or else, show us some celestial substance in Him purloined from the Bear, and the Pleiades, and the Hyades. Well, then, the characteristics which we have enumerated are so many proofs that His was an earthy flesh, as ours is; but anything new or anything strange I do not discover. Indeed it was from His words and actions only, from His teaching and miracles solely, that men, though amazed, owned Christ to be man.7071

7071 Christum hominem obstupescebant.

But if there had been in Him any new kind of flesh miraculously obtained (from the stars), it would have been certainly well known.7072

7072 Notaretur.

As the case stood, however, it was actually the ordinary7073

7073 Non mira.

condition of His terrene flesh which made all things else about Him wonderful, as when they said, “Whence hath this man this wisdom and these mighty works?”7074

7074 Matt. xiii. 54.

Thus spake even they who despised His outward form. His body did not reach even to human beauty, to say nothing of heavenly glory.7075

7075 Compare Isa. liii. 2. See also our Anti-Marcion, p. 153, Edin.

Had the prophets given us no information whatever concerning His ignoble appearance, His very sufferings and the very contumely He endured bespeak it all. The sufferings attested His human flesh, the contumely proved its abject condition. Would any man have dared to touch even with his little finger, the body of Christ, if it had been of an unusual nature;7076

7076 Novum: made of the stars.

or to smear His face with spitting, if it had not invited it7077

7077 Merentem.

(by its abjectness)? Why talk of a heavenly flesh, when you have no grounds to offer us for your celestial theory?7078

7078 Literally, “why do you suppose it to be celestial.”

Why deny it to be earthy, when you have the best of reasons for knowing it to be earthy?  He hungered under the devil’s temptation; He thirsted with the woman of Samaria; He wept over Lazarus; He trembles at death (for “the flesh,” as He says, “is weak”7079

7079 Matt. xxvi. 41.

); at last, He pours out His blood. These, I suppose, are celestial marks? But how, I ask, could He have incurred contempt and suffering in the way I have described, if there had beamed forth in that flesh of His aught of celestial excellence? From this, therefore, we have a convincing proof that in it there was nothing of heaven, because it must be capable of contempt and suffering.
Præsumant.

that Christ came forth not to deliver the flesh, but only our soul, how absurd it is, in the first place, that, meaning to save only the soul, He yet made it into just that sort of bodily substance which He had no intention of saving! And, secondly, if He had undertaken to deliver our souls by means of that which He carried, He ought, in that soul which He carried to have carried our soul, one (that is) of the same condition as ours; and whatever is the condition of our soul in its secret nature, it is certainly not one of flesh. However, it was not our soul which He saved, if His own was of flesh; for ours is not of flesh. Now, if He did not save our soul on the ground, that it was a soul of flesh which He saved, He is nothing to us, because He has not saved our soul. Nor indeed did it need salvation, for it was not our soul really, since it was, on the supposition,7084

7084 Scilicet.

a soul of flesh. But yet it is evident that it has been saved. Of flesh, therefore, it was not composed, and it was ours; for it was our soul that was saved, since that was in peril of damnation. We therefore now conclude that as in Christ the soul was not of flesh, so neither could His flesh have possibly been composed of soul.
1 John i. 2.

not the soul. And again, “I am come to save the soul.” He did not say, “to explain”7118

7118 Ostendere; see Luke ix. 56.

it. We could not know, of course,7119

7119 Nimirum.

that the soul, although an invisible essence, is born and dies, unless it were exhibited corporeally. We certainly were ignorant that it was to rise again with the flesh. This is the truth which it will be found was manifested by Christ. But even this He did not manifest in Himself in a different way than in some Lazarus, whose flesh was no more composed of soul7120

7120 Animalis.

than his soul was of flesh.7121

7121 Carnalis.

What further knowledge, therefore, have we received of the structure7122

7122 Dispositione.

of the soul which we were ignorant of before?  What invisible part was there belonging to it which wanted to be made visible by the flesh?
Matt. xxvi. 38. Tertullian’s quotation is put interrogatively.

and “the bread that I will give is my flesh, (which I will give) for the life7134

7134 “The salvation” (salute) is Tertullian’s word.

of the world.”7135

7135 John vi. 51.

Now, if the soul had been flesh, there would have only been in Christ the soul composed of flesh, or else the flesh composed of soul.7136

7136 Above, beginning of chap. x.

Since, however, He keeps the species distinct, the flesh and the soul, He shows them to be two. If two, then they are no longer one; if not one, then the soul is not composed of flesh, nor the flesh of soul. For the soul-flesh, or the flesh-soul, is but one; unless indeed He even had some other soul apart from that which was flesh, and bare about another flesh besides that which was soul. But since He had but one flesh and one soul,—that “soul which was sorrowful, even unto death,” and that flesh which was the “bread given for the life of the world,”—the number is unimpaired7137

7137 Salvus.

of two substances distinct in kind, thus excluding the unique species of the flesh-comprised soul.
Matt. xxv. 41.

yet a restoration is never promised to them.  No charge about the salvation of angels did Christ ever receive from the Father; and that which the Father neither promised nor commanded, Christ could not have undertaken. For what object, therefore, did He bear the angelic nature, if it were not (that He might have it) as a powerful helper7140

7140 Satellitem.

wherewithal to execute the salvation of man?  The Son of God, in sooth, was not competent alone to deliver man, whom a solitary and single serpent had overthrown!  There is, then, no longer but one God, but one Saviour, if there be two to contrive salvation, and one of them in need of the other. But was it His object indeed to deliver man by an angel? Why, then, come down to do that which He was about to expedite with an angel’s help? If by an angel’s aid, why come Himself also? If He meant to do all by Himself, why have an angel too? He has been, it is true, called “the Angel of great counsel,” that is, a messenger, by a term expressive of official function, not of nature. For He had to announce to the world the mighty purpose of the Father, even that which ordained the restoration of man.  But He is not on this account to be regarded as an angel, as a Gabriel or a Michael. For the Lord of the Vineyard sends even His Son to the labourers to require fruit, as well as His servants. Yet the Son will not therefore be counted as one of the servants because He undertook the office of a servant. I may, then, more easily say, if such an expression is to be hazarded,7141

7141 Si forte.

that the Son is actually an angel, that is, a messenger, from the Father, than that there is an angel in the Son.  Forasmuch, however, as it has been declared concerning the Son Himself, “Thou hast made Him a little lower than the angels”7142

7142 Ps. viii. 5.

how will it appear that He put on the nature of angels if He was made lower than the angels, having become man, with flesh and soul as the Son of man? As “the Spirit7143

7143 For this designation of the divine nature in Christ, see our Anti-Marcion, p. 247, note 7, Edin.

of God,” however, and “the Power of the Highest,”7144

7144 Luke i. 35.

can He be regarded as lower than the angels,—He who is verily God, and the Son of God? Well, but as bearing human nature, He is so far made inferior to the angels; but as bearing angelic nature, He to the same degree loses that inferiority. This opinion will be very suitable for Ebion,7145

7145 Hebioni.

who holds Jesus to be a mere man, and nothing more than a descendant of David, and not also the Son of God; although He is, to be sure,7146

7146 Plane.

in one respect more glorious than the prophets, inasmuch as he declares that there was an angel in Him, just as there was in Zechariah. Only it was never said by Christ, “And the angel, which spake within me, said unto me.”7147

7147 Zech. i. 14.

Neither, indeed, was ever used by Christ that familiar phrase of all the prophets, “Thus saith the Lord.” For He was Himself the Lord, who openly spake by His own authority, prefacing His words with the formula, “Verily, verily, I say unto you.” What need is there of further argument? Hear what Isaiah says in emphatic words, “It was no angel, nor deputy, but the Lord Himself who saved them.”7148

7148 Isa. lxiii. 9.


John viii. 40.

and “The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath-day.”7150

7150 Matt. xii. 8.

For it is of Him that Isaiah writes: “A man of suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of weakness;”7151

7151 Isa. liii. 3, Sept.

and Jeremiah: “He is a man, and who hath known Him?”7152

7152 Jer. xvii. 9, Sept.

and Daniel: “Upon the clouds (He came) as the Son of man.”7153

7153 Dan. vii. 13.

The Apostle Paul likewise says: “The man Christ Jesus is the one Mediator between God and man.”7154

7154 1 Tim. ii. 5.

Also Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, speaks of Him as verily human (when he says), “Jesus Christ was a man approved of God among you.”7155

7155 Acts ii. 22.

These passages alone ought to suffice as a prescriptive7156

7156 Vice præscriptionis.

testimony in proof that Christ had human flesh derived from man, and not spiritual, and that His flesh was not composed of soul,7157

7157 Animalis.

nor of stellar substance, and that it was not an imaginary flesh; (and no doubt they would be sufficient) if heretics could only divest themselves of all their contentious warmth and artifice. For, as I have read in some writer of Valentinus’ wretched faction,7158

7158 Factiuncula.

they refuse at the outset to believe that a human and earthly substance was created7159

7159 Informatam.

for Christ, lest the Lord should be regarded as inferior to the angels, who are not formed of earthly flesh; whence, too, it would be necessary that, if His flesh were like ours, it should be similarly born, not of the Spirit, nor of God, but of the will of man. Why, moreover, should it be born, not of corruptible [seed], but of incorruptible? Why, again, since His flesh has both risen and returned to heaven, is not ours, being like His, also taken up at once? Or else, why does not His flesh, since it is like ours, return in like manner to the ground, and suffer dissolution? Such objections even the heathen used constantly to bandy about.7160

7160 Volutabant: see Lactantius, iv. 22.

Was the Son of God reduced to such a depth of degradation? Again, if He rose again as a precedent for our hope, how is it that nothing like it has been thought desirable (to happen) to ourselves?7161

7161 De nobis probatum est: or, perhaps, “has been proved to have happened in our own case.”

Such views are not improper for heathens and they are fit and natural for the heretics too.  For, indeed, what difference is there between them, except it be that the heathen, in not believing, do believe; while the heretics, in believing, do not believe? Then, again, they read: “Thou madest Him a little less than angels;”7162

7162 Ps. viii. 6, Sept.

and they deny the lower nature of that Christ who declares Himself to be, “not a man, but a worm;”7163

7163 Ps. xxii. 6.

who also had “no form nor comeliness, but His form was ignoble, despised more than all men, a man in suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of weakness.”7164

7164 Isa. liii. 3, Sept.

Here they discover a human being mingled with a divine one and so they deny the manhood.  They believe that He died, and maintain that a being which has died was born of an incorruptible substance;7165

7165 Ex incorruptela.

as if, forsooth, corruptibility7166

7166 Corruptela.

were something else than death! But our flesh, too, ought immediately to have risen again. Wait a while.  Christ has not yet subdued His enemies, so as to be able to triumph over them in company with His friends.
Although Tertullian dignifies him with an ille, we have no particulars of this man. [It may be that this is an epithet, rather than a name, given to some enemy of truth like Alexander the “Coppersmith” (2 Tim. iv. 14) or like that (1 Tim. i. 20), blasphemer, whose character suits the case.]

too, instigated by his love of disputation in the true fashion of heretical temper, has made himself conspicuous against us; he will have us say that Christ put on flesh of an earthly origin,7168

7168 Census.

in order that He might in His own person abolish sinful flesh.7169

7169 So Bp. Kaye renders “carnem peccati.” [See his valuable note, p. 253.]

Now, even if we did assert this as our opinion, we should be able to defend it in such a way as completely to avoid the extravagant folly which he ascribes to us in making us suppose that the very flesh of Christ was in Himself abolished as being sinful; because we mention our belief (in public),7170

7170 We take the meminerimus to refer “to the Creed.”

that it is sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven; and we further declare that it will come again from thence in all the pomp7171

7171 Suggestu.

of the Father’s glory: it is therefore just as impossible for us to say that it is abolished, as it is for us to maintain that it is sinful, and so made void, since in it there has been no fault. We maintain, moreover, that what has been abolished in Christ is not carnem peccati, “sinful flesh,” but peccatum carnis, “sin in the flesh,”—not the material thing, but its condition;7172

7172 Naturam.

not the substance, but its flaw;7173

7173 Culpam.

and (this we aver) on the authority of the apostle, who says, “He abolished sin in the flesh.”7174

7174 “Tertullian, referring to St. Paul, says of Christ: ‘Evacuavit peccatum in carne;’ alluding, as I suppose, to Romans viii. 3. But the corresponding Greek in the printed editions is κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί (‘He condemned sin in the flesh’). Had Tertullian a different reading in his Greek mss., or did he confound Romans viii. 3 with Romans vi. 6, ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶμα τὴς ἁμαρτίας (‘that the body of sin might be destroyed’)? Jerome translates the Greek καταργέω by ‘evacuo,’ c. xvi. See Adv. Marcionem, ver. 14. Dr. Neander has pointed out two passages in which Tertullian has ‘damnavit or damnaverit delinquentiam in carne.’ See de Res. Carnis. 46; de Pudicitiâ. 17.”—Bp. Kaye.

Now in another sentence he says that Christ was “in the likeness of sinful flesh,”7175

7175 Also in Rom. viii. 3.

not, however, as if He had taken on Him “the likeness of the flesh,” in the sense of a semblance of body instead of its reality; but he means us to understand likeness to the flesh which sinned,7176

7176 Peccatricis carnis.

because the flesh of Christ, which committed no sin itself, resembled that which had sinned,—resembled it in its nature, but not in the corruption it received from Adam; whence we also affirm that there was in Christ the same flesh as that whose nature in man is sinful.  In the flesh, therefore, we say that sin has been abolished, because in Christ that same flesh is maintained without sin, which in man was not maintained without sin. Now, it would not contribute to the purpose of Christ’s abolishing sin in the flesh, if He did not abolish it in that flesh in which was the nature of sin, nor (would it conduce) to His glory. For surely it would have been no strange thing if He had removed the stain of sin in some better flesh, and one which should possess a different, even a sinless, nature! Then, you say, if He took our flesh, Christ’s was a sinful one. Do not, however, fetter with mystery a sense which is quite intelligible. For in putting on our flesh, He made it His own; in making it His own, He made it sinless.  A word of caution, however, must be addressed to all who refuse to believe that our flesh was in Christ on the ground that it came not of the seed of a human father,7177

7177 Viri.

let them remember that Adam himself received this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father. As earth was converted into this flesh of ours without the seed of a human father, so also was it quite possible for the Son of God to take to Himself7178

7178 Transire in: “to pass into.”

the substance of the selfsame flesh, without a human father’s agency.7179

7179 Sine coagulo.


Isa. vii. 14.

Accordingly, a virgin did conceive and bear “Emmanuel, God with us.”7182

7182 Matt. i. 23.

This is the new nativity; a man is born in God. And in this man God was born, taking the flesh of an ancient race, without the help, however, of the ancient seed, in order that He might reform it with a new seed, that is, in a spiritual manner, and cleanse it by the re-moval of all its ancient stains. But the whole of this new birth was prefigured, as was the case in all other instances, in ancient type, the Lord being born as man by a dispensation in which a virgin was the medium. The earth was still in a virgin state, reduced as yet by no human labour, with no seed as yet cast into its furrows, when, as we are told, God made man out of it into a living soul.7183

7183 Gen. ii. 7.

As, then, the first Adam is thus introduced to us, it is a just inference that the second Adam likewise, as the apostle has told us, was formed by God into a quickening spirit out of the ground,—in other words, out of a flesh which was unstained as yet by any human generation. But that I may lose no opportunity of supporting my argument from the name of Adam, why is Christ called Adam by the apostle, unless it be that, as man, He was of that earthly origin? And even reason here maintains the same conclusion, because it was by just the contrary7184

7184 Æmula.

operation that God recovered His own image and likeness, of which He had been robbed by the devil. For it was while Eve was yet a virgin, that the ensnaring word had crept into her ear which was to build the edifice of death. Into a virgin’s soul, in like manner, must be introduced that Word of God which was to raise the fabric of life; so that what had been reduced to ruin by this sex, might by the selfsame sex be recovered to salvation. As Eve had believed the serpent, so Mary believed the angel.7185

7185 Literally, “Gabriel.”

The delinquency which the one occasioned by believing, the other by believing effaced.  But (it will be said) Eve did not at the devil’s word conceive in her womb. Well, she at all events conceived; for the devil’s word afterwards became as seed to her that she should conceive as an outcast, and bring forth in sorrow.  Indeed she gave birth to a fratricidal devil; whilst Mary, on the contrary, bare one who was one day to secure salvation to Israel, His own brother after the flesh, and the murderer of Himself. God therefore sent down into the virgin’s womb His Word, as the good Brother, who should blot out the memory of the evil brother. Hence it was necessary that Christ should come forth for the salvation of man, in that condition of flesh into which man had entered ever since his condemnation.
Matt. xii. 41, 42.

—as Ebion7187

7187 De Hebionis opinione.

thought we ought to believe concerning Him.  In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God—of God the Father’s seed, that is to say, the Spirit—might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man7188

7188 Hominis.

without the seed of a man;7189

7189 Viri.

for the seed of a man was unnecessary7190

7190 Vacabat.

for One who had the seed of God. As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father. He is thus man with God, in short, since He is man’s flesh with God’s Spirit7191

7191 As we have often observed, the term Spiritus is used by Tertullian to express the Divine Nature in Christ. Anti-Marcion, p. 375, note 13.

—flesh (I say) without seed from man, Spirit with seed from God. For as much, then, as the dispensation of God’s purpose7192

7192 Dispositio rationis.

concerning His Son required that He should be born7193

7193 Proferendum.

of a virgin, why should He not have received of the virgin the body which He bore from the virgin? Because, (forsooth) it is something else which He took from God, for “the Word” say they, “was made flesh.”7194

7194 John i. 14.

Now this very statement plainly shows what it was that was made flesh; nor can it possibly be that7195

7195 Nec periclitatus quasi.

anything else than the Word was made flesh.  Now, whether it was of the flesh that the Word was made flesh, or whether it was so made of the (divine) seed itself, the Scripture must tell us. As, however, the Scripture is silent about everything except what it was that was made (flesh), and says nothing of that from which it was so made, it must be held to suggest that from something else, and not from itself, was the Word made flesh.  And if not from itself, but from something else, from what can we more suitably suppose that the Word became flesh than from that flesh in which it submitted to the dispensation?7196

7196 Literally, “in which it became flesh.”

And (we have a proof of the same conclusion in the fact) that the Lord Himself sententiously and distinctly pronounced, “that which is born of the flesh is flesh,”7197

7197 John iii. 6.

even because it is born of the flesh.  But if He here spoke of a human being simply, and not of Himself, (as you maintain) then you must deny absolutely that Christ is man, and must maintain that human nature was not suitable to Him. And then He adds, “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit,”7198

7198 John iii. 6.

because God is a Spirit, and He was born of God. Now this description is certainly even more applicable to Him than it is to those who believe in Him. But if this passage indeed apply to Him, then why does not the preceding one also? For you cannot divide their relation, and adapt this to Him, and the previous clause to all other men, especially as you do not deny that Christ possesses the two substances, both of the flesh and of the Spirit. Besides, as He was in possession both of flesh and of Spirit, He cannot possibly, when speaking of the condition of the two substances which He Himself bears, be supposed to have determined that the Spirit indeed was His own, but that the flesh was not His own. Forasmuch, therefore, as He is of the Spirit He is God the Spirit, and is born of God; just as He is also born of the flesh of man, being generated in the flesh as man.7199

7199 [A very perspicuous statement of the Incarnation is set forth in this chapter.]


John i. 13.

I shall make more use of this passage after I have confuted those who have tampered with it.  They maintain that it was written thus (in the plural)7202

7202 We need not say that the mass of critical authority is against Tertullian, and with his opponents, in their reading of this passage.

“Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” as if designating those who were before mentioned as “believing in His name,” in order to point out the existence of that mysterious seed of the elect and spiritual which they appropriate to themselves.7203

7203 He refers to the Valentinians. See our translation of this tract against them, chap. xxv., etc., p. 515, supra.

But how can this be, when all who believe in the name of the Lord are, by reason of the common principle of the human race, born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of man, as indeed is Valentinus himself? The expression is in the singular number, as referring to the Lord, “He was born of God.”  And very properly, because Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit of God, and by the Spirit the Power of God, and whatsoever else appertains to God. As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word was made flesh.  To the flesh, indeed, and not to the Word, accrues the denial of the nativity which is natural to us all as men,7204

7204 Formalis nostræ nativitatis.

because it was as flesh that He had thus to be born, and not as the Word. Now, whilst the passage actually denies that He was born of the will of the flesh, how is it that it did not also deny (that He was born) of the substance of the flesh?  For it did not disavow the substance of the flesh when it denied His being “born of blood” but only the matter of the seed, which, as all know, is the warm blood as convected by ebullition7205

7205 Despumatione.

into the coagulum of the woman’s blood. In the cheese, it is from the coagulation that the milky substance acquires that consistency,7206

7206 Vis.

which is condensed by infusing the rennet.7207

7207 Medicando. [This is based on Job x. 10, a favourite passage with the Fathers in expounding the generative process.]

We thus understand that what is denied is the Lord’s birth after sexual intercourse (as is suggested by the phrase, “the will of man and of the flesh”), not His nativity from a woman’s womb. Why, too, is it insisted on with such an accumulation of emphasis that He was not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor (of the will) of man, if it were not that His flesh was such that no man could have any doubt on the point of its being born from sexual intercourse?  Again, although denying His birth from such cohabitation, the passage did not deny that He was born of real flesh; it rather affirmed this, by the very fact that it did not deny His birth in the flesh in the same way that it denied His birth from sexual intercourse. Pray, tell me, why the Spirit of God7208

7208 i.e., The Son of God.

descended into a woman’s womb at all, if He did not do so for the purpose of partaking of flesh from the womb. For He could have become spiritual flesh7209

7209 Which is all that the heretics assign to Him.

without such a process,—much more simply, indeed, without the womb than in it. He had no reason for enclosing Himself within one, if He was to bear forth nothing from it. Not without reason, however, did He descend into a womb. Therefore He received (flesh) therefrom; else, if He received nothing therefrom, His descent into it would have been without a reason, especially if He meant to become flesh of that sort which was not derived from a womb, that is to say, a spiritual one.7210

7210 Such as Valentinus ascribed to Him. See above, c. xv. p. 511.


Matt. i. 20.

But the fact is, if he had meant “of her,” he must have said “in her;” for that which was of her, was also in her. The angel’s expression, therefore, “in her,” has precisely the same meaning as the phrase “of her.” It is, however, a fortunate circumstance that Matthew also, when tracing down the Lord’s descent from Abraham to Mary, says, “Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Christ.”7215

7215 Matt. i. 16.

But Paul, too, silences these critics7216

7216 Grammaticis.

when he says, “God sent forth His Son, made of a woman.”7217

7217 Gal. iv. 4.

Does he mean through a woman, or in a woman? Nay more, for the sake of greater emphasis, he uses the word “made” rather than born, although the use of the latter expression would have been simpler.  But by saying “made,” he not only confirmed the statement, “The Word was made flesh,”7218

7218 John i. 14.

but he also asserted the reality of the flesh which was made of a virgin. We shall have also the support of the Psalms on this point, not the “Psalms” indeed of Valentinus the apostate, and heretic, and Platonist, but the Psalms of David, the most illustrious saint and well-known prophet. He sings to us of Christ, and through his voice Christ indeed also sang concerning Himself. Hear, then, Christ the Lord speaking to God the Father: “Thou art He that didst draw7219

7219 Avulsisti.

me out of my mother’s womb.”7220

7220 Ps. xxii. 9.

Here is the first point. “Thou art my hope from my mother’s breasts; upon Thee have I been cast from the womb.”7221

7221 Vers. 9, 10.

Here is another point. “Thou art my God from my mother’s belly.”7222

7222 Ver. 10.

Here is a third point. Now let us carefully attend to the sense of these passages. “Thou didst draw me,” He says, “out of the womb.” Now what is it which is drawn, if it be not that which adheres, that which is firmly fastened to anything from which it is drawn in order to be sundered? If He clove not to the womb, how could He have been drawn from it? If He who clove thereto was drawn from it, how could He have adhered to it, if it were not that, all the while He was in the womb, He was tied to it, as to His origin,7223

7223 i.e. of His flesh.

by the umbilical cord, which communicated growth to Him from the matrix? Even when one strange matter amalgamates with another, it becomes so entirely incorporated7224

7224 Concarnatus et convisceratus: “united in flesh and internal structure.”

with that with which it amalgamates, that when it is drawn off from it, it carries with it some part of the body from which it is torn, as if in consequence of the severance of the union and growth which the constituent pieces had communicated to each other.  But what were His “mother’s breasts” which He mentions? No doubt they were those which He sucked. Midwives, and doctors, and naturalists, can tell us, from the nature of women’s breasts, whether they usually flow at any other time than when the womb is affected with pregnancy, when the veins convey therefrom the blood of the lower parts7225

7225 Sentinam illam inferni sanguinis.

to the mamilla, and in the act of transference convert the secretion into the nutritious7226

7226 Lactiorem.

substance of milk. Whence it comes to pass that during the period of lactation the monthly issues are suspended. But if the Word was made flesh of Himself without any communication with a womb, no mother’s womb operating upon Him with its usual function and support, how could the lacteal fountain have been conveyed (from the womb) to the breasts, since (the womb) can only effect the change by actual possession of the proper substance? But it could not possibly have had blood for transformation into milk, unless it possessed the causes of blood also, that is to say, the severance (by birth)7227

7227 Avulsionem.

of its own flesh from the mother’s womb. Now it is easy to see what was the novelty of Christ’s being born of a virgin. It was simply this, that (He was born) of a virgin in the real manner which we have indicated, in order that our regeneration might have virginal purity,—spiritually cleansed from all pollutions through Christ, who was Himself a virgin, even in the flesh, in that He was born of a virgin’s flesh.
Isa. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23.

Conceive what? I ask. The Word of God, of course, and not the seed of man, and in order, certainly, to bring forth a son. “For,” says he, “she shall bring forth a son.”7229

7229 See the same passages.

Therefore, as the act of conception was her own,7230

7230 Ipsius.

so also what she brought forth was her own, also, although the cause of conception7231

7231 Quod concepit: or, “what she conceived.”

was not. If, on the other hand, the Word became flesh of Himself, then He both conceived and brought forth Himself, and the prophecy is stultified. For in that case a virgin did not conceive, and did not bring forth; since whatever she brought forth from the conception of the Word, is not her own flesh. But is this the only statement of prophecy which will be frustrated?7232

7232 Evacuabitur.

Will not the angel’s announcement also be subverted, that the virgin should “conceive in her womb and bring forth a son?”7233

7233 Luke i. 31.

And will not in fact every scripture which declares that Christ had a mother? For how could she have been His mother, unless He had been in her womb? But then He received nothing from her womb which could make her a mother in whose womb He had been.7234

7234 An objection.

Such a name as this7235

7235 The rejoinder.

a strange flesh ought not to assume. No flesh can speak of a mother’s womb but that which is itself the offspring of that womb; nor can any be the offspring of the said womb if it owe its birth solely to itself. Therefore even Elisabeth must be silent although she is carrying in her womb the prophetic babe, which was already conscious of his Lord, and is, moreover, filled with the Holy Ghost.7236

7236 Luke i. 41.

For without reason does she say, “and whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”7237

7237 Ver. 43.

If it was not as her son, but only as a stranger that Mary carried Jesus in her womb, how is it she says, “Blessed is the fruit of thy womb”?7238

7238 Ver. 42.

What is this fruit of the womb, which received not its germ from the womb, which had not its root in the womb, which belongs not to her whose is the womb, and which is no doubt the real fruit of the womb—even Christ? Now, since He is the blossom of the stem which sprouts from the root of Jesse; since, moreover, the root of Jesse is the family of David, and the stem of the root is Mary descended from David, and the blossom of the stem is Mary’s son, who is called Jesus Christ, will not He also be the fruit?  For the blossom is the fruit, because through the blossom and from the blossom every product advances from its rudimental condition7239

7239 Eruditur.

to perfect fruit. What then? They, deny to the fruit its blossom, and to the blossom its stem, and to the stem its root; so that the root fails to secure7240

7240 Quominus vindicet.

for itself, by means of the stem, that special product which comes from the stem, even the blossom and the fruit; for every step indeed in a genealogy is traced from the latest up to the first, so that it is now a well-known fact that the flesh of Christ is inseparable,7241

7241 Adhærere.

not merely from Mary, but also from David through Mary, and from Jesse through David. “This fruit,” therefore, “of David’s loins,” that is to say, of his posterity in the flesh, God swears to him that “He will raise up to sit upon his throne.”7242

7242 Ps. cxxxii. 11; also Acts ii. 30.

If “of David’s loins,” how much rather is He of Mary’s loins, by virtue of whom He is in “the loins of David?”
Matt. i. 1.

With a nature issuing from such fountal sources, and an order gradually descending to the birth of Christ, what else have we here described than the very flesh of Abraham and of David conveying itself down, step after step, to the very virgin, and at last introducing Christ,—nay, producing Christ Himself of the virgin? Then, again, there is Paul, who was at once both a disciple, and a master, and a witness of the selfsame Gospel; as an apostle of the same Christ, also, he affirms that Christ “was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh,”7246

7246 Rom. i. 3; 2 Tim. ii. 8.

—which, therefore, was His own likewise.  Christ’s flesh, then, is of David’s seed. Since He is of the seed of David in consequence of Mary’s flesh, He is therefore of Mary’s flesh because of the seed of David. In what way so ever you torture the statement, He is either of the flesh of Mary because of the seed of David, or He is of the seed of David because of the flesh of Mary. The whole discussion is terminated by the same apostle, when he declares Christ to be “the seed of Abraham.” And if of Abraham, how much more, to be sure, of David, as a more recent progenitor! For, unfolding the promised blessing upon all nations in the person7247

7247 In nomine: or, “for the sake of.”

of Abraham, “And in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed,” he adds, “He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”7248

7248 Gal. iii. 8; 16.

When we read and believe these things, what sort of flesh ought we, and can we, acknowledge in Christ? Surely none other than Abraham’s, since Christ is “the seed of Abraham;” none other than Jesse’s, since Christ is the blossom of “the stem of Jesse;” none other than David’s, since Christ is “the fruit of David’s loins;” none other than Mary’s, since Christ came from Mary’s womb; and, higher still, none other than Adam’s, since Christ is “the second Adam.” The consequence, therefore, is that they must either maintain, that those (ancestors) had a spiritual flesh, that so there might be derived to Christ the same condition of substance, or else allow that the flesh of Christ was not a spiritual one, since it is not traced from the origin7249

7249 Censetur.

of a spiritual stock.
Luke ii. 34.

The sign (here meant) is that of the birth of Christ, according to Isaiah: “Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.”7252

7252 Isa. vii. 14.

We discover, then, what the sign is which is to be spoken against—the conception and the parturition of the Virgin Mary, concerning which these sophists7253

7253 Academici isti: “this school of theirs.”

say: “She a virgin and yet not a virgin bare, and yet did not bear;” just as if such language, if indeed it must be uttered, would not be more suitable even for ourselves to use! For “she bare,” because she produced offspring of her own flesh and “yet she did not bear,” since she produced Him not from a husband’s seed; she was “a virgin,” so far as (abstinence) from a husband went, and “yet not a virgin,” as regards her bearing a child. There is not, however, that parity of reasoning which the heretics affect: in other words it does not follow that for the reason “she did not bear,”7254

7254 i.e. “Because she produced not her son from her husband’s seed.”

she who was “not a virgin” was “yet a virgin,” even because she became a mother without any fruit of her own womb. But with us there is no equivocation, nothing twisted into a double sense.7255

7255 Defensionem.

Light is light; and darkness, darkness; yea is yea; and nay, nay; “whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”7256

7256 Matt. v. 37.

She who bare (really) bare; and although she was a virgin when she conceived, she was a wife7257

7257 Nupsit.

when she brought forth her son. Now, as a wife, she was under the very law of “opening the womb,”7258

7258 Nupsit ipsa patefacti corporis lege.

wherein it was quite immaterial whether the birth of the male was by virtue of a husband’s co-operation or not;7259

7259 De vi masculi admissi an emissi.

it was the same sex7260

7260 i.e. “The male.”

that opened her womb. Indeed, hers is the womb on account of which it is written of others also: “Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.”7261

7261 Ex. xiii. 2; Luke ii. 23.

For who is really holy but the Son of God? Who properly opened the womb but He who opened a closed one?7262

7262 Clausam: i.e. a virgin’s.

But it is marriage which opens the womb in all cases. The virgin’s womb, therefore, was especially7263

7263 Magis.

opened, because it was especially closed.  Indeed7264

7264 Utique.

she ought rather to be called not a virgin than a virgin, becoming a mother at a leap, as it were, before she was a wife.  And what must be said more on this point? Since it was in this sense that the apostle declared that the Son of God was born not of a virgin, but “of a woman,” he in that statement recognised the condition of the “opened womb” which ensues in marriage.7265

7265 Nuptialem passionem.

We read in Ezekiel of “a heifer7266

7266 Epiphanius (Hær. xxx. 30) quotes from the apocryphal Ezekiel this passage: Τέξεται ἡ δάμαλις, καὶ ἐροῦσιν—οὐ τέτοκεν. So Clem. Alex. Stromata, vii. Oehler.

which brought forth, and still did not bring forth.” Now, see whether it was not in view of your own future contentions about the womb of Mary, that even then the Holy Ghost set His mark upon you in this passage; otherwise7267

7267 Ceterum.

He would not, contrary to His usual simplicity of style (in this prophet), have uttered a sentence of such doubtful import, especially when Isaiah says, “She shall conceive and bear a son.”7268

7268 Isa. vii. 14.


Isa. v. 20.

he of course sets his mark upon those amongst you7270

7270 Istos.

who preserve not in the words they employ the light of their true significance, (by taking care) that the soul should mean only that which is so called, and the flesh simply that which is confest to our view, and God none other than the One who is preached.7271

7271 Prædicatur.

Having thus Marcion in his prophetic view, he says, “I am God, and there is none else; there is no God beside me.”7272

7272 Isa. xlv. 5.

And when in another passage he says, in like manner, “Before me there was no God,”7273

7273 Isa. xlvi. 9.

he strikes at those inexplicable genealogies of the Valentinian Æons. Again, there is an answer to Ebion in the Scripture: “Born,7274

7274 John i. 13. Tertullian’s quotation is, as usual, in the singular, “natus.”

not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” In like manner, in the passage, “If even an angel of heaven preach unto you any other gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema,”7275

7275 Gal. i. 8.

he calls attention to the artful influence of Philumene,7276

7276 Comp. de Præscr. Hæret. c. xxx. p. 257, supra.

the virgin friend of Apelles. Surely he is antichrist who denies that Christ has come in the flesh.7277

7277 1 John iv. 3.

By declaring that His flesh is simply and absolutely true, and taken in the plain sense of its own nature, the Scripture aims a blow at all who make distinctions in it.7278

7278 Disceptatores ejus.

In the same way, also, when it defines the very Christ to be but one, it shakes the fancies of those who exhibit a multiform Christ, who make Christ to be one being and Jesus another,—representing one as escaping out of the midst of the crowds, and the other as detained by them; one as appearing on a solitary mountain to three companions, clothed with glory in a cloud, the other as an ordinary man holding intercourse with all,7279

7279 Ceteris passivum.

one as magnanimous, but the other as timid; lastly, one as suffering death, the other as risen again, by means of which event they maintain a resurrection of their own also, only in another flesh.  Happily, however, He who suffered “will come again from heaven,”7280

7280 Acts i. 11.

and by all shall He be seen, who rose again from the dead. They too who crucified Him shall see and acknowledge Him; that is to say, His very flesh, against which they spent their fury, and without which it would be impossible for Himself either to exist or to be seen; so that they must blush with shame who affirm that His flesh sits in heaven void of sensation, like a sheath only, Christ being withdrawn from it; as well as those who (maintain) that His flesh and soul are just the same thing,7281

7281 Tantundem.

or else that His soul is all that exists,7282

7282 Tantummodo.

but that His flesh no longer lives. I quote the Ed. London, 1739, Vol. V., p. 249.

identifies the glory shed upon the Saviour at his baptism, with that mentioned by Ezekiel (Cap. xliii. 2) and adds: “In this same glorious splendor was Christ arrayed first at his Baptism and afterward at his Transfiguration.…By the Holy Ghost’s descending like a Dove, it is not necessary we should understand his descending in the shape or form of a Dove, but that in some glorious form, or appearance, he descended in the same manner as a Dove descends.…Came down from above just as a dove with his wings spread forth is observed to do, and lighted upon our Saviour’s head.” I quote this as the opinion of one of the most learned and orthodox of divines, but not as my own, for I cannot reconcile it, as he strives to do, with St. Luke iii. 22. Compare Justin Martyr, vol. i. p. 243, and note 6, this series. Grotius observes, says Dr. Scott, that in the apocryphal Gospel of the Nazarenes, it is said that at the Baptism of our Lord “a great light shone round about the place.”

See Bp. Kaye, On Tertullian, p. 256. A full examination of the tenets of these Gnostic heretics occurs in our author’s Treatise against Marcion. An able review of Tertullian’s line of thought in this work on the resurrection occurs in Neander’s Antignostikus, Bohn’s translation, ii. 478–486.  [There is a decisive ebullition of Montanistic fanaticism in cap. xi., and in the second chapter there is a reference to the De Carne Christi. Date this treatise circa a.d. 208.]

Fiducia.

By it we are believers. To the belief of this (article of the faith) truth compels us—that truth which God reveals, but the crowd derides, which supposes that nothing will survive after death.  And yet they do honour7286

7286 Parentant.

to their dead, and that too in the most expensive way according to their bequest, and with the daintiest banquets which the seasons can produce,7287

7287 Pro temporibus esculentorum.

on the presumption that those whom they declare to be incapable of all perception still retain an appetite.7288

7288 Etiam desiderar.

But (let the crowd deride): I on my side must deride it still more, especially when it burns up its dead with harshest inhumanity, only to pamper them immediately afterwards with gluttonous satiety, using the selfsame fires to honour them and to insult them. What piety is that which mocks its victims with cruelty? Is it sacrifice or insult (which the crowd offers), when it burns its offerings to those it has already burnt?7289

7289 Cum crematis cremat.

But the wise, too, join with the vulgar crowd in their opinion sometimes. There is nothing after death, according to the school of Epicurus. After death all things come to an end, even death itself, says Seneca to like effect.  It is satisfactory, however, that the no less important philosophy of Pythagoras and Empedocles, and the Plantonists, take the contrary view, and declare the soul to be immortal; affirming, moreover, in a way which most nearly approaches (to our own doctrine),7290

7290 Adhuc proxime: “Christianæ scilicet doctrinæ.” Oehler.

that the soul actually returns into bodies, although not the same bodies, and not even those of human beings invariably:  thus Euphorbus is supposed to have passed into Phythagoras, and Homer into a peacock. They firmly pronounced the soul’s renewal7291

7291 Recidivatum.

to be in a body,7292

7292 Corporalem.

(deeming it) more tolerable to change the quality (of the corporeal state) than to deny it wholly: they at least knocked at the door of truth, although they entered not. Thus the world, with all its errors, does not ignore the resurrection of the dead.
Apud Deum.

a sect which is more nearly allied to the Epicureans than to the prophets, an opportunity is afforded us of knowing7294

7294 Sciemus.

what estimate Christ forms of the (said sect, even the) Sadducees. For to Christ was it reserved to lay bare everything which before was concealed:  to impart certainty to doubtful points; to accomplish those of which men had had but a foretaste; to give present reality to the objects of prophecy; and to furnish not only by Himself, but actually in Himself, certain proofs of the resurrection of the dead. It is, however, against other Sadducees that we have now to prepare ourselves, but still partakers of their doctrine. For instance, they allow a moiety of the resurrection; that is, simply of the soul, despising the flesh, just as they also do the Lord of the flesh Himself.  No other persons, indeed, refuse to concede to the substance of the body its recovery from death,7295

7295 Salutem.

heretical inventors of a second deity.  Driven then, as they are, to give a different dispensation to Christ, so that He may not be accounted as belonging to the Creator, they have achieved their first error in the article of His very flesh; contending with Marcion and Basilides that it possessed no reality; or else holding, after the heretical tenets of Valentinus, and according to Apelles, that it had qualities peculiar to itself. And so it follows that they shut out from all recovery from death that substance of which they say that Christ did not partake, confidently assuming that it furnishes the strongest presumption against the resurrection, since the flesh is already risen in Christ. Hence it is that we have ourselves previously issued our volume On the flesh of Christ; in which we both furnish proofs of its reality,7296

7296 Eam solidam.

in opposition to the idea of its being a vain phantom; and claim for it a human nature without any peculiarity of condition—such a nature as has marked out Christ to be both man and the Son of man.  For when we prove Him to be invested with the flesh and in a bodily condition, we at the same time refute heresy, by establishing the rule that no other being than the Creator must be believed to be God, since we show that Christ, in whom God is plainly discerned, is precisely of such a nature as the Creator promised that He should be.  Being thus refuted touching God as the Creator, and Christ as the Redeemer of the flesh, they will at once be defeated also on the resurrection of the flesh. No procedure, indeed, can be more reasonable. And we affirm that controversy with heretics should in most cases be conducted in this way. For due method requires that conclusions should always be drawn from the most important premises, in order that there be a prior agreement on the essential point, by means of which the particular question under review may be said to have been determined. Hence it is that the heretics, from their conscious weakness, never conduct discussion in an orderly manner. They are well aware how hard is their task in insinuating the existence of a second god, to the disparagement of the Creator of the world, who is known to all men naturally by the testimony of His works, who is before all others in the mysteries7297

7297 In sacramentis.

of His being, and is especially manifested in the prophets;7298

7298 In prædicationibus: “in the declarations of the prophets.”

then, under the pretence of considering a more urgent inquiry, namely man’s own salvation—a question which transcends all others in its importance—they begin with doubts about the resurrection; for there is greater difficulty in believing the resurrection of the flesh than the oneness of the Deity. In this way, after they have deprived the discussion of the advantages of its logical order, and have embarrassed it with doubtful insinuations7299

7299 Scrupulis.

in disparagement of the flesh, they gradually draw their argument to the reception of a second god after destroying and changing the very ground of our hopes. For when once a man is fallen or removed from the sure hope which he had placed in the Creator, he is easily led away to the object of a different hope, whom however of his own accord he can hardly help suspecting. Now it is by a discrepancy in the promises that a difference of gods is insinuated. How many do we thus see drawn into the net vanquished on the resurrection of the flesh, before they could carry their point on the oneness of the Deity! In respect, then, of the heretics, we have shown with what weapons we ought to meet them. And indeed we have already encountered them in treatises severally directed against them: on the one only God and His Christ, in our work against Marcion,7300

7300 See books ii. and iii. of our Anti-Marcion.

on the Lord’s flesh, in our book against the four heresies,7301

7301 He means the De Carne Christi.

for the special purpose of opening the way to the present inquiry: so that we have now only to discuss the resurrection of the flesh, (treating it) just as if it were uncertain in regard to ourselves also, that is, in the system of the Creator.7302

7302 Tanquam penes nos quoque incerta, id est penes Creatorem. This obscure clause is very variously read.  One reading, approved by Fr. Junius, has: “Tanquam penes nos incertum, dum sit quoque certum penes Creatorem,” q.d., “As a subject full of uncertainty as respects ourselves, although of an opposite character in relation to the Creator;” whatever that may mean.

Because many persons are uneducated; still more are of faltering faith, and several are weak-minded: these will have to be instructed, directed, strengthened, inasmuch as the very oneness of the Godhead will be defended along with the maintenance of our doctrine.7303

7303 Hoc latere.

For if the resurrection of the flesh be denied, that prime article of the faith is shaken; if it be asserted, that is established. There is no need, I suppose, to treat of the soul’s safety; for nearly all the heretics, in whatever way they conceive of it, certainly refrain from denying that. We may ignore a certain Lucan,7304

7304 Compare Adv. Omnes Hæreses, c. vi.

who does not spare even this part of our nature, which he follows Aristotle in reducing to dissolution, and substitutes some other thing in lieu of it. Some third nature it is which, according to him, is to rise again, neither soul nor flesh; in other words, not man, but a bear perhaps—for instance, Lucan himself.7305

7305 Varro’s words help us to understand this rough joke: “Ursi Lucana origo,” etc. (De Ling. Lat. v. 100.)

Even he7306

7306 Iste: rather his subject than his person.

has received from us a copious notice in our book on the entire condition of the soul,7307

7307 i.e. the De Anima.

the especial immortality of which we there maintain, whilst we also both acknowledge the dissolution of the flesh alone, and emphatically assert its restitution. Into the body of that work were collected whatever points we elsewhere had to reserve from the pressure of incidental causes. For as it is my custom to touch some questions but lightly on their first occurrence, so I am obliged also to postpone the consideration of them, until the outline can be filled in with complete detail, and the deferred points be taken up on their own merits.
One may no doubt be wise in the things of God, even from one’s natural powers, but only in witness to the truth, not in maintenance of error; (only) when one acts in accordance with, not in opposition to, the divine dispensation.  For some things are known even by nature: the immortality of the soul, for instance, is held by many; the knowledge of our God is possessed by all. I may use, therefore, the opinion of a Plato, when he declares, “Every soul is immortal.”  I may use also the conscience of a nation, when it attests the God of gods. I may, in like manner, use all the other intelligences of our common nature, when they pronounce God to be a judge. “God sees,” (say they); and, “I commend you to God.”7308

7308 Compare the De Test. Anim. ii., and De Anim. xlii.

But when they say, “What has undergone death is dead,” and, “Enjoy life whilst you live,” and, “After death all things come to an end, even death itself;” then I must remember both that “the heart of man is ashes,”7309

7309 Isa. xliv. 20.

according to the estimate of God, and that the very “Wisdom of the world is foolishness,” (as the inspired word) pronounces it to be.7310

7310 1 Cor. i. 20; iii. 19.

Then, if even the heretic seek refuge in the depraved thoughts of the vulgar, or the imaginations of the world, I must say to him: Part company with the heathen, O heretic! for although you are all agreed in imagining a God, yet while you do so in the name of Christ, so long as you deem yourself a Christian, you are a different man from a heathen: give him back his own views of things, since he does not himself learn from yours. Why lean upon a blind guide, if you have eyes of your own? Why be clothed by one who is naked, if you have put on Christ? Why use the shield of another, when the apostle gives you armour of your own? It would be better for him to learn from you to acknowledge the resurrection of the flesh, than for you from him to deny it; because if Christians must needs deny it, it would be sufficient if they did so from their own knowledge, without any instruction from the ignorant multitude. He, therefore, will not be a Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone:  they will then be unable to keep their ground. For that which commends men’s common sense is its very simplicity, and its participation in the same feelings, and its community of opinions; and it is deemed to be all the more trustworthy, inasmuch as its definitive statements are naked and open, and known to all. Divine reason, on the contrary, lies in the very pith and marrow of things, not on the surface, and very often is at variance with appearances.
1 Cor. vii. 31.

as the apostle himself testifies; nor must it be predetermined that the world will be restored, simply because it is the work of God. And surely if the universe, after its ruin, is not to be formed again, why should a portion of it be? You are right, if a portion is on an equality with the whole. But we maintain that there is a difference. In the first place, because all things were made by the Word of God, and without Him was nothing made.7317

7317 John i. 3.

Now the flesh, too, had its existence from the Word of God, because of the principle,7318

7318 Formam.

that here should be nothing without that Word.  “Let us make man,”7319

7319 Gen. i. 26.

said He, before He created him, and added, “with our hand,” for the sake of his pre-eminence, that so he might not be compared with the rest of creation.7320

7320 Universitati.

And “God,” says (the Scripture), “formed man.”7321

7321 Gen. i. 27.

There is undoubtedly a great difference in the procedure, springing of course from the nature of the case. For the creatures which were made were inferior to him for whom they were made; and they were made for man, to whom they were afterwards made subject by God.  Rightly, therefore, had the creatures which were thus intended for subjection, come forth into being at the bidding and command and sole power of the divine voice; whilst man, on the contrary, destined to be their lord, was formed by God Himself, to the intent that he might be able to exercise his mastery, being created by the Master the Lord Himself. Remember, too, that man is properly called flesh, which had a prior occupation in man’s designation: “And God formed man the clay of the ground.”7322

7322 Limum de terra: Gen. ii. 7.

He now became man, who was hitherto clay. “And He breathed upon his face the breath of life, and man (that is, the clay) became a living soul; and God placed the man whom He had formed in the garden.”7323

7323 Gen. ii. 7, 8.

So that man was clay at first, and only afterwards man entire. I wish to impress this on your attention, with a view to your knowing, that whatever God has at all purposed or promised to man, is due not to the soul simply, but to the flesh also; if not arising out of any community in their origin, yet at all events by the privilege possessed by the latter in its name.7324

7324 It having just been said that flesh was man’s prior designation.


Gen. i. 26.

And God made man, that is to say, the creature which He moulded and fashioned; after the image of God (in other words, of Christ) did He make him. And the Word was God also, who being7329

7329 Constitutus.

in the image of God, “thought it not robbery to be equal to God.”7330

7330 Phil. ii. 6.

Thus, that clay which was even then putting on the image of Christ, who was to come in the flesh, was not only the work, but also the pledge and surety, of God.  To what purpose is it to bandy about the name earth, as that of a sordid and grovelling element, with the view of tarnishing the origin of the flesh, when, even if any other material had been available for forming man, it would be requisite that the dignity of the Maker should be taken into consideration, who even by His selection of His material deemed it, and by His management made it, worthy? The hand of Phidias forms the Olympian Jupiter of ivory; worship is given to the statue, and it is no longer regarded as a god formed out of a most silly animal, but as the world’s supreme Deity—not because of the bulk of the elephant, but on account of the renown of Phidias. Could not therefore the living God, the true God, purge away by His own operation whatever vileness might have accrued to His material, and heal it of all infirmity? Or must this remain to show how much more nobly man could fabricate a god, than God could form a man? Now, although the clay is offensive (for its poorness), it is now something else. What I possess is flesh, not earth, even although of the flesh it is said: “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”7331

7331 Gen. iii. 19. [“Earth thou art, etc.” in text.]

In these words there is the mention of the origin, not a recalling of the substance.  The privilege has been granted to the flesh to be nobler than its origin, and to have happiness aggrandized by the change wrought in it. Now, even gold is earth, because of the earth; but it remains earth no longer after it becomes gold, but is a far different substance, more splendid and more noble, though coming from a source which is comparatively faded and obscure. In like manner, it was quite allowable for God that He should clear the gold of our flesh from all the taints, as you deem them, of its native clay, by purging the original substance of its dross.
Gen. ii. 23.

), and the very taking of the woman out of the man was supplemented with flesh; but it ought, I should suppose, to have been made good with clay, if Adam was still clay. The clay, therefore, was obliterated and absorbed into flesh.  When did this happen? At the time that man became a living soul by the inbreathing of God—by the breath indeed which was capable of hardening clay into another substance, as into some earthenware, so now into flesh. In the same way the potter, too, has it in his power, by tempering the blast of his fire, to modify his clayey material into a stiffer one, and to mould one form after another more beautiful than the original substance, and now possessing both a kind and name of its own. For although the Scripture says, “Shall the clay say to the potter?”7335

7335 Rom. ix. 20.

that is, Shall man contend with God? although the apostle speaks of “earthen vessels”7336

7336 2 Cor. vi. 7.

he refers to man, who was originally clay.  And the vessel is the flesh, because this was made of clay by the breath of the divine afflatus; and it was afterwards clothed with “the coats of skins,” that is, with the cutaneous covering which was placed over it. So truly is this the fact, that if you withdraw the skin, you lay bare the flesh.  Thus, that which becomes a spoil when stripped off, was a vestment as long as it remained laid over. Hence the apostle, when he call circumcision “a putting off (or spoliation) of the flesh,”7337

7337 Col. ii. 11.

affirmed the skin to be a coat or tunic.  Now this being the case, you have both the clay made glorious by the hand of God, and the flesh more glorious still by His breathing upon it, by virtue of which the flesh not only laid aside its clayey rudiments, but also took on itself the ornaments of the soul.  You surely are not more careful than God, that you indeed should refuse to mount the gems of Scythia and India and the pearls of the Red Sea in lead, or brass, or iron, or even in silver, but should set them in the most precious and most highly-wrought gold; or, again, that you should provide for your finest wines and most costly unguents the most fitting vessels; or, on the same principle, should find for your swords of finished temper scabbards of equal worth; whilst God must consign to some vilest sheath the shadow of His own soul, the breath of His own Spirit, the operation of His own mouth, and by so ignominious a consignment secure, of course, its condemnation. Well, then, has He placed, or rather inserted and commingled, it with the flesh? Yes; and so intimate is the union, that it may be deemed to be uncertain whether the flesh bears about the soul, or the soul the flesh; or whether the flesh acts as apparitor to the soul, or the soul to the flesh. It is, however, more credible that the soul has service rendered to it,7338

7338 Invehi.

and has the mastery,7339

7339 Dominari.

as being more proximate in character to God.7340

7340 John iv. 24.

This circumstance even redounds to the glory of the flesh, inasmuch as it both contains an essence nearest to God’s, and renders itself a partaker of (the soul’s) actual sovereignty. For what enjoyment of nature is there, what produce of the world, what relish of the elements, which is not imparted to the soul by means of the body? How can it be otherwise? Is it not by its means that the soul is supported by the entire apparatus of the senses—the sight, the hearing, the taste, the smell, the touch? Is it not by its means that it has a sprinkling of the divine power, there being nothing which it does not effect by its faculty of speech, even when it is only tacitly indicated? And speech is the result of a fleshly organ. The arts come through the flesh; through the flesh also effect is given to the mind’s pursuits and powers; all work, too, and business and offices of life, are accomplished by the flesh; and so utterly are the living acts of the soul the work of the flesh, that for the soul to cease to do living acts, would be nothing else than sundering itself from the flesh. So also the very act of dying is a function of the flesh, even as the process of life is. Now, if all things are subject to the soul through the flesh, their subjection is equally due to the flesh. That which is the means and agent of your enjoyment, must needs be also the partaker and sharer of your enjoyment. So that the flesh, which is accounted the minister and servant of the soul, turns out to be also its associate and co-heir. And if all this in temporal things, why not also in things eternal?
Matt. xxii. 37–40.

so He will Himself do that which He has commanded. He will love the flesh which is, so very closely and in so many ways, His neighbour—(He will love it), although infirm, since His strength is made perfect in weakness;7345

7345 2 Cor. xii. 9.

although disordered, since “they that are whole need not the physician, but they that are sick;”7346

7346 Luke v. 31.

although not honourable, since “we bestow more abundant honour upon the less honourable members;”7347

7347 1 Cor. xii. 23.

although ruined, since He says, “I am come to save that which was lost;”7348

7348 Luke xix. 10.

although sinful, since He says, “I desire rather the salvation of the sinner than his death;”7349

7349 Ezek. xviii. 23.

although condemned, for says He, “I shall wound, and also heal.”7350

7350 Deut. xxxii. 39.

Why reproach the flesh with those conditions which wait for God, which hope in God, which receive honour from God, which He succours? I venture to declare, that if such casualties as these had never befallen the flesh, the bounty, the grace, the mercy, (and indeed) all the beneficent power of God, would have had no opportunity to work.7351

7351 Vacuisset.


Isa. xl. 7.

Well, but Isaiah was not content to say only this; but he also declared, “All flesh shall see the salvation of God.”7353

7353 Isa. xl. 5.

They notice God when He says in Genesis, “My Spirit shall not remain among these men, because they are flesh;”7354

7354 Gen. vi. 3, Sept.

but then He is also heard saying by Joel, “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.”7355

7355 Joel iii. 1.

Even the apostle ought not to be known for any one statement in which he is wont to reproach the flesh. For although he says that “in his flesh dwelleth no good thing;”7356

7356 Rom. viii. 18.

although he affirms that “they who are in the flesh cannot please God,”7357

7357 Rom. viii. 8.

because “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit;”7358

7358 Gal. v. 17.

yet in these and similar assertions which he makes, it is not the substance of the flesh, but its actions, which are censured. Moreover, we shall elsewhere7359

7359 Below, in ch. xvi.

take occasion to remark, that no reproaches can fairly be cast upon the flesh, without tending also to the castigation of the soul, which compels the flesh to do its bidding. However, let me meanwhile add that in the same passage Paul “carries about in his body the marks of the Lord Jesus;”7360

7360 Gal. vi. 17.

he also forbids our body to be profaned, as being “the temple of God;”7361

7361 1 Cor. iii. 16.

he makes our bodies “the members of Christ;”7362

7362 1 Cor. vi. 15.

and he exhorts us to exalt and “glorify God in our body.”7363

7363 Ver. 20.

If, therefore, the humiliations of the flesh thrust off its resurrection, why shall not its high prerogatives rather avail to bring it about?—since it better suits the character of God to restore to salvation what for a while He rejected, than to surrender to perdition what He once approved.
Δίκαιος ὡς φοίνιξ ἀνθήσει, Sept. Ps. xcii. 12.—“like a palm tree” (A.V.). We have here a characteristic way of Tertullian’s quoting a scripture which has even the least bearing on his subject. [See Vol. I. (this series) p. 12, and same volume, p. viii.]

that is, shall flourish or revive, from death, from the grave—to teach you to believe that a bodily substance may be recovered even from the fire. Our Lord has declared that we are “better than many sparrows:”7368

7368 Matt. x. 33.

well, if not better than many a phœnix too, it were no great thing. But must men die once for all, while birds in Arabia are sure of a resurrection?
Matt. ix. 4.

and again: “Whosoever looketh on a woman, to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.”7372

7372 Matt. v. 28.

So that even the thought, without operation and without effect, is an act of the flesh.  But if you allow that the faculty which rules the senses, and which they call Hegemonikon,7373

7373 The leading power.

has its sanctuary in the brain, or in the interval between the eyebrows, or wheresoever the philosophers are pleased to locate it, the flesh will still be the thinking place of the soul. The soul is never without the flesh, as long as it is in the flesh. There is nothing which the flesh does not transact in company with the soul, when without it it does not exist. Consider carefully, too, whether the thoughts are not administered by the flesh, since it is through the flesh that they are distinguished and known externally. Let the soul only meditate some design, the face gives the indication—the face being the mirror of all our intentions.  They may deny all combination in acts, but they cannot gainsay their co-operation in thoughts. Still they enumerate the sins of the flesh; surely, then, for its sinful conduct it must be consigned to punishment. But we, moreover, allege against them the virtues of the flesh; surely also for its virtuous conduct it deserves a future reward. Again, as it is the soul which acts and impels us in all we do, so it is the function of the flesh to render obedience. Now we are not permitted to suppose that God is either unjust or idle.  Unjust, (however He would be,) were He to exclude from reward the flesh which is associated in good works; and idle, were He to exempt it from punishment, when it has been an accomplice in evil deeds: whereas human judgment is deemed to be the more perfect, when it discovers the agents in every deed, and neither spares the guilty nor grudges the virtuous their full share of either punishment or praise with the principals who employed their services.
1 Thess. iv. 4.

it is yet designated by the same apostle as “the outward man,”7376

7376 2 Cor. iv. 16.

—that clay, of course, which at the first was inscribed with the title of a man, not of a cup or a sword, or any paltry vessel.  Now it is called a “vessel” in consideration of its capacity, whereby it receives and contains the soul; but “man,” from its community of nature, which renders it in all operations a servant and not an instrument. Accordingly, in the judgment it will be held to be a servant (even though it may have no independent discretion of its own), on the ground of its being an integral portion of that which possesses such discretion, and is not a mere chattel.  And although the apostle is well aware that the flesh does nothing of itself which is not also imputed to the soul, he yet deems the flesh to be “sinful;”7377

7377 Rom. viii. 3.

lest it should be supposed to be free from all responsibility by the mere fact of its seeming to be impelled by the soul.  So, again, when he is ascribing certain praiseworthy actions to the flesh, he says, “Therefore glorify and exalt God in your body,”7378

7378 1 Cor. vi. 20.

—being certain that such efforts are actuated by the soul; but still he ascribes them to the flesh, because it is to it that he also promises the recompense. Besides, neither rebuke, (on the one hand), would have been suitable to it, if free from blame; nor, (on the other hand), would exhortation, if it were incapable of glory. Indeed, both rebuke and exhortation would be alike idle towards the flesh, if it were an improper object for that recompence which is certainly received in the resurrection.
Gen. iii. 19.

Even the man who has not heard the sentence, sees the fact. No death but is the ruin of our limbs. This destiny of the body the Lord also described, when, clothed as He was in its very substance, He said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again.”7389

7389 John ii. 19.

For He showed to what belongs (the incidents of) being destroyed, thrown down, and kept down—even to that to which it also appertains to be lifted and raised up again; although He was at the same time bearing about with Him “a soul that was trembling even unto death,”7390

7390 Matt. xxvi. 38.

but which did not fall through death, because even the Scripture informs us that “He spoke of His body.”7391

7391 John ii. 21.

So that it is the flesh which falls by death; and accordingly it derives its name, cadaver, from cadendo.7392

7392 “Corpse from falling.” This, of course, does not show the connection of the words, like the Latin. [Elucidation I.]

The soul, however, has no trace of a fall in its designation, as indeed there is no mortality in its condition. Nay it is the soul which communicates its ruin to the body when it is breathed out of it, just as it is also destined to raise it up again from the earth when it shall re-enter it. That cannot fall which by its entrance raises; nor can that droop which by its departure causes ruin. I will go further, and say that the soul does not even fall into sleep along with the body, nor does it with its companion even lie down in repose.  For it is agitated in dreams, and disturbed: it might, however, rest, if it lay down; and lie down it certainly would, if it fell.  Thus that which does not fall even into the likeness of death, does not succumb to the reality thereof. Passing now to the other word mortuorum, I wish you to look carefully, and see to what substance it is applicable.  Were we to allow, under this head, as is sometimes held by the heretics, that the soul is mortal, so that being mortal it shall attain to a resurrection; this would afford a presumption that the flesh also, being no less mortal, would share in the same resurrection. But our present point is to derive from the proper signification of this word an idea of the destiny which it indicates. Now, just as the term resurrection is predicated of that which falls—that is, the flesh—so will there be the same application of the word dead, because what is called “the resurrection of the dead” indicates the rising up again of that which is fallen down. We learn this from the case of Abraham, the father of the faithful, a man who enjoyed close intercourse with God. For when he requested of the sons of Heth a spot to bury Sarah in, he said to them, “Give me the possession of a burying place with you, that I may bury my dead,”7393

7393 Gen. xxiii. 4.

—meaning, of course, her flesh; for he could not have desired a place to bury her soul in, even if the soul is to be deemed mortal, and even if it could bear to be described by the word “dead.” Since, then, this word indicates the body, it follows that when “the resurrection of the dead” is spoken of, it is the rising again of men’s bodies that is meant.
Matt. xxiii. 27.

Whence it follows that they who have by faith attained to the resurrection, are with the Lord after they have once put Him on in their baptism. By such subtlety, then, even in conversation have they often been in the habit of misleading our brethren, as if they held a resurrection of the dead as well as we. Woe, say they, to him who has not risen in the present body; for they fear that they might alarm their hearers if they at once denied the resurrection. Secretly, however, in their minds they think this: Woe betide the simpleton who during his present life fails to discover the mysteries of heresy; since this, in their view, is the resurrection.  There are however, a great many also, who, claiming to hold a resurrection after the soul’s departure, maintain that going out of the sepulchre means escaping out of the world, since in their view the world is the habitation of the dead—that is, of those who know not God; or they will go so far as to say that it actually means escaping out of the body itself, since they imagine that the body detains the soul, when it is shut up in the death of a worldly life, as in a grave.
Isa. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23.

Even granting that He was figuratively to take the power of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria,7396

7396 Isa. viii. 4.

still it was literally that He was to “enter into judgment with the elders and princes of the people.”7397

7397 Isa. iii. 13.

For in the person of Pilate “the heathen raged,” and in the person of Israel “the people imagined vain things;” “the kings of the earth” in Herod, and the rulers in Annas and Caiaphas, were gathered together “against the Lord, and against His anointed.”7398

7398 Ps. ii. 1, 2.

He, again, was “led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a sheep before the shearer,” that is, Herod, “is dumb, so He opened not His mouth.”7399

7399 Isa. liii. 7.

“He gave His back to scourges, and His cheeks to blows, not turning His face even from the shame of spitting.”7400

7400 Isa. l. 6, Sept.

“He was numbered with the transgressors;”7401

7401 Isa. liii. 12.

“He was pierced in His hands and His feet;”7402

7402 Ps. xxii. 17.

“they cast lots for his raiment;”7403

7403 Ver. 18.

“they gave Him gall, and made Him drink vinegar;”7404

7404 Ps. lxix. 22. Tertullian only briefly gives the sense in two words: et potus amaros.

“they shook their heads, and mocked Him;”7405

7405 Ps. xxii. 8.

“He was appraised by the traitor in thirty pieces of silver.”7406

7406 Zech. xi. 12.

What figures of speech does Isaiah here give us? What tropes does David? What allegories does Jeremiah? Not even of His mighty works have they used parabolic language. Or else, were not the eyes of the blind opened? did not the tongue of the dumb recover speech?7407

7407 Isa. xxxv. 5.

did not the relaxed hands and palsied knees become strong,7408

7408 Ver. 3.

and the lame leap as an hart?7409

7409 Ver. 6.

No doubt we are accustomed also to give a spiritual significance to these statements of prophecy, according to the analogy of the physical diseases which were healed by the Lord; but still they were all fulfilled literally: thus showing that the prophets foretold both senses, except that very many of their words can only be taken in a pure and simple signification, and free from all allegorical obscurity; as when we hear of the downfall of nations and cities, of Tyre and Egypt, and Babylon and Edom, and the navy of Carthage; also when they foretell Israel’s own chastisements and pardons, its captivities, restorations, and at last its final dispersion.  Who would prefer affixing a metaphorical interpretation to all these events, instead of accepting their literal truth? The realities are involved in the words, just as the words are read in the realities.  Thus, then, (we find that) the allegorical style is not used in all parts of the prophetic record, although it occasionally occurs in certain portions of it.
Luke xxi. 24.

—meaning, of course, those which were to be chosen of God, and gathered in with the remnant of Israel—He then goes on to proclaim, against this world and dispensation (even as Joel had done, and Daniel, and all the prophets with one consent7415

7415 Joel iii. 9–15; Dan. vii. 13, 14.

), that “there should be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars, distress of nations with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring, men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth.”7416

7416 Luke xxi. 25, 26.

“For,” says He, “the powers of heaven shall be shaken; and then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds, with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh.”7417

7417 Vers. 26–28.

He spake of its “drawing nigh,” not of its being present already; and of “those things beginning to come to pass,” not of their having happened: because when they have come to pass, then our redemption shall be at hand, which is said to be approaching up to that time, raising and exciting our minds to what is then the proximate harvest of our hope. He immediately annexes a parable of this in “the trees which are tenderly sprouting into a flower-stalk, and then developing the flower, which is the precursor of the fruit.”7418

7418 Luke xxi. 29, 30; Matt. xxiv. 32.

“So likewise ye,” (He adds), “when ye shall see all these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of heaven is nigh at hand.”7419

7419 Luke xxi. 31; Matt. xxiv. 33.

“Watch ye, therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all those things, and to stand before the Son of man;”7420

7420 Luke xxi. 36.

that is, no doubt, at the resurrection, after all these things have been previously transacted. Therefore, although there is a sprouting in the acknowledgment of all this mystery, yet it is only in the actual presence of the Lord that the flower is developed and the fruit borne. Who is it then, that has aroused the Lord, now at God’s right hand, so unseasonably and with such severity “shake terribly” (as Isaiah7421

7421 Isa. ii. 19.

expresses it) “that earth,” which, I suppose, is as yet unshattered? Who has thus early put “Christ’s enemies beneath His feet” (to use the language of David7422

7422 Ps. cx. 1.

), making Him more hurried than the Father, whilst every crowd in our popular assemblies is still with shouts consigning “the Christians to the lions?”7423

7423 Compare The Apology, xl.; De Spect. xxvii.; De Exhort. Cast. xii.

Who has yet beheld Jesus descending from heaven in like manner as the apostles saw Him ascend, according to the appointment of the two angels?7424

7424 Acts i. 11.

Up to the present moment they have not, tribe by tribe, smitten their breasts, looking on Him whom they pierced.7425

7425 Zech. xii. 10; comp. John xix. 37.

No one has as yet fallen in with Elias;7426

7426 Mal. iv. 5.

no one has as yet escaped from Antichrist;7427

7427 1 John iv. 3.

no one has as yet had to bewail the downfall of Babylon.7428

7428 Rev. xviii. 2.

And is there now anybody who has risen again, except the heretic? He, of course, has already quitted the grave of his own corpse—although he is even now liable to fevers and ulcers; he, too, has already trodden down his enemies—although he has even now to struggle with the powers of the world. And as a matter of course, he is already a king—although he even now owes to Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s.7429

7429 Matt. xxii. 21.


Col. i. 21.

that we were then buried with Christ in baptism, and also raised again with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead.7431

7431 Col. ii. 12.

“And you, (adds he), when ye were dead in sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses.”7432

7432 Ver. 13.

And again:  “If ye are dead with Christ from the elements of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances?”7433

7433 Ver. 20. The last clause in Tertullian is, “Quomodo sententiam fertis?”

Now, since he makes us spiritually dead—in such a way, however, as to allow that we shall one day have to undergo a bodily death,—so, considering indeed that we have been also raised in a like spiritual sense, he equally allows that we shall further have to undergo a bodily resurrection. In so many words7434

7434 Denique.

he says: “Since ye are risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.”7435

7435 Col. iii. 1, 2.

Accordingly, it is in our mind that he shows that we rise (with Christ), since it is by this alone that we are as yet able to reach to heavenly objects. These we should not “seek,” nor “set our affection on,” if we had them already in our possession. He also adds: “For ye are dead”—to your sins, he means, not to yourselves—“and your life is hid with Christ in God.”7436

7436 Ver. 3.

Now that life is not yet apprehended which is hidden. In like manner John says: “And it doth not yet appear what we shall be: we know, however, that when He shall be manifest, we shall be like Him.”7437

7437 1 John iii. 2.

We are far indeed from being already what we know not of; we should, of course, be sure to know it if we were already (like Him). It is therefore the contemplation of our blessed hope even in this life by faith (that he speaks of)—not its presence nor its possession, but only its expectation. Concerning this expectation and hope Paul writes to the Galatians: “For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.”7438

7438 Gal. v. 5.

He says “we wait for it,” not we are in possession of it. By the righteousness of God, he means that judgment which we shall have to undergo as the recompense of our deeds. It is in expectation of this for himself that the apostle writes to the Philippians:  “If by any means,” says he, “I might attain to the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, or were already perfect.”7439

7439 Phil. iii. 11, 12.

And yet he had believed, and had known all mysteries, as an elect vessel and the great teacher of the Gentiles; but for all that he goes on to say: “I, however, follow on, if so be I may apprehend that for which I also am apprehended of Christ.”7440

7440 Ver. 12.

Nay, more:  “Brethren,” (he adds), “I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing (I do), forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of blamelessness,7441

7441 Vers. 13, 14. In the last clause Tertullian reads τῆς ἀνεγκλήσεως = blamelessness, or purity, instead of τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως ="our high calling.”

whereby I may attain it;” meaning the resurrection from the dead in its proper time. Even as he says to the Galatians: “Let us not be weary in well-doing: for in due season we shall reap.”7442

7442 Gal. vi. 9.

Similarly, concerning Onesiphorus, does he also write to Timothy: “The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy in that day;”7443

7443 2 Tim. i. 18.

unto which day and time he charges Timothy himself “to keep what had been committed to his care, without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ: which in His times He shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords,”7444

7444 1 Tim. vi. 14, 15; 20.

speaking of (Him as) God. It is to these same times that Peter in the Acts refers, when he says: “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of His holy prophets.”7445

7445 Acts iii. 19–21.


1 Thess. i. 9, 10.

And again:  “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord God, Jesus Christ, at His coming?”7447

7447 1 Thess. ii. 19. Some mss. omit “God.”

Likewise:  “Before God, even our Father, at the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, with the whole company of His saints.”7448

7448 1 Thess. iii. 13.

He teaches them that they must “not sorrow concerning them that are asleep,” and at the same time explains to them the times of the resurrection, saying, “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus shall God bring with Him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of our Lord, shall not prevent them that are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we be ever with the Lord.”7449

7449 1 Thess. iv. 13–17.

What archangel’s voice, (I wonder), what trump of God is now heard, except it be, forsooth, in the entertainments of the heretics? For, allowing that the word of the gospel may be called “the trump of God,” since it was still calling men, yet they must at that time either be dead as to the body, that they may be able to rise again; and then how are they alive?  Or else caught up into the clouds; and how then are they here? “Most miserable,” no doubt, as the apostle declared them, are they “who in this life only” shall be found to have hope:7450

7450 1 Cor. xv. 19.

they will have to be excluded while they are with premature haste seizing that which is promised after this life; erring concerning the truth, no less than Phygellus and Hermogenes.7451

7451 2 Tim. i. 15.

Hence it is that the Holy Ghost, in His greatness, foreseeing clearly all such interpretations as these, suggests (to the apostle), in this very epistle of his to the Thessalonians, as follows: “But of the times and the seasons, brethren, there is no necessity for my writing unto you.  For ye yourselves know perfectly, that the day of the Lord cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, ‘Peace,’ and ‘All things are safe,’ then sudden destruction shall come upon them.”7452

7452 1 Thess. v. 1–3.

Again, in the second epistle he addresses them with even greater earnestness: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled, either by spirit, or by word,” that is, the word of false prophets, “or by letter,” that is, the letter of false apostles, “as if from us, as that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means. For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away,” he means indeed of this present empire, “and that man of sin be revealed,” that is to say, Antichrist, “the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or religion; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, affirming that he is God. Remember ye not, that when I was with you, I used to tell you these things? And now ye know what detaineth, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.”7453

7453 2 Thess. ii. 1–7.

What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)?  “And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish.”7454

7454 2 Thess. ii. 8–10.


Rev. vi. 9, 10.

(taught, I say, to wait), in order that the world may first drink to the dregs the plagues that await it out of the vials of the angels,7456

7456 Rev. xvi.

and that the city of fornication may receive from the ten kings its deserved doom,7457

7457 Rev. xviii.

and that the beast Antichrist with his false prophet may wage war on the Church of God; and that, after the casting of the devil into the bottomless pit for a while,7458

7458 Rev. xx. 2.

the blessed prerogative of the first resurrection may be ordained from the thrones;7459

7459 Vers. 4–6.

and then again, after the consignment of him to the fire, that the judgment of the final and universal resurrection may be determined out of the books.7460

7460 Vers. 12–14.

Since, then, the Scriptures both indicate the stages of the last times, and concentrate the harvest of the Christian hope in the very end of the world, it is evident, either that all which God promises to us receives its accomplishment then, and thus what the heretics pretend about a resurrection here falls to the ground; or else, even allowing that a confession of the mystery (of divine truth) is a resurrection, that there is, without any detriment to this view, room for believing in that which is announced for the end. It moreover follows, that the very maintenance of this spiritual resurrection amounts to a presumption in favour of the other bodily resurrection; for if none were announced for that time, there would be fair ground for asserting only this purely spiritual resurrection. Inasmuch, however, as (a resurrection) is proclaimed for the last time, it is proved to be a bodily one, because there is no spiritual one also then announced. For why make a second announcement of a resurrection of only one character, that is, the spiritual one, since this ought to be undergoing accomplishment either now, without any regard to different times, or else then, at the very conclusion of all the periods? It is therefore more competent for us even to maintain a spiritual resurrection at the commencement of a life of faith, who acknowledge the full completion thereof at the end of the world.
Gen. iii. 19.

In respect, of course, to his fleshly substance, which had been taken out of the ground, and which was the first to receive the name of man, as we have already shown,7462

7462 See above, ch. v.

does not this passage give one instruction to interpret in relation to the flesh also whatever of wrath or of grace God has determined for the earth, because, strictly speaking, the earth is not exposed to His judgment, since it has never done any good or evil? “Cursed,” no doubt, it was, for it drank the blood of man;7463

7463 Gen. iv. 11.

but even this was as a figure of homicidal flesh. For if the earth has to suffer either joy or injury, it is simply on man’s account, that he may suffer the joy or the sorrow through the events which happen to his dwelling-place, whereby he will rather have to pay the penalty which, simply on his account, even the earth must suffer.  When, therefore, God even threatens the earth, I would prefer saying that He threatens the flesh: so likewise, when He makes a promise to the earth, I would rather understand Him as promising the flesh; as in that passage of David: “The Lord is King, let the earth be glad,”7464

7464 Ps. xcvii. 1.

—meaning the flesh of the saints, to which appertains the enjoyment of the kingdom of God. Then he afterwards says: “The earth saw and trembled; the mountains melted like wax at the presence of the Lord,”—meaning, no doubt the flesh of the wicked; and (in a similar sense) it is written: “For they shall look on Him whom they pierced.”7465

7465 Zech. xii. 10.

If indeed it will be thought that both these passages were pronounced simply of the element earth, how can it be consistent that it should shake and melt at the presence of the Lord, at whose royal dignity it before exulted? So again in Isaiah, “Ye shall eat the good of the land,”7466

7466 Isa. i. 19.

the expression means the blessings which await the flesh when in the kingdom of God it shall be renewed, and made like the angels, and waiting to obtain the things “which neither eye hath seen, nor ear heard, and which have not entered into the heart of man.”7467

7467 1 Cor. ii. 9.

Otherwise, how vain that God should invite men to obedience by the fruits of the field and the elements of this life, when He dispenses these to even irreligious men and blasphemers; on a general condition once for all made to man, “sending rain on the good and on the evil, and making His sun to shine on the just and on the unjust!”7468

7468 Matt. v. 45.

Happy, no doubt, is faith, if it is to obtain gifts which the enemies of God and Christ not only use, but even abuse, “worshipping the creature itself in opposition to the Creator!”7469

7469 Rom. i. 25.

You will reckon, (I suppose) onions and truffles among earth’s bounties, since the Lord declares that “man shall not live on bread alone!”7470

7470 Matt. iv. 4.

In this way the Jews lose heavenly blessings, by confining their hopes to earthly ones, being ignorant of the promise of heavenly bread, and of the oil of God’s unction, and the wine of the Spirit, and of that water of life which has its vigour from the vine of Christ. On exactly the same principle, they consider the special soil of Judæa to be that very holy land, which ought rather to be interpreted of the Lord’s flesh, which, in all those who put on Christ, is thenceforward the holy land; holy indeed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, truly flowing with milk and honey by the sweetness of His assurance, truly Judæan by reason of the friendship of God.  For “he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but he who is one inwardly.”7471

7471 Rom. ii. 28, 29.

In the same way it is that both God’s temple and Jerusalem (must be understood) when it is said by Isaiah: “Awake, awake, O Jerusalem! put on the strength of thine arm; awake, as in thine earliest time,”7472

7472 Isa. li. 9, Sept.

that is to say, in that innocence which preceded the fall into sin. For how can words of this kind of exhortation and invitation be suitable for that Jerusalem which killed the prophets, and stoned those that were sent to them, and at last crucified its very Lord? Neither indeed is salvation promised to any one land at all, which must needs pass away with the fashion of the whole world. Even if anybody should venture strongly to contend that paradise is the holy land, which it may be possible to designate as the land of our first parents Adam and Eve, it will even then follow that the restoration of paradise will seem to be promised to the flesh, whose lot it was to inhabit and keep it, in order that man may be recalled thereto just such as he was driven from it.
Rev. iii. 4 and xiv. 4.

—indicating, of course, virgins, and such as have become “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.”7474

7474 Matt. xix. 12.

Therefore they shall be “clothed in white raiment,”7475

7475 Rev. iii. 5.

that is, in the bright beauty of the unwedded flesh. In the gospel even, “the wedding garment” may be regarded as the sanctity of the flesh.7476

7476 Matt. xxii. 11, 12.

And so, when Isaiah tells us what sort of “fast the Lord hath chosen,” and subjoins a statement about the reward of good works, he says: “Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy garments,7477

7477 There is a curious change of the word here made by Tertullian, who reads ἱμάτια instead of ἰάματα, “thy health,” or “healings,” which is the word in the Sept.

shall speedily arise;”7478

7478 Isa. lviii. 8.

where he has no thought of cloaks or stuff gowns, but means the rising of the flesh, which he declared the resurrection of, after its fall in death. Thus we are furnished even with an allegorical defence of the resurrection of the body. When, then, we read, “Go, my people, enter into your closets for a little season, until my anger pass away,”7479

7479 Isa. xxvi. 20.

we have in the closets graves, in which they will have to rest for a little while, who shall have at the end of the world departed this life in the last furious onset of the power of Antichrist.  Why else did He use the expression closets, in preference to some other receptacle, if it were not that the flesh is kept in these closets or cellars salted and reserved for use, to be drawn out thence on a suitable occasion? It is on a like principle that embalmed corpses are set aside for burial in mausoleums and sepulchres, in order that they may be removed therefrom when the Master shall order it. Since, therefore, there is consistency in thus understanding the passage (for what refuge of little closets could possibly shelter us from the wrath of God?), it appears that by the very phrase which he uses, “Until His anger pass away,”7480

7480 Isa. xxvi. 20.

which shall extinguish Antichrist, he in fact shows that after that indignation the flesh will come forth from the sepulchre, in which it had been deposited previous to the bursting out of the anger. Now out of the closets nothing else is brought than that which had been put into them, and after the extirpation of Antichrist shall be busily transacted the great process of the resurrection.
Ex. iv. 6, 7.

does not this apply as a presage to all mankind?—inasmuch as those three signs7482

7482 Ex. iv. 2–9.

denoted the threefold power of God: when it shall, first, in the appointed order, subdue to man the old serpent, the devil,7483

7483 Comp. vers. 3, 4.

however formidable; then, secondly, draw forth the flesh from the bosom of death;7484

7484 Comp. vers. 6, 7.

and then, at last, shall pursue all blood (shed) in judgment.7485

7485 Comp. ver. 9.

On this subject we read in the writings of the same prophet, (how that) God says:  “For your blood of your lives will I require of all wild beasts; and I will require it of the hand of man, and of his brother’s hand.”7486

7486 Gen. ix. 5.

Now nothing is required except that which is demanded back again, and nothing is thus demanded except that which is to be given up; and that will of course be given up, which shall be demanded and required on the ground of vengeance. But indeed there cannot possibly be punishment of that which never had any existence. Existence, however, it will have, when it is restored in order to be punished. To the flesh, therefore, applies everything which is declared respecting the blood, for without the flesh there cannot be blood. The flesh will be raised up in order that the blood may be punished.  There are, again, some statements (of Scripture) so plainly made as to be free from all obscurity of allegory, and yet they strongly require7487

7487 Sitiant.

their very simplicity to be interpreted.  There is, for instance, that passage in Isaiah: “I will kill, and I will make alive.”7488

7488 Isa. xxxviii. 12, 13; 16. The very words, however, occur not in Isaiah, but in 1 Sam. ii. 6; Deut. xxxii. 39.

Certainly His making alive is to take place after He has killed. As, therefore, it is by death that He kills, it is by the resurrection that He will make alive. Now it is the flesh which is killed by death; the flesh, therefore, will be revived by the resurrection. Surely if killing means taking away life from the flesh, and its opposite, reviving, amounts to restoring life to the flesh, it must needs be that the flesh rise again, to which the life, which has been taken away by killing, has to be restored by vivification.
Ezek. xxxvii. 1–14.


Chapter XXX.—This Vision Interpreted by Tertullian of the Resurrection of the Bodies of the Dead.  A Chronological Error of Our Author, Who Supposes that Ezekiel in His Ch. XXXI. Prophesied Before the Captivity.

Mal. iv. 2, 3.

And again, (Isaiah says): “Your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall spring up like the grass,”7491

7491 Isa. lxvi. 14.

because the grass also is renewed by the dissolution and corruption of the seed. In a word, if it is contended that the figure of the rising bones refers properly to the state of Israel, why is the same hope announced to all nations, instead of being limited to Israel only, of reinvesting those osseous remains with bodily substance and vital breath, and of raising up their dead out of the grave? For the language is universal: “The dead shall arise, and come forth from their graves; for the dew which cometh from Thee is medicine to their bones.”7492

7492 Isa. xxvi. 19.

In another passage it is written: “All flesh shall come to worship before me, saith the Lord.”7493

7493 Isa. lxvi. 23.

When?  When the fashion of this world shall begin to pass away. For He said before: “As the new heaven and the new earth, which I make, remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed remain.”7494

7494 Ver. 22.

Then also shall be fulfilled what is written afterwards: “And they shall go forth” (namely, from their graves), “and shall see the carcases of those who have transgressed: for their worm shall never die, nor shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be a spectacle to all flesh”7495

7495 Isa. lxvi. 24.

even to that which, being raised again from the dead and brought out from the grave, shall adore the Lord for this great grace.
Matt. xiii. 34.

that is, to the Jews. Now the disciples also asked Him, “Why speakest Thou in parables?”7497

7497 Ver. 10.

And the Lord gave them this answer: “Therefore I speak unto them in parables: because they seeing, see not; and hearing, they hear not, according to the prophecy of Esaias.”7498

7498 Matt. xiii. 13; comp. Isa. vi. 9.

But since it was to the Jews that He spoke in parables, it was not then to all men; and if not to all, it follows that it was not always and in all things parables with Him, but only in certain things, and when addressing a particular class. But He addressed a particular class when He spoke to the Jews. It is true that He spoke sometimes even to the disciples in parables. But observe how the Scripture relates such a fact:  “And He spake a parable unto them.”7499

7499 See Luke vi. 39; comp. with ver. 20, and other places, especially in this Gospel.

It follows, then, that He did not usually address them in parables; because if He always did so, special mention would not be made of His resorting to this mode of address. Besides, there is not a parable which you will not find to be either explained by the Lord Himself, as that of the sower, (which He interprets) of the management of the word of God;7500

7500 See Luke viii. 11.

or else cleared by a preface from the writer of the Gospel, as in the parable of the arrogant judge and the importunate widow, which is expressly applied to earnestness in prayer;7501

7501 See Luke xviii. 1.

or capable of being spontaneously understood,7502

7502 Such cases of obvious meaning, which required no explanation, are referred to in Matt. xxi. 45 and Luke xx. 19.

as in the parable of the fig-tree, which was spared a while in hopes of improvement—an emblem of Jewish sterility.  Now, if even parables obscure not the light of the gospel, how unlikely it is that plain sentences and declarations, which have an unmistakeable meaning, should signify any other thing than their literal sense! But it is by such declarations and sentences that the Lord sets forth either the last judgment, or the kingdom, or the resurrection: “It shall be more tolerable,” He says, “for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you.”7503

7503 Matt. xi. 22.

And “Tell them that the kingdom of God is at hand.”7504

7504 Matt. x. 7.

And again, “It shall be recompensed to you at the resurrection of the just.”7505

7505 Luke xiv. 14.

Now, if the mention of these events (I mean the judgment-day, and the kingdom of God, and the resurrection) has a plain and absolute sense, so that nothing about them can be pressed into an allegory, neither should those statements be forced into parables which describe the arrangement, and the process, and the experience of the kingdom of God, and of the judgment, and of the resurrection. On the contrary, things which are destined for the body should be carefully understood in a bodily sense,—not in a spiritual sense, as having nothing figurative in their nature. This is the reason why we have laid it down as a preliminary consideration, that the bodily substance both of the soul and of the flesh is liable to the recompense, which will have to be awarded in return for the co-operation of the two natures, that so the corporeality of the soul may not exclude the bodily nature of the flesh by suggesting a recourse to figurative descriptions, since both of them must needs be regarded as destined to take part in the kingdom, and the judgment, and the resurrection. And now we proceed to the special proof of this proposition, that the bodily character of the flesh is indicated by our Lord whenever He mentions the resurrection, at the same time without disparagement to the corporeal nature of the soul,—a point which has been actually admitted but by a few.
Luke xix. 10.

What do you suppose that to be which is lost? Man, undoubtedly. The entire man, or only a part of him? The whole man, of course. In fact, since the transgression which caused man’s ruin was committed quite as much by the instigation of the soul from concupiscence as by the action of the flesh from actual fruition, it has marked the entire man with the sentence of transgression, and has therefore made him deservedly amenable to perdition. So that he will be wholly saved, since he has by sinning been wholly lost. Unless it be true that the sheep (of the parable) is a “lost” one, irrespective of its body; then its recovery may be effected without the body. Since, however, it is the bodily substance as well as the soul, making up the entire animal, which was carried on the shoulders of the Good Shepherd, we have here unquestionably an example how man is restored in both his natures. Else how unworthy it were of God to bring only a moiety of man to salvation—and almost less than that; whereas the munificence of princes of this world always claims for itself the merit of a plenary grace! Then must the devil be understood to be stronger for injuring man, ruining him wholly? and must God have the character of comparative weakness, since He does not relieve and help man in his entire state? The apostle, however, suggests that “where sin abounded, there has grace much more abounded.”7507

7507 Rom. v. 20.

How, in fact, can he be regarded as saved, who can at the same time be said to be lost—lost, that is, in the flesh, but saved as to his soul? Unless, indeed, their argument now makes it necessary that the soul should be placed in a “lost” condition, that it may be susceptible of salvation, on the ground that is properly saved which has been lost. We, however, so understand the soul’s immortality as to believe it “lost,” not in the sense of destruction, but of punishment, that is, in hell. And if this is the case, then it is not the soul which salvation will affect, since it is “safe” already in its own nature by reason of its immortality, but rather the flesh, which, as all readily allow, is subject to destruction. Else, if the soul is also perishable (in this sense), in other words, not immortal—the condition of the flesh—then this same condition ought in all fairness to benefit the flesh also, as being similarly mortal and perishable, since that which perishes the Lord purposes to save. I do not care now to follow the clue of our discussion, so far as to consider whether it is in one of his natures or in the other that perdition puts in its claim on man, provided that salvation is equally distributed over the two substances, and makes him its aim in respect of them both. For observe, in which substance so-ever you assume man to have perished, in the other he does not perish. He will therefore be saved in the substance in which he does not perish, and yet obtain salvation in that in which he does perish. You have (then) the restoration of the entire man, inasmuch as the Lord purposes to save that part of him which perishes, whilst he will not of course lose that portion which cannot be lost. Who will any longer doubt of the safety of both natures, when one of them is to obtain salvation, and the other is not to lose it?  And, still further, the Lord explains to us the meaning of the thing when He says: “I came not to do my own will, but the Father’s, who hath sent me.”7508

7508 John vi. 38.

What, I ask, is that will? “That of all which He hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”7509

7509 Ver. 39.

Now, what had Christ received of the Father but that which He had Himself put on?  Man, of course, in his texture of flesh and soul. Neither, therefore, of those parts which He has received will He allow to perish; nay, no considerable portion—nay, not the least fraction, of either. If the flesh be, as our opponents slightingly think, but a poor fraction, then the flesh is safe, because not a fraction of man is to perish; and no larger portion is in danger, because every portion of man is in equally safe keeping with Him. If, however, He will not raise the flesh also up at the last day, then He will permit not only a fraction of man to perish, but (as I will venture to say, in consideration of so important a part) almost the whole of him. But when He repeats His words with increased emphasis, “And this is the Father’s will, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have eternal life: and I will raise him up at the last day,”7510

7510 Ver. 40.

—He asserts the full extent of the resurrection.  For He assigns to each several nature that reward which is suited to its services: both to the flesh, for by it the Son was “seen;” and to the soul, for by it He was “believed on.” Then, you will say, to them was this promise given by whom Christ was “seen.” Well, be it so; only let the same hope flow on from them to us! For if to them who saw, and therefore believed, such fruit then accrued to the operations of the flesh and the soul, how much more to us! For more “blessed,” says Christ, “are they who have not seen, and yet have believed;”7511

7511 John xx. 29.

since, even if the resurrection of the flesh must be denied to them, it must at any rate be a fitting boon to us, who are the more blessed. For how could we be blessed, if we were to perish in any part of us?
Matt. x. 28.

that is to say, all human powers. Here, then, we have a recognition of the natural immortality of the soul, which cannot be killed by men; and of the mortality of the body, which may be killed: whence we learn that the resurrection of the dead is a resurrection of the flesh; for unless it were raised again, it would be impossible for the flesh to be “killed in hell.” But as a question may be here captiously raised about the meaning of “the body” (or “the flesh”), I will at once state that I understand by the human body nothing else than that fabric of the flesh which, whatever be the kind of material of which it is constructed and modified, is seen and handled, and sometimes indeed killed, by men. In like manner, I should not admit that anything but cement and stones and bricks form the body of a wall. If any one imports into our argument some body of a subtle, secret nature, he must show, disclose, and prove to me that that identical body is the very one which was slain by human violence, and then (I will grant) that it is of such a body that (our scripture) speaks. If, again, the body or corporeal nature of the soul7513

7513 Tertullian supposed that even the soul was in a certain sense of a corporeal essence. [Compare the speculations of Crusius in Auberlen, Divine Revelation, (Translation of A.B. Paton, Edinburgh, Clarks, 1867).]

is cast in my teeth, it will only be an idle subterfuge! For since both substances are set before us (in this passage, which affirms) that “body and soul” are destroyed in hell, a distinction is obviously made between the two; and we are left to understand the body to be that which is tangible to us, that is, the flesh, which, as it will be destroyed in hell—since it did not “rather fear” being destroyed by God—so also will it be restored to life eternal, since it preferred to be killed by human hands. If, therefore, any one shall violently suppose that the destruction of the soul and the flesh in hell amounts to a final annihilation of the two substances, and not to their penal treatment (as if they were to be consumed, not punished), let him recollect that the fire of hell is eternal—expressly announced as an everlasting penalty; and let him then admit that it is from this circumstance that this never-ending “killing” is more formidable than a merely human murder, which is only temporal. He will then come to the conclusion that substances must be eternal, when their penal “killing” is an eternal one. Since, then, the body after the resurrection has to be killed by God in hell along with the soul, we surely have sufficient information in this fact respecting both the issues which await it, namely the resurrection of the flesh, and its eternal “killing.” Else it would be most absurd if the flesh should be raised up and destined to “the killing in hell,” in order to be put an end to, when it might suffer such an annihilation (more directly) if not raised again at all. A pretty paradox,7514

7514 Scilicet.

to be sure, that an essence must be refitted with life, in order that it may receive that annihilation which has already in fact accrued to it! But Christ, whilst confirming us in the selfsame hope, adds the example of “the sparrows”—how that “not one of them falls to the ground without the will of God.”7515

7515 Matt. x. 29.

He says this, that you may believe that the flesh which has been consigned to the ground, is able in like manner to rise again by the will of the same God. For although this is not allowed to the sparrows, yet “we are of more value than many sparrows,”7516

7516 Ver. 31.

for the very reason that, when fallen, we rise again. He affirms, lastly, that “the very hairs of our head are all numbered,”7517

7517 Matt. x. 30.

and in the affirmation He of course includes the promise of their safety; for if they were to be lost, where would be the use of having taken such a numerical care of them? Surely the only use lies (in this truth): “That of all which the Father hath given to me, I should lose none,”7518

7518 John vi. 39.

—not even a hair, as also not an eye nor a tooth.  And yet whence shall come that “weeping and gnashing of teeth,”7519

7519 Matt. viii. 12; xiii. 42; xxii. 13; xxv. 30.

if not from eyes and teeth?—even at that time when the body shall be slain in hell, and thrust out into that outer darkness which shall be the suitable torment of the eyes. He also who shall not be clothed at the marriage feast in the raiment of good works, will have to be “bound hand and foot,”—as being, of course, raised in his body.  So, again, the very reclining at the feast in the kingdom of God, and sitting on Christ’s thrones, and standing at last on His right hand and His left, and eating of the tree of life:  what are all these but most certain proofs of a bodily appointment and destination?
Matt. xxii. 23–32; Mark xii. 18–27; Luke xx. 27–38.

Now, let the purport both of the question and the answer be kept steadily in view, and the discussion is settled at once. For since the Sadducees indeed denied the resurrection, whilst the Lord affirmed it; since, too, (in affirming it,) He reproached them as being both ignorant of the Scriptures—those, of course which had declared the resurrection—as well as incredulous of the power of God, though, of course, effectual to raise the dead, and lastly, since He immediately added the words, “Now, that the dead are raised,”7522

7522 Luke xx. 37.

(speaking) without misgiving, and affirming the very thing which was being denied, even the resurrection of the dead before Him who is “the God of the living,”—(it clearly follows) that He affirmed this verity in the precise sense in which they were denying it; that it was, in fact, the resurrection of the two natures of man. Nor does it follow, (as they would have it,) that because Christ denied that men would marry, He therefore proved that they would not rise again. On the contrary, He called them “the children of the resurrection,”7523

7523 Ver. 36.

in a certain sense having by the resurrection to undergo a birth; and after that they marry no more, but in their risen life are “equal unto the angels,”7524

7524 Ver. 36.

inasmuch as they are not to marry, because they are not to die, but are destined to pass into the angelic state by putting on the raiment of incorruption, although with a change in the substance which is restored to life. Besides, no question could be raised whether we are to marry or die again or not, without involving in doubt the restoration most especially of that substance which has a particular relation both to death and marriage—that is, the flesh. Thus, then, you have the Lord affirming against the Jewish heretics what is now encountering the denial of the Christian Sadducees—the resurrection of the entire man.
John vi. 63.

but then, as in the former case, the meaning must be regulated by the subject which is spoken of. Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickeneth;” and then added, “The flesh profiteth nothing,”—meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” In a like sense He had previously said: “He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life.”7526

7526 John v. 24.

Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh,7527

7527 John i. 14.

we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith. Now, just before (the passage in hand), He had declared His flesh to be “the bread which cometh down from heaven,”7528

7528 John vi. 51.

impressing on (His hearers) constantly under the figure of necessary food the memory of their forefathers, who had preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt to their divine calling.7529

7529 John vi. 31, 49, 58.

Then, turning His subject to their reflections, because He perceived that they were going to be scattered from Him, He says: “The flesh profiteth nothing.” Now what is there to destroy the resurrection of the flesh? As if there might not reasonably enough be something which, although it “profiteth nothing” itself, might yet be capable of being profited by something else. The spirit “profiteth,” for it imparts life. The flesh profiteth nothing, for it is subject to death. Therefore He has rather put the two propositions in a way which favours our belief: for by showing what “profits,” and what “does not profit,” He has likewise thrown light on the object which receives as well as the subject which gives the “profit.”  Thus, in the present instance, we have the Spirit giving life to the flesh which has been subdued by death; for “the hour,” says He, “is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.”7530

7530 John v. 25.

Now, what is “the dead” but the flesh? and what is “the voice of God” but the Word? and what is the Word but the Spirit,7531

7531 The divine nature of the Son. See our Anti-Marcion, pp. 129, 247, note 7, Edin.

who shall justly raise the flesh which He had once Himself become, and that too from death, which He Himself suffered, and from the grave, which He Himself once entered? Then again, when He says, “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and shall come forth; they that have done good, to the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation,”7532

7532 John v. 28, 29.

—none will after such words be able to interpret the dead “that are in the graves” as any other than the bodies of the flesh, because the graves themselves are nothing but the resting-place of corpses:  for it is incontestable that even those who partake of “the old man,” that is to say, sinful men—in other words, those who are dead through their ignorance of God (whom our heretics, forsooth, foolishly insist on understanding by the word “graves”7533

7533 Compare c. xix. above.

)—are plainly here spoken of as having to come from their graves for judgment. But how are graves to come forth from graves?
Rev. vi. 9–11.

was quite able to display them before our eyes rising without a body of flesh. I, however, for my part prefer (believing) that it is impossible for God to practise deception (weak as He only could be in respect of artifice), from any fear of seeming to have given preliminary proofs of a thing in a way which is inconsistent with His actual disposal of the thing; nay more, from a fear that, since He was not powerful enough to show us a sample of the resurrection without the flesh, He might with still greater infirmity be unable to display (by and by) the full accomplishment of the sample in the self-same substance of the flesh. No example, indeed, is greater than the thing of which it is a sample. Greater, however, it is, if souls with their body are to be raised as the evidence of their resurrection without the body, so as that the entire salvation of man in soul and body should become a guarantee for only the half, the soul; whereas the condition in all examples is, that which would be deemed the less—I mean the resurrection of the soul only—should be the foretaste, as it were, of the rising of the flesh also at its appointed time. And therefore, according to our estimate of the truth, those examples of dead persons who were raised by the Lord were indeed a proof of the resurrection both of the flesh and of the soul,—a proof, in fact, that this gift was to be denied to neither substance. Considered, however, as examples only, they expressed all the less significance—less, indeed, than Christ will express at last—for they were not raised up for glory and immortality, but only for another death.
Acts xxiii. 6.

—referring, of course, to the nation’s hope; in order to avoid, in his present condition, as an apparent transgressor of the law, being thought to approach to the Sadducees in opinion on the most important article of the faith—even the resurrection. That belief, therefore, in the resurrection which he would not appear to impair, he really confirmed in the opinion of the Pharisees, since he rejected the views of the Sadducees, who denied it. In like manner, before Agrippa also, he says that he was advancing “none other things than those which the prophets had announced.”7540

7540 Acts xxvi. 22.

He was therefore maintaining just such a resurrection as the prophets had foretold.  He mentions also what is written by “Moses,” touching the resurrection of the dead; (and in so doing) he must have known that it would be a rising in the body, since requisition will have to be made therein of the blood of man.7541

7541 Gen. ix. 5, 6.

He declared it then to be of such a character as the Pharisees had admitted it, and such as the Lord had Himself maintained it, and such too as the Sadducees refused to believe it—such refusal leading them indeed to an absolute rejection of the whole verity. Nor had the Athenians previously understood Paul to announce any other resurrection.7542

7542 Acts xvii. 32.

They had, in fact, derided his announcement; but they would have indulged no such derision if they had heard from him nothing but the restoration of the soul, for they would have received that as the very common anticipation of their own native philosophy. But when the preaching of the resurrection, of which they had previously not heard, by its absolute novelty excited the heathen, and a not unnatural incredulity in so wonderful a matter began to harass the simple faith with many discussions, then the apostle took care in almost every one of his writings to strengthen men’s belief of this Christian hope, pointing out that there was such a hope, and that it had not as yet been realized, and that it would be in the body,—a point which was the especial object of inquiry, and, what was besides a doubtful question, not in a body of a different kind from ours.
1 Cor. xi. 19.

but these could not be, if the Scriptures were not capable of a false interpretation. Well, then, heresies finding that the apostle had mentioned two “men”—“the inner man,” that is, the soul, and “the outward man,” that is, the flesh—awarded salvation to the soul or inward man, and destruction to the flesh or outward man, because it is written (in the Epistle) to the Corinthians: “Though our outward man decayeth, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.”7544

7544 2 Cor. iv. 16.

Now, neither the soul by itself alone is “man” (it was subsequently implanted in the clayey mould to which the name man had been already given), nor is the flesh without the soul “man”: for after the exile of the soul from it, it has the title of corpse. Thus the designation man is, in a certain sense, the bond between the two closely united substances, under which designation they cannot but be coherent natures. As for the inward man, indeed, the apostle prefers its being regarded as the mind and heart7545

7545 Animum.

rather than the soul;7546

7546 Animam.

in other words, not so much the substance itself as the savour of the substance. Thus when, writing to the Ephesians, he spoke of “Christ dwelling in their inner man,” he meant, no doubt, that the Lord ought to be admitted into their senses.7547

7547 Eph. iii. 17.

He then added, “in your hearts by faith, rooted and grounded in love,”—making “faith” and “love” not substantial parts, but only conceptions of the soul. But when he used the phrase “in your hearts,” seeing that these are substantial parts of the flesh, he at once assigned to the flesh the actual “inward man,” which he placed in the heart. Consider now in what sense he alleged that “the outward man decayeth, while the inward man is renewed day by day.” You certainly would not maintain that he could mean that corruption of the flesh which it undergoes from the moment of death, in its appointed state of perpetual decay; but the wear and tear which for the name of Christ it experiences during its course of life before and until death, in harassing cares and tribulations as well as in tortures and persecutions. Now the inward man will have, of course, to be renewed by the suggestion of the Spirit, advancing by faith and holiness day after day, here in this life, not there after the resurrection, were our renewal is not a gradual process from day to day, but a consummation once for all complete. You may learn this, too, from the following passage, where the apostle says: “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen,” that is, our sufferings, “but at the things which are not seen,” that is, our rewards: “for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.”7548

7548 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18.

For the afflictions and injuries wherewith the outward man is worn away, he affirms to be only worthy of being despised by us, as being light and temporary; preferring those eternal recompenses which are also invisible, and that “weight of glory” which will be a counterpoise for the labours in the endurance of which the flesh here suffers decay. So that the subject in this passage is not that corruption which they ascribe to the outward man in the utter destruction of the flesh, with the view of nullifying the resurrection. So also he says elsewhere: “If so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together; for I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us.”7549

7549 Rom. viii. 17, 18.

Here again he shows us that our sufferings are less than their rewards. Now, since it is through the flesh that we suffer with Christ—for it is the property of the flesh to be worn by sufferings—to the same flesh belongs the recompense which is promised for suffering with Christ. Accordingly, when he is going to assign afflictions to the flesh as its especial liability—according to the statement he had already made—he says, “When we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest;”7550

7550 2 Cor. vii. 5.

then, in order to make the soul a fellow-sufferer with the body, he adds, “We were troubled on every side; without were fightings,” which of course warred down the flesh, “within were fears,” which afflicted the soul.7551

7551 Same verse.

Although, therefore, the outward man decays—not in the sense of missing the resurrection, but of enduring tribulation—it will be understood from this scripture that it is not exposed to its suffering without the inward man. Both therefore, will be glorified together, even as they have suffered together. Parallel with their participation in troubles, must necessarily run their association also in rewards.
2 Cor. v. 1.

in other words, owing to the fact that our flesh is undergoing dissolution through its sufferings, we shall be provided with a home in heaven. He remembered the award (which the Lord assigns) in the Gospel: “Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”7553

7553 Matt. v. 10.

Yet, when he thus contrasted the recompense of the reward, he did not deny the flesh’s restoration; since the recompense is due to the same substance to which the dissolution is attributed,—that is, of course, the flesh. Because, however, he had called the flesh a house, he wished elegantly to use the same term in his comparison of the ultimate reward; promising to the very house, which undergoes dissolution through suffering, a better house through the resurrection.  Just as the Lord also promises us many mansions as of a house in His Father’s home;7554

7554 John xiv. 2.

although this may possibly be understood of the domicile of this world, on the dissolution of whose fabric an eternal abode is promised in heaven, inasmuch as the following context, having a manifest reference to the flesh, seems to show that these preceding words have no such reference. For the apostle makes a distinction, when he goes on to say, “For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven, if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked;”7555

7555 2 Cor. v. 2, 3.

which means, before we put off the garment of the flesh, we wish to be clothed with the celestial glory of immortality.  Now the privilege of this favour awaits those who shall at the coming of the Lord be found in the flesh, and who shall, owing to the oppressions of the time of Antichrist, deserve by an instantaneous death,7556

7556 Compendio mortis. Compare our Anti-Marcion for the same thoughts and words, v. 12. [p. 455, supra.]

which is accomplished by a sudden change, to become qualified to join the rising saints; as he writes to the Thessalonians: “For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God:  and the dead in Christ shall rise first:  then we too shall ourselves be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”7557

7557 1 Thess. iv. 15–17.


1 Cor. xv. 51–53.

this will assuredly be that house from heaven, with which we so earnestly desire to be clothed upon, whilst groaning in this our present body,—meaning, of course, over this flesh in which we shall be surprised at last; because he says that we are burdened whilst in this tabernacle, which we do not wish indeed to be stripped of, but rather to be in it clothed over, in such a way that mortality may be swallowed up of life, that is, by putting on over us whilst we are transformed that vestiture which is from heaven. For who is there that will not desire, while he is in the flesh, to put on immortality, and to continue his life by a happy escape from death, through the transformation which must be experienced instead of it, without encountering too that Hades which will exact the very last farthing?7559

7559 Comp. Matt. v. 26, and see Tertullian’s De Anima, xxxv. [and see cap. xliii., infra, p. 576.]

Notwithstanding, he who has already traversed Hades is destined also to obtain the change after the resurrection. For from this circumstance it is that we definitively declare that the flesh will by all means rise again, and, from the change that is to come over it, will assume the condition of angels. Now, if it were merely in the case of those who shall be found in the flesh that the change must be undergone, in order that mortality may be swallowed up of life—in other words, that the flesh (be covered) with the heavenly and eternal raiment—it would either follow that those who shall be found in death would not obtain life, deprived as they would then be of the material and so to say the aliment of life, that is, the flesh; or else, these also must needs undergo the change, that in them too mortality may be swallowed up of life, since it is appointed that they too should obtain life. But, you say, in the case of the dead, mortality is already swallowed up of life. No, not in all cases, certainly. For how many will most probably be found of men who had just died—so recently put into their graves, that nothing in them would seem to be decayed? For you do not of course deem a thing to be decayed unless it be cut off, abolished, and withdrawn from our perception, as having in every possible way ceased to be apparent. There are the carcases of the giants of old time; it will be obvious enough that they are not absolutely decayed, for their bony frames are still extant. We have already spoken of this elsewhere.7560

7560 De Anim. c. li.

For instance,7561

7561 Sed: for “scilicet.”

even lately in this very city,7562

7562 Carthage.

when they were sacrilegiously laying the foundations of the Odeum on a good many ancient graves, people were horror-stricken to discover, after some five hundred years, bones, which still retained their moisture, and hair which had not lost its perfume. It is certain not only that bones remain indurated, but also that teeth continue undecayed for ages—both of them the lasting germs of that body which is to sprout into life again in the resurrection. Lastly, even if everything that is mortal in all the dead shall then be found decayed—at any rate consumed by death, by time, and through age,—is there nothing which will be “swallowed up of life,”7563

7563 2 Cor. v. 4. [Against Marcion, p. 455, note 24.]

nor by being covered over and arrayed in the vesture of immortality? Now, he who says that mortality is going to be swallowed up of life has already admitted that what is dead is not destroyed by those other before-mentioned devourers. And verily it will be extremely fit that all shall be consummated and brought about by the operations of God, and not by the laws of nature. Therefore, inasmuch as what is mortal has to be swallowed up of life, it must needs be brought out to view in order to be so swallowed up; (needful) also to be swallowed up, in order to undergo the ultimate transformation. If you were to say that a fire is to be lighted, you could not possibly allege that what is to kindle it is sometimes necessary and sometimes not. In like manner, when he inserts the words “If so be that being unclothed7564

7564 Exuti. He must have read ἐκδυσάμενοι , instead of the reading of nearly all the ms. authorities, ἐνδυσάμενοι.

we be not found naked,”7565

7565 2 Cor. v. 3.

—referring, of course, to those who shall not be found in the day of the Lord alive and in the flesh—he did not say that they whom he had just described as unclothed or stripped, were naked in any other sense than meaning that they should be understood to be reinvested with the very same substance they had been divested of. For although they shall be found naked when their flesh has been laid aside, or to some extent sundered or worn away (and this condition may well be called nakedness,) they shall afterwards recover it again, in order that, being reinvested with the flesh, they may be able also to have put over that the supervestment of immortality; for it will be impossible for the outside garment to fit except over one who is already dressed.
2 Cor. v. 6, 7.

it is manifest that in this statement there is no design of disparaging the flesh, as if it separated us from the Lord.  For there is here pointedly addressed to us an exhortation to disregard this present life, since we are absent from the Lord as long as we are passing through it—walking by faith, not by sight; in other words, in hope, not in reality. Accordingly he adds: “We are indeed confident and deem it good rather to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord;”7567

7567 Ver. 8.

in order, that is, that we may walk by sight rather than by faith, in realization rather than in hope. Observe how he here also ascribes to the excellence of martyrdom a contempt for the body. For no one, on becoming absent from the body, is at once a dweller in the presence of the Lord, except by the prerogative of martyrdom,7568

7568 Comp. his De Anima, c. lv.  [Elucidation III.]

he gains a lodging in Paradise, not in the lower regions. Now, had the apostle been at a loss for words to describe the departure from the body?  Or does he purposely use a novel phraseology? For, wanting to express our temporary absence from the body, he says that we are strangers, absent from it, because a man who goes abroad returns after a while to his home. Then he says even to all: “We therefore earnestly desire to be acceptable unto God, whether absent or present; for we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ Jesus.”7569

7569 2 Cor. v. 9, 10.

If all of us, then all of us wholly; if wholly, then our inward man and outward too—that is, our bodies no less than our souls. “That every one,” as he goes on to say, “may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”7570

7570 2 Cor. v. 10.

Now I ask, how do you read this passage? Do you take it to be confusedly constructed, with a transposition7571

7571 Per hyperbaton.

of ideas? Is the question about what things will have to be received by the body, or the things which have been already done in the body? Well, if the things which are to be borne by the body are meant, then undoubtedly a resurrection of the body is implied; and if the things which have been already done in the body are referred to, (the same conclusion follows): for of course the retribution will have to be paid by the body, since it was by the body that the actions were performed. Thus the apostle’s whole argument from the beginning is unravelled in this concluding clause, wherein the resurrection of the flesh is set forth; and it ought to be understood in a sense which is strictly in accordance with this conclusion.
2 Cor. iv. 6.

and says that “we have this treasure in earthen vessels,”7573

7573 Ver. 7.

meaning of course the flesh, which is meant—that the flesh shall be destroyed, because it is “an earthen vessel,” deriving its origin from clay; or that it is to be glorified, as being the receptacle of a divine treasure? Now if that true light, which is in the person of Christ, contains in itself life, and that life with its light is committed to the flesh, is that destined to perish which has life entrusted to it? Then, of course, the treasure will perish also; for perishable things are entrusted to things which are themselves perishable, which is like putting new wine into old bottles. When also he adds, “Always bearing about in our body the dying of the Lord Jesus Christ,”7574

7574 2 Cor. iv. 10.

what sort of substance is that which, after (being called) the temple of God, can now be also designated the tomb of Christ?  But why do we bear about in the body the dying of the Lord? In order, as he says, “that His life also may be manifested.”7575

7575 Ver. 10.

Where?  “In the body.” In what body? “In our mortal body.”7576

7576 Ver. 10.

Therefore in the flesh, which is mortal indeed through sin, but living through grace—how great a grace you may see when the purpose is, “that the life of Christ may be manifested in it.” Is it then in a thing which is a stranger to salvation, in a substance which is perpetually dissolved, that the life of Christ will be manifested, which is eternal, continuous, incorruptible, and already the life of God? Else to what epoch belongs that life of the Lord which is to be manifested in our body? It surely is the life which He lived up to His passion, which was not only openly shown among the Jews, but has now been displayed even to all nations. Therefore that life is meant which “has broken the adamantine gates of death and the brazen bars of the lower world,”7577

7577 Ps. cvii. 16.

—a life which thenceforth has been and will be ours. Lastly, it is to be manifested in the body. When? After death.  How? By rising in our body, as Christ also rose in His. But lest any one should here object, that the life of Jesus has even now to be manifested in our body by the discipline of holiness, and patience, and righteousness, and wisdom, in which the Lord’s life abounded, the most provident wisdom of the apostle inserts this purpose: “For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that His life may be manifested in our mortal body.”7578

7578 2 Cor. iv. 11.

In us, therefore, even when dead, does he say that this is to take place in us. And if so, how is this possible except in our body after its resurrection? Therefore he adds in the concluding sentence: “Knowing that He which raised up the Lord Jesus, shall raise up us also with Him,”7579

7579 Ver. 14.

risen as He is already from the dead.  But perhaps “with Him” means “like Him:” well then, if it be like Him, it is not of course without the flesh.
Eph. iv. 22–24.

(they maintain) that by here also making a distinction between the two substances, and applying the old one to the flesh and the new one to the spirit, he ascribes to the old man—that is to say, the flesh—a permanent corruption.  Now, if you follow the order of the substances, the soul cannot be the new man because it comes the later of the two; nor can the flesh be the old man because it is the former. For what fraction of time was it that intervened between the creative hand of God and His afflatus? I will venture to say, that even if the soul was a good deal prior to the flesh, by the very circumstance that the soul had to wait to be itself completed, it made the other7581

7581 The flesh.

really the former. For everything which gives the finishing stroke and perfection to a work, although it is subsequent in its mere order, yet has the priority in its effect. Much more is that prior, without which preceding things could have no existence.  If the flesh be the old man, when did it become so? From the beginning? But Adam was wholly a new man, and of that new man there could be no part an old man.  And from that time, ever since the blessing which was pronounced upon man’s generation,7582

7582 Gen. i. 28.

the flesh and the soul have had a simultaneous birth, without any calculable difference in time; so that the two have been even generated together in the womb, as we have shown in our Treatise on the Soul.7583

7583 See ch. xxvii.

Contemporaneous in the womb, they are also temporally identical in their birth. The two are no doubt produced by human parents7584

7584 We treat “homines” as a nominative, after Oehler.

of two substances, but not at two different periods; rather they are so entirely one, that neither is before the other in point of time. It is more correct (to say), that we are either entirely the old man or entirely the new, for we cannot tell how we can possibly be anything else. But the apostle mentions a very clear mark of the old man. For “put off,” says he, “concerning the former conversation, the old man;”7585

7585 Eph. iv. 22.

(he does) not say concerning the seniority of either substance. It is not indeed the flesh which he bids us to put off, but the works which he in another passage shows to be “works of the flesh.”7586

7586 Gal. v. 19.

He brings no accusation against men’s bodies, of which he even writes as follows:  “Putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbor: for we are members one of another. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath: neither give place to the devil. Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands (the thing which is good), that he may have to give to him that needeth. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good for the edification of faith, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.  And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: but be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ hath forgiven you.”7587

7587 Eph. iv. 25–32.

Why, therefore, do not those who suppose the flesh to be the old man, hasten their own death, in order that by laying aside the old man they may satisfy the apostle’s precepts? As for ourselves, we believe that the whole of faith is to be administered in the flesh, nay more, by the flesh, which has both a mouth for the utterance of all holy words, and a tongue to refrain from blasphemy, and a heart to avoid all irritation, and hands to labour and to give; while we also maintain that as well the old man as the new has relation to the difference of moral conduct, and not to any discrepancy of nature. And just as we acknowledge that that which according to its former conversation was “the old man” was also corrupt, and received its very name in accordance with “its deceitful lusts,” so also (do we hold) that it is “the old man in reference to its former conversation,”7588

7588 Eph. iv. 22.

and not in respect of the flesh through any permanent dissolution. Moreover, it is still unimpaired in the flesh, and identical in that nature, even when it has become “the new man;” since it is of its sinful course of life, and not of its corporeal substance, that it has been divested.
Rom. viii. 8, 9.

Now, by denying them to be in the flesh who yet obviously were in the flesh, he showed that they were not living amidst the works of the flesh, and therefore that they who could not please God were not those who were in the flesh, but only those who were living after the flesh; whereas they pleased God, who, although existing in the flesh, were yet walking after the Spirit. And, again, he says that “the body is dead;” but it is “because of sin,” even as “the Spirit is life because of righteousness.”7590

7590 Ver. 10.

When, however, he thus sets life in opposition to the death which is constituted in the flesh, he unquestionably promises the life of righteousness to the same state for which he determined the death of sin. But unmeaning is this opposition which he makes between the “life” and the “death,” if the life is not there where that very thing is to which he opposes it—even the death which is to be extirpated of course from the body.  Now, if life thus extirpates death from the body, it can accomplish this only by penetrating thither where that is which it is excluding. But why am I resorting to knotty arguments,7591

7591 Nodosius.

when the apostle treats the subject with perfect plainness? “For if,” says he, “the Spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised up Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you;”7592

7592 Rom. viii. 11.

so that even if a person were to assume that the soul is “the mortal body,” he would (since he cannot possibly deny that the flesh is this also) be constrained to acknowledge a restoration even of the flesh, in consequence of its participation in the selfsame state.  From the following words, moreover, you may learn that it is the works of the flesh which are condemned, and not the flesh itself: “Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh: for if ye live after the flesh ye shall die; but if ye, through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”7593

7593 Vers. 12, 13.

Now (that I may answer each point separately), since salvation is promised to those who are living in the flesh, but walking after the Spirit, it is no longer the flesh which is an adversary to salvation, but the working of the flesh.  When, however, this operativeness of the flesh is done away with, which is the cause of death, the flesh is shown to be safe, since it is freed from the cause of death. “For the law,” says he, “of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death,”7594

7594 Ver. 2.

—that, surely, which he previously mentioned as dwelling in our members.7595

7595 Rom. vii. 17, 20, 23.

Our members, therefore, will no longer be subject to the law of death, because they cease to serve that of sin, from both which they have been set free. “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and through7596

7596 Per delinquentiam: see the De Carne Christi, xvi.

sin condemned sin in the flesh,”7597

7597 Rom. viii. 3.

—not the flesh in sin, for the house is not to be condemned with its inhabitant. He said, indeed, that “sin dwelleth in our body.”7598

7598 Rom. vii. 20.

But the condemnation of sin is the acquittal of the flesh, just as its non-condemnation subjugates it to the law of sin and death. In like manner, he called “the carnal mind” first “death,”7599

7599 Rom. viii. 6.

and afterwards “enmity against God;”7600

7600 Ver. 7.

but he never predicated this of the flesh itself. But to what then, you will say, must the carnal mind be ascribed, if it be not to the carnal substance itself? I will allow your objection, if you will prove to me that the flesh has any discernment of its own. If, however, it has no conception of anything without the soul, you must understand that the carnal mind must be referred to the soul, although ascribed sometimes to the flesh, on the ground that it is ministered to for the flesh and through the flesh. And therefore (the apostle) says that “sin dwelleth in the flesh,” because the soul by which sin is provoked has its temporary lodging in the flesh, which is doomed indeed to death, not however on its own account, but on account of sin. For he says in another passage also: “How is it that you conduct yourselves as if you were even now living in the world?”7601

7601 Col. ii. 20.

where he is not writing to dead persons, but to those who ought to have ceased to live after the ways of the world.
Rom. vi. 6.

not as a bodily structure, but as moral behaviour. Besides, if we do not understand it in this sense, it is not our bodily frame which has been transfixed (at all events), nor has our flesh endured the cross of Christ; but the sense is that which he has subjoined, “that the body of sin might be made void,”7603

7603 Evacuetur: καταργηθῃ. A.V. destroyed, i.e. deprived of all activity, Rom. vi. 6.

by an amendment of life, not by a destruction of the substance, as he goes on to say, “that henceforth we should not serve sin;”7604

7604 Rom. vi. 6. Tertullian’s reading literally is, “that thus far (and no further) we should be servants of sin.”

and that we should believe ourselves to be “dead with Christ,” in such a manner as that “we shall also live with Him.”7605

7605 Ver. 8.

On the same principle he says: “Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed.”7606

7606 Ver. 11.

To what?  To the flesh? No, but “unto sin.”7607

7607 Ver. 11.

Accordingly as to the flesh they will be saved—“alive unto God in Christ Jesus,”7608

7608 Ver. 11.

through the flesh of course, to which they will not be dead; since it is “unto sin,” and not to the flesh, that they are dead.  For he pursues the point still further:  “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it, and that ye should yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield ye yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead”—not simply alive, but as alive from the dead—“and your members as instruments of righteousness.”7609

7609 Vers. 12, 13.

And again:  “As ye have yielded your members servants of uncleanness, and of iniquity unto iniquity, even so now yield your members servants of righteousness unto holiness; for whilst ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things of which ye are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now, being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”7610

7610 Vers. 19–23.

Thus throughout this series of passages, whilst withdrawing our members from unrighteousness and sin, and applying them to righteousness and holiness, and transferring the same from the wages of death to the donative of eternal life, he undoubtedly promises to the flesh the recompense of salvation. Now it would not at all have been consistent that any rule of holiness and righteousness should be especially enjoined for the flesh, if the reward of such a discipline were not also within its reach; nor could even baptism be properly ordered for the flesh, if by its regeneration a course were not inaugurated tending to its restitution; the apostle himself suggesting this idea: “Know ye not, that so many of us as are baptized into Jesus Christ, are baptized into His death? We are therefore buried with Him by baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised up from the dead, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”7611

7611 Rom. vi. 3, 4.

And that you may not suppose that this is said merely of that life which we have to walk in the newness of, through baptism, by faith, the apostle with superlative forethought adds: “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of Christ’s death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection.”7612

7612 Ver. 5.

By a figure we die in our baptism, but in a reality we rise again in the flesh, even as Christ did, “that, as sin has reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness unto life eternal, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”7613

7613 Rom. v. 21.

But how so, unless equally in the flesh? For where the death is, there too must be the life after the death, because also the life was first there, where the death subsequently was. Now, if the dominion of death operates only in the dissolution of the flesh, in like manner death’s contrary, life, ought to produce the contrary effect, even the restoration of the flesh; so that, just as death had swallowed it up in its strength, it also, after this mortal was swallowed up of immortality, may hear the challenge pronounced against it: “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”7614

7614 1 Cor. xv. 55.

For in this way “grace shall there much more abound, where sin once abounded.”7615

7615 Rom. v. 20.

In this way also “shall strength be made perfect in weakness,”7616

7616 2 Cor. xii. 9.

—saving what is lost, reviving what is dead, healing what is stricken, curing what is faint, redeeming what is lost, freeing what is enslaved, recalling what has strayed, raising what is fallen; and this from earth to heaven, where, as the apostle teaches the Philippians, “we have our citizenship,7617

7617 Municipatum.

from whence also we look for our Saviour Jesus Christ, who shall change our body of humiliation, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body”7618

7618 Phil. iii. 20, 21.

—of course after the resurrection, because Christ Himself was not glorified before He suffered. These must be “the bodies” which he “beseeches” the Romans to “present” as “a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God.”7619

7619 Rom. xii. 1.

But how a living sacrifice, if these bodies are to perish?  How a holy one, if they are profanely soiled? How acceptable to God, if they are condemned? Come, now, tell me how that passage (in the Epistle) to the Thessalonians—which, because of its clearness, I should suppose to have been written with a sunbeam—is understood by our heretics, who shun the light of Scripture:  “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly.” And as if this were not plain enough, it goes on to say: “And may your whole body, and soul, and spirit be preserved blameless unto the coming of the Lord.”7620

7620 1 Thess. v. 23.

Here you have the entire substance of man destined to salvation, and that at no other time than at the coming of the Lord, which is the key of the resurrection.7621

7621 [Note Tertullian’s summary of the text, in harmony with the Tripartite philosophy of humanity.]


1 Cor. xv. 50.

We are quite aware that this too is written; but although our opponents place it in the front of the battle, we have intentionally reserved the objection until now, in order that we may in our last assault overthrow it, after we have removed out of the way all the questions which are auxiliary to it.  However, they must contrive to recall to their mind even now our preceding arguments, in order that the occasion which originally suggested this passage may assist our judgment in arriving at its meaning. The apostle, as I take it, having set forth for the Corinthians the details of their church discipline, had summed up the substance of his own gospel, and of their belief in an exposition of the Lord’s death and resurrection, for the purpose of deducing therefrom the rule of our hope, and the groundwork thereof. Accordingly he subjoins this statement: “Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen: and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, because ye are yet in your sins, and they which have fallen asleep in Christ are perished.”7623

7623 1 Cor. xv. 12–18.

Now, what is the point which he evidently labours hard to make us believe throughout this passage? The resurrection of the dead, you say, which was denied: he certainly wished it to be believed on the strength of the example which he adduced—the Lord’s resurrection. Certainly, you say. Well now, is an example borrowed from different circumstances, or from like ones?  From like ones, by all means, is your answer. How then did Christ rise again? In the flesh, or not? No doubt, since you are told that He “died according to the Scriptures,”7624

7624 Ver. 3.

and “that He was buried according to the Scriptures,”7625

7625 Ver. 4.

no otherwise than in the flesh, you will also allow that it was in the flesh that He was raised from the dead. For the very same body which fell in death, and which lay in the sepulchre, did also rise again; (and it was) not so much Christ in the flesh, as the flesh in Christ. If, therefore, we are to rise again after the example of Christ, who rose in the flesh, we shall certainly not rise according to that example, unless we also shall ourselves rise again in the flesh. “For,” he says, “since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.”7626

7626 Ver. 21.

(This he says) in order, on the one hand, to distinguish the two authors—Adam of death, Christ of resurrection; and, on the other hand, to make the resurrection operate on the same substance as the death, by comparing the authors themselves under the designation man.  For if “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,”7627

7627 1 Cor. xv. 22.

their vivification in Christ must be in the flesh, since it is in the flesh that arises their death in Adam. “But every man in his own order,”7628

7628 Ver. 23.

because of course it will be also every man in his own body. For the order will be arranged severally, on account of the individual merits. Now, as the merits must be ascribed to the body, it must needs follow that the order also should be arranged in respect of the bodies, that it may be in relation to their merits. But inasmuch as “some are also baptized for the dead,”7629

7629 Ver. 29.

we will see whether there be a good reason for this. Now it is certain that they adopted this (practice) with such a presumption as made them suppose that the vicarious baptism (in question) would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the resurrection; for unless it were a bodily resurrection, there would be no pledge secured by this process of a corporeal baptism. “Why are they then baptized for the dead,”7630

7630 Ver. 29.

he asks, unless the bodies rise again which are thus baptized? For it is not the soul which is sanctified by the baptismal bath:7631

7631 Lavatione.

its sanctification comes from the “answer.”7632

7632 Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 21.

“And why,” he inquires, “stand we in jeopardy every hour?”7633

7633 1 Cor. xv. 30.

—meaning, of course, through the flesh. “I die daily,”7634

7634 Ver. 31.

(says he); that is, undoubtedly, in the perils of the body, in which “he even fought with beasts at Ephesus,”7635

7635 Ver. 32.

—even with those beasts which caused him such peril and trouble in Asia, to which he alludes in his second epistle to the same church of Corinth: “For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed above measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life.”7636

7636 2 Cor. i. 8.

Now, if I mistake not, he enumerates all these particulars in order that in his unwillingness to have his conflicts in the flesh supposed to be useless, he may induce an unfaltering belief in the resurrection of the flesh. For useless must that conflict be deemed (which is sustained in a body) for which no resurrection is in prospect. “But some man will say, How are the dead to be raised?  And with what body will they come?”7637

7637 1 Cor. xv. 35.

Now here he discusses the qualities of bodies, whether it be the very same, or different ones, which men are to resume. Since, however, such a question as this must be regarded as a subsequent one, it will in passing be enough for us that the resurrection is determined to be a bodily one even from this, that it is about the quality of bodies that the inquiry arises.
1 Cor. xv. 47.

—that is, the Word of God, which is Christ, in no other way, however, man (although “from heaven”), than as being Himself flesh and soul, just as a human being is, just as Adam was. Indeed, in a previous passage He is called “the second Adam,”7640

7640 Ver. 45.

deriving the identity of His name from His participation in the substance, because not even Adam was flesh of human seed, in which Christ is also like Him.7641

7641 See De Carne Christi. ch. xvi.

“As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.”7642

7642 1 Cor. xv. 48.

Such (does he mean), in substance; or first of all in training, and afterwards in the dignity and worth which that training aimed at acquiring? Not in substance, however, by any means will the earthy and the heavenly be separated, designated as they have been by the apostle once for all, as men. For even if Christ were the only true “heavenly,” nay, super-celestial Being, He is still man, as composed of body and soul; and in no respect is He separated from the quality of “earthiness,” owing to that condition of His which makes Him a partaker of both substances. In like manner, those also who after Him are heavenly, are understood to have this celestial quality predicated of them not from their present nature, but from their future glory; because in a preceding sentence, which originated this distinction respecting difference of dignity, there was shown to be “one glory in celestial bodies, and another in terrestrial ones,”7643

7643 1 Cor. xv. 40.

—“one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for even one star differeth from another star in glory,”7644

7644 Ver. 41.

although not in substance. Then, after having thus premised the difference in that worth or dignity which is even now to be aimed at, and then at last to be enjoyed, the apostle adds an exhortation, that we should both here in our training follow the example of Christ, and there attain His eminence in glory:  “As we have borne the image of the earthy, let us also bear the image of the heavenly.”7645

7645 Ver. 49.

We have indeed borne the image of the earthy, by our sharing in his transgression, by our participation in his death, by our banishment from Paradise. Now, although the image of Adam is here borne by is in the flesh, yet we are not exhorted to put off the flesh; but if not the flesh, it is the conversation, in order that we may then bear the image of the heavenly in ourselves,—no longer indeed the image of God, and no longer the image of a Being whose state is in heaven; but after the lineaments of Christ, by our walking here in holiness, righteousness, and truth.  And so wholly intent on the inculcation of moral conduct is he throughout this passage, that he tells us we ought to bear the image of Christ in this flesh of ours, and in this period of instruction and discipline. For when he says “let us bear” in the imperative mood, he suits his words to the present life, in which man exists in no other substance than as flesh and soul; or if it is another, even the heavenly, substance to which this faith (of ours) looks forward, yet the promise is made to that substance to which the injunction is given to labour earnestly to merit its reward. Since, therefore, he makes the image both of the earthy and the heavenly consist of moral conduct—the one to be abjured, and the other to be pursued—and then consistently adds, “For this I say” (on account, that is, of what I have already said, because the conjunction “for” connects what follows with the preceding words) “that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God,”7646

7646 1 Cor. xv. 50.

—he means the flesh and blood to be understood in no other sense than the before-mentioned “image of the earthy;” and since this is reckoned to consist in “the old conversation,”7647

7647 See Eph. iv. 22.

which old conversation receives not the kingdom of God, therefore flesh and blood, by not receiving the kingdom of God, are reduced to the life of the old conversation. Of course, as the apostle has never put the substance for the works of man, he cannot use such a construction here.  Since, however he has declared of men which are yet alive in the flesh, that they “are not in the flesh,”7648

7648 Rom. viii. 9.

meaning that they are not living in the works of the flesh, you ought not to subvert its form nor its substance, but only the works done in the substance (of the flesh), alienating us from the kingdom of God. It is after displaying to the Galatians these pernicious works that he professes to warn them beforehand, even as he had “told them in time past, that they which do such things should not inherit the kingdom of God,”7649

7649 Gal. v. 21.

even because they bore not the image of the heavenly, as they had borne the image of the earthy; and so, in consequence of their old conversation, they were to be regarded as nothing else than flesh and blood. But even if the apostle had abruptly thrown out the sentence that flesh and blood must be excluded from the kingdom of God, without any previous intimation of his meaning, would it not have been equally our duty to interpret these two substances as the old man abandoned to mere flesh and blood—in other words, to eating and drinking, one feature of which would be to speak against the faith of the resurrection: “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.”7650

7650 1 Cor. xv. 32.

Now, when the apostle parenthetically inserted this, he censured flesh and blood because of their enjoyment in eating and drinking.
A.V. damnation, John v. 29.

also); and there is even a confirmation of the general resurrection of the flesh, whenever a special one is excepted.  Now, when it is clearly stated what the condition is to which the resurrection does not lead, it is understood what that is to which it does lead; and, therefore, whilst it is in consideration of men’s merits that a difference is made in their resurrection by their conduct in the flesh, and not by the substance thereof, it is evident even from this, that flesh and blood are excluded from the kingdom of God in respect of their sin, not of their substance; and although in respect of their natural condition7653

7653 Forma.

they will rise again for the judgment, because they rise not for the kingdom. Again, I will say, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;”7654

7654 1 Cor. xv. 50.

and justly (does the apostle declare this of them, considered) alone and in themselves, in order to show that the Spirit is still needed (to qualify them) for the kingdom.7655

7655 This must be the meaning of the dative illi.

For it is “the Spirit that quickeneth” us for the kingdom of God; “the flesh profiteth nothing.”7656

7656 John vi. 63.

There is, however, something else which can be profitable thereunto, that is, the Spirit; and through the Spirit, the works also of the Spirit. Flesh and blood, therefore, must in every case rise again, equally, in their proper quality. But they to whom it is granted to enter the kingdom of God, will have to put on the power of an incorruptible and immortal life; for without this, or before they are able to obtain it, they cannot enter into the kingdom of God. With good reason, then, flesh and blood, as we have already said, by themselves fail to obtain the kingdom of God. But inasmuch as “this corruptible (that is, the flesh) must put on incorruption, and this mortal (that is, the blood) must put on immortality,”7657

7657 1 Cor. xv. 53.

by the change which is to follow the resurrection, it will, for the best of reasons, happen that flesh and blood, after that change and investiture,7658

7658 We have kept this word to suit the last Scripture quotation; but Tertullian’s word, both here and in the quotation, is “devorata,” swallowed up.

will become able to inherit the kingdom of God—but not without the resurrection. Some will have it, that by the phrase “flesh and blood,” because of its rite of circumcision, Judaism is meant, which is itself too alienated from the kingdom of God, as being accounted “the old or former conversation,” and as being designated by this title in another passage of the apostle also, who, “when it pleased God to reveal to him His Son, to preach Him amongst the heathen, immediately conferred not with flesh and blood,” as he writes to the Galatians,7659

7659 See i. 15, 16.

(meaning by the phrase) the circumcision, that is to say, Judaism.
Mark xvi. 19.

man, yet God—the last Adam,7661

7661 1 Cor. xv. 45.

yet the primary Word—flesh and blood, yet purer than ours—who “shall descend in like manner as He ascended into heaven”7662

7662 Acts i. 9.

the same both in substance and form, as the angels affirmed,7663

7663 Ver. 10.

so as even to be recognised by those who pierced Him.7664

7664 Zech. xii. 10; John xix. 37; Rev. i. 7.

Designated, as He is, “the Mediator7665

7665 1 Tim. ii. 5. Tertullian’s word is “sequester,” the guardian of a deposit.

between God and man,” He keeps in His own self the deposit of the flesh which has been committed to Him by both parties—the pledge and security of its entire perfection. For as “He has given to us the earnest of the Spirit,”7666

7666 2 Cor. v. 5.

so has He received from us the earnest of the flesh, and has carried it with Him into heaven as a pledge of that complete entirety which is one day to be restored to it. Be not disquieted, O flesh and blood, with any care; in Christ you have acquired both heaven and the kingdom of God. Otherwise, if they say that you are not in Christ, let them also say that Christ is not in heaven, since they have denied you heaven.  Likewise “neither shall corruption,” says he, “inherit incorruption.”7667

7667 1 Cor. xv. 50.

This he says, not that you may take flesh and blood to be corruption, for they are themselves rather the subjects of corruption,—I mean through death, since death does not so much corrupt, as actually consume, our flesh and blood. But inasmuch as he had plainly said that the works of the flesh and blood could not obtain the kingdom of God, with the view of stating this with accumulated stress, he deprived corruption itself—that is, death, which profits so largely by the works of the flesh and blood—from all inheritance of incorruption. For a little afterwards, he has described what is, as it were, the death of death itself: “Death,” says he, “is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin”—here is the corruption; “and the strength of sin is the law”7668

7668 1 Cor. xv. 54–56.

—that other law, no doubt, which he has described “in his members as warring against the law of his mind,”7669

7669 Rom. vii. 23.

—meaning, of course, the actual power of sinning against his will. Now he says in a previous passage (of our Epistle to the Corinthians), that “the last enemy to be destroyed is death.”7670

7670 1 Cor. xv. 26.

In this way, then, it is that corruption shall not inherit incorruption; in other words, death shall not continue. When and how shall it cease? In that “moment, that twinkling of an eye, at the last trump, when the dead shall rise incorruptible.”7671

7671 Ver. 52.

But what are these, if not they who were corruptible before—that is, our bodies; in other words, our flesh and blood? And we undergo the change. But in what condition, if not in that wherein we shall be found? “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”7672

7672 Ver. 53.

What mortal is this but the flesh? what corruptible but the blood. Moreover, that you may not suppose the apostle to have any other meaning, in his care to teach you, and that you may understand him seriously to apply his statement to the flesh, when he says “this corruptible” and “this mortal,” he utters the words while touching the surface of his own body.7673

7673 Cutem ipsam. Rufinus says that in the church of Aquileia they touched their bodies when they recited the clause of the creed which they rendered “the resurrection of this body.”

He certainly could not have pronounced these phrases except in reference to an object which was palpable and apparent. The expression indicates a bodily exhibition. Moreover, a corruptible body is one thing, and corruption is another; so a mortal body is one thing, and mortality is another. For that which suffers is one thing, and that which causes it to suffer is another. Consequently, those things which are subject to corruption and mortality, even the flesh and blood, must needs also be susceptible of incorruption and immortality.
1 Cor. xv. 36.

From this example of the seed it is then evident that no other flesh is quickened than that which shall have undergone death, and therefore all the rest of the question will become clear enough. For nothing which is incompatible with the idea suggested by the example can possibly be understood; nor from the clause which follows, “That which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body which shall be,”7675

7675 Ver. 37.

are you permitted to suppose that in the resurrection a different body is to arise from that which is sown in death.  Otherwise you have run away from the example. For if wheat be sown and dissolved in the ground, barley does not spring up. Still it is not7676

7676 An objection of the opponent.

the very same grain in kind; nor is its nature the same, or its quality and form. Then whence comes it, if it is not the very same? For even the decay is a proof of the thing itself, since it is the decay of the actual grain. Well, but does not the apostle himself suggest in what sense it is that “the body which shall be” is not the body which is sown, even when he says, “But bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain; but God giveth it a body as it pleaseth Him?”7677

7677 Vers. 37, 38.

Gives it of course to the grain which he says is sown bare. No doubt, you say. Then the grain is safe enough, to which God has to assign a body. But how safe, if it is nowhere in existence, if it does not rise again if it rises not again its actual self? If it rises not again, it is not safe; and if it is not even safe, it cannot receive a body from God.  But there is every possible proof that it is safe. For what purpose, therefore, will God give it “a body, as it pleases Him,” even when it already has its own “bare” body, unless it be that in its resurrection it may be no longer bare? That therefore will be additional matter which is placed over the bare body; nor is that at all destroyed on which the superimposed matter is put,—nay, it is increased. That, however, is safe which receives augmentation. The truth is, it is sown the barest grain, without a husk to cover it, without a spike even in germ, without the protection of a bearded top, without the glory of a stalk. It rises, however, out of the furrow enriched with a copious crop, built up in a compact fabric, constructed in a beautiful order, fortified by cultivation, and clothed around on every side.  These are the circumstances which make it another body from God, to which it is changed not by abolition, but by amplification. And to every seed God has assigned its own body7678

7678 1 Cor. xv. 38.

—not, indeed, its own in the sense of its primitive body—in order that what it acquires from God extrinsically may also at last be accounted its own. Cleave firmly then to the example, and keep it well in view, as a mirror of what happens to the flesh: believe that the very same flesh which was once sown in death will bear fruit in resurrection-life—the same in essence, only more full and perfect; not another, although reappearing in another form. For it shall receive in itself the grace and ornament which God shall please to spread over it, according to its merits. Unquestionably it is in this sense that he says, “All flesh is not the same flesh;”7679

7679 Ver. 39.

meaning not to deny a community of substance, but a parity of prerogative,—reducing the body to a difference of honour, not of nature. With this view he adds, in a figurative sense, certain examples of animals and heavenly bodies: “There is one flesh of man” (that is, servants of God, but really human), “another flesh of beasts” (that is, the heathen, of whom the prophet actually says, “Man is like the senseless cattle”7680

7680 Ps. xlix. 20, Sept.

), “another flesh of birds” (that is, the martyrs which essay to mount up to heaven), “another of fishes” (that is, those whom the water of baptism has submerged).7681

7681 1 Cor. xv. 39.

In like manner does he take examples from the heavenly bodies: “There is one glory of the sun” (that is, of Christ), “and another glory of the moon” (that is, of the Church), “and another glory of the stars” (in other words, of the seed of Abraham). “For one star differeth from another star in glory: so there are bodies terrestrial as well as celestial” (Jews, that is, as well as Christians).7682

7682 1 Cor. xv. 41.

Now, if this language is not to be construed figuratively, it was absurd enough for him to make a contrast between the flesh of mules and kites, as well as the heavenly bodies and human bodies; for they admit of no comparison as to their condition, nor in respect of their attainment of a resurrection. Then at last, having conclusively shown by his examples that the difference was one of glory, not of substance, he adds: “So also is the resurrection of the dead.”7683

7683 Ver. 42.

How so?  In no other way than as differing in glory only. For again, predicating the resurrection of the same substance and returning once more to (his comparison of) the grain, he says: “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”7684

7684 Vers. 42–44.

Now, certainly nothing else is raised than that which is sown; and nothing else is sown than that which decays in the ground; and it is nothing else than the flesh which is decayed in the ground. For this was the substance which God’s decree demolished, “Earth thou art, and to earth shalt thou return;”7685

7685 Gen. iii. 19.

because it was taken out of the earth.  And it was from this circumstance that the apostle borrowed his phrase of the flesh being “sown,” since it returns to the ground, and the ground is the grand depository for seeds which are meant to be deposited in it, and again sought out of it. And therefore he confirms the passage afresh, by putting on it the impress (of his own inspired authority), saying, “For so it is written;”7686

7686 1 Cor. xv. 45.

that you may not suppose that the “being sown” means anything else than “thou shalt return to the ground, out of which thou wast taken;” nor that the phrase “for so it is written” refers to any other thing that the flesh.
1 Cor. xv. 42, 43.

Now in the case of Lazarus, (which we may take as) the palmary instance of a resurrection, the flesh lay prostrate in weakness, the flesh was almost putrid in the dishonour of its decay, the flesh stank in corruption, and yet it was as flesh that Lazarus rose again—with his soul, no doubt. But that soul was incorrupt; nobody had wrapped it in its linen swathes; nobody had deposited it in a grave; nobody had yet perceived it “stink;” nobody for four days had seen it “sown.” Well, now, this entire condition, this whole end of Lazarus, the flesh indeed of all men is still experiencing, but the soul of no one.  That substance, therefore, to which the apostle’s whole description manifestly refers, of which he clearly speaks, must be both the natural (or animate) body when it is sown, and the spiritual body when it is raised again. For in order that you may understand it in this sense, he points to this same conclusion, when in like manner, on the authority of the same passage of Scripture, he displays to us “the first man Adam as made a living soul.”7689

7689 Compare ver. 45 with Gen. ii. 7.

Now since Adam was the first man, since also the flesh was man prior to the soul7690

7690 See this put more fully above, c. v., near the end.

it undoubtedly follows that it was the flesh that became the living soul. Moreover, since it was a bodily substance that assumed this condition, it was of course the natural (or animate) body that became the living soul. By what designation would they have it called, except that which it became through the soul, except that which it was not previous to the soul, except that which it can never be after the soul, but through its resurrection? For after it has recovered the soul, it once more becomes the natural (or animate) body, in order that it may become a spiritual body. For it only resumes in the resurrection the condition which it once had. There is therefore by no means the same good reason why the soul should be called the natural (or animate) body, which the flesh has for bearing that designation. The flesh, in fact, was a body before it was an animate body. When the flesh was joined by the soul,7691

7691 Animata.

it then became the natural (or animate) body.  Now, although the soul is a corporeal substance,7692

7692 See the De Anima, v.–ix., for a full statement of Tertullian’s view of the soul’s corporeality.

yet, as it is not an animated body, but rather an animating one, it cannot be called the animate (or natural) body, nor can it become that thing which it produces. It is indeed when the soul accrues to something else that it makes that thing animate; but unless it so accrues, how will it ever produce animation?  As therefore the flesh was at first an animate (or natural) body on receiving the soul, so at last will it become a spiritual body when invested with the spirit. Now the apostle, by severally adducing this order in Adam and in Christ, fairly distinguishes between the two states, in the very essentials of their difference. And when he calls Christ “the last Adam,”7693

7693 1 Cor. xv. 45.

you may from this circumstance discover how strenuously he labours to establish throughout his teaching the resurrection of the flesh, not of the soul. Thus, then, the first man Adam was flesh, not soul, and only afterwards became a living soul; and the last Adam, Christ, was Adam only because He was man, and only man as being flesh, not as being soul. Accordingly the apostle goes on to say: “Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual,”7694

7694 1 Cor. xv. 46.

as in the case of the two Adams. Now, do you not suppose that he is distinguishing between the natural body and the spiritual body in the same flesh, after having already drawn the distinction therein in the two Adams, that is, in the first man and in the last? For from which substance is it that Christ and Adam have a parity with each other?  No doubt it is from their flesh, although it may be from their soul also. It is, however, in respect of the flesh that they are both man; for the flesh was man prior to the soul. It was actually from it that they were able to take rank, so as to be deemed—one the first, and the other the last man, or Adam. Besides, things which are different in character are only incapable of being arranged in the same order when their diversity is one of substance; for when it is a diversity either in respect of place, or of time, or of condition, they probably do admit of classification together.  Here, however, they are called first and last, from the substance of their (common) flesh, just as afterwards again the first man (is said to be) of the earth, and the second of heaven;7695

7695 Ver. 47.

but although He is “of heaven” in respect of the spirit, He is yet man according to the flesh. Now since it is the flesh, and not the soul, that makes an order (or classification together) in the two Adams compatible, so that the distinction is drawn between them of “the first man becoming a living soul, and the last a quickening spirit,”7696

7696 Ver. 45.

so in like manner this distinction between them has already suggested the conclusion that the distinction is due to the flesh; so that it is of the flesh that these words speak: “Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterward that which is spiritual.”7697

7697 Ver. 46.

And thus, too, the same flesh must be understood in a preceding passage: “That which is sown is the natural body, and that which rises again is the spiritual body; because that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural:  since the first Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam a quickening spirit.”7698

7698 1 Cor. xv. 44, 45.

It is all about man, and all about the flesh because about man.

2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5, and Eph. i. 14.

whereas of the soul (it has received) not the earnest, but the full possession. Therefore it has the name of animate (or natural) body, expressly because of the higher substance of the soul (or anima,) in which it is sown, destined hereafter to become, through the full possession of the spirit which it shall obtain, the spiritual body, in which it is raised again. What wonder, then, if it is more commonly called after the substance with which it is fully furnished, than after that of which it has yet but a sprinkling?
2 Cor. v. 4.

—in reference to the flesh—they wrest the word swallowed up into the sense of the actual destruction of the flesh; as if we might not speak of ourselves as swallowing bile, or swallowing grief, meaning that we conceal and hide it, and keep it within ourselves. The truth is, when it is written, “This mortal must put on immortality,”7701

7701 1 Cor. xv. 53.

it is explained in what sense it is that “mortality is swallowed up of life”—even whilst, clothed with immortality, it is hidden and concealed, and contained within it, not as consumed, and destroyed, and lost. But death, you will say in reply to me, at this rate, must be safe, even when it has been swallowed up. Well, then, I ask you to distinguish words which are similar in form according to their proper meanings. Death is one thing, and mortality is another. It is one thing for death to be swallowed up, and another thing for mortality to be swallowed up. Death is incapable of immortality, but not so mortality. Besides, as it is written that “this mortal must put on immortality,”7702

7702 1 Cor. xv. 53.

how is this possible when it is swallowed up of life? But how is it swallowed up of life, (in the sense of destroyed by it) when it is actually received, and restored, and included in it? For the rest, it is only just and right that death should be swallowed up in utter destruction, since it does itself devour with this same intent.  Death, says the apostle, has devoured by exercising its strength, and therefore has been itself devoured in the struggle “swallowed up in victory.”7703

7703 Ver. 54.

“O death, where is thy sting? O death, where is thy victory?”7704

7704 Ver. 55.

Therefore life, too, as the great antagonist of death, will in the struggle swallow up for salvation what death, in its struggle, had swallowed up for destruction.
Ex. iv. 6, 7.

Afterwards the face of the same Moses is changed,7707

7707 Ex. xxxiv. 29; 35.

with a brightness which eye could not bear.  But he was Moses still, even when he was not visible. So also Stephen had already put on the appearance of an angel,7708

7708 Acts vi. 15.

although they were none other than his human knees7709

7709 Acts vii. 59, 60.

which bent beneath the stoning. The Lord, again, in the retirement of the mount, had changed His raiment for a robe of light; but He still retained features which Peter could recognise.7710

7710 Matt. xvii. 2–4.

In that same scene Moses also and Elias gave proof that the same condition of bodily existence may continue even in glory—the one in the likeness of a flesh which he had not yet recovered, the other in the reality of one which he had not yet put off.7711

7711 Ver. 3.

It was as full of this splendid example that Paul said: “Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body.”7712

7712 Phil. iii. 21.

But if you maintain that a transfiguration and a conversion amounts to the annihilation of any substance, then it follows that “Saul, when changed into another man,”7713

7713 1 Sam. x. 6.

passed away from his own bodily substance; and that Satan himself, when “transformed into an angel of light,”7714

7714 2 Cor. xi. 14.

loses his own proper character. Such is not my opinion. So likewise changes, conversions and reformations will necessarily take place to bring about the resurrection, but the substance of the flesh will still be preserved safe.
Rev. v. 9; xiv. 3.

if I am ignorant that it is I who owe Him thanks? But why is exception taken only against the change of the flesh, and not of the soul also, which in all things is superior to the flesh? How happens it, that the self-same soul which in our present flesh has gone through all life’s course, which has learnt the knowledge of God, and put on Christ, and sown the hope of salvation in this flesh, must reap its harvest in another flesh of which we know nothing? Verily that must be a most highly favoured flesh, which shall have the enjoyment of life at so gratuitous a rate! But if the soul is not to be changed also, then there is no resurrection of the soul; nor will it be believed to have itself risen, unless it has risen some different thing.
1 Cor. xv. 52.

But how so, unless they become entire, who have wasted away either in the loss of their health, or in the long decrepitude of the grave? For when he propounds the two clauses, that “this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality,”7724

7724 1 Cor. xv. 53.

he does not repeat the same statement, but sets forth a distinction. For, by assigning immortality to the repeating of death, and incorruption to the repairing of the wasted body, he has fitted one to the raising and the other to the retrieval of the body. I suppose, moreover, that he promises to the Thessalonians the integrity of the whole substance of man.7725

7725 1 Thess. iv. 13–; 17 and v. 23.

So that for the great future there need be no fear of blemished or defective bodies.  Integrity, whether the result of preservation or restoration, will be able to lose nothing more, after the time that it has given back to it whatever it had lost. Now, when you contend that the flesh will still have to undergo the same sufferings, if the same flesh be said to have to rise again, you rashly set up nature against her Lord, and impiously contrast her law against His grace; as if it were not permitted the Lord God both to change nature, and to preserve her, without subjection to a law. How is it, then, that we read, “With men these things are impossible, but with God all things are possible;”7726

7726 Matt. xix. 26.

and again, “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise?”7727

7727 1 Cor. i. 27.

Let me ask you, if you were to manumit your slave (seeing that the same flesh and soul will remain to him, which once were exposed to the whip, and the fetter, and the stripes), will it therefore be fit for him to undergo the same old sufferings?  I trow not. He is instead thereof honoured with the grace of the white robe, and the favour of the gold ring, and the name and tribe as well as table of his patron. Give, then, the same prerogative to God, by virtue of such a change, of reforming our condition, not our nature, by taking away from it all sufferings, and surrounding it with safeguards of protection. Thus our flesh shall remain even after the resurrection—so far indeed susceptible of suffering, as it is the flesh, and the same flesh too; but at the same time impassible, inasmuch as it has been liberated by the Lord for the very end and purpose of being no longer capable of enduring suffering.
Isa. xxxv. 10.

Well, there is nothing eternal until after the resurrection. “And sorrow and sighing,” continues he, “shall flee away.”7729

7729 Ver. 10.

The angel echoes the same to John: “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes;”7730

7730 Rev. vii. 17.

from the same eyes indeed which had formerly wept, and which might weep again, if the loving-kindness of God did not dry up every fountain of tears. And again:  “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death,”7731

7731 Rev. xxi. 4.

and therefore no more corruption, it being chased away by incorruption, even as death is by immortality. If sorrow, and mourning, and sighing, and death itself, assail us from the afflictions both of soul and body, how shall they be removed, except by the cessation of their causes, that is to say, the afflictions of flesh and soul? where will you find adversities in the presence of God? where, incursions of an enemy in the bosom of Christ? where, attacks of the devil in the face of the Holy Spirit?—now that the devil himself and his angels are “cast into the lake of fire.”7732

7732 Rev. xx. 10, 13–; 15.

Where now is necessity, and what they call fortune or fate? What plague awaits the redeemed from death, after their eternal pardon? What wrath is there for the reconciled, after grace? What weakness, after their renewed strength? What risk and danger, after their salvation? That the raiment and shoes of the children of Israel remained unworn and fresh for the space of forty years;7733

7733 Deut. xxix. 5.

that in their very persons the exact point7734

7734 Justitia.

of convenience and propriety checked the rank growth of their nails and hair, so that any excess herein might not be attributed to indecency; that the fires of Babylon injured not either the mitres or the trousers of the three brethren, however foreign such dress might be to the Jews;7735

7735 Dan. iii. 27.

that Jonah was swallowed by the monster of the deep, in whose belly whole ships were devoured, and after three days was vomited out again safe and sound;7736

7736 Jonah i. 17; ii. 10.

that Enoch and Elias, who even now, without experiencing a resurrection (because they have not even encountered death), are learning to the full what it is for the flesh to be exempted from all humiliation, and all loss, and all injury, and all disgrace—translated as they have been from this world, and from this very cause already candidates for everlasting life;7737

7737 Gen. v. 24; 2 Kings ii. 11.

—to what faith do these notable facts bear witness, if not to that which ought to inspire in us the belief that they are proofs and documents of our own future integrity and perfect resurrection? For, to borrow the apostle’s phrase, these were “figures of ourselves;”7738

7738 1 Cor. x. 6.

and they are written that we may believe both that the Lord is more powerful than all natural laws about the body, and that He shows Himself the preserver of the flesh the more emphatically, in that He has preserved for it its very clothes and shoes.
1 Cor. iii. 22.

and he here constitutes us heirs even of the future world. Isaiah gives you no help when he says, “All flesh is grass;”7740

7740 Isa. xl. 7.

and in another passage, “All flesh shall see the salvation of God.”7741

7741 Ver. 5.

It is the issues of men, not their substances, which he distinguishes. But who does not hold that the judgment of God consists in the twofold sentence, of salvation and of punishment? Therefore it is that “all flesh is grass,” which is destined to the fire; and “all flesh shall see the salvation of God,” which is ordained to eternal life. For myself, I am quite sure that it is in no other flesh than my own that I have committed adultery, nor in any other flesh am I striving after continence. If there be any one who bears about in his person two instruments of lasciviousness, he has it in his power, to be sure, to mow down7742

7742 Demetere.

“the grass” of the unclean flesh, and to reserve for himself only that which shall see the salvation of God. But when the same prophet represents to us even nations sometimes estimated as “the small dust of the balance,”7743

7743 Isa. xl. 15.

and as “less than nothing, and vanity,”7744

7744 Ver. 17. The word is spittle, which the LXX. uses in the fifteenth verse for the “dust” of the Hebrew Bible.

and sometimes as about to hope and “trust in the name”7745

7745 Isa. xlii. 4, Sept; quoted from the LXX. by Christ in Matt. xii. 21, and by St. Paul in Rom. xv. 12.

and arm of the Lord, are we at all misled respecting the Gentile nations by the diversity of statement? Are some of them to turn believers, and are others accounted dust, from any difference of nature? Nay, rather Christ has shone as the true light on the nations within the ocean’s limits, and from the heaven which is over us all.7746

7746 An allusion to some conceits of the Valentinians, who put men of truest nature and fit for Christ’s grace outside of the ocean-bounded earth, etc.

Why, it is even on this earth that the Valentinians have gone to school for their errors; and there will be no difference of condition, as respects their body and soul, between the nations which believe and those which do not believe.  Precisely, then, as He has put a distinction of state, not of nature, amongst the same nations, so also has He discriminated their flesh, which is one and the same substance in those nations, not according to their material structure, but according to the recompense of their merit.
1 Cor. xv. 53.

so that when life shall itself become freed from all wants, our limbs shall then be freed also from their services, and therefore will be no longer wanted.  Still, although liberated from their offices, they will be yet preserved for judgment, “that every one may receive the things done in his body.”7748

7748 2 Cor. v. 10.

For the judgment-seat of God requires that man be kept entire. Entire, however, he cannot be without his limbs, of the substance of which, not the functions, he consists; unless, forsooth, you will be bold enough to maintain that a ship is perfect without her keel, or her bow, or her stern, and without the solidity of her entire frame. And yet how often have we seen the same ship, after being shattered with the storm and broken by decay, with all her timbers repaired and restored, gallantly riding on the wave in all the beauty of a renewed fabric!  Do we then disquiet ourselves with doubt about God’s skill, and will, and rights? Besides, if a wealthy shipowner, who does not grudge money merely for his amusement or show, thoroughly repairs his ship, and then chooses that she should make no further voyages, will you contend that the old form and finish is still not necessary to the vessel, although she is no longer meant for actual service, when the mere safety of a ship requires such completeness irrespective of service? The sole question, therefore, which is enough for us to consider here, is whether the Lord, when He ordains salvation for man, intends it for his flesh; whether it is His will that the selfsame flesh shall be renewed. If so, it will be improper for you to rule, from the inutility of its limbs in the future state, that the flesh will be incapable of renovation. For a thing may be renewed, and yet be useless from having nothing to do; but it cannot be said to be useless if it has no existence. If, indeed, it has existence, it will be quite possible for it also not to be useless; it may possibly have something to do; for in the presence of God there will be no idleness.
Ex. xxiv. 8.

and Elias7750

7750 1 Kings xix. 8.

fasted, and lived upon God alone. For even so early was the principle consecrated:  “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”7751

7751 Deut. viii. 3; Matt. iv. 4.

See here faint outlines of our future strength! We even, as we may be able, excuse our mouths from food, and withdraw our sexes from union. How many voluntary eunuchs are there! How many virgins espoused to Christ! How many, both of men and women, whom nature has made sterile, with a structure which cannot procreate! Now, if even here on earth both the functions and the pleasures of our members may be suspended, with an intermission which, like the dispensation itself, can only be a temporary one, and yet man’s safety is nevertheless unimpaired, how much more, when his salvation is secure, and especially in an eternal dispensation, shall we not cease to desire those things, for which, even here below, we are not unaccustomed to check our longings! Luke xx. 36; Matt. xxii. 30.

As by not marrying, because of not dying, so, of course, by not having to yield to any like necessity of our bodily state; even as the angels, too, sometimes. were “equal unto” men, by eating and drinking, and submitting their feet to the washing of the bath—having clothed themselves in human guise, without the loss of their own intrinsic nature. If therefore angels, when they became as men, submitted in their own unaltered substance of spirit to be treated as if they were flesh, why shall not men in like manner, when they become “equal unto the angels,” undergo in their unchanged substance of flesh the treatment of spiritual beings, no more exposed to the usual solicitations of the flesh in their angelic garb, than were the angels once to those of the spirit when encompassed in human form? We shall not therefore cease to continue in the flesh, because we cease to be importuned by the usual wants of the flesh; just as the angels ceased not therefore to remain in their spiritual substance, because of the suspension of their spiritual incidents. Lastly, Christ said not, “They shall be angels,” in order not to repeal their existence as men; but He said, “They shall be equal unto the angels,”7753

7753 ἰσάγγελοι.

that He might preserve their humanity unimpaired. When He ascribed an angelic likeness to the flesh,7754

7754 Cui.

He took not from it its proper substance.
1 Tim. ii. 5.

who shall reconcile both God to man, and man to God; the spirit to the flesh, and the flesh to the spirit. Both natures has He already united in His own self; He has fitted them together as bride and bridegroom in the reciprocal bond of wedded life. Now, if any should insist on making the soul the bride, then the flesh will follow the soul as her dowry. The soul shall never be an outcast, to be had home by the bridegroom bare and naked.  She has her dower, her outfit, her fortune in the flesh, which shall accompany her with the love and fidelity of a foster-sister. But suppose the flesh to be the bride, then in Christ Jesus she has in the contract of His blood received His Spirit as her spouse. Now, what you take to be her extinction, you may be sure is only her temporary retirement.  It is not the soul only which withdraws from view. The flesh, too, has her departures for a while—in waters, in fires, in birds, in beasts; she may seem to be dissolved into these, but she is only poured into them, as into vessels. And should the vessels themselves afterwards fail to hold her, escaping from even these, and returning to her mother earth, she is absorbed once more, as it were, by its secret embraces, ultimately to stand forth to view, like Adam when summoned to hear from his Lord and Creator the words, “Behold, the man is become as one of us!”7756

7756 Gen. iii. 22.

—thoroughly “knowing” by that time “the evil” which she had escaped, “and the good” which she has acquired. Why, then, O soul, should you envy the flesh? There is none, after the Lord, whom you should love so dearly; none more like a brother to you, which is even born along with yourself in God. You ought rather to have been by your prayers obtaining resurrection for her: her sins, whatever they were, were owing to you.  However, it is no wonder if you hate her; for you have repudiated her Creator.7757

7757 In this apostrophe to the soul, he censures Marcion’s heresy.

You have accustomed yourself either to deny or change her existence even in Christ7758

7758 Compare the De Carne Christi.

—corrupting the very Word of God Himself, who became flesh, either by mutilating or misinterpreting the Scripture,7759

7759 See the De Præscript. Hæret. ch. xxxviii. supra, for instances of these diverse methods of heresy. Marcion is mentioned as the mutilator of Scripture, by cutting away from it whatever opposed his views; Valentinus as the corrupter thereof, by his manifold and fantastic interpretations.

and introducing, above all, apocryphal mysteries and blasphemous fables.7760

7760 See the Adv. Valentinianos, supra.

But yet Almighty God, in His most gracious providence, by “pouring out of His Spirit in these last days, upon all flesh, upon His servants and on His handmaidens,”7761

7761 Joel ii. 28, 29; Acts ii. 17, 18. [See last sentence. He improves upon St. Peter’s interpretation of this text (as see below) by attributing his own clear views to the charismata, which he regards as still vouchsafed to the more spiritual.]

has checked these impostures of unbelief and perverseness, reanimated men’s faltering faith in the resurrection of the flesh, and cleared from all obscurity and equivocation the ancient Scriptures (of both God’s Testaments7762

7762 We follow Oehler’s view here, by all means.

) by the clear light of their (sacred) words and meanings. Now, since it was “needful that there should be heresies, in order that they which are approved might be made manifest;”7763

7763 1 Cor. xi. 19.

since, however, these heresies would be unable to put on a bold front without some countenance from the Scriptures, it therefore is plain enough that the ancient Holy Writ has furnished them with sundry materials for their evil doctrine, which very materials indeed (so distorted) are refutable from the same Scriptures. It was fit and proper, therefore, that the Holy Ghost should no longer withhold the effusions of His gracious light upon these inspired writings, in order that they might be able to disseminate the seeds of truth with no admixture of heretical subtleties, and pluck out from it their tares. He has accordingly now dispersed all the perplexities of the past, and their self-chosen allegories and parables, by the open and perspicuous explanation of the entire mystery, through the new prophecy, which descends in copious streams from the Paraclete. If you will only draw water from His fountains, you will never thirst for other doctrine: no feverish craving after subtle questions will again consume you; but by drinking in evermore the resurrection of the flesh, you will be satisfied with the refreshing draughts.
Matt. iv. 3.

Again:  “If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence;7769

7769 Ver. 6.

for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning thee”—referring no doubt, to the Father—“and in their hands they shall bear thee up, that thou hurt not thy foot against a stone.”7770

7770 Ps. xci. 11.

Or perhaps, after all, he was only reproaching the Gospels with a lie, saying in fact: “Away with Matthew; away with Luke! Why heed their words? In spite of them, I declare that it was God Himself that I approached; it was the Almighty Himself that I tempted face to face; and it was for no other purpose than to tempt Him that I approached Him. If, on the contrary, it had been only the Son of God, most likely I should never have condescended to deal with Him.” However, he is himself a liar from the beginning,7771

7771 John viii. 44.

and whatever man he instigates in his own way; as, for instance, Praxeas. For he was the first to import into Rome from Asia this kind of heretical pravity, a man in other respects of restless disposition, and above all inflated with the pride of confessorship simply and solely because he had to bear for a short time the annoyance of a prison; on which occasion, even “if he had given his body to be burned, it would have profited him nothing,” not having the love of God,7772

7772 1 Cor. xiii. 3.

whose very gifts he has resisted and destroyed.  For after the Bishop of Rome7773

7773 Probably Victor. [Elucidation II.]

had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed his peace7774

7774 Had admitted them to communion.

on the churches of Asia and Phrygia, he, by importunately urging false accusations against the prophets themselves and their churches, and insisting on the authority of the bishop’s predecessors in the see, compelled him to recall the pacific letter which he had issued, as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the said gifts. By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome:  he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father.  Praxeas’ tares had been moreover sown, and had produced their fruit here also,7775

7775 “The connection renders it very probable that the hic quoque of this sentence forms an antithesis to Rome, mentioned before, and that Tertullian expresses himself as if he had written from the very spot where these things had transpired. Hence we are led to conclude that it was Carthage.”—Neander, Antignostikus, ii. 519, note 2, Bohn.

while many were asleep in their simplicity of doctrine; but these tares actually seemed to have been plucked up, having been discovered and exposed by him whose agency God was pleased to employ.  Indeed, Praxeas had deliberately resumed his old (true) faith, teaching it after his renunciation of error; and there is his own handwriting in evidence remaining among the carnally-minded,7776

7776 On the designation Psychici, see our Anti-Marcion, p. 263, note 5, Edin.

in whose society the transaction then took place; afterwards nothing was heard of him. We indeed, on our part, subsequently withdrew from the carnally-minded on our acknowledgment and maintenance of the Paraclete.7777

7777 [This statement may only denote a withdrawal from the communion of the Bishop of Rome, like that of Cyprian afterwards. That prelate had stultified himself and broken faith with Tertullian; but, it does not, necessarily, as Bp. Bull too easily concludes, define his ultimate separation from his own bishop and the North-African church.]

But the tares of Praxeas had then everywhere shaken out their seed, which having lain hid for some while, with its vitality concealed under a mask, has now broken out with fresh life. But again shall it be rooted up, if the Lord will, even now; but if not now, in the day when all bundles of tares shall be gathered together, and along with every other stumbling-block shall be burnt up with unquenchable fire.7778

7778 Matt. xiii. 30.


Dan. vii. 10.

and since it has not from this circumstance ceased to be the rule of one (so as no longer to be a monarchy), because it is administered by so many thousands of powers; how comes it to pass that God should be thought to suffer division and severance in the Son and in the Holy Ghost, who have the second and the third places assigned to them, and who are so closely joined with the Father in His substance, when He suffers no such (division and severance) in the multitude of so many angels? Do you really suppose that Those, who are naturally members of the Father’s own substance, pledges of His love,7796

7796 “Pignora” is often used of children and dearest relations.

instruments of His might, nay, His power itself and the entire system of His monarchy, are the overthrow and destruction thereof? You are not right in so thinking. I prefer your exercising yourself on the meaning of the thing rather than on the sound of the word. Now you must understand the overthrow of a monarchy to be this, when another dominion, which has a framework and a state peculiar to itself (and is therefore a rival), is brought in over and above it: when, e.g., some other god is introduced in opposition to the Creator, as in the opinions of Marcion; or when many gods are introduced, according to your Valentinuses and your Prodicuses. Then it amounts to an overthrow of the Monarchy, since it involves the destruction of the Creator.7797

7797 [The first sentence of this chapter is famous for a controversy between Priestly and Bp. Horsley, the latter having translated idiotæ by the word idiots. See Kaye, p. 498.]


1 Cor. xv. 24, 25.

following of course the words of the Psalm:  “Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”7800

7800 Ps. cx. 1.

“When, however, all things shall be subdued to Him, (with the exception of Him who did put all things under Him,) then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.”7801

7801 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28.

We thus see that the Son is no obstacle to the Monarchy, although it is now administered by7802

7802 Apud.

the Son; because with the Son it is still in its own state, and with its own state will be restored to the Father by the Son. No one, therefore, will impair it, on account of admitting the Son (to it), since it is certain that it has been committed to Him by the Father, and by and by has to be again delivered up by Him to the Father. Now, from this one passage of the epistle of the inspired apostle, we have been already able to show that the Father and the Son are two separate Persons, not only by the mention of their separate names as Father and the Son, but also by the fact that He who delivered up the kingdom, and He to whom it is delivered up—and in like manner, He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected—must necessarily be two different Beings.
Gen. i. 26.

for what purpose it is that you also possess reason in yourself, who are a rational creature, as being not only made by a rational Artificer, but actually animated out of His substance. Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought, at every impulse of your conception. Whatever you think, there is a word; whatever you conceive, there is reason.  You must needs speak it in your mind; and while you are speaking, you admit speech as an interlocutor with you, involved in which there is this very reason, whereby, while in thought you are holding converse with your word, you are (by reciprocal action) producing thought by means of that converse with your word. Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech, and through which also, (by reciprocity of process,) in uttering speech you generate thought. The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness even you are regarded as being, inasmuch as He has reason within Himself even while He is silent, and involved in that Reason His Word! I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.
Prov. viii. 22–25.

that is to say, He created and generated me in His own intelligence. Then, again, observe the distinction between them implied in the companionship of Wisdom with the Lord. “When He prepared the heaven,” says Wisdom, “I was present with Him; and when He made His strong places upon the winds, which are the clouds above; and when He secured the fountains, (and all things) which are beneath the sky, I was by, arranging all things with Him; I was by, in whom He delighted; and daily, too, did I rejoice in His presence.”7822

7822 Prov. viii. 27–30.

Now, as soon as it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and forms the things which He had planned and ordered within Himself, in conjunction with His Wisdom’s Reason and Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things might be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and already made, so far forth as (they were) in the mind and intelligence of God. This, however, was still wanting to them, that they should also be openly known, and kept permanently in their proper forms and substances.
Gen. i. 3.

This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God—formed7825

7825 Conditus. [See Theophilus To Autolycus, cap. x. note 1, p. 98, Vol. II. of this series. Also Ibid. p. 103, note 5. On the whole subject, Bp. Bull, Defensio Fid. Nicænæ. Vol. V. pp. 585–592.]

by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom—“The Lord created or formed7826

7826 Condidit.

me as the beginning of His ways;”7827

7827 Prov. viii. 22.

then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect—“When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.”7828

7828 Ver. 27.

Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things;7829

7829 Col. i. 15.

and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart—even as the Father Himself testifies: “My heart,” says He, “hath emitted my most excellent Word.”7830

7830 Ps. xlv. 1. See this reading, and its application, fully discussed in our note 5, p. 66, of the Anti-Marcion, Edin.

The Father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a reciprocal gladness in the Father’s presence:  “Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee;”7831

7831 Ps. ii. 7.

even before the morning star did I beget Thee. The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom: “The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills did He beget Me.”7832

7832 Prov. viii. 22; 25.

For if indeed Wisdom in this passage seems to say that She was created by the Lord with a view to His works, and to accomplish His ways, yet proof is given in another Scripture that “all things were made by the Word, and without Him was there nothing made;”7833

7833 John i. 3.

as, again, in another place (it is said), “By His word were the heavens established, and all the powers thereof by His Spirit”7834

7834 Ps. xxxiii. 6.

—that is to say, by the Spirit (or Divine Nature) which was in the Word: thus is it evident that it is one and the same power which is in one place described under the name of Wisdom, and in another passage under the appellation of the Word, which was initiated for the works of God7835

7835 Prov. viii. 22.

which “strengthened the heavens;”7836

7836 Ver. 28.

“by which all things were made,”7837

7837 John i. 3.

“and without which nothing was made.”7838

7838 John i. 3.

Nor need we dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name both of Wisdom and of Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit. He became also the Son of God, and was begotten when He proceeded forth from Him.  Do you then, (you ask,) grant that the Word is a certain substance, constructed by the Spirit and the communication of Wisdom? Certainly I do. But you will not allow Him to be really a substantive being, by having a substance of His own; in such a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a person, and so be able (as being constituted second to God the Father,) to make two, the Father and the Son, God and the Word. For you will say, what is a word, but a voice and sound of the mouth, and (as the grammarians teach) air when struck against,7839

7839 Offensus.

intelligible to the ear, but for the rest a sort of void, empty, and incorporeal thing. I, on the contrary, contend that nothing empty and void could have come forth from God, seeing that it is not put forth from that which is empty and void; nor could that possibly be devoid of substance which has proceeded from so great a substance, and has produced such mighty substances: for all things which were made through Him, He Himself (personally) made. How could it be, that He Himself is nothing, without whom nothing was made? How could He who is empty have made things which are solid, and He who is void have made things which are full, and He who is incorporeal have made things which have body? For although a thing may sometimes be made different from him by whom it is made, yet nothing can be made by that which is a void and empty thing. Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself is designated God? “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”7840

7840 John i. 1.

It is written, “Thou shalt not take God’s name in vain.”7841

7841 Ex. xx. 7.

This for certain is He “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”7842

7842 Phil. ii. 6.

In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none. For who will deny that God is a body, although “God is a Spirit?”7843

7843 John iv. 24.

For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form.7844

7844 This doctrine of the soul’s corporeality in a certain sense is treated by Tertullian in his De Resurr. Carn. xvii., and De Anima v. By Tertullian, spirit and soul were considered identical. See our Anti-Marcion, p. 451, note 4, Edin.

Now, even if invisible things, whatsoever they be, have both their substance and their form in God, whereby they are visible to God alone, how much more shall that which has been sent forth from His substance not be without substance!  Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father.7845

7845 [On Tertullian’s orthodoxy, here, see Kaye, p. 502.]


Matt. xi. 27.

and has Himself unfolded “the Father’s bosom.”7850

7850 John i. 18.

He has also heard and seen all things with the Father; and what He has been commanded by the Father, that also does He speak.7851

7851 John viii. 26.

And it is not His own will, but the Father’s, which He has accomplished,7852

7852 John vi. 38.

which He had known most intimately, even from the beginning. “For what man knoweth the things which be in God, but the Spirit which is in Him?”7853

7853 1 Cor. ii. 11.

But the Word was formed by the Spirit, and (if I may so express myself) the Spirit is the body of the Word. The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, “I am in the Father;”7854

7854 John xiv. 11.

and is always with God, according to what is written, “And the Word was with God;”7855

7855 John i. 1.

and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since “I and the Father are one.”7856

7856 John x. 30.

This will be the prolation, taught by the truth,7857

7857 Literally, the προβολή, “of the truth.”

the guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from Him.  For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray.7858

7858 [Compare cap. iv. supra.]

For these are προβολαί, or emanations, of the substances from which they proceed. I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun; because every original source is a parent, and everything which issues from the origin is an offspring.  Much more is (this true of) the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar designation the name of Son. But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God.  Following, therefore, the form of these analogies, I confess that I call God and His Word—the Father and His Son—two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated.  Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties.  In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy,7859

7859 Or oneness of the divine empire.

whilst it at the same time guards the state of the Economy.7860

7860 Or dispensation of the divine tripersonality. See above ch. ii.


John xiv. 28.

In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.”7864

7864 Ps. viii. 5.

Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,”7865

7865 John xiv. 16.

thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality?7866

7866 Aliud ab alio.

For, of course, all things will be what their names represent them to be; and what they are and ever will be, that will they be called; and the distinction indicated by the names does not at all admit of any confusion, because there is none in the things which they designate. “Yes is yes, and no is no; for what is more than these, cometh of evil.”7867

7867 Matt. v. 37.


Matt. xix. 26.

True enough; who can be ignorant of it? Who also can be unaware that “the things which are impossible with men are possible with God?”7871

7871 Luke xviii. 27.

“The foolish things also of the world hath God chosen to confound the things which are wise.”7872

7872 1 Cor. i. 27.

We have read it all. Therefore, they argue, it was not difficult for God to make Himself both a Father and a Son, contrary to the condition of things among men. For a barren woman to have a child against nature was no difficulty with God; nor was it for a virgin to conceive. Of course nothing is “too hard for the Lord.”7873

7873 Gen. xviii. 14.

But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it. God could, if He had liked, have furnished man with wings to fly with, just as He gave wings to kites. We must not, however, run to the conclusion that He did this because He was able to do it.  He might also have extinguished Praxeas and all other heretics at once; it does not follow, however, that He did, simply because He was able. For it was necessary that there should be both kites and heretics; it was necessary also that the Father should be crucified.7874

7874 An ironical reference to a great paradox in the Praxean heresy.

In one sense there will be something difficult even for God—namely, that which He has not done—not because He could not, but because He would not, do it.  For with God, to be willing is to be able, and to be unwilling is to be unable; all that He has willed, however, He has both been able to accomplish, and has displayed His ability. Since, therefore, if God had wished to make Himself a Son to Himself, He had it in His power to do so; and since, if He had it in His power, He effected His purpose, you will then make good your proof of His power and His will (to do even this) when you shall have proved to us that He actually did it.
For this version of Ps. xlv. 1, see our Anti-Marcion, p. 66, note 5, Edin.

so you in like manner ought to adduce in opposition to me some text where God has said, “My heart hath emitted Myself as my own most excellent Word,” in such a sense that He is Himself both the Emitter and the Emitted, both He who sent forth and He who was sent forth, since He is both the Word and God. I bid you also observe,7877

7877 Ecce.

that on my side I advance the passage where the Father said to the Son, “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee.”7878

7878 Ps. ii. 7.

If you want me to believe Him to be both the Father and the Son, show me some other passage where it is declared, “The Lord said unto Himself, I am my own Son, to-day have I begotten myself;” or again, “Before the morning did I beget myself;”7879

7879 In allusion to Ps. cx. 3 (Sept.)

and likewise, “I the Lord possessed Myself the beginning of my ways for my own works; before all the hills, too, did I beget myself;”7880

7880 In allusion to Prov. viii. 22.

and whatever other passages are to the same effect. Why, moreover, could God the Lord of all things, have hesitated to speak thus of Himself, if the fact had been so? Was He afraid of not being believed, if He had in so many words declared Himself to be both the Father and the Son? Of one thing He was at any rate afraid—of lying. Of Himself, too, and of His own truth, was He afraid. Believing Him, therefore, to be the true God, I am sure that He declared nothing to exist in any other way than according to His own dispensation and arrangement, and that He had arranged nothing in any other way than according to His own declaration. On your side, however, you must make Him out to be a liar, and an impostor, and a tamperer with His word, if, when He was Himself a Son to Himself, He assigned the part of His Son to be played by another, when all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith, that He who speaks, and He of whom He speaks, and to whom He speaks, cannot possibly seem to be One and the Same. So absurd and misleading a statement would be unworthy of God, that, when it was Himself to whom He was speaking, He speaks rather to another, and not to His very self. Hear, then, other utterances also of the Father concerning the Son by the mouth of Isaiah: “Behold my Son, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom I am well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.”7881

7881 Isa. xlii. 1.

Hear also what He says to the Son: “Is it a great thing for Thee, that Thou shouldest be called my Son to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the dispersed of Israel? I have given Thee for a light to the Gentiles, that Thou mayest be their salvation to the end of the earth.”7882

7882 Isa. xlix. 6.

Hear now also the Son’s utterances respecting the Father: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the gospel unto men.”7883

7883 Isa. lxi. 1 and Luke iv. 18.

He speaks of Himself likewise to the Father in the Psalm: “Forsake me not until I have declared the might of Thine arm to all the generation that is to come.”7884

7884 Ps. lxxi. 18.

Also to the same purport in another Psalm: “O Lord, how are they increased that trouble me!”7885

7885 Ps. iii. 1.

But almost all the Psalms which prophesy of7886

7886 Sustinent.

the person of Christ, represent the Son as conversing with the Father—that is, represent Christ (as speaking) to God. Observe also the Spirit speaking of the Father and the Son, in the character of7887

7887 Ex.

a third Person: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.”7888

7888 Ps. cx. 1.

Likewise in the words of Isaiah: “Thus saith the Lord to the Lord7889

7889 Tertullian reads Κυρίῳ instead of Κύρῳ, “Cyrus.”

mine Anointed.”7890

7890 Isa. xlv. 1.

Likewise, in the same prophet, He says to the Father respecting the Son: “Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We brought a report concerning Him, as if He were a little child, as if He were a root in a dry ground, who had no form nor comeliness.”7891

7891 Isa. liii. 1, 2.

These are a few testimonies out of many; for we do not pretend to bring up all the passages of Scripture, because we have a tolerably large accumulation of them in the various heads of our subject, as we in our several chapters call them in as our witnesses in the fulness of their dignity and authority.7892

7892 [See Elucidation III., and also cap. xxv. infra.]

Still, in these few quotations the distinction of Persons in the Trinity is clearly set forth. For there is the Spirit Himself who speaks, and the Father to whom He speaks, and the Son of whom He speaks.7893

7893 [See De Baptismo, cap. v. p. 344, Ed. Oehler, and note how often our author cites an important text, by half quotation, leaving the residue to the reader’s memory, owing to the impetuosity of his genius and his style:  “Monte decurrens velut amnis, imbres quem super notas aluere ripas fervet, etc.”]

In the same manner, the other passages also establish each one of several Persons in His special character—addressed as they in some cases are to the Father or to the Son respecting the Son, in other cases to the Son or to the Father concerning the Father, and again in other instances to the (Holy) Spirit.
Gen. i. 26.

whereas He ought to have said, “Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness,” as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, “Behold the man is become as one of us,”7895

7895 Gen. iii. 22.

He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, “Let us make;” and, “in our image;” and, “become as one of us.” For with whom did He make man? and to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and the Spirit on the other, who was to sanctify man. With these did He then speak, in the Unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses. In the following text also He distinguishes among the Persons: “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him.”7896

7896 Gen. i. 27.

Why say “image of God?” Why not “His own image” merely, if He was only one who was the Maker, and if there was not also One in whose image He made man? But there was One in whose image God was making man, that is to say, Christ’s image, who, being one day about to become Man (more surely and more truly so), had already caused the man to be called His image, who was then going to be formed of clay—the image and similitude of the true and perfect Man.  But in respect of the previous works of the world what says the Scripture? Its first statement indeed is made, when the Son has not yet appeared:  “And God said, Let there be light, and there was light.”7897

7897 Gen. i. 3.

Immediately there appears the Word, “that true light, which lighteth man on his coming into the world,”7898

7898 John i. 9.

and through Him also came light upon the world.7899

7899 Mundialis lux.

From that moment God willed creation to be effected in the Word, Christ being present and ministering unto Him: and so God created. And God said, “Let there be a firmament,…and God made the firmament;”7900

7900 Gen. i. 6, 7.

and God also said, “Let there be lights (in the firmament); and so God made a greater and a lesser light.”7901

7901 Gen. i. 14; 16.

But all the rest of the created things did He in like manner make, who made the former ones—I mean the Word of God, “through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made.”7902

7902 John i. 3.

Now if He too is God, according to John, (who says,) “The Word was God,”7903

7903 John i. 1.

then you have two Beings—One that commands that the thing be made, and the Other that executes the order and creates. In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance—in the way of distinction, not of division.7904

7904 [Kaye thinks the Athanasian hymn (so called) was composed by one who had this treatise always in mind. See p. 526.]

But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons), yet I am bound to acknowledge, from the necessity of the case, that He who issues a command is different from Him who executes it. For, indeed, He would not be issuing a command if He were all the while doing the work Himself, while ordering it to be done by the second.7905

7905 Per eum.

But still He did issue the command, although He would not have intended to command Himself if He were only one; or else He must have worked without any command, because He would not have waited to command Himself.
Ps. xlv. 6, 7.

Now, since He here speaks to God, and affirms that God is anointed by God, He must have affirmed that Two are God, by reason of the sceptre’s royal power.  Accordingly, Isaiah also says to the Person of Christ: “The Sabæans, men of stature, shall pass over to Thee; and they shall follow after Thee, bound in fetters; and they shall worship Thee, because God is in Thee:  for Thou art our God, yet we knew it not; Thou art the God of Israel.”7907

7907 Isa. xlv. 14, 15 (Sept.).

For here too, by saying, “God is in Thee,” and “Thou art God,” he sets forth Two who were God: (in the former expression in Thee, he means) in Christ, and (in the other he means) the Holy Ghost. That is a still grander statement which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”7908

7908 John i. 1.

There was One “who was,” and there was another “with whom” He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand.”7909

7909 Ps. cx. 1.

And Isaiah says this: “Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?”7910

7910 Isa. liii. 1.

Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony we have also in Genesis: “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.”7911

7911 Gen. xix. 24.

Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations? If, indeed, you follow those who did not at the time endure the Lord when showing Himself to be the Son of God, because they would not believe Him to be the Lord, then (I ask you) call to mind along with them the passage where it is written, “I have said, Ye are gods, and ye are children of the Most High;”7912

7912 Ps. lxxxii. 6.

and again, “God standeth in the congregation of gods;”7913

7913 Ver. 1.

in order that, if the Scripture has not been afraid to designate as gods human beings, who have become sons of God by faith, you may be sure that the same Scripture has with greater propriety conferred the name of the Lord on the true and one only Son of God. Very well! you say, I shall challenge you to preach from this day forth (and that, too, on the authority of these same Scriptures) two Gods and two Lords, consistently with your views. God forbid, (is my reply). For we, who by the grace of God possess an insight into both the times and the occasions of the Sacred Writings, especially we who are followers of the Paraclete, not of human teachers, do indeed definitively declare that Two Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three, according to the principle of the divine economy, which introduces number, in order that the Father may not, as you perversely infer, be Himself believed to have been born and to have suffered, which it is not lawful to believe, forasmuch as it has not been so handed down. That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God; but because in earlier times Two were actually spoken of as God, and two as Lord, that when Christ should come He might be both acknowledged as God and designated as Lord, being the Son of Him who is both God and Lord. Now, if there were found in the Scriptures but one Personality of Him who is God and Lord, Christ would justly enough be inadmissible to the title of God and Lord: for (in the Scriptures) there was declared to be none other than One God and One Lord, and it must have followed that the Father should Himself seem to have come down (to earth), inasmuch as only One God and One Lord was ever read of (in the Scriptures), and His entire Economy would be involved in obscurity, which has been planned and arranged with so clear a foresight in His providential dispensation as matter for our faith.  As soon, however, as Christ came, and was recognised by us as the very Being who had from the beginning7914

7914 Retro.

caused plurality7915

7915 Numerum.

(in the Divine Economy), being the second from the Father, and with the Spirit the third, and Himself declaring and manifesting the Father more fully (than He had ever been before), the title of Him who is God and Lord was at once restored to the Unity (of the Divine Nature), even because the Gentiles would have to pass from the multitude of their idols to the One Only God, in order that a difference might be distinctly settled between the worshippers of One God and the votaries of polytheism. For it was only right that Christians should shine in the world as “children of light,” adoring and invoking Him who is the One God and Lord as “the light of the world.” Besides, if, from that perfect knowledge7916

7916 Conscientia.

which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, we were to invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should become less courageous to endure the martyr’s sufferings, from which an easy escape would everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a plurality of gods and lords, as sundry heretics do, who hold more gods than One.  I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father “God,” and invoke Jesus Christ as “Lord.”7917

7917 Rom. i. 7.

But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him “God,” as the same apostle says: “Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever.”7918

7918 Rom. ix. 5.

For I should give the name of “sun” even to a sunbeam, considered in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms7919

7919 Species.

of one undivided substance, as God and His Word, as the Father and the Son.
Ex. xxxiii. 13.

God said, “Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me, and live:”7921

7921 Ver. 20.

in other words, he who sees me shall die. Now we find that God has been seen by many persons, and yet that no one who saw Him died (at the sight). The truth is, they saw God according to the faculties of men, but not in accordance with the full glory of the Godhead.  For the patriarchs are said to have seen God (as Abraham and Jacob), and the prophets (as, for instance Isaiah and Ezekiel), and yet they did not die. Either, then, they ought to have died, since they had seen Him—for (the sentence runs), “No man shall see God, and live;” or else if they saw God, and yet did not die, the Scripture is false in stating that God said, “If a man see my face, he shall not live.” Either way, the Scripture misleads us, when it makes God invisible, and when it produces Him to our sight. Now, then, He must be a different Being who was seen, because of one who was seen it could not be predicated that He is invisible. It will therefore follow, that by Him who is invisible we must understand the Father in the fulness of His majesty, while we recognise the Son as visible by reason of the dispensation of His derived existence;7922

7922 Pro modulo derivationis.

even as it is not permitted us to contemplate the sun, in the full amount of his substance which is in the heavens, but we can only endure with our eyes a ray, by reason of the tempered condition of this portion which is projected from him to the earth. Here some one on the other side may be disposed to contend that the Son is also invisible as being the Word, and as being also the Spirit;7923

7923 Spiritus here is the divine nature of Christ.

and, while claiming one nature for the Father and the Son, to affirm that the Father is rather One and the Same Person with the Son. But the Scripture, as we have said, maintains their difference by the distinction it makes between the Visible and the Invisible. They then go on to argue to this effect, that if it was the Son who then spake to Moses, He must mean it of Himself that His face was visible to no one, because He was Himself indeed the invisible Father in the name of the Son. And by this means they will have it that the Visible and the Invisible are one and the same, just as the Father and the Son are the same; (and this they maintain) because in a preceding passage, before He had refused (the sight of) His face to Moses, the Scripture informs us that “the Lord spake face to face with Moses, even as a man speaketh unto his friend;”7924

7924 Ex. xxxiii. 11.

just as Jacob also says, “I have seen God face to face.”7925

7925 Gen. xxxii. 30.

Therefore the Visible and the Invisible are one and the same; and both being thus the same, it follows that He is invisible as the Father, and visible as the Son.  As if the Scripture, according to our exposition of it, were inapplicable to the Son, when the Father is set aside in His own invisibility. We declare, however, that the Son also, considered in Himself (as the Son), is invisible, in that He is God, and the Word and Spirit of God; but that He was visible before the days of His flesh, in the way that He says to Aaron and Miriam, “And if there shall be a prophet amongst you, I will make myself known to him in a vision, and will speak to him in a dream; not as with Moses, with whom I shall speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, that is to say, in truth, and not enigmatically,” that is to say, in image;7926

7926 Num. xii. 6–8.

as the apostle also expresses it, “Now we see through a glass, darkly (or enigmatically), but then face to face.”7927

7927 1 Cor. xiii. 12.

Since, therefore, He reserves to some future time His presence and speech face to face with Moses—a promise which was afterwards fulfilled in the retirement of the mount (of transfiguration), when as we read in the Gospel, “Moses appeared talking with Jesus”7928

7928 Mark ix. 4; Matt. xvii. 3.

—it is evident that in early times it was always in a glass, (as it were,) and an enigma, in vision and dream, that God, I mean the Son of God, appeared—to the prophets and the patriarchs, as also to Moses indeed himself. And even if the Lord did possibly7929

7929 Si forte.

speak with him face to face, yet it was not as man that he could behold His face, unless indeed it was in a glass, (as it were,) and by enigma. Besides, if the Lord so spake with Moses, that Moses actually discerned His face, eye to eye,7930

7930 Cominus sciret.

how comes it to pass that immediately afterwards, on the same occasion, he desires to see His face,7931

7931 Comp. ver. 13 with ver. 11 of Ex. xxxiii.

which he ought not to have desired, because he had already seen it? And how, in like manner, does the Lord also say that His face cannot be seen, because He had shown it, if indeed He really had, (as our opponents suppose). Or what is that face of God, the sight of which is refused, if there was one which was visible to man? “I have seen God,” says Jacob, “face to face, and my life is preserved.”7932

7932 Gen. xxii. 30.

There ought to be some other face which kills if it be only seen. Well, then, was the Son visible? (Certainly not,7933

7933 Involved in the nunquid.

) although He was the face of God, except only in vision and dream, and in a glass and enigma, because the Word and Spirit (of God) cannot be seen except in an imaginary form. But, (they say,) He calls the invisible Father His face. For who is the Father? Must He not be the face of the Son, by reason of that authority which He obtains as the begotten of the Father? For is there not a natural propriety in saying of some personage greater (than yourself), That man is my face; he gives me his countenance?  “My Father,” says Christ, “is greater than I.”7934

7934 John xiv. 28.

Therefore the Father must be the face of the Son. For what does the Scripture say? “The Spirit of His person is Christ the Lord.”7935

7935 Lam. iv. 20. Tertullian reads, “Spiritus personæ ejus Christus Dominus.” This varies only in the pronoun from the Septuagint, which runs, Πνεῦμα προσώπου ἡμῶν Χριστὸς Κύριος. According to our A.V., “the breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord” (or, “our anointed Lord”), allusion is made, in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, to the capture of the king—the last of David’s line, “as an anointed prince.” Comp. Jer. lii. 9.

As therefore Christ is the Spirit of the Father’s person, there is good reason why, in virtue indeed of the unity, the Spirit of Him to whose person He belonged—that is to say, the Father—pronounced Him to be His “face.” Now this, to be sure, is an astonishing thing, that the Father can be taken to be the face of the Son, when He is His head; for “the head of Christ is God.”7936

7936 1 Cor. xi. 3.


John i. 18.

meaning, of course, at any previous time.  But he has indeed taken away all question of time, by saying that God had never been seen. The apostle confirms this statement; for, speaking of God, he says, “Whom no man hath seen, nor can see;”7939

7939 1 Tim. vi. 16.

because the man indeed would die who should see Him.7940

7940 Ex. xxxiii. 20; Deut. v. 26; Judg. xiii. 22.

But the very same apostles testify that they had both seen and “handled” Christ.7941

7941 1 John i. 1.

Now, if Christ is Himself both the Father and the Son, how can He be both the Visible and the Invisible? In order, however, to reconcile this diversity between the Visible and the Invisible, will not some one on the other side argue that the two statements are quite correct: that He was visible indeed in the flesh, but was invisible before His appearance in the flesh; so that He who as the Father was invisible before the flesh, is the same as the Son who was visible in the flesh?  If, however, He is the same who was invisible before the incarnation, how comes it that He was actually seen in ancient times before (coming in) the flesh? And by parity of reasoning, if He is the same who was visible after (coming in) the flesh, how happens it that He is now declared to be invisible by the apostles? How, I repeat, can all this be, unless it be that He is one, who anciently was visible only in mystery and enigma, and became more clearly visible by His incarnation, even the Word who was also made flesh; whilst He is another whom no man has seen at any time, being none else than the Father, even Him to whom the Word belongs? Let us, in short, examine who it is whom the apostles saw. “That,” says John, “which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.”7942

7942 1 John i. 1.

Now the Word of life became flesh, and was heard, and was seen, and was handled, because He was flesh who, before He came in the flesh, was the “Word in the beginning with God” the Father,7943

7943 John i. 1, 2.

and not the Father with the Word. For although the Word was God, yet was He with God, because He is God of God; and being joined to the Father, is with the Father.7944

7944 Quia cum Patre apud Patrem.

“And we have seen His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father;”7945

7945 John i. 14.

that is, of course, (the glory) of the Son, even Him who was visible, and was glorified by the invisible Father. And therefore, inasmuch as he had said that the Word of God was God, in order that he might give no help to the presumption of the adversary, (which pretended) that he had seen the Father Himself and in order to draw a distinction between the invisible Father and the visible Son, he makes the additional assertion, ex abundanti as it were: “No man hath seen God at any time.”7946

7946 1 John iv. 12.

What God does he mean? The Word?  But he has already said: “Him we have seen and heard, and our hands have handled the Word of life.”  Well, (I must again ask,) what God does he mean? It is of course the Father, with whom was the Word, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has Himself declared Him.7947

7947 John i. 18.

He was both heard and seen and, that He might not be supposed to be a phantom, was actually handled. Him, too, did Paul behold; but yet he saw not the Father. “Have I not,” he says, “seen Jesus Christ our Lord?”7948

7948 1 Cor. ix. 1.

Moreover, he expressly called Christ God, saying: “Of whom are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.”7949

7949 Rom. ix. 5.

He shows us also that the Son of God, which is the Word of God, is visible, because He who became flesh was called Christ. Of the Father, however, he says to Timothy: “Whom none among men hath seen, nor indeed can see;” and he accumulates the description in still ampler terms: “Who only hath immortality, and dwelleth in the light which no man can approach unto.”7950

7950 1 Tim. vi. 16.

It was of Him, too, that he had said in a previous passage: “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to the only God;”7951

7951 1 Tim. i. 17.

so that we might apply even the contrary qualities to the Son Himself—mortality, accessibility—of whom the apostle testifies that “He died according to the Scriptures,”7952

7952 1 Cor. xv. 3.

and that “He was seen by himself last of all,”7953

7953 Ver. 8.

—by means, of course, of the light which was accessible, although it was not without imperilling his sight that he experienced that light.7954

7954 Acts xxii. 11.

A like danger to which also befell Peter, and John, and James, (who confronted not the same light) without risking the loss of their reason and mind; and if they, who were unable to endure the glory of the Son,7955

7955 Matt. xvii. 6; Mark ix. 6.

had only seen the Father, they must have died then and there: “For no man shall see God, and live.”7956

7956 Ex. xxxiii. 20.

This being the case, it is evident that He was always seen from the beginning, who became visible in the end; and that He, (on the contrary,) was not seen in the end who had never been visible from the beginning; and that accordingly there are two—the Visible and the Invisible. It was the Son, therefore, who was always seen, and the Son who always conversed with men, and the Son who has always worked by the authority and will of the Father; because “the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do”7957

7957 John v. 19.

—“do” that is, in His mind and thought.7958

7958 In sensu.

For the Father acts by mind and thought; whilst the Son, who is in the Father’s mind and thought,7959

7959 The reading is, “in Patris sensu;” another reading substitutes “sinu” for “sensu;” q.d. “the Father’s bosom.”

gives effect and form to what He sees.  Thus all things were made by the Son, and without Him was not anything made.7960

7960 John i. 3.


John iii. 35. Tertullian reads the last clause (according to Oehler), “in sinu ejus,” q.d. “to Him who is in His bosom.”

loves Him indeed from the beginning, and from the very first has handed all things over to Him. Whence it is written, “From the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God;”7962

7962 John i. 1.

to whom “is given by the Father all power in heaven and on earth.”7963

7963 Matt. xxviii. 18.

“The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son”7964

7964 John v. 22.

—from the very beginning even. For when He speaks of all power and all judgment, and says that all things were made by Him, and all things have been delivered into His hand, He allows no exception (in respect) of time, because they would not be all things unless they were the things of all time. It is the Son, therefore, who has been from the beginning administering judgment, throwing down the haughty tower, and dividing the tongues, punishing the whole world by the violence of waters, raining upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone, as the Lord from the Lord.  For He it was who at all times came down to hold converse with men, from Adam on to the patriarchs and the prophets, in vision, in dream, in mirror, in dark saying; ever from the beginning laying the foundation of the course of His dispensations, which He meant to follow out to the very last. Thus was He ever learning even as God to converse with men upon earth, being no other than the Word which was to be made flesh. But He was thus learning (or rehearsing), in order to level for us the way of faith, that we might the more readily believe that the Son of God had come down into the world, if we knew that in times past also something similar had been done.7965

7965 See our Anti-Marcion, p. 112, note 10. Edin.

For as it was on our account and for our learning that these events are described in the Scriptures, so for our sakes also were they done—(even ours, I say), “upon whom the ends of the world are come.”7966

7966 Comp. 1 Cor. x. 11.

In this way it was that even then He knew full well what human feelings and affections were, intending as He always did to take upon Him man’s actual component substances, body and soul, making inquiry of Adam (as if He were ignorant),7967

7967 See the treatise, Against Marcion. ii. 25, supra.

“Where art thou, Adam?”7968

7968 Gen. iii. 9.

—repenting that He had made man, as if He had lacked foresight;7969

7969 Gen. vi. 6.

tempting Abraham, as if ignorant of what was in man; offended with persons, and then reconciled to them; and whatever other (weaknesses and imperfections) the heretics lay hold of (in their assumptions) as unworthy of God, in order to discredit the Creator, not considering that these circumstances are suitable enough for the Son, who was one day to experience even human sufferings—hunger and thirst, and tears, and actual birth and real death, and in respect of such a dispensation “made by the Father a little less than the angels.”7970

7970 Ps. viii. 6.

But the heretics, you may be sure, will not allow that those things are suitable even to the Son of God, which you are imputing to the very Father Himself, when you pretend7971

7971 Quasi.

that He made Himself less (than the angels) on our account; whereas the Scripture informs us that He who was made less was so affected by another, and not Himself by Himself. What, again, if He was One who was “crowned with glory and honour,” and He Another by whom He was so crowned,7972

7972 Ps. viii. 6.

—the Son, in fact, by the Father? Moreover, how comes it to pass, that the Almighty Invisible God, “whom no man hath seen nor can see; He who dwelleth in light unapproachable;”7973

7973 1 Tim. vi. 16.

“He who dwelleth not in temples made with hands;”7974

7974 Acts xvii. 24.

“from before whose sight the earth trembles, and the mountains melt like wax;”7975

7975 Joel ii. 10; Ps. xcvii. 5.

who holdeth the whole world in His hand “like a nest;”7976

7976 Isa. x. 14.

“whose throne is heaven, and earth His footstool;”7977

7977 Isa. lxvi. 1.

in whom is every place, but Himself is in no place; who is the utmost bound of the universe;—how happens it, I say, that He (who, though) the Most High, should yet have walked in paradise towards the cool of the evening, in quest of Adam; and should have shut up the ark after Noah had entered it; and at Abraham’s tent should have refreshed Himself under an oak; and have called to Moses out of the burning bush; and have appeared as “the fourth” in the furnace of the Babylonian monarch (although He is there called the Son of man),—unless all these events had happened as an image, as a mirror, as an enigma (of the future incarnation)? Surely even these things could not have been believed even of the Son of God, unless they had been given us in the Scriptures; possibly also they could not have been believed of the Father, even if they had been given in the Scriptures, since these men bring Him down into Mary’s womb, and set Him before Pilate’s judgment-seat, and bury Him in the sepulchre of Joseph. Hence, therefore, their error becomes manifest; for, being ignorant that the entire order of the divine administration has from the very first had its course through the agency of the Son, they believe that the Father Himself was actually seen, and held converse with men, and worked, and was athirst, and suffered hunger (in spite of the prophet who says: “The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, shall never thirst at all, nor be hungry;”7978

7978 Isa. xl. 28.

much more, shall neither die at any time, nor be buried!), and therefore that it was uniformly one God, even the Father, who at all times did Himself the things which were really done by Him through the agency of the Son.
John v. 43.

and even to the Father He declares, “I have manifested Thy name unto these men;”7980

7980 John xvii. 6.

whilst the Scripture likewise says, “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord,”7981

7981 Ps. cxviii. 26.

that is to say, the Son in the Father’s name.  And as for the Father’s names, God Almighty, the Most High, the Lord of hosts, the King of Israel, the “One that is,” we say (for so much do the Scriptures teach us) that they belonged suitably to the Son also, and that the Son came under these designations, and has always acted in them, and has thus manifested them in Himself to men. “All things,” says He, “which the Father hath are mine.”7982

7982 John xvi. 15.

Then why not His names also? When, therefore, you read of Almighty God, and the Most High, and the God of hosts, and the King of Israel, the “One that is,” consider whether the Son also be not indicated by these designations, who in His own right is God Almighty, in that He is the Word of Almighty God, and has received power over all; is the Most High, in that He is “exalted at the right hand of God,” as Peter declares in the Acts;7983

7983 Acts ii. 22.

is the Lord of hosts, because all things are by the Father made subject to Him; is the King of Israel because to Him has especially been committed the destiny of that nation; and is likewise “the One that is,” because there are many who are called Sons, but are not. As to the point maintained by them, that the name of Christ belongs also to the Father, they shall hear (what I have to say) in the proper place. Meanwhile, let this be my immediate answer to the argument which they adduce from the Revelation of John: “I am the Lord which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty;”7984

7984 Rev. i. 8.

and from all other passages which in their opinion make the designation of Almighty God unsuitable to the Son. As if, indeed, He which is to come were not almighty; whereas even the Son of the Almighty is as much almighty as the Son of God is God.
Isa. xlv. 5.

And when He Himself makes this declaration, He denies not the Son, but says that there is no other God; and the Son is not different from the Father. Indeed, if you only look carefully at the contexts which follow such statements as this, you will find that they nearly always have distinct reference to the makers of idols and the worshippers thereof, with a view to the multitude of false gods being expelled by the unity of the Godhead, which nevertheless has a Son; and inasmuch as this Son is undivided and inseparable from the Father, so is He to be reckoned as being in the Father, even when He is not named. The fact is, if He had named Him expressly, He would have separated Him, saying in so many words: “Beside me there is none else, except my Son.” In short He would have made His Son actually another, after excepting Him from others.  Suppose the sun to say, “I am the Sun, and there is none other besides me, except my ray,” would you not have remarked how useless was such a statement, as if the ray were not itself reckoned in the sun? He says, then, that there is no God besides Himself in respect of the idolatry both of the Gentiles as well as of Israel; nay, even on account of our heretics also, who fabricate idols with their words, just as the heathen do with their hands; that is to say, they make another God and another Christ. When, therefore, He attested His own unity, the Father took care of the Son’s interests, that Christ should not be supposed to have come from another God, but from Him who had already said, “I am God and there is none other beside me,”7987

7987 Isa. xlv. 5, 18; xliv. 6.

who shows us that He is the only God, but in company with His Son, with whom “He stretcheth out the heavens alone.”7988

7988 Isa. xliv. 24.


Prov. viii. 27.

—even though the apostle asks, “Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor?”7990

7990 Rom. xi. 34.

meaning, of course, to except that wisdom which was present with Him.7991

7991 Prov. viii. 30.

In Him, at any rate, and with Him, did (Wisdom) construct the universe, He not being ignorant of what she was making. “Except Wisdom,” however, is a phrase of the same sense exactly as “except the Son,” who is Christ, “the Wisdom and Power of God,”7992

7992 1 Cor. i. 24.

according to the apostle, who only knows the mind of the Father. “For who knoweth the things that be in God, except the Spirit which is in Him?”7993

7993 1 Cor ii. 11.

Not, observe, without Him. There was therefore One who caused God to be not alone, except “alone” from all other gods.  But (if we are to follow the heretics), the Gospel itself will have to be rejected, because it tells us that all things were made by God through the Word, without whom nothing was made.7994

7994 John i. 3.

And if I am not mistaken, there is also another passage in which it is written:  “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by His Spirit.”7995

7995 Ps. xxxiii. 6.

Now this Word, the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, must be the very Son of God.  So that, if (He did) all things by the Son, He must have stretched out the heavens by the Son, and so not have stretched them out alone, except in the sense in which He is “alone” (and apart) from all other gods. Accordingly He says, concerning the Son, immediately afterwards: “Who else is it that frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad, turning wise men backward, and making their knowledge foolish, and confirming the words7996

7996 Isa. xliv. 25.

of His Son?”7997

7997 On this reading, see our Anti-Marcion, p. 207, note 9. Edin.

—as, for instance, when He said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him.”7998

7998 Matt. iii. 17.

By thus attaching the Son to Himself, He becomes His own interpreter in what sense He stretched out the heavens alone, meaning alone with His Son, even as He is one with His Son. The utterance, therefore, will be in like manner the Son’s, “I have stretched out the heavens alone,”7999

7999 Isa. xliv. 24.

because by the Word were the heavens established.8000

8000 Ps. xxxiii. 6.

Inasmuch, then, as the heaven was prepared when Wisdom was present in the Word, and since all things were made by the Word, it is quite correct to say that even the Son stretched out the heaven alone, because He alone ministered to the Father’s work. It must also be He who says, “I am the First, and to all futurity I AM.”8001

8001 Isa. xli. 4 (Sept.).

The Word, no doubt, was before all things. “In the beginning was the Word;”8002

8002 John i. 1.

and in that beginning He was sent forth8003

8003 Prolatus.

by the Father. The Father, however, has no beginning, as proceeding from none; nor can He be seen, since He was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have had order or rank.  Therefore, if they have determined that the Father and the Son must be regarded as one and the same, for the express purpose of vindicating the unity of God, that unity of His is preserved intact; for He is one, and yet He has a Son, who is equally with Himself comprehended in the same Scriptures. Since they are unwilling to allow that the Son is a distinct Person, second from the Father, lest, being thus second, He should cause two Gods to be spoken of, we have shown above8004

8004 See ch. xiii. p. 107.

that Two are actually described in Scripture as God and Lord. And to prevent their being offended at this fact, we give a reason why they are not said to be two Gods and two Lords, but that they are two as Father and Son; and this not by severance of their substance, but from the dispensation wherein we declare the Son to be undivided and inseparable from the Father,—distinct in degree, not in state. And although, when named apart, He is called God, He does not thereby constitute two Gods, but one; and that from the very circumstance that He is entitled to be called God, from His union with the Father. Isa. xlv. 5.

so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the Lord’s answer to Philip, “I and my Father are one;”8007

8007 John x. 30.

and, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me.”8008

8008 John xiv. 9, 10.

They would have the entire revelation of both Testaments yield to these three passages, whereas the only proper course is to understand the few statements in the light of the many. But in their contention they only act on the principle of all heretics. For, inasmuch as only a few testimonies are to be found (making for them) in the general mass, they pertinaciously set off the few against the many, and assume the later against the earlier. The rule, however, which has been from the beginning established for every case, gives its prescription against the later assumptions, as indeed it also does against the fewer.
John i. 1–3.

Now, since these words may not be taken otherwise than as they are written, there is without doubt shown to be One who was from the beginning, and also One with whom He always was: one the Word of God, the other God (although the Word is also God, but God regarded as the Son of God, not as the Father); One through whom were all things, Another by whom were all things.  But in what sense we call Him Another we have already often described. In that we called Him Another, we must needs imply that He is not identical—not identical indeed, yet not as if separate; Other by dispensation, not by division. He, therefore, who became flesh was not the very same as He from whom the Word came.  “His glory was beheld—the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father;”8010

8010 John i. 14.

not, (observe,) as of the Father. He “declared” (what was in) “the bosom of the Father alone;”8011

8011 Unius sinum Patris. Another reading makes: “He alone (unus) declared,” etc. See John i. 18.

the Father did not divulge the secrets of His own bosom. For this is preceded by another statement: “No man hath seen God at any time.”8012

8012 John i. 18, first clause.

Then, again, when He is designated by John (the Baptist) as “the Lamb of God,”8013

8013 John i. 29.

He is not described as Himself the same with Him of whom He is the beloved Son. He is, no doubt, ever the Son of God, but yet not He Himself of whom He is the Son.  This (divine relationship) Nathanæl at once recognised in Him,8014

8014 John i. 49.

even as Peter did on another occasion:  “Thou art the Son of God.”8015

8015 Matt. xvi. 16.

And He affirmed Himself that they were quite right in their convictions; for He answered Nathanæl: “Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, therefore dost thou believe?”8016

8016 John i. 50.

And in the same manner He pronounced Peter to be “blessed,” inasmuch as “flesh and blood had not revealed it to him”—that he had perceived the Father—“but the Father which is in heaven.”8017

8017 Matt. xvi. 17.

By asserting all this, He determined the distinction which is between the two Persons:  that is, the Son then on earth, whom Peter had confessed to be the Son of God; and the Father in heaven, who had revealed to Peter the discovery which he had made, that Christ was the Son of God.  When He entered the temple, He called it “His Father’s house,”8018

8018 John ii. 16.

speaking as the Son. In His address to Nicodemus He says: “So God loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”8019

8019 John iii. 16.

And again:  “For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.”8020

8020 John iii. 17, 18.

Moreover, when John (the Baptist) was asked what he happened to know of Jesus, he said: “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.”8021

8021 John iii. 35, 36.

Whom, indeed, did He reveal to the woman of Samaria? Was it not “the Messias which is called Christ?”8022

8022 John iv. 25.

And so He showed, of course, that He was not the Father, but the Son; and elsewhere He is expressly called “the Christ, the Son of God,”8023

8023 John xx. 31.

and not the Father. He says, therefore,” My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish His work;”8024

8024 John iv. 34.

whilst to the Jews He remarks respecting the cure of the impotent man, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”8025

8025 John v. 17.

“My Father and I”—these are the Son’s words. And it was on this very account that “the Jews sought the more intently to kill Him, not only because He broke the Sabbath, but also because He said that God was His Father, thus making Himself equal with God. Then indeed did He answer and say unto them, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that He Himself doeth; and He will also show Him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.  For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son also quickeneth whom He will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent the Son. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life. Verily I say unto you, that the hour is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and when they have heard it, they shall live. For as the Father hath eternal life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have eternal life in Himself; and He hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man”8026

8026 John v. 19–27.

—that is, according to the flesh, even as He is also the Son of God through His Spirit.8027

8027 i.e. His divine nature.

Afterwards He goes on to say: “But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish—those very works bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me. And the Father Himself, which hath sent me, hath also borne witness of me.”8028

8028 John v. 36, 37.

But He at once adds, “Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape;”8029

8029 Ver. 37.

thus affirming that in former times it was not the Father, but the Son, who used to be seen and heard. Then He says at last: “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye have not received me.”8030

8030 Ver. 43.

It was therefore always the Son (of whom we read) under the designation of the Almighty and Most High God, and King, and Lord. To those also who inquired “what they should do to work the works of God,”8031

8031 John vi. 29.

He answered, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.”8032

8032 Ver. 30.

He also declares Himself to be “the bread which the Father sent from heaven;”8033

8033 Ver. 32.

and adds, that “all that the Father gave Him should come to Him, and that He Himself would not reject them,8034

8034 The expression is in the neuter collective form in the original.

because He had come down from heaven not to do His own will, but the will of the Father; and that the will of the Father was that every one who saw the Son, and believed on Him, should obtain the life (everlasting,) and the resurrection at the last day. No man indeed was able to come to Him, except the Father attracted him; whereas every one who had heard and learnt of the Father came to Him.”8035

8035 John vi. 37–45.

He goes on then expressly to say, “Not that any man hath seen the Father;”8036

8036 Ver. 46.

thus showing us that it was through the Word of the Father that men were instructed and taught. Then, when many departed from Him,8037

8037 Ver. 66.

and He turned to the apostles with the inquiry whether “they also would go away,”8038

8038 Ver. 67.

what was Simon Peter’s answer? “To whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life, and we believe that Thou art the Christ.”8039

8039 Ver. 68.

(Tell me now, did they believe) Him to be the Father, or the Christ of the Father?
See John vii. passim.

Was it His own or the Father’s? So, when they were in doubt among themselves whether He were the Christ (not as being the Father, of course but as the Son), He says to them “You are not ignorant whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but He that sent me is true, whom ye know not; but I know Him, because I am from Him.”8041

8041 Ver. 28, 29.

He did not say, Because I myself am He; and, I have sent mine own self: but His words are, “He hath sent me.” When, likewise, the Pharisees sent men to apprehend Him, He says: “Yet a little while am I with you, and (then) I go unto Him that sent me.”8042

8042 Ver. 33.

When, however, He declares that He is not alone, and uses these words, “but I and the Father that sent me,”8043

8043 John viii. 16.

does He not show that there are Two—Two, and yet inseparable? Indeed, this was the sum and substance of what He was teaching them, that they were inseparably Two; since, after citing the law when it affirms the truth of two men’s testimony,8044

8044 Ver. 17.

He adds at once: “I am one who am bearing witness of myself; and the Father (is another,) who hath sent me, and beareth witness of me.”8045

8045 Ver. 18.

Now, if He were one—being at once both the Son and the Father—He certainly would not have quoted the sanction of the law, which requires not the testimony of one, but of two. Likewise, when they asked Him where His Father was,8046

8046 Ver. 19.

He answered them, that they had known neither Himself nor the Father; and in this answer He plainly told them of Two, whom they were ignorant of. Granted that “if they had known Him, they would have known the Father also,”8047

8047 Ver. 19.

this certainly does not imply that He was Himself both Father and Son; but that, by reason of the inseparability of the Two, it was impossible for one of them to be either acknowledged or unknown without the other. “He that sent me,” says He, “is true; and I am telling the world those things which I have heard of Him.”8048

8048 John viii. 26.

And the Scripture narrative goes on to explain in an exoteric manner, that “they understood not that He spake to them concerning the Father,”8049

8049 Ver. 27.

although they ought certainly to have known that the Father’s words were uttered in the Son, because they read in Jeremiah, “And the Lord said to me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth;”8050

8050 Jer. i. 9.

and again in Isaiah, “The Lord hath given to me the tongue of learning that I should understand when to speak a word in season.”8051

8051 Isa. l. 4.

In accordance with which, Christ Himself says: “Then shall ye know that I am He and that I am saying nothing of my own self; but that, as my Father hath taught me, so I speak, because He that sent me is with me.”8052

8052 John viii. 28, 29.

This also amounts to a proof that they were Two, (although) undivided. Likewise, when upbraiding the Jews in His discussion with them, because they wished to kill Him, He said, “I speak that which I have seen with my Father, and ye do that which ye have seen with your father;”8053

8053 Ver. 38.

“but now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of God;”8054

8054 Ver. 40.

and again, “If God were your Father, ye would love me, for I proceeded forth and came from God,”8055

8055 Ver. 42.

(still they are not hereby separated, although He declares that He proceeded forth from the Father. Some persons indeed seize the opportunity afforded them in these words to propound their heresy of His separation; but His coming out from God is like the ray’s procession from the sun, and the river’s from the fountain, and the tree’s from the seed); “I have not a devil, but I honour my Father;”8056

8056 Ver. 49.

again, “If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me, of whom ye say, that He is your God: yet ye have not known Him, but I know Him; and if I should say, I know Him not, I shall be a liar like unto you; but I know Him, and keep His saying.”8057

8057 John viii. 54, 55.

But when He goes on to say, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and he saw it, and was glad,”8058

8058 Ver. 56.

He certainly proves that it was not the Father that appeared to Abraham, but the Son. In like manner He declares, in the case of the man born blind, “that He must do the works of the Father which had sent Him;”8059

8059 John ix. 4.

and after He had given the man sight, He said to him, “Dost thou believe in the Son of God?” Then, upon the man’s inquiring who He was, He proceeded to reveal Himself to him, as that Son of God whom He had announced to him as the right object of his faith.8060

8060 Vers. 35–38.

In a later passage He declares that He is known by the Father, and the Father by Him;8061

8061 John x. 15.

adding that He was so wholly loved by the Father, that He was laying down His life, because He had received this commandment from the Father.8062

8062 Vers. 15, 17, 18.

When He was asked by the Jews if He were the very Christ8063

8063 Ver. 24.

(meaning, of course, the Christ of God; for to this day the Jews expect not the Father Himself, but the Christ of God, it being nowhere said that the Father will come as the Christ), He said to them, “I am telling you, and yet ye do not believe: the works which I am doing, in my Father’s name, they actually bear witness of me.”8064

8064 Ver. 25.

Witness of what? Of that very thing, to be sure, of which they were making inquiry—whether He were the Christ of God. Then, again, concerning His sheep, and (the assurance) that no man should pluck them out of His hand,8065

8065 Vers. 26–28.

He says, “My Father, which gave them to me, is greater than all;”8066

8066 Ver. 29.

adding immediately, “I am and my Father are one.”8067

8067 Ver. 30.

Here, then, they take their stand, too infatuated, nay, too blind, to see in the first place that there is in this passage an intimation of Two Beings—“I and my Father;” then that there is a plural predicate, “are,” inapplicable to one person only; and lastly, that (the predicate terminates in an abstract, not a personal noun)—“we are one thing” Unum, not “one person” Unus. For if He had said “one Person,” He might have rendered some assistance to their opinion.  Unus, no doubt, indicates the singular number; but (here we have a case where) “Two” are still the subject in the masculine gender. He accordingly says Unum, a neuter term, which does not imply singularity of number, but unity of essence, likeness, conjunction, affection on the Father’s part, who loves the Son, and submission on the Son’s, who obeys the Father’s will. When He says, “I and my Father are one” in essence—Unum—He shows that there are Two, whom He puts on an equality and unites in one. He therefore adds to this very statement, that He “had showed them many works from the Father,” for none of which did He deserve to be stoned.8068

8068 John x. 32.

And to prevent their thinking Him deserving of this fate, as if He had claimed to be considered as God Himself, that is, the Father, by having said, “I and my Father are One,” representing Himself as the Father’s divine Son, and not as God Himself, He says, “If it is written in your law, I said, Ye are gods; and if the Scripture cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, that He blasphemeth, because He said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, even if ye will not believe me, still believe the works; and know that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.”8069

8069 Vers. 34–38.

It must therefore be by the works that the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father; and so it is by the works that we understand that the Father is one with the Son. All along did He therefore strenuously aim at this conclusion, that while they were of one power and essence, they should still be believed to be Two; for otherwise, unless they were believed to be Two, the Son could not possibly be believed to have any existence at all.
John xi. 27.

she no more made a mistake than Peter8071

8071 Matt. xvi. 16.

and Nathanæl8072

8072 John i. 49.

had; and yet, even if she had made a mistake, she would at once have learnt the truth: for, behold, when about to raise her brother from the dead, the Lord looked up to heaven, and, addressing the Father, said—as the Son, of course:  “Father, I thank Thee that Thou always hearest me; it is because of these crowds that are standing by that I have spoken to Thee, that they may believe that Thou hast sent me.”8073

8073 John xi. 41, 42.

But in the trouble of His soul, (on a later occasion,) He said: “What shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause is it that I am come to this hour; only, O Father, do Thou glorify Thy name”8074

8074 John xii. 27, 28.

—in which He spake as the Son. (At another time) He said: “I am come in my Father’s name.”8075

8075 John v. 43.

Accordingly, the Son’s voice was indeed alone sufficient, (when addressed) to the Father.  But, behold, with an abundance (of evidence)8076

8076 Or, “by way of excess.”

the Father from heaven replies, for the purpose of testifying to the Son: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him.”8077

8077 Matt. xvii. 5.

So, again, in that asseveration, “I have both glorified, and will glorify again,”8078

8078 John xii. 28.

how many Persons do you discover, obstinate Praxeas? Are there not as many as there are voices? You have the Son on earth, you have the Father in heaven. Now this is not a separation; it is nothing but the divine dispensation. We know, however, that God is in the bottomless depths, and exists everywhere; but then it is by power and authority. We are also sure that the Son, being indivisible from Him, is everywhere with Him.  Nevertheless, in the Economy or Dispensation itself, the Father willed that the Son should be regarded8079

8079 Or, held (haberi).

as on earth, and Himself in heaven; whither the Son also Himself looked up, and prayed, and made supplication of the Father; whither also He taught us to raise ourselves, and pray, “Our Father which art in heaven,” etc.,8080

8080 Matt. vi. 9.

—although, indeed, He is everywhere present. This heaven the Father willed to be His own throne; while He made the Son to be “a little lower than the angels,”8081

8081 Ps. viii. 5.

by sending Him down to the earth, but meaning at the same time to “crown Him with glory and honour,”8082

8082 Same ver.

even by taking Him back to heaven. This He now made good to Him when He said: “I have both glorified Thee, and will glorify Thee again.” The Son offers His request from earth, the Father gives His promise from heaven.  Why, then, do you make liars of both the Father and the Son? If either the Father spake from heaven to the Son when He Himself was the Son on earth, or the Son prayed to the Father when He was Himself the Son in heaven, how happens it that the Son made a request of His own very self, by asking it of the Father, since the Son was the Father? Or, on the other hand, how is it that the Father made a promise to Himself, by making it to the Son, since the Father was the Son? Were we even to maintain that they are two separate gods, as you are so fond of throwing out against us, it would be a more tolerable assertion than the maintenance of so versatile and changeful a God as yours!  Therefore it was that in the passage before us the Lord declared to the people present: “Not on my own account has this voice addressed me, but for your sakes,”8083

8083 John xii. 30.

that these likewise may believe both in the Father and in the Son, severally, in their own names and persons and positions.  “Then again, Jesus exclaims, and says, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on Him that sent me;”8084

8084 John xii. 44.

because it is through the Son that men believe in the Father, while the Father also is the authority whence springs belief in the Son. “And he that seeth me, seeth Him that sent me.”8085

8085 Ver. 45.

How so?  Even because, (as He afterwards declares,) “I have not spoken from myself, but the Father which sent me: He hath given me a commandment what I should say, and what I should speak.”8086

8086 John xii. 49.

For “the Lord God hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know when I ought to speak”8087

8087 Isa. l. 4.

the word which I actually speak. “Even as the Father hath said unto me, so do I speak.”8088

8088 John xii. 50.

Now, in what way these things were said to Him, the evangelist and beloved disciple John knew better than Praxeas; and therefore he adds concerning his own meaning:  “Now before the feast of the passover, Jesus knew that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come from God, and was going to God.”8089

8089 John xiii. 1; 3.

Praxeas, however, would have it that it was the Father who proceeded forth from Himself, and had returned to Himself; so that what the devil put into the heart of Judas was the betrayal, not of the Son, but of the Father Himself. But for the matter of that, things have not turned out well either for the devil or the heretic; because, even in the Son’s case, the treason which the devil wrought against Him contributed nothing to his advantage. It was, then, the Son of God, who was in the Son of man, that was betrayed, as the Scripture says afterwards: “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him.”8090

8090 Ver. 31.

Who is here meant by “God?” Certainly not the Father, but the Word of the Father, who was in the Son of man—that is in the flesh, in which Jesus had been already glorified by the divine power and word. “And God,” says He, “shall also glorify Him in Himself;”8091

8091 Ver. 32.

that is to say, the Father shall glorify the Son, because He has Him within Himself; and even though prostrated to the earth, and put to death, He would soon glorify Him by His resurrection, and making Him conqueror over death.
John xiv. 5–7.

And now we come to Philip, who, roused with the expectation of seeing the Father, and not understanding in what sense he was to take “seeing the Father,” says:  “Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.”8093

8093 Ver. 8.

Then the Lord answered him: “Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?”8094

8094 Ver. 9.

Now whom does He say that they ought to have known?—for this is the sole point of discussion. Was it as the Father that they ought to have known Him, or as the Son? If it was as the Father, Praxeas must tell us how Christ, who had been so long time with them, could have possibly ever been (I will not say understood, but even) supposed to have been the Father. He is clearly defined to us in all Scriptures—in the Old Testament as the Christ of God, in the New Testament as the Son of God.  In this character was He anciently predicted, in this was He also declared even by Christ Himself; nay, by the very Father also, who openly confesses Him from heaven as His Son, and as His Son glorifies Him. “This is my beloved Son;” “I have glorified Him, and I will glorify Him.” In this character, too, was He believed on by His disciples, and rejected by the Jews. It was, moreover, in this character that He wished to be accepted by them whenever He named the Father, and gave preference to the Father, and honoured the Father. This, then, being the case, it was not the Father whom, after His lengthened intercourse with them, they were ignorant of, but it was the Son; and accordingly the Lord, while upbraiding Philip for not knowing Himself who was the object of their ignorance, wished Himself to be acknowledged indeed as that Being whom He had reproached them for being ignorant of after so long a time—in a word, as the Son. And now it may be seen in what sense it was said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,”8095

8095 John xiv. 9.

—even in the same in which it was said in a previous passage, “I and my Father are one.”8096

8096 John x. 30.

Wherefore?  Because “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world”8097

8097 John xvi. 28.

and, “I am the way: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me;”8098

8098 John xiv. 6.

and, “No man can come to me, except the Father draw him;”8099

8099 John vi. 44.

and, “All things are delivered unto me by the Father;”8100

8100 Matt. xi. 27.

and, “As the Father quickeneth (the dead), so also doth the Son;”8101

8101 John v. 21.

and again, “If ye had known me, ye would have known the Father also.”8102

8102 John xiv. 7.

For in all these passages He had shown Himself to be the Father’s Commissioner,8103

8103 Vicarium.

through whose agency even the Father could be seen in His works, and heard in His words, and recognised in the Son’s administration of the Father’s words and deeds. The Father indeed was invisible, as Philip had learnt in the law, and ought at the moment to have remembered: “No man shall see God, and live.”8104

8104 Ex. xxxiii. 20.

So he is reproved for desiring to see the Father, as if He were a visible Being, and is taught that He only becomes visible in the Son from His mighty works, and not in the manifestation of His person. If, indeed, He meant the Father to be understood as the same with the Son, by saying, “He who seeth me seeth the Father,” how is it that He adds immediately afterwards, “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?”8105

8105 John xiv. 10.

He ought rather to have said: “Believest thou not that I am the Father?” With what view else did He so emphatically dwell on this point, if it were not to clear up that which He wished men to understand—namely, that He was the Son? And then, again, by saying, “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me,”8106

8106 John xiv. 11.

He laid the greater stress on His question on this very account, that He should not, because He had said, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father,” be supposed to be the Father; because He had never wished Himself to be so regarded, having always professed Himself to be the Son, and to have come from the Father. And then He also set the conjunction of the two Persons in the clearest light, in order that no wish might be entertained of seeing the Father as if He were separately visible, and that the Son might be regarded as the representative of the Father. And yet He omitted not to explain how the Father was in the Son and the Son in the Father. “The words,” says He, “which I speak unto you, are not mine,”8107

8107 John xiv. 10.

because indeed they were the Father’s words; “but the Father that dwelleth in me, He doeth the works.”8108

8108 Same ver.

It is therefore by His mighty works, and by the words of His doctrine, that the Father who dwells in the Son makes Himself visible—even by those words and works whereby He abides in Him, and also by Him in whom He abides; the special properties of Both the Persons being apparent from this very circumstance, that He says, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.”8109

8109 Same ver.

Accordingly He adds: “Believe—”  What? That I am the Father? I do not find that it is so written, but rather, “that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for my works’ sake;”8110

8110 Ver. 11.

meaning those works by which the Father manifested Himself to be in the Son, not indeed to the sight of man, but to his intelligence.
John xiv. 16.

but in what way He is another we have already shown,8112

8112 See above ch. xiii.

“He shall receive of mine,” says Christ,8113

8113 John xvi. 14.

just as Christ Himself received of the Father’s. Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one8114

8114 Unum. [On this famous passage see Elucidation III.]

essence, not one Person,8115

8115 Unus.

as it is said, “I and my Father are One,”8116

8116 John x. 30.

in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number. Run through the whole Gospel, and you will find that He whom you believe to be the Father (described as acting for the Father, although you, for your part, forsooth, suppose that “the Father, being the husbandman,”8117

8117 John xv. 1.

must surely have been on earth) is once more recognised by the Son as in heaven, when, “lifting up His eyes thereto,”8118

8118 John xvii. 1.

He commended His disciples to the safe-keeping of the Father.8119

8119 John xvii. 11.

We have, moreover, in that other Gospel a clear revelation, i.e. of the Son’s distinction from the Father, “My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”8120

8120 Matt. xxvii. 46.

and again, (in the third Gospel,) “Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.”8121

8121 Luke xxiii. 46.

But even if (we had not these passages, we meet with satisfactory evidence) after His resurrection and glorious victory over death. Now that all the restraint of His humiliation is taken away, He might, if possible, have shown Himself as the Father to so faithful a woman (as Mary Magdalene) when she approached to touch Him, out of love, not from curiosity, nor with Thomas’ incredulity. But not so; Jesus saith unto her, “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren” (and even in this He proves Himself to be the Son; for if He had been the Father, He would have called them His children, (instead of His brethren), “and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.”8122

8122 John xx. 17.

Now, does this mean, I ascend as the Father to the Father, and as God to God? Or as the Son to the Father, and as the Word to God? Wherefore also does this Gospel, at its very termination, intimate that these things were ever written, if it be not, to use its own words, “that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?”8123

8123 John xx. 31.

Whenever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel, and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views therein, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel. For these things certainly are not written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Father, but the Son.8124

8124 [A curious anecdote is given by Carlyle in his Life of Frederick (Book xx. cap. 6), touching the text of “the Three Witnesses.” Gottsched satisfied the king that it was not in the Vienna ms. save in an interpolation of the margin “in Melanchthon’s hand.” Luther’s Version lacks this text.]


Luke i. 35.

On this passage even they will wish to raise a cavil; but truth will prevail. Of course, they say, the Son of God is God, and the power of the highest is the Most High. And they do not hesitate to insinuate8126

8126 Inicere.

what, if it had been true, would have been written. Whom was he8127

8127 i.e., the angel of the Annunciation.

so afraid of as not plainly to declare, “God shall come upon thee, and the Highest shall overshadow thee?” Now, by saying “the Spirit of God” (although the Spirit of God is God,) and by not directly naming God, he wished that portion8128

8128 On this not strictly defensible term of Tertullian, see Bp. Bull’s Defence of the Nicene Creed, book ii. ch. vii. sec. 5, Translation, pp. 199, 200.

of the whole Godhead to be understood, which was about to retire into the designation of “the Son.” The Spirit of God in this passage must be the same as the Word. For just as, when John says, “The Word was made flesh,”8129

8129 John i. 14.

we understand the Spirit also in the mention of the Word: so here, too, we acknowledge the Word likewise in the name of the Spirit. For both the Spirit is the substance of the Word, and the Word is the operation of the Spirit, and the Two are One (and the same).8130

8130 “The selfsame Person is understood under the appellation both of Spirit and Word, with this difference only, that He is called ‘the Spirit of God,’ so far as He is a Divine Person,…and ‘the Word,’ so far as He is the Spirit in operation, proceeding with sound and vocal utterance from God to set the universe in order.”—Bp. Bull, Def. Nic. Creed, p. 535, Translation.

Now John must mean One when he speaks of Him as “having been made flesh,” and the angel Another when he announces Him as “about to be born,” if the Spirit is not the Word, and the Word the Spirit. For just as the Word of God is not actually He whose Word He is, so also the Spirit (although He is called God) is not actually He whose Spirit He is said to be. Nothing which belongs to something else is actually the very same thing as that to which it belongs. Clearly, when anything proceeds from a personal subject,8131

8131 Ex ipso.

and so belongs to him, since it comes from him, it may possibly be such in quality exactly as the personal subject himself is from whom it proceeds, and to whom it belongs. And thus the Spirit is God, and the Word is God, because proceeding from God, but yet is not actually the very same as He from whom He proceeds. Now that which is God of God, although He is an actually existing thing,8132

8132 Substantiva res.

yet He cannot be God Himself8133

8133 Ipse Deus: i.e., God so wholly as to exclude by identity every other person.

(exclusively), but so far God as He is of the same substance as God Himself, and as being an actually existing thing, and as a portion of the Whole. Much more will “the power of the Highest” not be the Highest Himself, because It is not an actually existing thing, as being Spirit—in the same way as the wisdom (of God) and the providence (of God) is not God: these attributes are not substances, but the accidents of the particular substance. Power is incidental to the Spirit, but cannot itself be the Spirit.  These things, therefore, whatsoever they are—(I mean) the Spirit of God, and the Word and the Power—having been conferred on the Virgin, that which is born of her is the Son of God. This He Himself, in those other Gospels also, testifies Himself to have been from His very boyhood: “Wist ye not,” says He, “that I must be about my Father’s business?”8134

8134 Luke ii. 49.

Satan likewise knew Him to be this in his temptations: “Since Thou art the Son of God.”8135

8135 Matt. iv. 3; 6.

This, accordingly, the devils also acknowledge Him to be: “we know Thee, who Thou art, the Holy Son of God.”8136

8136 Mark i. 24; Matt. viii. 29.

His “Father” He Himself adores.8137

8137 Matt. xi. 25, 26; Luke x. 21; John xi. 41.

When acknowledged by Peter as the “Christ (the Son) of God,”8138

8138 Matt. xvi. 17.

He does not deny the relation. He exults in spirit when He says to the Father, “I thank Thee, O Father, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent.”8139

8139 Matt. xi. 25.

He, moreover, affirms also that to no man is the Father known, but to His Son;8140

8140 Matt. xi. 27; Luke x. 22.

and promises that, as the Son of the Father, He will confess those who confess Him, and deny those who deny Him, before His Father.8141

8141 Matt. x. 32, 33.

He also introduces a parable of the mission to the vineyard of the Son (not the Father), who was sent after so many servants,8142

8142 Matt. xxi. 33–41.

and slain by the husbandmen, and avenged by the Father. He is also ignorant of the last day and hour, which is known to the Father only.8143

8143 Matt. xxiv. 36.

He awards the kingdom to His disciples, as He says it had been appointed to Himself by the Father.8144

8144 Luke xxii. 29.

He has power to ask, if He will, legions of angels from the Father for His help.8145

8145 Matt. xxvi. 53.

He exclaims that God had forsaken Him.8146

8146 Matt. xxvii. 46.

He commends His spirit into the hands of the Father.8147

8147 Luke xxiii. 46.

After His resurrection He promises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father;8148

8148 Luke xxiv. 49.

and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God.8149

8149 Non in unum.

And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names.
Luke i. 35.

Therefore, (they argue,) as it was the flesh that was born, it must be the flesh that is the Son of God. Nay, (I answer,) this is spoken concerning the Spirit of God. For it was certainly of the Holy Spirit that the virgin conceived; and that which He conceived, she brought forth. That, therefore, had to be born which was conceived and was to be brought forth; that is to say, the Spirit, whose “name should be called Emmanuel which, being interpreted, is, God with us.”8152

8152 Matt. i. 23.

Besides, the flesh is not God, so that it could not have been said concerning it, “That Holy Thing shall be called the Son of God,” but only that Divine Being who was born in the flesh, of whom the psalm also says, “Since God became man in the midst of it, and established it by the will of the Father.”8153

8153 His version of Ps. lxxxvii. 5.

Now what Divine Person was born in it? The Word, and the Spirit which became incarnate with the Word by the will of the Father. The Word, therefore, is incarnate; and this must be the point of our inquiry: How the Word became flesh,—whether it was by having been transfigured, as it were, in the flesh, or by having really clothed Himself in flesh. Certainly it was by a real clothing of Himself in flesh. For the rest, we must needs believe God to be unchangeable, and incapable of form, as being eternal. But transfiguration is the destruction of that which previously existed.  For whatsoever is transfigured into some other thing ceases to be that which it had been, and begins to be that which it previously was not. God, however, neither ceases to be what He was, nor can He be any other thing than what He is. The Word is God, and “the Word of the Lord remaineth for ever,”—even by holding on unchangeably in His own proper form. Now, if He admits not of being transfigured, it must follow that He be understood in this sense to have become flesh, when He comes to be in the flesh, and is manifested, and is seen, and is handled by means of the flesh; since all the other points likewise require to be thus understood. For if the Word became flesh by a transfiguration and change of substance, it follows at once that Jesus must be a substance compounded of8154

8154 Ex.

two substances—of flesh and spirit,—a kind of mixture, like electrum, composed of gold and silver; and it begins to be neither gold (that is to say, spirit) nor silver (that is to say, flesh),—the one being changed by the other, and a third substance produced. Jesus, therefore, cannot at this rate be God for He has ceased to be the Word, which was made flesh; nor can He be Man incarnate for He is not properly flesh, and it was flesh which the Word became. Being compounded, therefore, of both, He actually is neither; He is rather some third substance, very different from either. But the truth is, we find that He is expressly set forth as both God and Man; the very psalm which we have quoted intimating (of the flesh), that “God became Man in the midst of it, He therefore established it by the will of the Father,”—certainly in all respects as the Son of God and the Son of Man, being God and Man, differing no doubt according to each substance in its own especial property, inasmuch as the Word is nothing else but God, and the flesh nothing else but Man. Thus does the apostle also teach respecting His two substances, saying, “who was made of the seed of David;”8155

8155 Rom. i. 3.

in which words He will be Man and Son of Man.  “Who was declared to be the Son of God, according to the Spirit;”8156

8156 Ver. 4.

in which words He will be God, and the Word—the Son of God. We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in One Person—Jesus, God and Man. Concerning Christ, indeed, I defer what I have to say.8157

8157 See next chapter.

(I remark here), that the property of each nature is so wholly preserved, that the Spirit8158

8158 i.e., Christ’s divine nature.

on the one hand did all things in Jesus suitable to Itself, such as miracles, and mighty deeds, and wonders; and the Flesh, on the other hand, exhibited the affections which belong to it. It was hungry under the devil’s temptation, thirsty with the Samaritan woman, wept over Lazarus, was troubled even unto death, and at last actually died. If, however, it was only a tertium quid, some composite essence formed out of the Two substances, like the electrum (which we have mentioned), there would be no distinct proofs apparent of either nature. But by a transfer of functions, the Spirit would have done things to be done by the Flesh, and the Flesh such as are effected by the Spirit; or else such things as are suited neither to the Flesh nor to the Spirit, but confusedly of some third character. Nay more, on this supposition, either the Word underwent death, or the flesh did not die, if so be the Word was converted into flesh; because either the flesh was immortal, or the Word was mortal. Forasmuch, however, as the two substances acted distinctly, each in its own character, there necessarily accrued to them severally their own operations, and their own issues. Learn then, together with Nicodemus, that “that which is born in the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.”8159

8159 John iii. 6.

Neither the flesh becomes Spirit, nor the Spirit flesh. In one Person they no doubt are well able to be co-existent. Of them Jesus consists—Man, of the flesh; of the Spirit, God—and the angel designated Him as “the Son of God,”8160

8160 Luke i. 35.

in respect of that nature, in which He was Spirit, reserving for the flesh the appellation “Son of Man.” In like manner, again, the apostle calls Him “the Mediator between God and Men,”8161

8161 1 Tim. ii. 5.

and so affirmed His participation of both substances. Now, to end the matter, will you, who interpret the Son of God to be flesh, be so good as to show us what the Son of Man is? Will He then, I want to know, be the Spirit? But you insist upon it that the Father Himself is the Spirit, on the ground that “God is a Spirit,” just as if we did not read also that there is “the Spirit of God;” in the same manner as we find that as “the Word was God,” so also there is “the Word of God.”
Acts iv. 27.

These then testified both that Jesus was the Son of God, and that being the Son, He was anointed by the Father. Christ therefore must be the same as Jesus who was anointed by the Father, and not the Father, who anointed the Son. To the same effect are the words of Peter: “Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ,” that is, Anointed.8163

8163 Acts ii. 36.

John, moreover, brands that man as “a liar” who “denieth that Jesus is the Christ;” whilst on the other hand he declares that “every one is born of God who believeth that Jesus is the Christ.”8164

8164 See 1 John ii. 22, iv. 2, 3, and v. 1.

Wherefore he also exhorts us to believe in the name of His (the Father’s,) Son Jesus Christ, that “our fellowship may be with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.”8165

8165 1 John i. 3.

Paul, in like manner, everywhere speaks of “God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.”  When writing to the Romans, he gives thanks to God through our Lord Jesus Christ.8166

8166 Rom. i. 8.

To the Galatians he declares himself to be “an apostle not of men, neither by man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father.”8167

8167 Gal. i. 1.

You possess indeed all his writings, which testify plainly to the same effect, and set forth Two—God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.  (They also testify) that Jesus is Himself the Christ, and under one or the other designation the Son of God.  For precisely by the same right as both names belong to the same Person, even the Son of God, does either name alone without the other belong to the same Person. Consequently, whether it be the name Jesus which occurs alone, Christ is also understood, because Jesus is the Anointed One; or if the name Christ is the only one given, then Jesus is identified with Him, because the Anointed One is Jesus. Now, of these two names Jesus Christ, the former is the proper one, which was given to Him by the angel; and the latter is only an adjunct, predicable of Him from His anointing,—thus suggesting the proviso that Christ must be the Son, not the Father. How blind, to be sure, is the man who fails to perceive that by the name of Christ some other God is implied, if he ascribes to the Father this name of Christ! For if Christ is God the Father, when He says, “I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God,”8168

8168 John xx. 17.

He of course shows plainly enough that there is above Himself another Father and another God. If, again, the Father is Christ, He must be some other Being who “strengtheneth the thunder, and createth the wind, and declareth unto men His Christ.”8169

8169 Amos iv. 13, Sept.

And if “the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ,”8170

8170 Ps. ii. 2.

that Lord must be another Being, against whose Christ were gathered together the kings and the rulers. And if, to quote another passage, “Thus saith the Lord to my Lord Christ,”8171

8171 Here Tertullian reads τῷ Χριστῷ μου Κυρίῳ, instead of Κύρῳ, “to Cyrus,” in Isa. xlv. 1.

the Lord who speaks to the Father of Christ must be a distinct Being. Moreover, when the apostle in his epistle prays, “That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and of knowledge,”8172

8172 Eph. i. 17.

He must be other (than Christ), who is the God of Jesus Christ, the bestower of spiritual gifts. And once for all, that we may not wander through every passage, He “who raised up Christ from the dead, and is also to raise up our mortal bodies,”8173

8173 Rom. viii. 11.

must certainly be, as the quickener, different from the dead Father,8174

8174 From this deduction of the doctrine of Praxeas, that the Father must have suffered on the cross, his opponents called him and his followers Patripassians.

or even from the quickened Father, if Christ who died is the Father.
1 Cor. xv. 3.

in order that he may alleviate the harshness of the statement by the authority of the Scriptures, and so remove offence from the reader. Now, although when two substances are alleged to be in Christ—namely, the divine and the human—it plainly follows that the divine nature is immortal, and that which is human is mortal, it is manifest in what sense he declares “Christ died”—even in the sense in which He was flesh and Man and the Son of Man, not as being the Spirit and the Word and the Son of God. In short, since he says that it was Christ (that is, the Anointed One) that died, he shows us that that which died was the nature which was anointed; in a word, the flesh. Very well, say you; since we on our side affirm our doctrine in precisely the same terms which you use on your side respecting the Son, we are not guilty of blasphemy against the Lord God, for we do not maintain that He died after the divine nature, but only after the human. Nay, but you do blaspheme; because you allege not only that the Father died, but that He died the death of the cross. For “cursed are they which are hanged on a tree,”8176

8176 Gal. iii. 13.

—a curse which, after the law, is compatible to the Son (inasmuch as “Christ has been made a curse for us,”8177

8177 Same ver.

but certainly not the Father); since, however, you convert Christ into the Father, you are chargeable with blasphemy against the Father. But when we assert that Christ was crucified, we do not malign Him with a curse; we only re-affirm8178

8178 Referimus: or, “Recite and record.”

the curse pronounced by the law:8179

8179 Deut. xxi. 23.

nor indeed did the apostle utter blasphemy when he said the same thing as we.8180

8180 Gal. iii. 13.

Besides, as there is no blasphemy in predicating of the subject that which is fairly applicable to it; so, on the other hand, it is blasphemy when that is alleged concerning the subject which is unsuitable to it. On this principle, too, the Father was not associated in suffering with the Son. The heretics, indeed, fearing to incur direct blasphemy against the Father, hope to diminish it by this expedient:  they grant us so far that the Father and the Son are Two; adding that, since it is the Son indeed who suffers, the Father is only His fellow-sufferer.8181

8181 [This passage convinces Lardner that Praxeas was not a Patripassian. Credib. Vol. VIII. p. 607.]

But how absurd are they even in this conceit! For what is the meaning of “fellow-suffering,” but the endurance of suffering along with another? Now if the Father is incapable of suffering, He. is incapable of suffering in company with another; otherwise, if He can suffer with another, He is of course capable of suffering. You, in fact, yield Him nothing by this subterfuge of your fears. You are afraid to say that He is capable of suffering whom you make to be capable of fellow-suffering. Then, again, the Father is as incapable of fellow-suffering as the Son even is of suffering under the conditions of His existence as God. Well, but how could the Son suffer, if the Father did not suffer with Him? My answer is, The Father is separate from the Son, though not from Him as God. For even if a river be soiled with mire and mud, although it flows from the fountain identical in nature with it, and is not separated from the fountain, yet the injury which affects the stream reaches not to the fountain; and although it is the water of the fountain which suffers down the stream, still, since it is not affected at the fountain, but only in the river, the fountain suffers nothing, but only the river which issues from the fountain. So likewise the Spirit of God,8182

8182 That is, the divine nature in general in this place.

whatever suffering it might be capable of in the Son, yet, inasmuch as it could not suffer in the Father, the fountain of the Godhead, but only in the Son, it evidently could not have suffered,8183

8183 That which was open to it to suffer in the Son.

as the Father. But it is enough for me that the Spirit of God suffered nothing as the Spirit of God,8184

8184 Suo nomine.

since all that It suffered It suffered in the Son. It was quite another matter for the Father to suffer with the Son in the flesh. This likewise has been treated by us. Nor will any one deny this, since even we are ourselves unable to suffer for God, unless the Spirit of God be in us, who also utters by our instrumentality8185

8185 De nobis.

whatever pertains to our own conduct and suffering; not, however, that He Himself suffers in our suffering, only He bestows on us the power and capacity of suffering.
Matt. xxvii. 46.

Either, then, the Son suffered, being “forsaken” by the Father, and the Father consequently suffered nothing, inasmuch as He forsook the Son; or else, if it was the Father who suffered, then to what God was it that He addressed His cry?  But this was the voice of flesh and soul, that is to say, of man—not of the Word and Spirit, that is to say, not of God; and it was uttered so as to prove the impassibility of God, who “forsook” His Son, so far as He handed over His human substance to the suffering of death.  This verity the apostle also perceived, when he writes to this effect: “If the Father spared not His own Son.”8187

8187 Rom. viii. 32.

This did Isaiah before him likewise perceive, when he declared: “And the Lord hath delivered Him up for our offences.”8188

8188 This is the sense rather than the words of Isa. liii. 5, 6.

In this manner He “forsook” Him, in not sparing Him; “forsook” Him, in delivering Him up. In all other respects the Father did not forsake the Son, for it was into His Father’s hands that the Son commended His spirit.8189

8189 Luke xxiii. 46.

Indeed, after so commending it, He instantly died; and as the Spirit8190

8190 i.e., the divine nature.

remained with the flesh, the flesh cannot undergo the full extent of death, i.e., in corruption and decay. For the Son, therefore, to die, amounted to His being forsaken by the Father. The Son, then, both dies and rises again, according to the Scriptures.8191

8191 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4.

It is the Son, too, who ascends to the heights of heaven,8192

8192 John iii. 13.

and also descends to the inner parts of the earth.8193

8193 Eph. iv. 9.

“He sitteth at the Father’s right hand”8194

8194 Mark xvi. 19; Rev. iii. 21.

—not the Father at His own. He is seen by Stephen, at his martyrdom by stoning, still sitting at the right hand of God8195

8195 Acts vii. 55.

where He will continue to sit, until the Father shall make His enemies His footstool.8196

8196 Ps. cx. 1.

He will come again on the clouds of heaven, just as He appeared when He ascended into heaven.8197

8197 Acts i. 11; Luke xxi. 37.

Meanwhile He has received from the Father the promised gift, and has shed it forth, even the Holy Spirit—the Third Name in the Godhead, and the Third Degree of the Divine Majesty; the Declarer of the One Monarchy of God, but at the same time the Interpreter of the Economy, to every one who hears and receives the words of the new prophecy;8198

8198 Tertullian was now a [pronounced] Montanist.

and “the Leader into all truth,”8199

8199 John xvi. 13.

such as is in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, according to the mystery of the doctrine of Christ.
1 John iv. 15.

We believe not the testimony of God in which He testifies to us of His Son. “He that hath not the Son, hath not life.”8203

8203 1 John v. 12.

And that man has not the Son, who believes Him to be any other than the Son.
“In speaking also of the Holy Ghost, Tertullian occasionally uses terms of a very ambiguous and equivocal character. He says, for instance (Adversus Praxean, c. xii.), that in Gen. i. 26, God addressed the Son, His Word (the Second Person in the Trinity), and the Spirit in the Word (the Third Person of the Trinity). Here the distinct personality of the Spirit is expressly asserted; although it is difficult to reconcile Tertullian’s words, ‘Spiritus in Sermone,’ with the assertion. It is, however, certain both from the general tenor of the Tract against Praxeas, and from many passages in his other writings (for instance, Ad Martyras, iii.), that the distinct personality of the Holy Ghost formed an article of Tertullian’s creed. The occasional ambiguity of his language respecting the Holy Ghost is perhaps in part to be traced to the variety of senses in which the term ‘Spiritus’ is used. It is applied generally to God, for ‘God is a Spirit’ (Adv. Marcionem, ii. 9); and for the same reason to the Son, who is frequently called ‘the Spirit of God,’ and ‘the Spirit of the Creator’ (De Oratione, i.; Adv. Praxean, xiv., xxvi.; Adv. Marcionem, v. 8; Apolog. xxiii.; Adv. Marcionem, iii. 6, iv. 33). Bp. Bull likewise (Defence of the Nicene Creed, i. 2), following Grotius, has shown that the word ‘Spiritus’ is employed by the fathers to express the divine nature in Christ.”—(Pp. 525, 526.)

p. 516.

“In my opinion, the passage in Tertullian, far from containing an allusion to 1 John v. 7, furnishes most decisive proof that he knew nothing of the verse.”  After this, and the acquiescence of scholars generally, it would be presumption to say a word on the question of quoting it as Scripture. In Textual Criticism it seems to be an established canon that it has no place in the Greek Testament. I submit, however, that, something remains to be said for it, on the ground of the old African Version used and quoted by Tertullian and Cyprian; and I dare to say, that, while there would be no ground whatever for inserting it in our English Version, the question of striking it out is a widely different one. It would be sacrilege, in my humble opinion, for reasons which will appear, in the following remarks, upon our author.

It appears to me very clear that Tertullian is quoting 1 John v. 7 in the passage now under consideration: “Qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, etc.” Let me refer to a work containing a sufficient answer to Porson, on this point of Tertullian’s quotation, which it is easier to pass sub-silentio, than to refute. I mean Forster’s New Plea, of which the full title is placed in the margin.8211

8211 “A New Plea for the Authenticity of the text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses: or, Porson’s Letters to Travis eclectically examined, etc. etc. By the Rev. Charles Forster, etc.” Cambridge, Deighton, Bell & Co., and London, Bell & Daldy, 1867.

The whole work is worth thoughtful study, but, I name it with reference to this important passage of our author, exclusively. In connection with other considerations on which I have no right to enlarge in this place, it satisfies me as to the primitive origin of the text in the Vulgate, and hence of its right to stand in our English Vulgate until it can be shewn that the Septuagint Version, quoted and honoured by our Lord, is free from similar readings, and divergences from the Hebrew mss.

See Bull’s Works, Vol. V., p. 381.

I value it chiefly because it proves that the Greek Testament, elsewhere says, disjointedly, what is collected into 1 John v. 7. It is, therefore, Holy Scripture in substance, if not in the letter. What seems to me important, however, is the balance it gives to the whole context, and the defective character of the grammar and logic, if it be stricken out. In the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate of the Old Testament we have a precisely similar case. Refer to Psa. xiii., alike in the Latin and the Greek, as compared with our English Version.8214

8214 Where it is Psalm XIV.

Between the third and fourth verses, three whole verses are interpolated: Shall we strike them out? Of course, if certain critics are to prevail over St. Paul, for he quotes them (Rom. iii. 10) with the formula: “As it is written.” Now, then, till we expurgate the English Version of the Epistle to the Romans,—or rather the original of St. Paul himself, I employ Grabe’s argument only to prove my point, which is this, viz., that 1 John v. 7 being Scripture, ought to be left untouched in the Versions where it stands, although it be no part of the Greek Testament. I.e. adjuring the part, in the name of Jesus, and besmearing the poisoned heel with the gore of the beast, when it has been crushed to death. [So the translator; but the terse rhetoric of the original is not so circumstantial, and refers, undoubtedly, to the lingering influence of miracles, according to St. Mark xvi. 18.]

and besmearing the heel with the beast.  Finally, we often aid in this way even the heathen, seeing we have been endowed by God with that power which the apostle first used when he despised the viper’s bite.8218

8218 Acts xxviii. 3.

What, then, does this pen of yours offer, if faith is safe by what it has of its own?  That it may be safe by what it has of its own also at other times, when it is subjected to scorpions of its own.  These, too, have a troublesome littleness, and are of different sorts, and are armed in one manner, and are stirred up at a definite time, and that not another than one of burning heat.  This among Christians is a season of persecution. When, therefore, faith is greatly agitated, and the Church burning, as represented by the bush,8219

8219 Ex. iii. 2.

then the Gnostics break out, then the Valentinians creep forth, then all the opponents of martyrdom bubble up, being themselves also hot to strike, penetrate, kill. For, because they know that many are artless and also inexperienced, and weak moreover, that a very great number in truth are Christians who veer about with the wind and conform to its moods, they perceive that they are never to be approached more than when fear has opened the entrances to the soul, especially when some display of ferocity has already arrayed with a crown the faith of martyrs.  Therefore, drawing along the tail hitherto, they first of all apply it to the feelings, or whip with it as if on empty space. Innocent persons undergo such suffering. So that you may suppose the speaker to be a brother or a heathen of the better sort. A sect troublesome to nobody so dealt with! Then they pierce. Men are perishing without a reason. For that they are perishing, and without a reason, is the first insertion. Then they now strike mortally. But the unsophisticated souls8220

8220 The opponents of martyrdoms are meant.—Tr.

know not what is written, and what meaning it bears, where and when and before whom we must confess, or ought, save that this, to die for God, is, since He preserves me, not even artlessness, but folly, nay madness. If He kills me, how will it be His duty to preserve me? Once for all Christ died for us, once for all He was slain that we might not be slain. If He demands the like from me in return, does He also look for salvation from my death by violence? Or does God importune for the blood of men, especially if He refuses that of bulls and he-goats?8221

8221 Ps. l. 13.

Assuredly He had rather have the repentance than the death of the sinner.8222

8222 Ezek. xxxiii. 11.

And how is He eager for the death of those who are not sinners? Whom will not these, and perhaps other subtle devices containing heretical poisons, pierce either for doubt if not for destruction, or for irritation if not for death? As for you, therefore, do you, if faith is on the alert, smite on the spot the scorpion with a curse, so far as you can, with your sandal, and leave it dying in its own stupefaction? But if it gluts the wound, it drives the poison inwards, and makes it hasten into the bowels; forthwith all the former senses become dull, the blood of the mind freezes, the flesh of the spirit pines away, loathing for the Christian name is accompanied by a sense of sourness. Already the understanding also seeks for itself a place where it may throw up; and thus, once for all, the weakness with which it has been smitten breathes out wounded faith either in heresy or in heathenism. And now the present state of matters is such, that we are in the midst of an intense heat, the very dog-star of persecution,—a state originating doubtless with the dog-headed one himself.8223

8223 i.e. the devil.—Tr.

Of some Christians the fire, of others the sword, of others the beasts, have made trial; others are hungering in prison for the martyrdoms of which they have had a taste in the meantime by being subjected to clubs and claws8224

8224 An instrument of torture, so called.—Tr.

besides. We ourselves, having been appointed for pursuit, are like hares being hemmed in from a distance; and heretics go about according to their wont.  Therefore the state of the times has prompted me to prepare by my pen, in opposition to the little beasts which trouble our sect, our antidote against poison, that I may thereby effect cures.  You who read will at the same time drink. Nor is the draught bitter. If the utterances of the Lord are sweeter than honey and the honeycombs,8225

8225 Ps. xix. 10.

the juices are from that source. If the promise of God flows with milk and honey,8226

8226 Ex. iii. 17.

the ingredients which go to make that draught have the smack of this. “But woe to them who turn sweet into bitter, and light into darkness.”8227

8227 Isa. v. 20.

For, in like manner, they also who oppose martyrdoms, representing salvation to be destruction, transmute sweet into bitter, as well as light into darkness; and thus, by preferring this very wretched life to that most blessed one, they put bitter for sweet, as well as darkness for light.
Ex. xx. 2.

Likewise in the same book of Exodus: “Ye yourselves have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. Ye shall not make unto you gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.”8231

8231 Ex. xx. 22, 23.

To the following effect also, in Deuteronomy: “Hear, O Israel; The Lord thy God is one: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy might, and with all thy soul.”8232

8232 Deut. vi. 4.

And again:  “Neither do thou forget the Lord thy God, who brought thee forth from the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.  Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him only, and cleave to Him, and swear by His name. Ye shall not go after strange gods, and the gods of the nations which are round about you, because the Lord thy God is also a jealous God among you, and lest His anger should be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.”8233

8233 Deut. vi. 12.

But setting before them blessings and curses, He also says: “Blessings shall be yours, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, whatsoever I command you this day, and do not wander from the way which I have commanded you, to go and serve other gods whom ye know not.”8234

8234 Deut. xi. 27.

And as to rooting them out in every way: “Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations, which ye shall possess by inheritance, served their gods, upon mountains and hills, and under shady trees. Ye shall overthrow all their altars, ye shall overturn and break in pieces their pillars, and cut down their groves, and burn with fire the graven images of the gods themselves, and destroy the names of them out of that place.”8235

8235 Deut. xii. 2, 3.

He further urges, when they (the Israelites) had entered the land of promise, and driven out its nations: “Take heed to thy self, that thou do not follow them after they be driven out from before thee, that thou do not inquire after their gods, saying, As the nations serve their gods, so let me do likewise.”8236

8236 Deut. xii. 30.

But also says He: “If there arise among you a prophet himself, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and it come to pass, and he say, Let us go and serve other gods, whom ye know not, do not hearken to the words of that prophet or dreamer, for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye fear God with all your heart and with all your soul. After the Lord your God ye shall go, and fear Him, and keep His commandments, and obey His voice, and serve Him, and cleave unto Him. But that prophet or dreamer shall die; for he has spoken to turn thee away from the Lord thy God.”8237

8237 Deut. xiii. 1.

But also in another section,8238

8238 Of course our division of the Scripture by chapter and verse did not exist in the days of Tertullian.—Tr.

“If, however, thy brother, the son of thy father or of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend who is as thine own soul, solicit thee, saying secretly, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou knowest not, nor did thy fathers, of the gods of the nations which are round about thee, very nigh unto thee or far off from thee, do not consent to go with him, and do not hearken to him. Thine eye shall not spare him, neither shalt thou pity, neither shalt thou preserve him; thou shalt certainly inform upon him.  Thine hand shall be first upon him to kill him, and afterwards the hand of thy people; and ye shall stone him, and he shall die, seeing he has sought to turn thee away from the Lord thy God.”8239

8239 Deut. xiii. 6.

He adds likewise concerning cities, that if it appeared that one of these had, through the advice of unrighteous men, passed over to other gods, all its inhabitants should be slain, and everything belonging to it become accursed, and all the spoil of it be gathered together into all its places of egress, and be, even with all the people, burned with fire in all its streets in the sight of the Lord God; and, says He, “it shall not be for dwelling in for ever: it shall not be built again any more, and there shall cleave to thy hands nought of its accursed plunder, that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of His anger.”8240

8240 Deut. xiii. 16.

He has, from His abhorrence of idols, framed a series of curses too: “Cursed be the man who maketh a graven or a molten image, an abomination, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and putteth it in a secret place.”8241

8241 Deut. xxvii. 15.

But in Leviticus He says: “Go not ye after idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the Lord your God.”8242

8242 Rev. xix. 4.

And in other passages: “The children of Israel are my household servants; these are they whom I led forth from the land of Egypt:8243

8243 The words in the Septuagint are: ὃτι ἐμοὶ οἱ υἱοὶτ ᾽Ισραὴλ οἰκέται εἰσίν, παῖδές μου οὗτοί εἰσιν οὕς ἐξήγαγον ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου.

I am the Lord your God. Ye shall not make you idols fashioned by the hand, neither rear you up a graven image.  Nor shall ye set up a remarkable stone in your land (to worship it): I am the Lord your God.”8244

8244 Lev. xxv. 55; xxvi. 1.

These words indeed were first spoken by the Lord by the lips of Moses, being applicable certainly to whomsoever the Lord God of Israel may lead forth in like manner from the Egypt of a most superstitious world, and from the abode of human slavery. But from the mouth of every prophet in succession, sound forth also utterances of the same God, augmenting the same law of His by a renewal of the same commands, and in the first place announcing no other duty in so special a manner as the being on guard against all making and worshipping of idols; as when by the mouth of David He says: “The gods of the nations are silver and gold: they have eyes, and see not; they have ears, and hear not; they have a nose, and smell not; a mouth, and they speak not; hands, and they handle not; feet and they walk not. Like to them shall be they who make them, and trust in them.”8245

8245 Ps. cxxxv. 15; cxv. 4.


Ex. xxxii.

Aaron is importuned, and commands that the earrings of their women be brought together, that they may be thrown into the fire. For the people were about to lose, as a judgment upon themselves, the true ornaments for the ears, the words of God. The wise fire makes for them the molten likeness of a calf, reproaching them with having the heart where they have their treasure also,—in Egypt, to wit, which clothed with sacredness, among the other animals, a certain ox likewise.  Therefore the slaughter of three thousand by their nearest relatives, because they had displeased their so very near relative God, solemnly marked both the commencement and the deserts of the trespass. Israel having, as we are told in Numbers,8247

8247 Num. xxv. 1.

turned aside at Sethim, the people go to the daughters of Moab to gratify their lust: they are allured to the idols, so that they committed whoredom with the spirit also: finally, they eat of their defiled sacrifices; then they both worship the gods of the nation, and are admitted to the rites of Beelphegor. For this lapse, too, into idolatry, sister to adultery, it took the slaughter of twenty-three thousand by the swords of their countrymen to appease the divine anger.  After the death of Joshua the son of Nave they forsake the God of their fathers, and serve idols, Baalim and Ashtaroth;8248

8248 Judg. ii. 8–13.

and the Lord in anger delivered them up to the hands of spoilers, and they continued to be spoiled by them, and to be sold to their adversaries, and could not at all stand before their enemies.  Whithersoever they went forth, His hand was upon them for evil, and they were greatly distressed. And after this God sets judges (critas), the same as our censors, over them. But not even these did they continue steadfastly to obey. So soon as one of the judges died, they proceeded to transgress more than their fathers had done by going after the gods of others, and serving and worshipping them. Therefore the Lord was angry. “Since, indeed,” He says, “this nation have transgressed my covenant which I established with their fathers, and have not hearkened to my voice, I also will give no heed to remove from before them a man of the nations which Joshua left at his death.”8249

8249 Judg. ii. 20, 21.

And thus, throughout almost all the annals of the judges and of the kings who succeeded them, while the strength of the surrounding nations was preserved, He meted wrath out to Israel by war and captivity and a foreign yoke, as often as they turned aside from Him, especially to idolatry.
1 Cor. xv. 41.

But further, if, on that account, some increase of brightness also was appropriate to loftiness of faith, that gain ought to have been of some such sort as would cost great effort, poignant suffering, torture, death. But consider the requital, when flesh and life are paid away—than which in man there is nought more precious, the one from the hand of God, the other from His breath—that the very things are paid away in obtaining the benefit of which the benefit consists; that the very things are expended which may be acquired; that the same things are the price which are also the commodities. God had foreseen also other weaknesses incident to the condition of man,—the stratagems of the enemy, the deceptive aspects of the creatures, the snares of the world; that faith, even after baptism, would be endangered; that the most, after attaining unto salvation, would be lost again, through soiling the wedding-dress, through failing to provide oil for their torchlets—would be such as would have to be sought for over mountains and woodlands, and carried back upon the shoulders. He therefore appointed as second supplies of comfort, and the last means of succour, the fight of martyrdom and the baptism—thereafter free from danger—of blood.  And concerning the happiness of the man who has partaken of these, David says: “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.  Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”8254

8254 Ps. xxxii. 1; Rom. iv. 7, etc.

For, strictly speaking, there cannot any longer be reckoned ought against the martyrs, by whom in the baptism (of blood) life itself is laid down. Thus, “love covers the multitude of sins;”8255

8255 1 Pet. iv. 8.

and loving God, to wit, with all its strength (by which in the endurance of martyrdom it maintains the fight), with all its life8256

8256 Matt. xxii. 37.

(which it lays down for God), it makes of man a martyr. Shall you call these cures, counsels, methods of judging, spectacles, (illustrations of) even the barbarity of God? Does God covet man’s blood? And yet I might venture to affirm that He does, if man also covets the kingdom of heaven, if man covets a sure salvation, if man also covets a second new birth. The exchange is displeasing to no one, which can plead, in justification of itself, that either benefit or injury is shared by the parties making it.
Prov. ix. 2: “She hath killed her beasts.” The corresponding words in the Septuagint are ἔσφαξε τα εαυτῆς θύματα. Augustine, in his De Civ. Dei, xvi. 20, explains the victims (θύματα) to be Martyrum victimas.—Tr.

Sophia is Wisdom. She has certainly slain them wisely if only into life, and reasonably if only into glory. Of murder by a parent, oh the clever form! Oh the dexterity of crime! Oh the proof of cruelty, which has slain for this reason, that he whom it may have slain may not die! And therefore what follows? Wisdom is praised in hymns, in the places of egress; for the death of martyrs also is praised in song. Wisdom behaves with firmness in the streets, for with good results does she murder her own sons.8258

8258 Prov. i. 20, 21; see the Septuagint version.

Nay, on the top of the walls she speaks with assurance, when indeed, according to Esaias, this one calls out, “I am God’s;” and this one shouts, “In the name of Jacob;” and another writes, “In the name of Israel.”8259

8259 Isa. xliv. 5.

O good mother! I myself also wish to be put among the number of her sons, that I may be slain by her; I wish to be slain, that I may become a son. But does she merely murder her sons, or also torture them? For I hear God also, in another passage, say, “I will burn them as gold is burned, and will try them as silver is tried.”8260

8260 Zech. xiii. 9.

Certainly by the means of torture which fires and punishments supply, by the testing martyrdoms of faith. The apostle also knows what kind of God he has ascribed to us, when he writes: “If God spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us, how did He not with Him also give us all things?”8261

8261 Rom. viii. 32.

You see how divine Wisdom has murdered even her own proper, first-born and only Son, who is certainly about to live, nay, to bring back the others also into life. I can say with the Wisdom of God; It is Christ who gave Himself up for our offences.8262

8262 Rom. iv. 25.

Already has Wisdom butchered herself also. The character of words depends not on the sound only, but on the meaning also, and they must be heard not merely by ears, but also by minds. He who does not understand, believes God to be cruel; although for him also who does not understand, an announcement has been made to restrain his harshness in understanding otherwise than aright. “For who,” says the apostle, “has known the mind of the Lord? or who has been His counsellor, to teach Him? or who has pointed out to Him the way of understanding?”8263

8263 Rom. xi. 34.

But, indeed, the world has held it lawful for Diana of the Scythians, or Mercury of the Gauls, or Saturn of the Africans, to be appeased by human sacrifices; and in Latium to this day Jupiter has human blood given him to taste in the midst of the city; and no one makes it a matter of discussion, or imagines that it does not occur for some reason, or that it occurs by the will of his God, without having value. If our God, too, to have a sacrifice of His own, had required martyrdoms for Himself, who would have reproached Him for the deadly religion, and the mournful ceremonies, and the altar-pyre, and the undertaker-priest, and not rather have counted happy the man whom God should have devoured?
Ps. cxvi. 15.

it is not, I think, that one which falls to the lot of men generally, and is a debt due by all (rather is that one even disgraceful on account of the trespass, and the desert of condemnation to which it is to be traced), but that other which is met in this very work—in bearing witness for religion, and maintaining the fight of confession in behalf of righteousness and the sacrament. As saith Esaias, “See how the righteous man perisheth, and no one layeth it to heart; and righteous men are taken away, and no one considereth it: for from before the face of unrighteousness the righteous man perisheth, and he shall have honour at his burial.”8265

8265 Isa. lvii. 1.

Here, too, you have both an announcement of martyrdoms, and of the recompense they bring. From the beginning, indeed, righteousness suffers violence.  Forthwith, as soon as God has begun to be worshipped, religion has got ill-will for her portion. He who had pleased God is slain, and that by his brother.  Beginning with kindred blood, in order that it might the more easily go in quest of that of strangers, ungodliness made the object of its pursuit, finally, that not only of righteous persons, but even of prophets also. David is persecuted; Elias put to flight; Jeremias stoned; Esaias cut asunder; Zacharias butchered between the altar and the temple, imparting to the hard stones lasting marks of his blood.8266

8266 Matt. xiv. 3.

That person himself, at the close of the law and the prophets, and called not a prophet, but a messenger, is, suffering an ignominious death, beheaded to reward a dancing-girl. And certainly they who were wont to be led by the Spirit of God used to be guided by Himself to martyrdoms; so that they had even already to endure what they had also proclaimed as requiring to be borne. Wherefore the brotherhood of the three also, when the dedication of the royal image was the occasion of the citizens being pressed to offer worship, knew well what faith, which alone in them had not been taken captive, required,—namely, that they must resist idolatry to the death.8267

8267 Dan. iii. 12.

For they remembered also the words of Jeremias writing to those over whom that captivity was impending: “And now ye shall see borne upon (men’s) shoulders the gods of the Babylonians, of gold and silver and wood, causing fear to the Gentiles. Beware, therefore, that ye also do not be altogether like the foreigners, and be seized with fear while ye behold crowds worshipping those gods before and behind, but say in your mind, Our duty is to worship Thee, O Lord.”8268

8268 Baruch vi. 3.

Therefore, having got confidence from God, they said, when with strength of mind they set at defiance the king’s threats against the disobedient: “There is no necessity for our making answer to this command of yours. For our God whom we worship is able to deliver us from the furnace of fire and from your hands; and then it will be made plain to you that we shall neither serve your idol, nor worship your golden image which you have set up.”8269

8269 Dan. iii. 16.

O martyrdom even without suffering perfect! Enough did they suffer! enough were they burned, whom on this account God shielded, that it might not seem that they had given a false representation of His power. For forthwith, certainly, would the lions, with their pent-up and wonted savageness, have devoured Daniel also, a worshipper of none but God, and therefore accused and demanded by the Chaldeans, if it had been right that the worthy anticipation of Darius concerning God should have proved delusive.  For the rest, every preacher of God, and every worshipper also, such as, having been summoned to the service of idolatry, had refused compliance, ought to have suffered, agreeably to the tenor of that argument too, by which the truth ought to have been recommended both to those who were then living and to those following in succession,—(namely), that the suffering of its defenders themselves bespeak trust for it, because nobody would have been willing to be slain but one possessing the truth. Such commands as well as instances, remounting to earliest times, show that believers are under obligation to suffer martyrdom.
Matt. v. 10; Luke vi. 23.

The following statement, indeed, applies first to all without restriction, then specially to the apostles themselves:  “Blessed shall ye be when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, since very great is your reward in heaven; for so used their fathers to do even to the prophets.” So that He likewise foretold their having to be themselves also slain, after the example of the prophets. Though, even if He had appointed all this persecution in case He were obeyed for those only who were then apostles, assuredly through them along with the entire sacrament, with the shoot of the name, with the layer of the Holy Spirit, the rule about enduring persecution also would have had respect to us too, as to disciples by inheritance, and, (as it were,) bushes from the apostolic seed. For even thus again does He address words of guidance to the apostles: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves;” and, “Beware of men, for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; and ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles,” etc.8272

8272 Matt. x. 16.

Now when He adds, “But the brother will deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child; and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death,” He has clearly announced with reference to the others, (that they would be subjected to) this form of unrighteous conduct, which we do not find exemplified in the case of the apostles. For none of them had experience of a father or a brother as a betrayer, which very many of us have. Then He returns to the apostles: “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.” How much more shall we, for whom there exists the necessity of being delivered up by parents too! Thus, by allotting this very betrayal, now to the apostles, now to all, He pours out the same destruction upon all the possessors of the name, on whom the name, along with the condition that it be an object of hatred, will rest. But he who will endure on to the end—this man will be saved. By enduring what but persecution,—betrayal,—death? For to endure to the end is nought else than to suffer the end. And therefore there immediately follow, “The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his own lord;” because, seeing the Master and Lord Himself was stedfast in suffering persecution, betrayal and death, much more will it be the duty of His servants and disciples to bear the same, that they may not seem as if superior to Him, or to have got an immunity from the assaults of unrighteousness, since this itself should be glory enough for them, to be conformed to the sufferings of their Lord and Master; and, preparing them for the endurance of these, He reminds them that they must not fear such persons as kill the body only, but are not able to destroy the soul, but that they must dedicate fear to Him rather who has such power that He can kill both body and soul, and destroy them in hell. Who, pray, are these slayers of the body only, but the governors and kings aforesaid—men, I ween? Who is the ruler of the soul also, but God only? Who is this but the threatener of fires hereafter, He without whose will not even one of two sparrows falls to the ground; that is, not even one of the two substances of man, flesh or spirit, because the number of our hairs also has been recorded before Him? Fear ye not, therefore. When He adds, “Ye are of more value than many sparrows,” He makes promise that we shall not in vain—that is, not without profit—fall to the ground if we choose to be killed by men rather than by God. “Whosoever therefore will confess in me before men, in him will I confess also before my Father who is in heaven;8273

8273 The words in the Greek, though correctly rendered in our authorized version, are, when translated literally, what Tertullian represents them to be.—Tr.

and whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I deny also before my Father who is in heaven.” Clear, as I think, are the terms used in announcing, and the way to explain, the confession as well as the denial, although the mode of putting them is different. He who confesses himself a Christian, beareth witness that he is Christ’s; he who is Christ’s must be in Christ. If he is in Christ, he certainly confesses in Christ, when he confesses himself a Christian.  For he cannot be this without being in Christ. Besides, by confessing in Christ he confesses Christ too: since, by virtue of being a Christian, he is in Christ, while Christ Himself also is in him. For if you have made mention of day, you have also held out to view the element of light which gives us day, although you may not have made mention of light. Thus, albeit He has not expressly said, “He who will confess me,” (yet) the conduct involved in daily confession is not different from what is meant in our Lord’s declaration. For he who confesses himself to be what he is, that is, a Christian, confesses that likewise by which he is it, that is, Christ. Therefore he who has denied that he is a Christian, has denied in Christ, by denying that he is in Christ while he denies that he is a Christian; and, on the other hand, by denying that Christ is in him, while He denies that he is in Christ, he will deny Christ too. Thus both he who will deny in Christ, will deny Christ, and he who will confess in Christ will confess Christ. It would have been enough, therefore, though our Lord had made an announcement about confessing merely. For, from His mode of presenting confession, it might be decided beforehand with reference to its opposite too—denial, that is—that denial is repaid by the Lord with denial, just as confession is with confession. And therefore, since in the mould in which the confession has been cast the state of (the case with reference to) denial also may be perceived, it is evident that to another manner of denial belongs what the Lord has announced concerning it, in terms different from those in which He speaks of confession, when He says, “Who will deny me,” not “Who will deny in me.” For He had foreseen that this form of violence also would, for the most part, immediately follow when any one had been forced to renounce the Christian name,—that he who had denied that he was a Christian would be compelled to deny Christ Himself too by blaspheming Him.  As not long ago, alas, we shuddered at the struggle waged in this way by some with their entire faith, which had had favourable omens. Therefore it will be to no purpose to say, “Though I shall deny that I am a Christian, I shall not be denied by Christ, for I have not denied Himself.” For even so much will be inferred from that denial, by which, seeing he denies Christ in him by denying that he is a Christian, he has denied Christ Himself also. But there is more, because He threatens likewise shame with shame (in return): “Whosoever shall be ashamed of me before men, of him will I also be ashamed before my Father who is in heaven.” For He was aware that denial is produced even most of all by shame, that the state of the mind appears in the forehead, and that the wound of shame precedes that in the body.
Isa. xl. 15.

and the dust of the threshing-floor, and spittle and locusts, and put on a level even with brute beasts. Clearly, it is so written. Yet not therefore must we understand that there is, besides us, another kind of man, which—for it is evidently thus (in the case proposed)—has been able to assume without invalidating a comparison between the two kinds, both the characteristics of the race and a unique property. For even if the life was tainted, so that condemned to contempt it might be likened to objects held in contempt, the nature was not forthwith taken away, so that there might be supposed to be another under its name.  Rather is the nature preserved, though the life blushes; nor does Christ know other men than those with reference to whom He says, “Whom do men say that I am?”8278

8278 Matt. xvi. 13.

And, “As ye would that men should do to you, do ye likewise so to, them.”8279

8279 Matt. vii. 12 and Luke vi. 31.

Consider whether He may not have preserved a race such that He is looking for a testimony to Himself from them, as well as consisting of those on whom He enjoins the interchange of righteous dealing. But if I should urgently demand that those heavenly men be described to me, Aratus will sketch more easily Perseus and Cepheus, and Erigone, and Ariadne, among the constellations. But who prevented the Lord from clearly prescribing that confession by men likewise has to be made where He plainly announced that His own would be; so that the statement might have run thus: ”Whosoever shall confess in me before men in heaven, I also will confess in him before my Father who is in heaven?” He ought to have saved me from this mistake about confession on earth, which He would not have wished me to take part in, if He had commanded one in heaven; for I knew no other men but the inhabitants of the earth, man himself even not having up to that time been observed in heaven. Besides, what is the credibility of the things (alleged), that, being after death raised to heavenly places, I should be put to the test there, whither I would not be translated without being already tested, that I should there be tried in reference to a command where I could not come, but to find admittance? Heaven lies open to the Christian before the way to it does; because there is no way to heaven, but to him to whom heaven lies open; and he who reaches it will enter.  What powers, keeping guard at the gate, do I hear you affirm to exist in accordance with Roman superstition, with a certain Carnus, Forculus, and Limentinus? What powers do you set in order at the railings? If you have ever read in David, “Lift up your gates, ye princes, and let the everlasting gates be lifted up; and the King of glory shall enter in;”8280

8280 Ps. xxiv. 7.

if you have also heard from Amos, “Who buildeth up to the heavens his way of ascent, and is such as to pour forth his abundance (of waters) over the earth;”8281

8281 Amos ix. 6.

know that both that way of ascent was thereafter levelled with the ground, by the footsteps of the Lord, and an entrance thereafter opened up by the might of Christ, and that no delay or inquest will meet Christians on the threshold, since they have there to be not discriminated from one another, but owned, and not put to the question, but received in.  For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him. But the devil stoutly affirms that we must confess there, to persuade us that we must deny here. I shall send before me fine documents, to be sure,8282

8282 In support of my cause.

I shall carry with me excellent keys, the fear of them who kill the body only, but do nought against the soul: I shall be graced by the neglect of this command:  I shall stand with credit in heavenly places, who could not stand in earthly: I shall hold out against the greater powers, who yielded to the lesser:  I shall deserve to be at length let in, though now shut out. It readily occurs to one to remark further, “If it is in heaven that men must confess, it is here too that they must deny.” For where the one is, there both are. For contraries always go together. There will need to be carried on in heaven persecution even, which is the occasion of confession or denial. Why, then, do you refrain, O most presumptuous heretic, from transporting to the world above the whole series of means proper to the intimidation of Christians, and especially to put there the very hatred for the name, where Christ rules at the right hand of the Father? Will you plant there both synagogues of the Jews—fountains of persecution—before which the apostles endured the scourge, and heathen assemblages with their own circus, forsooth, where they readily join in the cry, Death to the third race?8283

8283 More literally, “How long shall we suffer the third race!”  The Christians are meant; the first race being the heathen, and the second the Jews.—Tr.

But ye are bound to produce in the same place both our brothers, fathers, children, mothers-in-law, daughters-in-law and those of our household, through whose agency the betrayal has been appointed; likewise kings, governors, and armed authorities, before whom the matter at issue must be contested. Assuredly there will be in heaven a prison also, destitute of the sun’s rays or full of light unthankfully, and fetters of the zones perhaps, and, for a rack-horse, the axis itself which whirls the heavens round. Then, if a Christian is to be stoned, hail-storms will be near; if burned, thunderbolts are at hand; if butchered, the armed Orion will exercise his function; if put an end to by beasts, the north will send forth the bears, the Zodiac the bulls and the lions. He who will endure these assaults to the end, the same shall be saved. Will there be then, in heaven, both an end, and suffering, a killing, and the first confession? And where will be the flesh requisite for all this? Where the body which alone has to be killed by men?  Unerring reason has commanded us to set forth these things in even a playful manner; nor will any one thrust out the bar consisting in this objection (we have offered), so as not to be compelled to transfer the whole array of means proper to persecution, all the powerful instrumentality which has been provided for dealing with this matter, to the place where he has put the court before which confession should be made. Since confession is elicited by persecution, and persecution ended in confession, there cannot but be at the same time, in attendance upon these, the instrumentality which determines both the entrance and the exit, that is, the beginning and the end.  But both hatred for the name will be here, persecution breaks out here, betrayal brings men forth here, examination uses force here, torture rages here, and confession or denial completes this whole course of procedure on the earth. Therefore, if the other things are here, confession also is not elsewhere; if confession is elsewhere, the other things also are not here.  Certainly the other things are not elsewhere; therefore neither is confession in heaven. Or, if they will have it that the manner in which the heavenly examination and confession take place is different, it will certainly be also incumbent on them to devise a mode of procedure of their own of a very different kind, and opposed to that method which is indicated in the Scriptures.  And we may be able to say, Let them consider (whether what they imagine to exist does so), if so be that this course of procedure, proper to examination and confession on earth—a course which has persecution as the source in which it originates, and which pleads dissension in the state—is preserved to its own faith, if so be that we must believe just as is also written, and understand just as is spoken.  Here I endure the entire course (in question), the Lord Himself not appointing a different quarter of the world for my doing so. For what does He add after finishing with confession and denial?  “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, but a sword,”—undoubtedly on the earth. “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.”8284

8284 Matt. x. 34.

For so is it brought to pass, that the brother delivers up the brother to death, and the father the son: and the children rise up against the parents, and cause them to die. And he who endureth to the end let that man be saved.8285

8285 Matt. x. 21.

So that this whole course of procedure characteristic of the Lord’s sword, which has been sent not to heaven, but to earth, makes confession also to be there, which by enduring to the end is to issue in the suffering of death.
Luke xiv. 26.

—that is, he who will rather live by denying, than die by confessing, me; and “he who findeth his life shall lose it; but he who loseth it for my sake shall find it.”8287

8287 Matt. x. 39.

Therefore indeed he finds it, who, in winning life, denies; but he who thinks that he wins it by denying, will lose it in hell. On the other hand, he who, through confessing, is killed, will lose it for the present, but is also about to find it unto everlasting life. In fine, governors themselves, when they urge men to deny, say, “Save your life;” and, “Do not lose your life.” How would Christ speak, but in accordance with the treatment to which the Christian would be subjected? But when He forbids thinking about what answer to make at a judgment-seat,8288

8288 Matt. x. 19.

He is preparing His own servants for what awaited them, He gives the assurance that the Holy Spirit will answer by them; and when He wishes a brother to be visited in prison,8289

8289 Matt. xxv. 36.

He is commanding that those about to confess be the object of solicitude; and He is soothing their sufferings when He asserts that God will avenge His own elect.8290

8290 Luke xviii. 7.

In the parable also of the withering of the word8291

8291 Matt. xiii. 3.

after the green blade had sprung up, He is drawing a picture with reference to the burning heat of persecutions. If these announcements are not understood as they are made, without doubt they signify something else than the sound indicates; and there will be one thing in the words, another in their meanings, as is the case with allegories, with parables, with riddles. Whatever wind of reasoning, therefore, these scorpions may catch (in their sails), with whatever subtlety they may attack, there is now one line of defence:8292

8292 See note 1, cap. iv. p. 637, supra.

an appeal will be made to the facts themselves, whether they occur as the Scriptures represent that they would; since another thing will then be meant in the Scriptures if that very one (which seems to be so) is not found in actual facts. For what is written, must needs come to pass. Besides, what is written will then come to pass, if something different does not.  But, lo! we are both regarded as persons to be hated by all men for the sake of the name, as it is written; and are delivered up by our nearest of kin also, as it is written; and are brought before magistrates, and examined, and tortured, and make confession, and are ruthlessly killed, as it is written. So the Lord ordained. If He ordained these events otherwise, why do they not come to pass otherwise than He ordained them, that is, as He ordained them? And yet they do not come to pass otherwise than He ordained. Therefore, as they come to pass, so He ordained; and as He ordained, so they come to pass. For neither would they have been permitted to occur otherwise than He ordained, nor for His part would He have ordained otherwise than He would wish them to occur. Thus these passages of Scripture will not mean ought else than we recognise in actual facts; or if those events are not yet taking place which are announced, how are those taking place which have not been announced? For these events which are taking place have not been announced, if those which are announced are different, and not these which are taking place. Well now, seeing the very occurrences are met with in actual life which are believed to have been expressed with a different meaning in words, what would happen if they were found to have come to pass in a different manner than had been revealed? But this will be the waywardness of faith, not to believe what has been demonstrated, to assume the truth of what has not been demonstrated. And to this waywardness I will offer the following objection also, that if these events, which occur as is written, will not be the very ones which are announced, those too (which are meant) ought not to occur as is written, that they themselves also may not, after the example of these others, be in danger of exclusion, since there is one thing in the words and another in the facts; and there remains that even the events which have been announced are not seen when they occur, if they are announced otherwise than they have to occur. And how will those be believed (to have come to pass), which will not have been announced as they come to pass? Thus heretics, by not believing what is announced as it has been shown to have taken place, believe what has not been even announced.
1 Pet. ii. 20.

And again:  “Beloved, be not alarmed by the fiery trial which is taking place among you, as though some strange thing happened unto you. For, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings, do ye rejoice; that, when His glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy. If ye are reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; because glory and the Spirit of God rest upon you: if only none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evil-doer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters; yet (if any man suffer) as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God on this behalf.”8294

8294 1 Pet. iv. 12.

John, in fact, exhorts us to lay down our lives even for our brethren,8295

8295 1 John iii. 16.

affirming that there is no fear in love:  “For perfect love casteth out fear, since fear has punishment; and he who fears is not perfect in love.”8296

8296 1 John iv. 18.

What fear would it be better to understand (as here meant), than that which gives rise to denial? What love does he assert to be perfect, but that which puts fear to flight, and gives courage to confess? What penalty will he appoint as the punishment of fear, but that which he who denies is about to pay, who has to be slain, body and soul, in hell? And if he teaches that we must die for the brethren, how much more for the Lord,—he being sufficiently prepared, by his own Revelation too, for giving such advice! For indeed the Spirit had sent the injunction to the angel of the church in Smyrna:  “Behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried ten days. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.”8297

8297 Rev. ii. 10.

Also to the angel of the church in Pergamus (mention was made) of Antipas,8298

8298 Rev. ii. 13.

the very faithful martyr, who was slain where Satan dwelleth. Also to the angel of the church in Philadelphia8299

8299 Rev. iii. 10.

(it was signified) that he who had not denied the name of the Lord was delivered from the last trial. Then to every conqueror the Spirit promises now the tree of life, and exemption from the second death; now the hidden manna with the stone of glistening whiteness, and the name unknown (to every man save him that receiveth it); now power to rule with a rod of iron, and the brightness of the morning star; now the being clothed in white raiment, and not having the name blotted out of the book of life, and being made in the temple of God a pillar with the inscription on it of the name of God and of the Lord, and of the heavenly Jerusalem; now a sitting with the Lord on His throne,—which once was persistently refused to the sons of Zebedee.8300

8300 Matt. xx. 20–23.

Who, pray, are these so blessed conquerors, but martyrs in the strict sense of the word?  For indeed theirs are the victories whose also are the fights; theirs, however, are the fights whose also is the blood. But the souls of the martyrs both peacefully rest in the meantime under the altar,8301

8301 Rev. vi. 9.

and support their patience by the assured hope of revenge; and, clothed in their robes, wear the dazzling halo of brightness, until others also may fully share in their glory. For yet again a countless throng are revealed, clothed in white and distinguished by palms of victory, celebrating their triumph doubtless over Antichrist, since one of the elders says, “These are they who come out of that great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”8302

8302 Rev. vii. 14.

For the flesh is the clothing of the soul. The uncleanness, indeed, is washed away by baptism, but the stains are changed into dazzling whiteness by martyrdom. For Esaias also promises, that out of red and scarlet there will come forth the whiteness of snow and wool.8303

8303 Isa. i. 18.

When great Babylon likewise is represented as drunk with the blood of the saints,8304

8304 Rev. xvii. 6.

doubtless the supplies needful for her drunkenness are furnished by the cups of martyrdoms; and what suffering the fear of martyrdoms will entail, is in like manner shown. For among all the castaways, nay, taking precedence of them all, are the fearful. “But the fearful,” says John—and then come the others—“will have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone.”8305

8305 Rev. xxi. 8.

Thus fear, which, as stated in his epistle, love drives out, has punishment.
Gen. xxv. 34; xxvii. 25.

—how he, (I say,) speaks in favour of martyrdoms, now to be chosen by himself also, when, rejoicing over the Thessalonians, he says, “So that we glory in you in the churches of God, for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations, in which ye endure a manifestation of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be accounted worthy of His kingdom, for which ye also suffer!”8307

8307 2 Thess. i. 4.

As also in his Epistle to the Romans: “And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also, being sure that tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope; and hope maketh not ashamed.”8308

8308 Rom. v. 3.

And again:  “And if children, then heirs, heirs indeed of God, and joint-heirs with Christ: if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together.  For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”8309

8309 Rom. viii. 17.

And therefore he afterward says: “Who shall separate us from the love of God? Shall tribulation, or distress, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?  (As it is written: For Thy sake we are killed all the day long; we have been counted as sheep for the slaughter.) Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors, through Him who loved us.  For we are persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor power, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”8310

8310 Rom. viii. 35.

But further, in recounting his own sufferings to the Corinthians, he certainly decided that suffering must be borne: “In labours, (he says,) more abundant, in prisons very frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes, save one; thrice was I beaten with rods; once was I stoned,”8311

8311 2 Cor. xi. 23.

and the rest. And if these severities will seem to be more grievous than martyrdoms, yet once more he says: “Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake.”8312

8312 2 Cor. xii. 10.

He also says, in verses occurring in a previous part of the epistle: “Our condition is such, that we are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; and are in need, but not in utter want; since we are harassed by persecutions, but not forsaken; it is such that we are cast down, but not destroyed; always bearing about in our body the dying of Christ.”8313

8313 2 Cor. iv. 8.

“But though,” says he, “our outward man perisheth”—the flesh doubtless, by the violence of persecutions—“yet the inward man is renewed day by day”—the soul, doubtless, by hope in the promises. “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporal”—he is speaking of troubles; “but the things which are not seen are eternal”—he is promising rewards. But writing in bonds to the Thessalonians,8314

8314 Should be Philippians: i.e. Phil. i. 29, 30.

he certainly affirmed that they were blessed, since to them it had been given not only to believe on Christ, but also to suffer for His sake. “Having,” says he, “the same conflict which ye both saw in me, and now hear to be in me.”8315

8315 Phil. ii. 17.

“For though I am offered upon the sacrifice, I joy and rejoice with you all; in like manner do ye also joy and rejoice with me.” You see what he decides the bliss of martyrdom to be, in honour of which he is providing a festival of mutual joy. When at length he had come to be very near the attainment of his desire, greatly rejoicing in what he saw before him, he writes in these terms to Timothy:  “For I am already being offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith; there is laid up for me the crown which the Lord will give me on that day”8316

8316 2 Tim. iv. 6.

—doubtless of his suffering. Admonition enough did he for his part also give in preceding passages: “It is a faithful saying: For if we are dead with Christ, we shall also live with Him; if we suffer, we shall also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us; if we believe not, yet He is faithful: He cannot deny Himself.”8317

8317 2 Tim ii. 11.

“Be not thou, therefore, ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner;”8318

8318 2 Tim. i. 8.

for he had said before: “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.”8319

8319 2 Tim. i. 7.

For we suffer with power from love toward God, and with a sound mind, when we suffer for our blamelessness. But further, if He anywhere enjoins endurance, for what more than for sufferings is He providing it? If anywhere He tears men away from idolatry, what more than martyrdoms takes the lead, in tearing them away to its injury?
Rom. xiii. 1.

to be subject to all power, because there is no power but of God, and because (the ruler) does not carry the sword without reason, and is the servant of God, nay also, says he, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. For he had also previously spoken thus: “For rulers are not a terror to a good work, but to an evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of it.  Therefore he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid.” Thus he bids you be subject to the powers, not on an opportunity occurring for his avoiding martyrdom, but when he is making an appeal in behalf of a good life, under the view also of their being as it were assistants bestowed upon righteousness, as it were handmaids of the divine court of justice, which even here pronounces sentence beforehand upon the guilty. Then he goes on also to show how he wishes you to be subject to the powers, bidding you pay “tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom,”8321

8321 Rom. xiii. 6.

that is, the things which are Cæsar’s to Cæsar, and the things which are God’s to God;8322

8322 Matt. xxii. 21.

but man is the property of God alone.  Peter,8323

8323 1 Pet. ii. 13.

no doubt, had likewise said that the king indeed must be honoured, yet so that the king be honoured only when he keeps to his own sphere, when he is far from assuming divine honours; because both father and mother will be loved along with God, not put on an equality with Him. Besides, one will not be permitted to love even life more than God.
It has been thought that the allusion is to the breaking of the legs of the crucified to hasten their death, not to the beating to which the apostles were subjected by the Jewish council: Acts v. 40.—Tr.

that Stephen is overwhelmed by stones,8325

8325 Acts vii. 59.

that James is slain8326

8326 James the brother of our Lord, not the James mentioned Acts xii. 2.

as is a victim at the altar, that Paul is beheaded has been written in their own blood. And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record, the archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem. We read the lives of the Cæsars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith. Then is Peter girt by another,8327

8327 John xxi. 18.

when he is made fast to the cross. Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in Rome he springs to life again ennobled by martyrdom.  Wherever I read of these occurrences, so soon as I do so, I learn to suffer; nor does it signify to me which I follow as teachers of martyrdom, whether the declarations or the deaths of the apostles, save that in their deaths I recall their declarations also.  For they would not have suffered ought of a kind they had not previously known they had to suffer. When Agabus, making use of corresponding action too, had foretold that bonds awaited Paul, the disciples, weeping and entreating that he would not venture upon going to Jerusalem, entreated in vain.8328

8328 Acts xxi. 11.

As for him, having a mind to illustrate what he had always taught, he says, “Why weep ye, and grieve my heart? But for my part, I could wish not only to suffer bonds, but also to die at Jerusalem, for the name of my Lord Jesus Christ.” And so they yielded by saying, “Let the will of the Lord be done;” feeling sure, doubtless, that sufferings are included in the will of God. For they had tried to keep him back with the intention not of dissuading, but to show love for him; as yearning for (the preservation of) the apostle, not as counselling against martyrdom. And if even then a Prodicus or Valentinus stood by, suggesting that one must not confess on the earth before men, and must do so the less in truth, that God may not (seem to) thirst for blood, and Christ for a repayment of suffering, as though He besought it with the view of obtaining salvation by it for Himself also, he would have immediately heard from the servant of God what the devil had from the Lord: “Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me. It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.”8329

8329 Matt. xvi. 23 and iv. 10,—a mixing up of two passages of Scripture.

But even now it will be right that he hear it, seeing that, long after, he has poured forth these poisons, which not even thus are to injure readily any of the weak ones, if any one in faith will drink, before being hurt, or even immediately after, this draught of ours. See Acts xxiii. 8, and the references there.

The Pharisees I pretermit, who were “divided” from the Jews by their superimposing of certain additaments to the law, which fact likewise made them worthy of receiving this very name;8333

8333 Pharisees = Separatists.

and, together with them, the Herodians likewise, who said that Herod was Christ. To those I betake myself who have chosen to make the gospel the starting-point of their heresies.

See Acts viii. 9–24.

He had the hardihood to call himself the Supreme Virtue,8335

8335 I use Virtue in this and similar cases in its Miltonic sense.

that is, the Supreme God; and moreover, (to assert) that the universe8336

8336 Mundum.

had been originated by his angels; that he had descended in quest of an erring dæmon,8337

8337 Or, “intelligence.”

which was Wisdom; that, in a phantasmal semblance of God, he had not suffered among the Jews, but was as if he had suffered.8338

8338 Or, “but had undergone a quasi-passion.”

i.e. probably “Simon the Cyrenian.” See Matt. xxvii. 32; Mark xv. 21; Luke xxiii. 26.

was crucified in His stead: whence, again, there must be no believing on him who was crucified, lest one confess to having believed on Simon. Martyrdoms, he says, are not to be endured. The resurrection of the flesh he strenuously impugns, affirming that salvation has not been promised to bodies.

See Acts vi. 1–6. [But the identity is doubtful.]

He affirms that Darkness was seized with a concupiscence—and, indeed, a foul and obscene one—after Light: out of this permixture it is a shame to say what fetid and unclean (combinations arose).  The rest (of his tenets), too, are obscene. For he tells of certain Æons, sons of turpitude, and of conjunctions of execrable and obscene embraces and permixtures,8352

8352 So Oehler gives in his text. But his suggestion, given in a note, is perhaps preferable: “and of execrable embraces and permixtures, and obscene conjunctions.”

and certain yet baser outcomes of these.  He teaches that there were born, moreover, dæmons, and gods, and spirits seven, and other things sufficiently sacrilegious. alike and foul, which we blush to recount, and at once pass them by.  Enough it is for us that this heresy of the Nicolaitans has been condemned by the Apocalypse of the Lord with the weightiest authority attaching to a sentence, in saying “Because this thou holdest, thou hatest the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which I too hate.”8353

8353 See Rev. ii. 6.


See Gen. iii. 1–7.

His power and majesty (they say) Moses perceiving, set up the brazen serpent; and whoever gazed upon him obtained health.8356

8356 See Num. xxi. 4–9.

Christ Himself (they say further) in His gospel imitates Moses’ serpent’s sacred power, in saying: “And as Moses upreared the serpent in the desert, so it behoveth the Son of man to be upreared.”8357

8357 John iii. 14.

Him they introduce to bless their eucharistic (elements).8358

8358 Eucharistia (neut. pl.) = εὐχαριστεῖα (Fr. Junius in Oehler): perhaps “the place in which they celebrate the eucharist.”

Now the whole parade and doctrine of this error flowed from the following source.  They say that from the supreme primary Æon whom men speak of8359

8359 These words are intended to give the force of the “illo” of the original.

there emanated several other inferior Æons.  To all these, however, there opposed himself an Æon who name is Ialdabaoth.8360

8360 Roberston (Ch. Hist. i. p. 39, note 2, ed. 2. 1858) seems to take this word to mean “Son of Darkness or Chaos.”

He had been conceived by the permixture of a second Æon with inferior Æons; and afterwards, when he8361

8361 “Seque” Oehler reads here, which appears bad enough Latin, unless his “se” after “extendisse” is an error.

had been desirous of forcing his way into the higher regions, had been disabled by the permixture of the gravity of matter with himself to arrive at the higher regions; had been left in the midst, and had extended himself to his full dimensions, and thus had made the sky.8362

8362 Or, “heaven.”

Ialdabaoth, however, had descended lower, and had made him seven sons, and had shut from their view the upper regions by self-distension, in order that, since (these) angels could not know what was above,8363

8363 Or, “what the upper regions were.”

they might think him the sole God. These inferior Virtues and angels, therefore, had made man; and, because he had been originated by weaker and mediocre powers, he lay crawling, worm-like. That Æon, however, out of which Ialdaboath had proceeded, moved to the heart with envy, had injected into man as he lay a certain spark; excited whereby, he was through prudence to grow wise, and be able to understand the things above. So, again, the Ialdaboath aforesaid, turning indignant, had emitted out of himself the Virtue and similitude of the serpent; and this had been the Virtue in paradise—that is, this had been the serpent—whom Eve had believed as if he had been God the Son.8364

8364 Filio Deo.

He8365

8365 Or, “she;” but perhaps the text is preferable.

plucked, say they, from the fruit of the tree, and thus conferred on mankind the knowledge of things good and evil.8366

8366 See Gen. iii. 1–7.

Christ, moreover, existed not in substance of flesh: salvation of the flesh is not to be hoped for at all.

See 1 Pet. iii. 20.

the seed likewise of Ham, in order that the seed of evil should not perish, but should, together with the rest, be preserved, and after the deluge be restored to the earth, and, by example of the rest, should grow up and diffuse itself, and fill and occupy the whole orb.8372

8372 Cf. Gen. ix. 1, 2, 7, 19.

Of Christ, moreover, their sentiments are such that they call Him merely Seth, and say that He was instead of the actual Seth.
Mundum.

in the lower regions: that Christ was not born of the Virgin Mary, but was generated—a mere human being—of the seed of Joseph, superior (they admit) above all others in the practice of righteousness and in integrity of life; that He suffered among the Jews; and that His soul alone was received in heaven as having been more firm and hardy than all others: whence he would infer, retaining only the salvation of souls, that there are no resurrections of the body.

“Ab angelis:” an erroneous notion, which professed probably to derive support from John i. 17, Acts vii. 53, Gal. iii. 19, where, however, the Greek prepositions should be carefully noted, and ought in no case to be rendered by “ab.”

representing the God of the Jews as not the Lord, but an angel.

See Matt. x. 24; Luke iv. 40; John xiii. 16.

sets forth likewise the law as binding,8380

8380 i.e., as Rig.’s quotation from Jerome’s Indiculus (in Oehler) shows, “because in so far as, Christ observed it.”

of course for the purpose of excluding the gospel and vindicating Judaism.
See Rev. i. 7; xxi. 6; xxii. 13.

In fact, they say that Jesus Christ descended,8394

8394 Denique Jesum Christum descendisse. So Oehler, who does not notice any conjectural emendation, or various reading, of the words. If correct, his reading would refer to the views of a twofold Jesus Christ—a real and a phantasmal one—held by docetic Gnostics, or to such views as Valentine’s, in whose system, so far as it is ascertainable from the confused and discrepant account of it, there would appear to have been one Æon called Christ, another called Jesus, and a human person called Jesus and Christ, with whom the true Jesus associated Himself. Some such jumble of ideas the two heretics now under review would seem to have held, if Oehler’s be the true reading. But the difficulties are somewhat lessened if we accept the very simple emendation which naturally suggests itself, and which, I see, Semler has proposed and Routh inclines to receive, “in Jesum Christum descendisse,” i.e. “that Christ descended on Jesus.”

that is, that the dove came down on Jesus;8395

8395 See Matt. iii. 13–17; Mark i. 9–11; Luke iii. 21–22; John i. 29–34.

and, since the dove is styled by the Greek name περιστερά —(peristera), it has in itself this number DCCCI.8396

8396 Habere secum numerum DCCCI. So Oehler, after Jos. Scaliger, who, however, seems to have read “secum hunc numerum,” for the ordinary reading, “habere secundum numerum,” which would mean, “represents, in the way of numerical value, DCCCI.”

These men run through their Ω, Ψ, Χ, Φ, Υ, Τ—through the whole alphabet, indeed, up to Α and Β—and compute ogdoads and decads.  So we may grant it useless and idle to recount all their trifles. What, however, must be allowed not merely vain, but likewise dangerous, is this:  they feign a second God, beside the Creator; they affirm that Christ was not in the substance of flesh; they say there is to be no resurrection of the flesh.
See Matt. vii. 17.

attempted to approve the heresy of Cerdo; so that his assertions are identical with those of the former heretic before him.

See Ps. cx. 4, and the references there.

For that Melchizedek, he says, was a heavenly Virtue of pre-eminent grace; in that Christ acts for human beings, being made their Deprecator and Advocate:  Melchizedek does so8416

8416 The Latin here is very careless, unless, with Routh, we suggest “et” for “eo,” and render: “and that what Christ does,” etc., “Melchizedek does,” etc.

for heavenly angels and Virtues. For to such a degree, he says, is he better than Christ, that he is ἀπάτωρ (fatherless), ἀμήτωρ (motherless), ἀγενεαλογητον (without genealogy), of whom neither the beginning nor the end has been comprehended, nor can be comprehended.8417

8417 See Heb. vii. 1–3.

[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]

Chapter I.—Of Heathen Repentance.

Repentance, men understand, so far as nature is able, to be an emotion of the mind arising from disgust8421

8421 “Offensa sententiæ pejoris;” or possibly, “the miscarriage of some,” etc.

at some previously cherished worse sentiment: that kind of men I mean which even we ourselves were in days gone by—blind, without the Lord’s light.  From the reason of repentance, however, they are just as far as they are from the Author of reason Himself. Reason, in fact, is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reason—nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason. All, therefore, who are ignorant of God, must necessarily be ignorant also of a thing which is His, because no treasure-house8422

8422 Thesaurus.

at all is accessible to strangers. And thus, voyaging all the universal course of life without the rudder of reason, they know not how to shun the hurricane which is impending over the world.8423

8423 Sæculo. [Erasmus doubted the genuineness of this treatise, partly because of the comparative purity of its style. See Kaye, p. 42.]

Moreover, how irrationally they behave in the practice of repentance, it will be enough briefly to show just by this one fact, that they exercise it even in the case of their good deeds. They repent of good faith, of love, of simple-heartedness, of patience, of mercy, just in proportion as any deed prompted by these feelings has fallen on thankless soil.  They execrate their own selves for having done good; and that species chiefly of repentance which is applied to the best works they fix in their heart, making it their care to remember never again to do a good turn. On repentance for evil deeds, on the contrary, they lay lighter stress. In short, they make this same (virtue) a means of sinning more readily than a means of right-doing.
Sæculi dote. With which he had been endowed. Comp. Gen. i. 28; Ps. viii. 4–8.

after his ejection from paradise and subjection to death—when He had hasted back to His own mercy, did from that time onward inaugurate repentance in His own self, by rescinding the sentence of His first wrath, engaging to grant pardon to His own work and image.8425

8425 i.e., man.

And so He gathered together a people for Himself, and fostered them with many liberal distributions of His bounty, and, after so often finding them most ungrateful, ever exhorted them to repentance and sent out the voices of the universal company of the prophets to prophesy. By and by, promising freely the grace which in the last times He was intending to pour as a flood of light on the universal world8426

8426 Orbi.

through His Spirit, He bade the baptism of repentance lead the way, with the view of first preparing,8427

8427 Componeret.

by means of the sign and seal of repentance, them whom He was calling, through grace, to (inherit) the promise surely made to Abraham. John holds not his peace, saying, “Enter upon repentance, for now shall salvation approach the nations”8428

8428 Comp. Matt. iii. 1, 2; Mark i. 4; Luke iii. 4–6.

—the Lord, that is, bringing salvation according to God’s promise. To Him John, as His harbinger, directed the repentance (which he preached), whose province was the purging of men’s minds, that whatever defilement inveterate error had imparted, whatever contamination in the heart of man ignorance had engendered, that repentance should sweep and scrape away, and cast out of doors, and thus prepare the home of the heart, by making it clean, for the Holy Spirit, who was about to supervene, that He might with pleasure introduce Himself there-into, together with His celestial blessings. Of these blessings the title is briefly one—the salvation of man—the abolition of former sins being the preliminary step. This8429

8429 i.e., man’s salvation.

is the (final) cause of repentance, this her work, in taking in hand the business of divine mercy. What is profitable to man does service to God.  The rule of repentance, however, which we learn when we know the Lord, retains a definite form,—viz., that no violent hands so to speak, be ever laid on good deeds or thoughts.8430

8430 See the latter part of c. i.

For God, never giving His sanction to the reprobation of good deeds, inasmuch as they are His own (of which, being the author, He must necessarily be the defender too), is in like manner the acceptor of them, and if the acceptor, likewise the rewarder. Let, then, the ingratitude of men see to it,8431

8431 Viderit.

if it attaches repentance even to good works; let their gratitude see to it too, if the desire of earning it be the incentive to well-doing: earthly and mortal are they each. For how small is your gain if you do good to a grateful man! or your loss if to an ungrateful! A good deed has God as its debtor, just as an evil has too; for a judge is rewarder of every cause. Well, since, God as Judge presides over the exacting and maintaining8432

8432 Or, “defending.”

of justice, which to Him is most dear; and since it is with an eye to justice that He appoints all the sum of His discipline, is there room for doubting that, just as in all our acts universally, so also in the case of repentance, justice must be rendered to God?—which duty can indeed only be fulfilled on the condition that repentance be brought to bear only on sins. Further, no deed but an evil one deserves to be called sin, nor does any one err by well-doing. But if he does not err, why does he invade (the province of) repentance, the private ground of such as do err? Why does he impose on his goodness a duty proper to wickedness? Thus it comes to pass that, when a thing is called into play where it ought not, there, where it ought, it is neglected.
[Without reference to Luther’s theory of justification, we must all adopt this as the test of “a standing or falling church,” viz. “How does it deal with sin and the sinner.”]

Luke xxii. 61.

by its own Author, emerges unbidden into the knowledge of the truth; and being admitted to (an acquaintance with) the divine precepts, is by them forthwith instructed that “that from which God bids us abstain is to be accounted sin:”  inasmuch as, since it is generally agreed that God is some great essence of good, of course nothing but evil would be displeasing to good; in that, between things mutually contrary, friendship there is none. Still it will not be irksome briefly to touch upon the fact8435

8435 Or, “briefly to lay down the rule.”

that, of sins, some are carnal, that is, corporeal; some spiritual. For since man is composed of this combination of a two-fold substance, the sources of his sins are no other than the sources of his composition. But it is not the fact that body and spirit are two things that constitute the sins mutually different—otherwise they are on this account rather equal, because the two make up one—lest any make the distinction between their sins proportionate to the difference between their substances, so as to esteem the one lighter, or else heavier, than the other: if it be true, (as it is,) that both flesh and spirit are creatures of God; one wrought by His hand, one consummated by His afflatus. Since, then, they equally pertain to the Lord, whichever of them sins equally offends the Lord. Is it for you to distinguish the acts of the flesh and the spirit, whose communion and conjunction in life, in death, and in resurrection, are so intimate, that “at that time”8436

8436 i.e., in the judgment-day. Compare the phrase “that day and that hour” in Scripture.

they are equally raised up either for life or else for judgment; because, to wit, they have equally either sinned or lived innocently? This we would (once for all) premise, in order that we may understand that no less necessity for repentance is incumbent on either part of man, if in anything it have sinned, than on both. The guilt of both is common; common, too, is the Judge—God to wit; common, therefore, is withal the healing medicine of repentance. The source whence sins are named “spiritual” and “corporeal” is the fact that every sin is matter either of act or else of thought: so that what is in deed is “corporeal,” because a deed, like a body, is capable of being seen and touched; what is in the mind is “spiritual,” because spirit is neither seen nor handled: by which consideration is shown that sins not of deed only, but of will too, are to be shunned, and by repentance purged. For if human finitude8437

8437 Mediocritas.

judges only sins of deed, because it is not equal to (piercing) the lurking-places of the will, let us not on that account make light of crimes of the will in God’s sight. God is all-sufficient. Nothing from whence any sin whatsoever proceeds is remote from His sight; because He is neither ignorant, nor does He omit to decree it to judgment. He is no dissembler of, nor double-dealer with,8438

8438 Prævaricatorem: comp. ad Ux.b. ii. c. ii. ad init.

His own clear-sightedness. What (shall we say of the fact) that will is the origin of deed? For if any sins are imputed to chance, or to necessity, or to ignorance, let them see to themselves: if these be excepted, there is no sinning save by will. Since, then, will is the origin of deed, is it not so much the rather amenable to penalty as it is first in guilt? Nor, if some difficulty interferes with its full accomplishment, is it even in that case exonerated; for it is itself imputed to itself: nor; having done the work which lay in its own power, will it be excusable by reason of that miscarriage of its accomplishment. In fact, how does the Lord demonstrate Himself as adding a superstructure to the Law, except by interdicting sins of the will as well (as other sins); while He defines not only the man who had actually invaded another’s wedlock to be an adulterer, but likewise him who had contaminated (a woman) by the concupiscence of his gaze?8439

8439 Matt. v. 27, 28; comp. de Idol. ii.

Accordingly it is dangerous enough for the mind to set before itself what it is forbidden to perform, and rashly through the will to perfect its execution. And since the power of this will is such that, even without fully sating its self-gratification, it stands for a deed; as a deed, therefore, it shall be punished. It is utterly vain to say, “I willed, but yet I did not.” Rather you ought to carry the thing through, because you will; or else not to will, because you do not carry it through.  But, by the confession of your consciousness, you pronounce your own condemnation. For if you eagerly desired a good thing, you would have been anxious to carry it through; in like manner, as you do not carry an evil thing through, you ought not to have eagerly desired it. Wherever you take your stand, you are fast bound by guilt; because you have either willed evil, or else have not fulfilled good.
Comp. Ezek. xviii. 30; 32.

and again, “I live, saith the Lord, and I will (have) repentance rather than death.”8441

8441 The substance of this is found in Ezek. xxxiii. 11.

Repentance, then, is “life,” since it is preferred to “death.” That repentance, O sinner, like myself (nay, rather, less than myself, for pre-eminence in sins I acknowledge to be mine8442

8442 Compare 1 Tim. i. 16.

), do you so hasten to, so embrace, as a shipwrecked man the protection8443

8443 Comp. c. xii. sub fin.  [Ut naufragus alicuius tabulæ fidem; this expression soon passed into Theological technology, and as “the plank after shipwreck” is universally known.]

of some plank. This will draw you forth when sunk in the waves of sins, and will bear you forward into the port of the divine clemency. Seize the opportunity of unexpected felicity: that you, who sometime were in God’s sight nothing but “a drop of a bucket,”8444

8444 Isa. xl. 15.

and “dust of the threshing-floor,”8445

8445 Dan. ii. 35; Matt. iii. 12.

and “a potter’s vessel,”8446

8446 Ps. ii. 9; Rev. ii. 27.

may thenceforward become that “tree which is sown beside8447

8447 Penes.

the waters, is perennial in leaves, bears fruit at its own time,”8448

8448 Ps. i. 3; Jer. xvii. 8. Compare Luke xxiii. 31.

and shall not see “fire,”8449

8449 Jer. xvii. 8; Matt. iii. 10.

nor “axe.”8450

8450 Matt. iii. 10.

Having found “the truth,”8451

8451 John xiv. 6.

repent of errors; repent of having loved what God loves not: even we ourselves do not permit our slave-lads not to hate the things which are offensive to us; for the principle of voluntary obedience8452

8452 Obsequii.

consists in similarity of minds.

[The formidable doctrine of 1 John iii. 9; v. 18, etc. must excuse our author for his severe adherence to this principle of purifying the heart from habitual sin. But, the church refused to press it against St. Matt. xviii. 22. In our own self-indulgent day, we are more prone, I fear, to presumption than to over strictness. The Roman casuists make attrition suffice, and so turn absolution into a mere sponge, and an encouragement to perpetual sinning and formal confession.]

For what I say is this, that the repentance which, being shown us and commanded us through God’s grace, recalls us to grace8458

8458 i.e., favour.

with the Lord, when once learned and undertaken by us ought never afterward to be cancelled by repetition of sin. No pretext of ignorance now remains to plead on your behalf; in that, after acknowledging the Lord, and accepting His precepts8459

8459 Which is solemnly done in baptism.

—in short, after engaging in repentance of (past) sins—you again betake yourself to sins. Thus, in as far as you are removed from ignorance, in so far are you cemented8460

8460 Adglutinaris.

to contumacy. For if the ground on which you had repented of having sinned was that you had begun to fear the Lord, why have you preferred to rescind what you did for fear’s sake, except because you have ceased to fear? For there is no other thing but contumacy which subverts fear.  Since there is no exception which defends from liability to penalty even such as are ignorant of the Lord—because ignorance of God, openly as He is set before men, and comprehensible as He is even on the score of His heavenly benefits, is not possible8461
8461 Acts xiv. 15–17: “licet” here may ="lawful,” “permissible,” “excusable.”

—how perilous is it for Him to be despised when known? Now, that man does despise Him, who, after attaining by His help to an understanding of things good and evil, often an affront to his own understanding—that is, to God’s gift—by resuming what he understands ought to be shunned, and what he has already shunned: he rejects the Giver in abandoning the gift; he denies the Benefactor in not honouring the benefit. How can he be pleasing to Him, whose gift is displeasing to himself? Thus he is shown to be not only contumacious toward the Lord, but likewise ungrateful. Besides, that man commits no light sin against the Lord, who, after he had by repentance renounced His rival the devil, and had under this appellation subjected him to the Lord, again upraises him by his own return (to the enemy), and makes himself a ground of exultation to him; so that the Evil One, with his prey recovered, rejoices anew against the Lord. Does he not—what is perilous even to say, but must be put forward with a view to edification—place the devil before the Lord? For he seems to have made the comparison who has known each; and to have judicially pronounced him to be the better whose (servant) he has preferred again to be. Thus he who, through repentance for sins, had begun to make satisfaction to the Lord, will, through another repentance of his repentance, make satisfaction to the devil, and will be the more hateful to God in proportion as he will be the more acceptable to His rival. But some say that “God is satisfied if He be looked up to with the heart and the mind, even if this be not done in outward act, and that thus they sin without damage to their fear and their faith:”  that is, that they violate wedlock without damage to their chastity; they mingle poison for their parent without damage to their filial duty! Thus, then, they will themselves withal be thrust down into hell without damage to their pardon, while they sin without damage to their fear! Here is a primary example of perversity: they sin, because they fear!8462

8462 “Timent,” not “metuunt.” “Metus” is the word Tertullian has been using above for religious, reverential fear.

I suppose, if they feared not, they would not sin! Let him, therefore, who would not have God offended not revere Him at all, if fear8463

8463 Timor.

is the plea for offending. But these dispositions have been wont to sprout from the seed of hypocrites, whose friendship with the devil is indivisible, whose repentance never faithful.
Whatever, then, our poor ability has attempted to suggest with reference to laying hold of repentance once for all, and perpetually retaining it, does indeed bear upon all who are given up to the Lord, as being all competitors for salvation in earning the favour of God; but is chiefly urgent in the case of those young novices who are only just beginning to bedew8464

8464 Deut. xxxii. 2.

their ears with divine discourses, and who, as whelps in yet early infancy, and with eyes not yet perfect, creep about uncertainly, and say indeed that they renounce their former deed, and assume (the profession of) repentance, but neglect to complete it.8465

8465 i.e., by baptism.

For the very end of desiring importunes them to desire somewhat of their former deeds; just as fruits, when they are already beginning to turn into the sourness or bitterness of age, do yet still in some part flatter8466

8466 Adulantur.

their own loveliness. Moreover, a presumptuous confidence in baptism introduces all kind of vicious delay and tergiversation with regard to repentance; for, feeling sure of undoubted pardon of their sins, men meanwhile steal the intervening time, and make it for themselves into a holiday-time8467

8467 “Commeatus,” a military word ="furlough,” hence “holiday-time.”

for sinning, rather than a time for learning not to sin. Further, how inconsistent is it to expect pardon of sins (to be granted) to a repentance which they have not fulfilled! This is to hold out your hand for merchandise, but not produce the price.  For repentance is the price at which the Lord has determined to award pardon: He proposes the redemption8468

8468 i.e., repurchase.

of release from penalty at this compensating exchange of repentance. If, then, sellers first examine the coin with which they make their bargains, to see whether it be cut, or scraped, or adulterated,8469
8469 Adulter; see de Idol. c. i.

we believe likewise that the Lord, when about to make us the grant of so costly merchandise, even of eternal life, first institutes a probation of our repentance. “But meanwhile let us defer the reality of our repentance: it will then, I suppose, be clear that we are amended when we are absolved.”8470

8470 i.e., in baptism.

By no means; (but our amendment should be manifested) while, pardon being in abeyance, there is still a prospect of penalty; while the penitent does not yet merit—so far as merit we can—his liberation; while God is threatening, not while He is forgiving. For what slave, after his position has been changed by reception of freedom, charges himself with his (past) thefts and desertions?  What soldier, after his discharge, makes satisfaction for his (former) brands? A sinner is bound to bemoan himself before receiving pardon, because the time of repentance is coincident with that of peril and of fear. Not that I deny that the divine benefit—the putting away of sins, I mean—is in every way sure to such as are on the point of entering the (baptismal) water; but what we have to labour for is, that it may be granted us to attain that blessing. For who will grant to you, a man of so faithless repentance, one single sprinkling of any water whatever? To approach it by stealth, indeed, and to get the minister appointed over this business misled by your asseverations, is easy; but God takes foresight for His own treasure, and suffers not the unworthy to steal a march upon it. What, in fact, does He say? “Nothing hid which shall not be revealed.”8471

8471 Luke viii. 17.

Draw whatever (veil of) darkness you please over your deeds, “God is light.”8472

8472 1 John i. 5.

But some think as if God were under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy, what He has engaged (to give); and they turn His liberality into slavery. But if it is of necessity that God grants us the symbol of death,8473

8473 Symbolum mortis indulget. Comp. Rom. vi. 3, 4, 8; Col. ii. 12, 20.

then He does so unwillingly. But who permits a gift to be permanently retained which he has granted unwillingly?  For do not many afterward fall out of (grace)? is not this gift taken away from many? These, no doubt, are they who do steal a march upon (the treasure), who, after approaching to the faith of repentance, set up on the sands a house doomed to ruin. Let no one, then, flatter himself on the ground of being assigned to the “recruit-classes” of learners, as if on that account he have a licence even now to sin.  As soon as you “know the Lord,”8474

8474 Jer. xxxi. (LXX. xxxviii.) 34; Heb. viii. 11.

you should fear Him; as soon as you have gazed on Him, you should reverence Him. But what difference does your “knowing” Him make, while you rest in the same practises as in days bygone, when you knew Him not? What, moreover, is it which distinguishes you from a perfected8475

8475 i.e., in baptism.

servant of God? Is there one Christ for the baptized, another for the learners?  Have they some different hope or reward? some different dread of judgment? some different necessity for repentance? That baptismal washing is a sealing of faith, which faith is begun and is commended by the faith of repentance. We are not washed in order that we may cease sinning, but because we have ceased, since in heart we have been bathed8476

8476 See John xiii. 10 and Matt. xxiii. 26.

already. For the first baptism of a learner is this, a perfect fear;8477

8477 Metus integer.

thenceforward, in so far as you have understanding of the Lord faith is sound, the conscience having once for all embraced repentance. Otherwise, if it is (only) after the baptismal waters that we cease sinning, it is of necessity, not of free-will, that we put on innocence. Who, then, is pre-eminent in goodness? he who is not allowed, or he whom it displeases, to be evil? he who is bidden, or he whose pleasure it is, to be free from crime? Let us, then, neither keep our hands from theft unless the hardness of bars withstand us, nor refrain our eyes from the concupiscence of fornication unless we be withdrawn by guardians of our persons, if no one who has surrendered himself to the Lord is to cease sinning unless he be bound thereto by baptism.  But if any entertain this sentiment, I know not whether he, after baptism, do not feel more sadness to think that he has ceased from sinning, than gladness that he hath escaped from it. And so it is becoming that learners desire baptism, but do not hastily receive it: for he who desires it, honours it; he who hastily receives it, disdains it: in the one appears modesty, in the other arrogance; the former satisfies, the latter neglects it; the former covets to merit it, but the latter promises it to himself as a due return; the former takes, the latter usurps it. Whom would you judge worthier, except one who is more amended? whom more amended, except one who is more timid, and on that account has fulfilled the duty of true repentance? for he has feared to continue still in sin, lest he should not merit the reception of baptism. But the hasty receiver, inasmuch as he promised it himself (as his due), being forsooth secure (of obtaining it), could not fear: thus he fulfilled not repentance either, because he lacked the instrumental agent of repentance, that is, fear.8478

8478 Metus.

Hasty reception is the portion of irreverence; it inflates the seeker, it despises the Giver. And thus it sometimes deceives,8479

8479 Or, “disappoints,” i.e., the hasty recipient himself.

for it promises to itself the gift before it be due; whereby He who is to furnish the gift is ever offended.
1 Cor. vi. 3.

And so he observes, assaults, besieges him, in the hope that he may be able in some way either to strike his eyes with carnal concupiscence, or else to entangle his mind with worldly enticements, or else to subvert his faith by fear of earthly power, or else to wrest him from the sure way by perverse traditions: he is never deficient in stumbling-blocks nor in temptations. These poisons of his, therefore, God foreseeing, although the gate of forgiveness has been shut and fastened up with the bar of baptism, has permitted it still to stand somewhat open.8486

8486 Or, “has permitted somewhat still to stand open.”

In the vestibule He has stationed the second repentance for opening to such as knock:  but now once for all, because now for the second time;8487

8487 [See cap. vii. supra.]

but never more because the last time it had been in vain. For is not even this once enough? You have what you now deserved not, for you had lost what you had received. If the Lord’s indulgence grants you the means of restoring what you had lost, be thankful for the benefit renewed, not to say amplified; for restoring is a greater thing than giving, inasmuch as having lost is more miserable than never having received at all. However, if any do incur the debt of a second repentance, his spirit is not to be forthwith cut down and undermined by despair. Let it by all means be irksome to sin again, but let not to repent again be irksome: irksome to imperil one’s self again, but not to be again set free. Let none be ashamed. Repeated sickness must have repeated medicine. You will show your gratitude to the Lord by not refusing what the Lord offers you. You have offended, but can still be reconciled. You have One whom you may satisfy, and Him willing.8488

8488 To accept the satisfaction.


Bible:Rev.3.6 Bible:Rev.3.13 Bible:Rev.3.21">Rev. ii. 7, 11, 17, 29; iii. 6, 13, 21.

He imputes to the Ephesians “forsaken love;”8491

8491 Rev. ii. 4.

reproaches the Thyatirenes with “fornication,” and “eating of things sacrificed to idols;”8492

8492 Rev. ii. 20.

accuses the Sardians of “works not full;”8493

8493 Rev. iii. 2.

censures the Pergamenes for teaching perverse things;8494

8494 Rev. ii. 14, 15.

upbraids the Laodiceans for trusting to their riches;8495

8495 Rev. iii. 17.

and yet gives them all general monitions to repentance—under comminations, it is true; but He would not utter comminations to one unrepentant if He did not forgive the repentant. The matter were doubtful if He had not withal elsewhere demonstrated this profusion of His clemency. Saith He not,8496

8496 Jer. viii. 4 (in LXX.) appears to be the passage meant. The Eng. Ver. is very different.

“He who hath fallen shall rise again, and he who hath been averted shall be converted?” He it is, indeed, who “would have mercy rather than sacrifices.”8497

8497 Hos. vi. 6; Matt. ix. 13. The words in Hosea in the LXX. are, διότι ἕλεος θέλω ἤ θυσίαν (al. καὶ οὐ θυσίαν).

The heavens, and the angels who are there, are glad at a man’s repentance.8498

8498 Luke xv. 7; 10.

Ho! you sinner, be of good cheer! you see where it is that there is joy at your return.  What meaning for us have those themes of the Lord’s parables? Is not the fact that a woman has lost a drachma, and seeks it and finds it, and invites her female friends to share her joy, an example of a restored sinner?8499

8499 Luke xv. 8–10.

There strays, withal, one little ewe of the shepherd’s; but the flock was not more dear than the one: that one is earnestly sought; the one is longed for instead of all; and at length she is found, and is borne back on the shoulders of the shepherd himself; for much had she toiled8500

8500 Or, “suffered.”

in straying.8501
8501 Luke xv. 3–7.

That most gentle father, likewise, I will not pass over in silence, who calls his prodigal son home, and willingly receives him repentant after his indigence, slays his best fatted calf, and graces his joy with a banquet.8502

8502 Luke xv. 11–32.

Why not?  He had found the son whom he had lost; he had felt him to be all the dearer of whom he had made a gain. Who is that father to be understood by us to be?  God, surely: no one is so truly a Father;8503

8503 Cf. Matt. xxiii. 9; and Eph. iii. 14, 15, in the Greek.

no one so rich in paternal love. He, then, will receive you, His own son,8504

8504 Publicly enrolled as such in baptism; for Tertullian here is speaking solely of the “second repentance.”

back, even if you have squandered what you had received from Him, even if you return naked—just because you have returned; and will joy more over your return than over the sobriety of the other;8505
8505 See Luke xv. 29–32.

but only if you heartily repent—if you compare your own hunger with the plenty of your Father’s “hired servants”—if you leave behind you the swine, that unclean herd—if you again seek your Father, offended though He be, saying, “I have sinned, nor am worthy any longer to be called Thine.”  Confession of sins lightens, as much as dissimulation aggravates them; for confession is counselled by (a desire to make) satisfaction, dissimulation by contumacy.
The narrower, then, the sphere of action of this second and only (remaining) repentance, the more laborious is its probation; in order that it may not be exhibited in the conscience alone, but may likewise be carried out in some (external) act. This act, which is more usually expressed and commonly spoken of under a Greek name, is ἐξομολόγησις ,8506

8506 Utter confession.

whereby we confess our sins to the Lord, not indeed as if He were ignorant of them, but inasmuch as by confession satisfaction is settled,8507
8507 For the meaning of “satisfaction,” see Hooker Eccl. Pol. vi. 5, where several references to the present treatise occur. [Elucidation II.]

of confession repentance is born; by repentance God is appeased. And thus exomologesis is a discipline for man’s prostration and humiliation, enjoining a demeanor calculated to move mercy. With regard also to the very dress and food, it commands (the penitent) to lie in sackcloth and ashes, to cover his body in mourning,8508
8508 Sordibus.

to lay his spirit low in sorrows, to exchange for severe treatment the sins which he has committed; moreover, to know no food and drink but such as is plain,—not for the stomach’s sake, to wit, but the soul’s; for the most part, however, to feed prayers on fastings, to groan, to weep and make outcries8509
8509 Cf. Ps. xxii. 1 (in LXX. xxii. 3), xxxviii. 8 (in the LXX. xxxvii. 9). Cf. Heb. v. 7.

unto the Lord your8510

8510 Tertullian changes here to the second person, unless Oehler’s “tuum” be a misprint for “suum.”

God; to bow before the feet of the presbyters, and kneel to God’s dear ones; to enjoin on all the brethren to be ambassadors to bear his8511
8511 “Suæ,” which looks as if the “tuum” above should be “suum.” [St. James v. 16.]

deprecatory supplication (before God).  All this exomologesis (does), that it may enhance repentance; may honour God by its fear of the (incurred) danger; may, by itself pronouncing against the sinner, stand in the stead of God’s indignation, and by temporal mortification (I will not say frustrate, but) expunge eternal punishments. Therefore, while it abases the man, it raises him; while it covers him with squalor, it renders him more clean; while it accuses, it excuses; while it condemns, it absolves. The less quarter you give yourself, the more (believe me) will God give you.
Yet most men either shun this work, as being a public exposure8512

8512 [Elucidation III.]

of themselves, or else defer it from day to day. I presume (as being) more mindful of modesty than of salvation; just like men who, having contracted some malady in the more private parts of the body, avoid the privity of physicians, and so perish with their own bashfulness. It is intolerable, forsooth, to modesty to make satisfaction to the offended Lord! to be restored to its forfeited8513
8513 Prodactæ.

salvation! Truly you are honourable in your modesty; bearing an open forehead for sinning, but an abashed one for deprecating! I give no place to bashfulness when I am a gainer by its loss; when itself in some son exhorts the man, saying, “Respect not me; it is better that I perish through8514

8514 Per. But “per,” according to Oehler, is used by Tertullian as ="propter” —on your account, for your sake.

you, i.e. than you through me.” At all events, the time when (if ever) its danger is serious, is when it is a butt for jeering speech in the presence of insulters, where one man raises himself on his neighbour’s ruin, where there is upward clambering over the prostrate.  But among brethren and fellow-servants, where there is common hope, fear,8515

8515 Metus.

joy, grief, suffering, because there is a common Spirit from a common Lord and Father, why do you think these brothers to be anything other than yourself? Why flee from the partners of your own mischances, as from such as will derisively cheer them? The body cannot feel gladness at the trouble of any one member,8516
8516 1 Cor. xii. 26.

it must necessarily join with one consent in the grief, and in labouring for the remedy. In a company of two8517

8517 In uno et altero.

is the church;8518

8518 See Matt. xviii. 20.

but the church is Christ.8519

8519 i.e. as being His body.

When, then, you cast yourself at the brethren’s knees, you are handling Christ, you are entreating Christ. In like manner, when they shed tears over you, it is Christ who suffers, Christ who prays the Father for mercy. What a son8520
8520 Or, “the Son.” Comp. John xi. 41, 42.

asks is ever easily obtained. Grand indeed is the reward of modesty, which the concealment of our fault promises us! to wit, if we do hide somewhat from the knowledge of man, shall we equally conceal it from God? Are the judgment of men and the knowledge of God so put upon a par?  Is it better to be damned in secret than absolved in public? But you say, “It is a miserable thing thus to come to exomologesis:” yes, for evil does bring to misery; but where repentance is to be made, the misery ceases, because it is turned into something salutary. Miserable it is to be cut, and cauterized, and racked with the pungency of some (medicinal) powder: still, the things which heal by unpleasant means do, by the benefit of the cure, excuse their own offensiveness, and make present injury bearable for the sake8521

8521 Or, “by the grace.”

of the advantage to supervene.
8523 “Quæ,” neut. pl.

Gentiles lay upon themselves when they have offended no one at all? Such are they of whom Scripture makes mention: “Woe to them who bind their own sins as it were with a long rope.”8524
8524 Isa. v. 18 (comp. the LXX.).


 Gehennam. Comp. ad Ux.ii. c. vi. ad fin.

which exomologesis will extinguish for you; and imagine first the magnitude of the penalty, that you may not hesitate about the adoption of the remedy. What do we esteem that treasure-house of eternal fire to be, when small vent-holes8526

8526 Fumariola, i.e. the craters of volcanoes.

of it rouse such blasts of flames that neighbouring cities either are already no more, or are in daily expectation of the same fate? The haughtiest8527

8527 Superbissimi: perhaps a play on the word, which is connected with “super” and “superus,” as “haughty” with “high.”

mountains start asunder in the birth-throes of their inly-gendered fire; and—which proves to us the perpetuity of the judgment—though they start asunder, though they be devoured, yet come they never to an end. Who will not account these occasional punishments inflicted on the mountains as examples of the judgment which menaces the impenitent?  Who will not agree that such sparks are but some few missiles and sportive darts of some inestimably vast centre of fire? Therefore, since you know that after the first bulwarks of the Lord’s baptism8528

8528 For Tertullian’s distinction between “the Lord’s baptism” and “John’s” see de Bapt. x.

there still remains for you, in exomologesis a second reserve of aid against hell, why do you desert your own salvation? Why are you tardy to approach what you know heals you?  Even dumb irrational animals recognise in their time of need the medicines which have been divinely assigned them. The stag, transfixed by the arrow, knows that, to force out the steel, and its inextricable lingerings, he must heal himself with dittany. The swallow, if she blinds her young, knows how to give them eyes again by means of her own swallow-wort.8529

8529 Or “celandine,” which is perhaps only another form of “chelidonia” (“Chelidonia major,” Linn.).

Shall the sinner, knowing that exomologesis has been instituted by the Lord for his restoration, pass that by which restored the Babylonian king8530

8530 Dan. iv. 25 sqq. See de Pa. xiii.

to his realms? Long time had he offered to the Lord his repentance, working out his exomologesis by a seven years’ squalor, with his nails wildly growing after the eagle’s fashion, and his unkempt hair wearing the shagginess of a lion. Hard handling! Him whom men were shuddering at, God was receiving back. But, on the other hand, the Egyptian emperor—who, after pursuing the once afflicted people of God, long denied to their Lord, rushed into the battle8531

8531 Proelium.

—did, after so many warning plagues, perish in the parted sea, (which was permitted to be passable to “the People” alone,) by the backward roll of the waves:8532

8532 Ex. xiv. 15–31.

for repentance and her handmaid8533

8533 “Ministerium,” the abstract for the concrete: so “servitia” = slaves.

exomologesis he had cast away.

Why should I add more touching these two planks8534

8534 See c. iv. [Tabula was the word in cap. iv. but here it becomes planca, and planca post naufragium is the theological formula, ever since, among Western theologians.]

(as it were) of human salvation, caring more for the business of the pen8535

8535 See de Bapt. xii. sub init.

than the duty of my conscience? For, sinner as I am of every dye,8536
8536 Lit. “of all brands.”  Comp. c. vi.: “Does the soldier…make satisfaction for his brands.”

and born for nothing save repentance, I cannot easily be silent about that concerning which also the very head and fount of the human race, and of human offence, Adam, restored by exomologesis to his own paradise,8537

8537 Cf. Gen. iii. 24 with Luke xxiii. 43, 2 Cor. xii. 4, and Rev. ii. 7. [Elucidation IV.]

is not silent.
I.

(Such as have lapsed, cap. vii. p. 660.)

 The penitential system of the Primitive days, referred to in our author, began to be changed when less public confessions were authorized, on account of the scandals which publicity generated. Changes were as follows:

3. A discipline similar to that of the Anglican Church (which is but loosely maintained therein) succeeded, under St. Chrysostom; who frequently maintains the sufficiency of confession according to Matt. vi. 6. A Gallican author8538

8538 Le Confesseur, par L’Abbé * * * p. 15, Brussels 1866.

says—“this is the period regarded by historians as the most brilliant in Church history. At the close of the fourth century, in the great churches of the Orient, sixty thousand Christians received the Eucharistic communion, in one day, in both kinds, with no other than their private confessions to Almighty God.  The scandalous evil-liver alone was repelled from the Eucharistic Table.” This continued till circa a.d. 700.

II.

The plural (We therein confiding) is significant and a token of Primitive doctrine: i.e. of confession before the whole Church, (2 Cor. ii. 10): and note the precatory form—“God forgive thee.” The perilous form Ego te absolvo is not Catholic: it dates from the thirteenth century and is used in the West only. It is not wholly dropped from the Anglican Office, but has been omitted from the American Prayer-Book. As being a woman. See 1 Tim. ii. 11, 12.

knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!
1 Cor. i. 27, not quite exactly quoted.

and, “The things very difficult with men are easy with God.”8550

8550 Luke xviii. 27, again inexact.

For if God is wise and powerful (which even they who pass Him by do not deny), it is with good reason that He lays the material causes of His own operation in the contraries of wisdom and of power, that is, in foolishness and impossibility; since every virtue receives its cause from those things by which it is called forth.
Compare the Jews’ question, Matt. xxi. 23.

This8552

8552 Its authority.

however, is found in abundance, and that from the very beginning. For water is one of those things which, before all the furnishing of the world, were quiescent with God in a yet unshapen8553

8553 Impolita.

state. “In the first beginning,” saith Scripture, “God made the heaven and the earth. But the earth was invisible, and unorganized,8554

8554 Incomposita.

and darkness was over the abyss; and the Spirit of the Lord was hovering8555

8555 Ferebatur.

over the waters.”8556

8556 Gen. i. 1, 2, and comp. the LXX.

The first thing, O man, which you have to venerate, is the age of the waters in that their substance is ancient; the second, their dignity, in that they were the seat of the Divine Spirit, more pleasing to Him, no doubt, than all the other then existing elements. For the darkness was total thus far, shapeless, without the ornament of stars; and the abyss gloomy; and the earth unfurnished; and the heaven unwrought: water8557

8557 Liquor.

alone—always a perfect, gladsome, simple material substance, pure in itself—supplied a worthy vehicle to God.  What of the fact that waters were in some way the regulating powers by which the disposition of the world thenceforward was constituted by God?  For the suspension of the celestial firmament in the midst He caused by “dividing the waters;”8558

8558 Gen. i. 6, 7, 8.

the suspension of “the dry land” He accomplished by “separating the waters.” After the world had been hereupon set in order through its elements, when inhabitants were given it, “the waters” were the first to receive the precept “to bring forth living creatures.”8559

8559 Animas.

Water was the first to produce that which had life, that it might be no wonder in baptism if waters know how to give life.8560

8560 Animare.

For was not the work of fashioning man himself also achieved with the aid of waters?  Suitable material is found in the earth, yet not apt for the purpose unless it be moist and juicy; which (earth) “the waters,” separated the fourth day before into their own place, temper with their remaining moisture to a clayey consistency. If, from that time onward, I go forward in recounting universally, or at more length, the evidences of the “authority” of this element which I can adduce to show how great is its power or its grace; how many ingenious devices, how many functions, how useful an instrumentality, it affords the world, I fear I may seem to have collected rather the praises of water than the reasons of baptism; although I should thereby teach all the more fully, that it is not to be doubted that God has made the material substance which He has disposed throughout all His products8561

8561 Rebus.

and works, obey Him also in His own peculiar sacraments; that the material substance which governs terrestrial life acts as agent likewise in the celestial.
Acts viii. 26–40.

All waters, therefore, in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens, and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; and being thus sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying. Albeit the similitude may be admitted to be suitable to the simple act; that, since we are defiled by sins, as it were by dirt, we should be washed from those stains in waters. But as sins do not show themselves in our flesh (inasmuch as no one carries on his skin the spot of idolatry, or fornication, or fraud), so persons of that kind are foul in the spirit, which is the author of the sin; for the spirit is lord, the flesh servant. Yet they each mutually share the guilt: the spirit, on the ground of command; the flesh, of subservience. Therefore, after the waters have been in a manner endued with medicinal virtue8566

8566 Medicatis.

through the intervention of the angel,8567

8567 See c. vi. ad init., and c. v. ad fin.

the spirit is corporeally washed in the waters, and the flesh is in the same spiritually cleansed.
So Tertullian reads, and some copies, but not the best, of the New Testament in the place referred to, John v. 1–9. [And note Tertullian’s textual testimony as to this Scripture.]

They who were complaining of ill-health used to watch for him; for whoever had been the first to descend into them, after his washing, ceased to complain. This figure of corporeal healing sang of a spiritual healing, according to the rule by which things carnal are always antecedent8578

8578 Compare 1 Cor. xv. 46.

as figurative of things spiritual. And thus, when the grace of God advanced to higher degrees among men,8579

8579 John i. 16, 17.

an accession of efficacy was granted to the waters and to the angel. They who8580

8580 Qui: i.e. probably “angeli qui.”

were wont to remedy bodily defects,8581

8581 Vitia.

now heal the spirit; they who used to work temporal salvation8582

8582 Or, “health”—salutem.

now renew eternal; they who did set free but once in the year, now save peoples in a body8583

8583 Conservant populos.

daily, death being done away through ablution of sins. The guilt being removed, of course the penalty is removed too. Thus man will be restored for God to His “likeness,” who in days bygone had been conformed to “the image” of God; (the “image” is counted (to be) in his form: the “likeness” in his eternity:) for he receives again that Spirit of God which he had then first received from His afflatus, but had afterward lost through sin.
Luke i. 76.

Thus, too, does the angel, the witness8586

8586 Arbiter. [Eccles. v. 6; and Acts xii. 15.]

of baptism, “make the paths straight”8587

8587 Isa. xl. 3; Matt. iii. 3.

for the Holy Spirit, who is about to come upon us, by the washing away of sins, which faith, sealed in (the name of) the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, obtains. For if “in the mouth of three witnesses every word shall stand:”8588

8588 Deut. xix. 15; Matt. xviii. 16; 2 Cor. xiii. 1.

—while, through the benediction, we have the same (three) as witnesses of our faith whom we have as sureties8589

8589 Sponsores.

of our salvation too—how much more does the number of the divine names suffice for the assurance of our hope likewise!  Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise8590

8590 Sponsio.

of salvation under “three witnesses,” there is added, of necessity, mention of the Church;8591

8591 Compare de Orat. c. ii. sub fin.

inasmuch as, wherever there are three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, ) there is the Church, which is a body of three.8592

8592 Compare the de Orat. quoted above, and de Patien. xxi.; and see Matt. xviii. 20.


See Ex. xxix. 7; Lev. viii. 12; Ps. cxxxiii. 2.

Whence Aaron is called “Christ,”8595

8595 i.e. “Anointed.” Aaron, or at least the priest, is actually so called in the LXX., in Lev. iv. 5; 16, ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ Χριστός: as in the Hebrew it is the word whence Messiah is derived which is used.

from the “chrism,” which is “the unction;” which, when made spiritual, furnished an appropriate name to the Lord, because He was “anointed” with the Spirit by God the Father; as written in the Acts: “For truly they were gathered together in this city8596

8596 Civitate.

against Thy Holy Son whom Thou hast anointed.”8597

8597 Acts iv. 27. “In this city” (ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ) is omitted in the English version; and the name ᾽Ιησοῦν, “Jesus,” is omitted by Tertullian. Compare Acts x. 38 and Lev. iv. 18 with Isa. lxi. 1 in the LXX.

Thus, too, in our case, the unction runs carnally, (i.e. on the body,) but profits spiritually; in the same way as the act of baptism itself too is carnal, in that we are plunged in water, but the effect spiritual, in that we are freed from sins.
i.e. Man. There may be an allusion to Eph. ii. 10, “We are His worksmanship,” and to Ps. cl. 4.

to produce, by means of “holy hands,”8602

8602 Compare 1 Tim. ii. 8.

a sublime spiritual modulation? But this, as well as the former, is derived from the old sacramental rite in which Jacob blessed his grandsons, born of Joseph, Ephrem8603

8603 i.e. Ephraim.

and Manasses; with his hands laid on them and interchanged, and indeed so transversely slanted one over the other, that, by delineating Christ, they even portended the future benediction into Christ.8604

8604 In Christum.

Then, over our cleansed and blessed bodies willingly descends from the Father that Holiest Spirit. Over the waters of baptism, recognising as it were His primeval seat,8605

8605 See c. iv. p. 668.

He reposes: (He who) glided down on the Lord “in the shape of a dove,”8606

8606 Matt. iii. 16; Luke iii. 22.

in order that the nature of the Holy Spirit might be declared by means of the creature (the emblem) of simplicity and innocence, because even in her bodily structure the dove is without literal8607

8607 Ipso. The ancients held this.

gall. And accordingly He says, “Be ye simple as doves.”8608

8608 Matt. x. 16. Tertullian has rendered ἀκέραιοι (unmixed) by “simplices,” i.e. without fold.

Even this is not without the supporting evidence8609

8609 Argumento.

of a preceding figure. For just as, after the waters of the deluge, by which the old iniquity was purged—after the baptism, so to say, of the world—a dove was the herald which announced to the earth the assuagement8610

8610 Pacem.

of celestial wrath, when she had been sent her way out of the ark, and had returned with the olive-branch, a sign which even among the nations is the fore-token of peace;8611

8611 Paci.

so by the self-same law8612

8612 Dispositione.

of heavenly effect, to earth—that is, to our flesh8613

8613 See de Orat. iv. ad init.

—as it emerges from the font,8614

8614 Lavacro.

after its old sins flies the dove of the Holy Spirit, bringing us the peace of God, sent out from the heavens where is the Church, the typified ark.8615

8615 Compare de Idol. xxiv. ad fin.

But the world returned unto sin; in which point baptism would ill be compared to the deluge. And so it is destined to fire; just as the man too is, who after baptism renews his sins:8616

8616 [2 Pet. i. 9; Heb. x. 26, 27, 29. These awful texts are too little felt by modern Christians. They are too often explained away.]

so that this also ought to be accepted as a sign for our admonition.
“Libere expeditus,” set free, and that without any conditions, such as Pharaoh had from time to time tried to impose. See Ex. viii. 25, 28; x. 10, 11, 24.

escaped the violence of the Egyptian king by crossing over through water, it was water that extinguished8619

8619 “Extinxit,” as it does fire.

the king himself, with his entire forces.8620

8620 Ex. xiv. 27–30.

What figure more manifestly fulfilled in the sacrament of baptism? The nations are set free from the world8621

8621 Sæculo.

by means of water, to wit: and the devil, their old tyrant, they leave quite behind, overwhelmed in the water. Again, water is restored from its defect of “bitterness” to its native grace of “sweetness” by the tree8622

8622 See Ex. xv. 24, 25.

of Moses. That tree was Christ,8623

8623 “The Tree of Life,” “the True Vine,” etc.

restoring, to wit, of Himself, the veins of sometime envenomed and bitter nature into the all-salutary waters of baptism. This is the water which flowed continuously down for the people from the “accompanying rock;” for if Christ is “the Rock,” without doubt we see baptism blest by the water in Christ. How mighty is the grace of water, in the sight of God and His Christ, for the confirmation of baptism!  Never is Christ without water: if, that is, He is Himself baptized in water;8624

8624 Matt. iii. 13–17.

inaugurates in water the first rudimentary displays of His power, when invited to the nuptials;8625

8625 John ii. 1–11.

invites the thirsty, when He makes a discourse, to His own sempiternal water;8626

8626 John vii. 37, 38.

approves, when teaching concerning love,8627

8627 Agape. See de Orat. c. 28, ad fin.

among works of charity,8628

8628 Dilectionis. See de Patien. c. xii.

the cup of water offered to a poor (child);8629

8629 Matt. x. 42.

recruits His strength at a well;8630

8630 John iv. 6.

walks over the water;8631

8631 Matt. xiv. 25.

willingly crosses the sea;8632

8632 Mark iv. 36.

ministers water to His disciples.8633

8633 John xiii. 1–12.

Onward even to the passion does the witness of baptism last: while He is being surrendered to the cross, water intervenes; witness Pilate’s hands:8634

8634 Matt. xxvii. 24. Comp. de Orat. c. xiii.

when He is wounded, forth from His side bursts water; witness the soldier’s lance!8635

8635 John xix. 34. See c. xviii. sub fin.


Matt. xxi. 25; Mark xi. 30; Luke xx. 4.

about which they were unable to give a consistent8638

8638 Constanter.

answer, inasmuch as they understood not, because they believed not. But we, with but as poor a measure of understanding as of faith, are able to determine that that baptism was divine indeed, (yet in respect of the command, not in respect of efficacy8639

8639 Potestate.

too, in that we read that John was sent by the Lord to perform this duty,)8640

8640 See John i. 33.

but human in its nature: for it conveyed nothing celestial, but it fore-ministered to things celestial; being, to wit, appointed over repentance, which is in man’s power.8641

8641 It is difficult to see how this statement is to be reconciled with Acts v. 31. [i.e. under the universal illumination, John i. 9.]

In fact, the doctors of the law and the Pharisees, who were unwilling to “believe,” did not “repent” either.8642

8642 Matt. iii. 7–12; xxi. 23, 31, 32.

But if repentance is a thing human, its baptism must necessarily be of the same nature:  else, if it had been celestial, it would have given both the Holy Spirit and remission of sins. But none either pardons sins or freely grants the Spirit save God only.8643

8643 Mark ii. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 8; 2 Cor. i. 21, 22; v. 5.

Even the Lord Himself said that the Spirit would not descend on any other condition, but that He should first ascend to the Father.8644

8644 John xvi. 6, 7.

What the Lord was not yet conferring, of course the servant could not furnish.  Accordingly, in the Acts of the Apostles, we find that men who had “John’s baptism” had not received the Holy Spirit, whom they knew not even by hearing.8645

8645 Acts xix. 1–; 7. [John vii. 39.]

That, then, was no celestial thing which furnished no celestial (endowments):  whereas the very thing which was celestial in John—the Spirit of prophecy—so completely failed, after the transfer of the whole Spirit to the Lord, that he presently sent to inquire whether He whom he had himself preached,8646

8646 Matt. iii. 11, 12; John i. 6–; 36.

whom he had pointed out when coming to him, were “HE.”8647

8647 Matt. xi. 2–6; Luke vii. 18–; 23. [He repeats this view.]

And so “the baptism of repentance”8648

8648 Acts xix. 4.

was dealt with8649

8649 Agebatur.

as if it were a candidate for the remission and sanctification shortly about to follow in Christ: for in that John used to preach “baptism for the remission of sins,”8650

8650 Mark i. 4.

the declaration was made with reference to future remission; if it be true, (as it is,) that repentance is antecedent, remission subsequent; and this is “preparing the way.”8651

8651 Luke i. 76.

But he who “prepares” does not himself “perfect,” but procures for another to perfect.  John himself professes that the celestial things are not his, but Christ’s, by saying, “He who is from the earth speaketh concerning the earth; He who comes from the realms above is above all;”8652

8652 John iii. 30, 31, briefly quoted.

and again, by saying that he “baptized in repentance only, but that One would shortly come who would baptize in the Spirit and fire;”8653

8653 Matt. iii. 11, not quite exactly given.

—of course because true and stable faith is baptized with water, unto salvation; pretended and weak faith is baptized with fire, unto judgment.
John iv. 2.

As if, in truth, John had preached that He would baptize with His own hands! Of course, his words are not so to be understood, but as simply spoken after an ordinary manner; just as, for instance, we say, “The emperor set forth an edict,” or, “The prefect cudgelled him.”  Pray does the emperor in person set forth, or the prefect in person cudgel? One whose ministers do a thing is always said to do it.8655

8655 For instances of this, compare Bible:Matt.20.20">Matt. viii. 5 with Luke vii. 3, 7; and Mark x. 35 with Matt. xx. 20.

So “He will baptize you” will have to be understood as standing for, “Through Him,” or “Into Him,” “you will be baptized.” But let not (the fact) that “He Himself baptized not” trouble any.  For into whom should He baptize?  Into repentance? Of what use, then, do you make His forerunner? Into remission of sins, which He used to give by a word? Into Himself, whom by humility He was concealing? Into the Holy Spirit, who had not yet descended from the Father?  Into the Church, which His apostles had not yet founded? And thus it was with the selfsame “baptism of John” that His disciples used to baptize, as ministers, with which John before had baptized as forerunner. Let none think it was with some other, because no other exists, except that of Christ subsequently; which at that time, of course, could not be given by His disciples, inasmuch as the glory of the Lord had not yet been fully attained,8656

8656 Cf. 1 Pet. i. 11, ad fin.

nor the efficacy of the font8657

8657 Lavacri.

established through the passion and the resurrection; because neither can our death see dissolution except by the Lord’s passion, nor our life be restored without His resurrection.
John iii. 5, not fully given.

), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some, “how, in accordance with that prescript, salvation is attainable by the apostles, whom—Paul excepted—we do not find baptized in the Lord? Nay, since Paul is the only one of them who has put on the garment of Christ’s baptism,8659

8659 See Gal. iii. 27.

either the peril of all the others who lack the water of Christ is prejudged, that the prescript may be maintained, or else the prescript is rescinded if salvation has been ordained even for the unbaptized.” I have heard—the Lord is my witness—doubts of that kind: that none may imagine me so abandoned as to excogitate, unprovoked, in the licence of my pen, ideas which would inspire others with scruple.

See Eph. iv. 5.

(saying to Peter, who was desirous8661

8661 “Volenti,” which Oehler notes as a suggestion of Fr. Junius, is adopted here in preference to Oehler’s “nolenti.”

of being thoroughly bathed, “He who hath once bathed hath no necessity to wash a second time;”8662

8662 John xiii. 9, 10.

which, of course, He would not have said at all to one not baptized;) even here we have a conspicuous8663

8663 Exerta. Comp. c. xviii. sub init.; ad Ux. ii. c. i. sub fin.

proof against those who, in order to destroy the sacrament of water, deprive the apostles even of John’s baptism. Can it seem credible that “the way of the Lord,” that is, the baptism of John, had not then been “prepared” in those persons who were being destined to open the way of the Lord throughout the whole world? The Lord Himself, though no “repentance” was due from Him, was baptized: was baptism not necessary for sinners?  As for the fact, then, that “others were not baptized”—they, however, were not companions of Christ, but enemies of the faith, doctors of the law and Pharisees. From which fact is gathered an additional suggestion, that, since the opposers of the Lord refused to be baptized, they who followed the Lord were baptized, and were not like-minded with their own rivals: especially when, if there were any one to whom they clave, the Lord had exalted John above him (by the testimony) saying, “Among them who are born of women there is none greater than John the Baptist.”8664

8664 Matt. xi. 11, ἐγήγερται omitted.

Matt. viii. 24; xiv. 28, 29. [Our author seems to allow that sprinkling is baptism, but not Christian baptism: a very curious passage. Compare the foot-washing, John xiii. 8.]

It is, however, as I think, one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion. But that little ship did present a figure of the Church, in that she is disquieted “in the sea,” that is, in the world,8666

8666 Sæculo.

“by the waves,” that is, by persecutions and temptations; the Lord, through patience, sleeping as it were, until, roused in their last extremities by the prayers of the saints, He checks the world,8667

8667 Sæculum.

and restores tranquillity to His own.

Lavacrum. [John xiii. 9, 10, as above.]

does, under the person of Peter, merely regard us—still, to determine concerning the salvation of the apostles is audacious enough, because on them the prerogative even of first choice,8670

8670 i.e. of being the first to be chosen.

and thereafter of undivided intimacy, might be able to confer the compendious grace of baptism, seeing they (I think) followed Him who was wont to promise salvation to every believer. “Thy faith,” He would say, “hath saved thee;”8671

8671 Luke xviii. 42; Mark x. 52.

and, “Thy sins shall be remitted thee,”8672

8672 “Remittentur” is Oehler’s reading; “remittuntur” others read; but the Greek is in perfect tense. See Mark ii. 5.

on thy believing, of course, albeit thou be not yet baptized. If that8673

8673 i.e. faith, or perhaps the “compendious grace of baptism.”

was wanting to the apostles, I know not in the faith of what things it was, that, roused by one word of the Lord, one left the toll-booth behind for ever;8674

8674 Matt. ix. 9.

another deserted father and ship, and the craft by which he gained his living;8675

8675 Matt. iv. 21, 22.

a third, who disdained his father’s obsequies,8676

8676 Luke ix. 59, 60; but it is not said there that the man did it.

fulfilled, before he heard it, that highest precept of the Lord, “He who prefers father or mother to me, is not worthy of me.”8677

8677 Matt. x. 37.


Matt. xxviii. 19: “all” omitted.

The comparison with this law of that definition, “Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,”8681

8681 John ii. 5: “shall not” for “cannot;” “kingdom of the heavens”—an expression only occurring in Matthew—for “kingdom of God.”

has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.  Accordingly, all thereafter8682

8682 i.e. from the time when the Lord gave the “law.”

who became believers used to be baptized. Then it was, too,8683

8683 i.e. not till after the “law” had been made.

that Paul, when he believed, was baptized; and this is the meaning of the precept which the Lord had given him when smitten with the plague of loss of sight, saying, “Arise, and enter Damascus; there shall be demonstrated to thee what thou oughtest to do,” to wit—be baptized, which was the only thing lacking to him. That point excepted, he had sufficiently learnt and believed “the Nazarene” to be “the Lord, the Son of God.”8684

8684 See Acts ix. 1–31.

1 Cor. i. 17.

as if by this argument baptism were done away!  For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas?8686

8686 1 Cor. i. 14; 16.

However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos.8687

8687 1 Cor. i. 11, 12; iii. 3, 4.

For which reason the “peace-making”8688

8688 Matt. v. 9; referred to in de Patien. c. ii.

apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent “not to baptize, but to preach.” For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior.  Therefore the preaching came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching was.
Eph. iv. 4, 5, 6, but very inexactly quoted.

But it must be admitted that the question, “What rules are to be observed with regard to heretics?” is worthy of being treated. For it is to us8692

8692 i.e. us Christians; of “Catholics,” as Oehler explains it.

that that assertion8693

8693 i.e. touching the “one baptism.”

refers. Heretics, however, have no fellowship in our discipline, whom the mere fact of their excommunication8694

8694 Ademptio communicationis. [See Bunsen, Hippol. III. p. 114, Canon 46.]

testifies to be outsiders. I am not bound to recognize in them a thing which is enjoined on me, because they and we have not the same God, nor one—that is, the same—Christ. And therefore their baptism is not one with ours either, because it is not the same; a baptism which, since they have it not duly, doubtless they have not at all; nor is that capable of being counted which is not had.8695

8695 Comp. Eccles. i. 15.

Thus they cannot receive it either, because they have it not. But this point has already received a fuller discussion from us in Greek.  We enter, then, the font8696

8696 Lavacrum.

once:  once are sins washed away, because they ought never to be repeated. But the Jewish Israel bathes daily,8697

8697 Compare de Orat. c. xiv.

because he is daily being defiled: and, for fear that defilement should be practised among us also, therefore was the definition touching the one bathing8698

8698 In John xiii. 10; and Eph. iv. 5.

made. Happy water, which once washes away; which does not mock sinners (with vain hopes); which does not, by being infected with the repetition of impurities, again defile them whom it has washed! Luke xii. 50, not given in full.

when He had been baptized already. For He had come “by means of water and blood,”8701

8701 1 John v. 6.

just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen8702

8702 Matt. xx. 16; Rev. xvii. 14.

by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side,8703

8703 John xix. 34. See c. ix. ad fin.

in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood.8704

8704 See John vi. 53, etc.

This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing8705

8705 Lavacrum. [The three baptisms: fluminis, flaminis, sanguinis.]

when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.
1 Cor. x. 23, where μοι in the received text seems interpolated.

Let it suffice assuredly, in cases of necessity, to avail yourself (of that rule8713

8713 Or, as Oehler explains it, of your power of baptizing, etc.

, if at any time circumstance either of place, or of time, or of person compels you (so to do); for then the stedfast courage of the succourer, when the situation of the endangered one is urgent, is exceptionally admissible; inasmuch as he will be guilty of a human creature’s loss if he shall refrain from bestowing what he had free liberty to bestow. But the woman of pertness,8714

8714 Quintilla. See c. i.

who has usurped the power to teach, will of course not give birth for herself likewise to a right of baptizing, unless some new beast shall arise8715

8715 Evenerit. Perhaps Tertullian means literally—though that sense of the word is very rare—“shall issue out of her,” alluding to his “pariet” above.

like the former; so that, just as the one abolished baptism,8716

8716 See c. i. ad fin.

so some other should in her own right confer it! But if the writings which wrongly go under Paul’s name, claim Thecla’s example as a licence for women’s teaching and baptizing, let them know that, in Asia, the presbyter who composed that writing,8717

8717 The allusion is to a spurious work entitled Acta Pauli et Theclæ. [Of which afterwards. But see Jones, on the Canon, II. p. 353, and Lardner, Credibility, II. p. 305.]

as if he were augmenting Paul’s fame from his own store, after being convicted, and confessing that he had done it from love of Paul, was removed8718

8718 Decessisse.

from his office. For how credible would it seem, that he who has not permitted a woman8719

8719 Mulieri.

even to learn with over-boldness, should give a female8720

8720 Fœminæ.

the power of teaching and of baptizing! “Let them be silent,” he says, “and at home consult their own husbands.”8721

8721 1 Cor. xiv. 34, 35.


Luke vi. 30. [See note 4, p. 676.]

has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully: “Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine;”8723

8723 Matt. vii. 6.

and, “Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men’s sins.”8724

8724 1 Tim. v. 22; μηδενὶ omitted, ταχέως rendered by “facile,” and μηδἔ by “ne.”

If Philip so “easily” baptized the chamberlain, let us reflect that a manifest and conspicuous8725

8725 “Exertam,” as in c. xii.: “probatio exerta,” “a conspicuous proof.”

evidence that the Lord deemed him worthy had been interposed.8726

8726 Comp. Acts viii. 26–40.

The Spirit had enjoined Philip to proceed to that road: the eunuch himself, too, was not found idle, nor as one who was suddenly seized with an eager desire to be baptized; but, after going up to the temple for prayer’s sake, being intently engaged on the divine Scripture, was thus suitably discovered—to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit bade adjoin himself to the chamberlain’s chariot. The Scripture which he was reading8727

8727 Bible:Isa.53.7-Isa.53.8">Acts viii. 28, 30, 32, 33, and Isa. liii. 7, 8, especially in LXX. The quotation, as given in Acts, agrees nearly verbatim with the Cod. Alex. there.

falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away.  “But Paul too was, in fact, ‘speedily’ baptized:” for Simon,8728

8728 Tertullian seems to have confused the “Judas” with whom Saul stayed (Acts ix. 11) with the “Simon” with whom St. Peter stayed (Acts ix. 43); and it was Ananias, not Judas, to whom he was pointed out as “an appointed vessel,” and by whom he was baptized. [So above, he seems to have confounded Philip, the deacon, with Philip the apostle.]

his host, speedily recognized him to be “an appointed vessel of election.” God’s approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every “petition”8729

8729 See note 24, [where Luke vi. 30 is shown to be abused].

may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary—if (baptism itself) is not so necessary8730

8730 Tertullian has already allowed (in c. xvi) that baptism is not indispensably necessary to salvation.

—that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, “Forbid them not to come unto me.”8731

8731 Matt. xix. 14; Mark x. 14; Luke xviii. 16.

Let them “come,” then, while they are growing up; let them “come” while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come;8732

8732 Or, “whither they are coming.”

let them become Christians8733

8733 i.e. in baptism.

when they have become able to know Christ.  Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the “remission of sins?” More caution will be exercised in worldly8734

8734 Sæcularibus.

matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to “ask” for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given “to him that asketh.”8735

8735 See beginning of chapter, [where Luke vi. 30, is shown to be abused].

For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred—in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded8736

8736 Virginibus; but he is speaking about men as well as women. Comp. de Orat. c. xxii. [I need not point out the bearings of the above chapter, nor do I desire to interpose any comments. The Editor’s interpolations, where purely gratuitous, I have even stricken out, though I agree with them. See that work of genius, the Liberty of Prophesying, by Jer. Taylor, sect. xviii. and its candid admissions.]

by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom—until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.
Mark xiv. 13; Luke xxii. 10, “a small earthen pitcher of water.”

He points out the place for celebrating the Passover by the sign of water. After that, Pentecost is a most joyous space8738

8738 [He means the whole fifty days from the Paschal Feast till Pentecost, including the latter. Bunsen Hippol. III. 18.]

for conferring baptisms;8739

8739 Lavacris.

wherein, too, the resurrection of the Lord was repeatedly proved8740

8740 Frequentata, i.e. by His frequent appearance. See Acts i. 3, δι᾽ ἡμερῶν τεσσαράκοντα ὀπτανόμενος αὐτοῖς.

among the disciples, and the hope of the advent of the Lord indirectly pointed to, in that, at that time, when He had been received back into the heavens, the angels8741

8741 Comp. Acts i. 10 and Luke ix. 30: in each place St. Luke says, ἄνδρες δύο: as also in xxiv. 4 of his Gospel.

told the apostles that “He would so come, as He had withal ascended into the heavens;”8742

8742 Acts i. 10, 11; but it is οὐρανόν throughout in the Greek.

at Pentecost, of course. But, moreover, when Jeremiah says, “And I will gather them together from the extremities of the land in the feast-day,” he signifies the day of the Passover and of Pentecost, which is properly a “feast-day.”8743

8743 Jer. xxxi. 8, xxxviii. 8 in LXX., where ἐν ἑορτῇ φασέκ is found, which is not in the English version.

However, every day is the Lord’s; every hour, every time, is apt for baptism: if there is a difference in the solemnity, distinction there is none in the grace.
Matt. iii. 6. [See the collection of Dr. Bunsen for the whole primitive discipline to which Tertullian has reference, Hippol. Vol. III. pp. 5–23, and 29.]

To us it is matter for thankfulness if we do now publicly confess our iniquities or our turpitudes:8745

8745 Perhaps Tertullian is referring to Prov. xxviii. 13. If we confess now, we shall be forgiven, and not put to shame at the judgment day.

for we do at the same time both make satisfaction8746

8746 See de Orat. c. xxiii. ad fin., and the note there.

for our former sins, by mortification of our flesh and spirit, and lay beforehand the foundation of defences against the temptations which will closely follow. “Watch and pray,” saith (the Lord), “lest ye fall into temptation.”8747

8747 Matt. xxvi. 41.

And the reason, I believe, why they were tempted was, that they fell asleep; so that they deserted the Lord when apprehended, and he who continued to stand by Him, and used the sword, even denied Him thrice: for withal the word had gone before, that “no one untempted should attain the celestial kingdoms.”8748

8748 What passage is referred to is doubtful. The editors point us to Luke xxii. 28, 29; but the reference is unsatisfactory.

The Lord Himself forthwith after baptism8749

8749 Lavacrum.

temptations surrounded, when in forty days He had kept fast. “Then,” some one will say, “it becomes us, too, rather to fast after baptism.”8750

8750 Lavacro. Compare the beginning of the chapter.

Well, and who forbids you, unless it be the necessity for joy, and the thanksgiving for salvation? But so far as I, with my poor powers, understand, the Lord figuratively retorted upon Israel the reproach they had cast on the Lord.8751

8751 Viz. by their murmuring for bread (see Ex. xvi. 3; 7); and again—nearly forty years after—in another place. See Num. xxi. 5.

For the people, after crossing the sea, and being carried about in the desert during forty years, although they were there nourished with divine supplies, nevertheless were more mindful of their belly and their gullet than of God. Thereupon the Lord, driven apart into desert places after baptism,8752

8752 Aquam: just as St. Paul says the Israelites had been “baptized” (or “baptized themselves”) “into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” 1 Cor. x. 2.

showed, by maintaining a fast of forty days, that the man of God lives “not by bread alone,” but “by the word of God;”8753

8753 Matt. iv. 1–4.

and that temptations incident to fulness or immoderation of appetite are shattered by abstinence. Therefore, blessed ones, whom the grace of God awaits, when you ascend from that most sacred font8754

8754 Lavacro.

of your new birth, and spread your hands8755

8755 In prayer: comp. de Orat. c. xiv.

for the first time in the house of your mother,8756

8756 i.e. the Church: comp. de Orat. c. 2.

together with your brethren, ask from the Father, ask from the Lord, that His own specialties of grace and distributions of gifts8757

8757 1 Cor. xii. 4–12.

may be supplied you. “Ask,” saith He, “and ye shall receive.”8758

8758 Matt. vii. 7; Luke xi. 9; αἰτεῖτε, καὶ δοθήσεται, ὑμῖν in both places.

Well, you have asked, and have received; you have knocked, and it has been opened to you.  Only, I pray that, when you are asking, you be mindful likewise of Tertullian the sinner.8759

8759 [The translator, though so learned and helpful, too often encumbers the text with superfluous interpolations. As many of these, while making the reading difficult, add nothing to the sense yet destroy the terse, crabbed force of the original, I have occasionally restored the spirit of a sentence, by removing them.]

The argument (p. 673, note 6,) is conclusive, but not clear. The disciples of John must have been baptized by him, (Luke vii. 29–30) and “all the people,” must have included those whom Jesus called.  But, this was not Christ’s baptism:  See Acts xix. 2; 5. Compare note 8, p. 673. And see the American Editor’s “Apollos.” Matt. ix. 16, 17; Mark ii. 21, 22; Luke v. 36, 37.

Besides, whatever had been in bygone days, has either been quite changed, as circumcision; or else supplemented, as the rest of the Law; or else fulfilled, as Prophecy; or else perfected, as faith itself. For the new grace of God has renewed all things from carnal unto spiritual, by superinducing the Gospel, the obliterator of the whole ancient bygone system; in which our Lord Jesus Christ has been approved as the Spirit of God, and the Word of God, and the Reason of God: the Spirit, by which He was mighty; the Word, by which He taught; the Reason, by which He came.8763

8763 Routh suggests, “fortase quâ sensit,” referring to the Adv. Praxeam, c. 5.

So the prayer composed by Christ has been composed of three parts. In speech,8764

8764 Sermone.

by which prayer is enunciated, in spirit, by which alone it prevails, even John had taught his disciples to pray,8765

8765 This is Oehler’s punctuation. The edition of Pamelius reads: “So the prayer composed by Christ was composed of three parts: of the speech, by which it is enunciated; of the spirit, by which alone it prevails; of the reason, by which it is taught.”  Rigaltius and subsequent editors read, “of the reason, by which it is conceived;” but this last clause is lacking in the mss., and Oehler’s reading appears, as he says, to “have healed the words.” [Oehler’s punctuation must stand; but, the preceding sentence justifies the interpolation of Rigaltius and heals more effectually.]

but all John’s doings were laid as groundwork for Christ, until, when “He had increased”—just as the same John used to fore-announce “that it was needful” that “He should increase and himself decrease”8766

8766 John iii. 30.

—the whole work of the forerunner passed over, together with his spirit itself, unto the Lord. Therefore, after what form of words John taught to pray is not extant, because earthly things have given place to heavenly. “He who is from the earth,” says John, “speaketh earthly things; and He who is here from the heavens speaketh those things which He hath seen.”8767

8767 John iii. 31, 32.

And what is the Lord Christ’s—as this method of praying is—that is not heavenly? And so, blessed brethren, let us consider His heavenly wisdom: first, touching the precept of praying secretly, whereby He exacted man’s faith, that he should be confident that the sight and hearing of Almighty God are present beneath roofs, and extend even into the secret place; and required modesty in faith, that it should offer its religious homage to Him alone, whom it believed to see and to hear everywhere. Further, since wisdom succeeded in the following precept, let it in like manner appertain unto faith, and the modesty of faith, that we think not that the Lord must be approached with a train of words, who, we are certain, takes unsolicited foresight for His own. And yet that very brevity—and let this make for the third grade of wisdom—is supported on the substance of a great and blessed interpretation, and is as diffuse in meaning as it is compressed in words. For it has embraced not only the special duties of prayer, be it veneration of God or petition for man, but almost every discourse of the Lord, every record of His Discipline; so that, in fact, in the Prayer is comprised an epitome of the whole Gospel.
John i. 12.

However, our Lord very frequently proclaimed God as a Father to us; nay, even gave a precept “that we call no one on earth father, but the Father whom we have in the heavens:”8769

8769 Matt. xxiii. 9.

and so, in thus praying, we are likewise obeying the precept. Happy they who recognize their Father! This is the reproach that is brought against Israel, to which the Spirit attests heaven and earth, saying, “I have begotten sons, and they have not recognized me.”8770

8770 Isa. i. 2.

Moreover, in saying “Father,” we also call Him “God.” That appellation is one both of filial duty and of power. Again, in the Father the Son is invoked; “for I,” saith He, “and the Father are One.”8771

8771 John x. 30.

Nor is even our mother the Church passed by, if, that is, in the Father and the Son is recognized the mother, from whom arises the name both of Father and of Son.  In one general term, then, or word, we both honour God, together with His own,8772

8772 “i.e., together with the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Oehler); “His Son and His church” (Dodgson).

and are mindful of the precept, and set a mark on such as have forgotten their Father.
Ex. iii. 13–16.

To us it has been revealed in the Son, for the Son is now the Father’s new name. “I am come,” saith He, “in the Father’s name;”8774

8774 John v. 43.

and again, “Father, glorify Thy name;”8775

8775 John xii. 28.

and more openly, “I have manifested Thy name to men.”8776

8776 John xvii. 6.

That name, therefore, we pray may “be hallowed.”  Not that it is becoming for men to wish God well, as if there were any other8777

8777 i.e., “any other god.”

by whom He may be wished well, or as if He would suffer unless we do so wish. Plainly, it is universally becoming for God to be blessed8778
8778 Ps. ciii. 22.

in every place and time, on account of the memory of His benefits ever due from every man. But this petition also serves the turn of a blessing. Otherwise, when is the name of God not “holy,” and “hallowed” through Himself, seeing that of Himself He sanctifies all others—He to whom that surrounding circle of angels cease not to say, “Holy, holy, holy?”8779

8779 Isa. vi. 3; Rev. iv. 8.

In like wise, therefore, we too, candidates for angelhood, if we succeed in deserving it, begin even here on earth to learn by heart that strain hereafter to be raised unto God, and the function of future glory. So far, for the glory of God. On the other hand, for our own petition, when we say, “Hallowed be Thy name,” we pray this; that it may be hallowed in us who are in Him, as well in all others for whom the grace of God is still waiting;8780

8780 Isa. xxx. 18.

that we may obey this precept, too, in “praying for all,”8781

8781 1 Tim. ii. 1.

even for our personal enemies.8782

8782 Matt. v. 44.

And therefore with suspended utterance, not saying, “Hallowed be it in us,” we say,—“in all.”
John vi. 38.

unto which things, as unto exemplars, we are now provoked;8787

8787 For this use of the word “provoke,” see Heb. x. 24, Eng. ver.

to preach, to work, to endure even unto death. And we need the will of God, that we may be able to fulfil these duties. Again, in saying, “Thy will be done,” we are even wishing well to ourselves, in so far that there is nothing of evil in the will of God; even if, proportionably to each one’s deserts, somewhat other8788

8788 [Something we might think other than good.]

is imposed on us. So by this expression we premonish our own selves unto patience.  The Lord also, when He had wished to demonstrate to us, even in His own flesh, the flesh’s infirmity, by the reality of suffering, said, “Father, remove this Thy cup;” and remembering Himself, added, “save that not my will, but Thine be done.”8789

8789 Luke xxii. 42.

Himself was the Will and the Power of the Father:  and yet, for the demonstration of the patience which was due, He gave Himself up to the Father’s Will.
Prov. xxi. 1.

But whatever we wish for ourselves we augur for Him, and to Him we attribute what from Him we expect. And so, if the manifestation of the Lord’s kingdom pertains unto the will of God and unto our anxious expectation, how do some pray for some protraction of the age,8791

8791 Or, “world,” sæculo.

when the kingdom of God, which we pray may arrive, tends unto the consummation of the age?8792

8792 Or, “world,” sæculi. See Matt. xxiv. 3, especially in the Greek. By “praying for some protraction in the age,” Tertullian appears to refer to some who used to pray that the end might be deferred (Rigalt.).

Our wish is, that our reign be hastened, not our servitude protracted. Even if it had not been prescribed in the Prayer that we should ask for the advent of the kingdom, we should, unbidden, have sent forth that cry, hastening toward the realization of our hope. The souls of the martyrs beneath the altar8793

8793 altari.

cry in jealousy unto the Lord, “How long, Lord, dost Thou not avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?”8794

8794 Rev. vi. 10.

for, of course, their avenging is regulated by8795

8795 So Dodgson aptly renders “dirigitur a.”

the end of the age. Nay, Lord, Thy kingdom come with all speed,—the prayer of Christians the confusion of the heathen,8796

8796 [See Ad Nationes, p. 128, supra.]

the exultation of angels, for the sake of which we suffer, nay, rather, for the sake of which we pray!
Matt. vi. 33.

albeit we may rather understand, “Give us this day our daily bread,” spiritually. For Christ is our Bread; because Christ is Life, and bread is life. “I am,” saith He, “the Bread of Life;”8799

8799 John vi. 35.

and, a little above, “The Bread is the Word of the living God, who came down from the heavens.”8800

8800 John vi. 33.

Then we find, too, that His body is reckoned in bread: “This is my body.”8801

8801 Matt. xxvi. 26.

And so, in petitioning for “daily bread,” we ask for perpetuity in Christ, and indivisibility from His body. But, because that word is admissible in a carnal sense too, it cannot be so used without the religious remembrance withal of spiritual Discipline; for (the Lord) commands that bread be prayed for, which is the only food necessary for believers; for “all other things the nations seek after.”8802

8802 Matt. vi. 32.

The like lesson He both inculcates by examples, and repeatedly handles in parables, when He says, “Doth a father take away bread from his children, and hand it to dogs?”8803

8803 Tertullian seems to refer to Matt. xv. 26; Mark vii. 27.

and again, “Doth a father give his son a stone when he asks for bread?”8804

8804 Matt. vii. 9; Luke xi. 11.

For He thus shows what it is that sons expect from their father. Nay, even that nocturnal knocker knocked for “bread.”8805

8805 Luke xi. 5–9.

Moreover, He justly added, “Give us this day,” seeing He had previously said, “Take no careful thought about the morrow, what ye are to eat.”8806

8806 Matt. vi. 34 and Luke xii. 29 seem to be referred to; but the same remark applies as in note 10 on the preceding page.

To which subject He also adapted the parable of the man who pondered on an enlargement of his barns for his forthcoming fruits, and on seasons of prolonged security; but that very night he dies.8807

8807 Luke xii. 16–20.


Ex. xviii. 23, 32; xxxiii. 11.

Moreover, debt is, in the Scriptures, a figure of guilt; because it is equally due to the sentence of judgment, and is exacted by it: nor does it evade the justice of exaction, unless the exaction be remitted, just as the lord remitted to that slave in the parable his debt;8812

8812 Matt. xviii. 21–35.

for hither does the scope of the whole parable tend. For the fact withal, that the same servant, after liberated by his lord, does not equally spare his own debtor; and, being on that account impeached before his lord, is made over to the tormentor to pay the uttermost farthing—that is, every guilt, however small: corresponds with our profession that “we also remit to our debtors;” indeed elsewhere, too, in conformity with this Form of Prayer, He saith, “Remit, and it shall be remitted you.”8813

8813 Luke vi. 37.

And when Peter had put the question whether remission were to be granted to a brother seven times, “Nay,” saith He, “seventy-seven times;”8814

8814 Matt. xviii. 21–22.

in order to remould the Law for the better; because in Genesis vengeance was assigned “seven times” in the case of Cain, but in that of Lamech “seventy-seven times.”8815

8815 Gen. iv. 15; 24.


See James i. 13.

as if He either were ignorant of the faith of any, or else were eager to overthrow it. Infirmity8817

8817 Implied in the one hypothesis—ignorance.

and malice8818

8818 Implied in the other—wishing to overthrow faith.

are characteristics of the devil. For God had commanded even Abraham to make a sacrifice of his son, for the sake not of tempting, but proving, his faith; in order through him to make an example for that precept of His, whereby He was, by and by, to enjoin that he should hold no pledges of affection dearer than God.8819

8819 i.e. no children even. The reference is apparently to Matt. x. 37 and Luke xiv. 26, with which may be compared Deut. xiii. 6–; 10 and xxxiii. 9. If Oehler’s reading, which I have followed, be correct, the precept, which is not verbally given till ages after Abraham, is made to have a retrospective force on him.

He Himself, when tempted by the devil, demonstrated who it is that presides over and is the originator of temptation.8820

8820 See Matt. iv. 10; Luke iv. 8.

This passage He confirms by subsequent ones, saying, “Pray that ye be not tempted;”8821

8821 Luke xxii. 40; Matt. xxvi. 41; Mark xiv. 31.

yet they were tempted, (as they showed) by deserting their Lord, because they had given way rather to sleep than prayer.8822

8822 Routh refers us to De Bapt. c. 20, where Tertullian refers to the same event. [Note also his reference to De Fuga, cap. ii.]

The final clause, therefore, is consonant, and interprets the sense of “Lead us not into temptation;” for this sense is, “But convey us away from the Evil One.” See Matt. vi. 8.

said separately, after delivering His Rule of Prayer, “Ask, and ye shall receive;”8825

8825 Matt. vii. 7; Luke xi. 9.

and since there are petitions which are made according to the circumstances of each individual; our additional wants have the right—after beginning with the legitimate and customary prayers as a foundation, as it were—of rearing an outer superstructure of petitions, yet with remembrance of the Master’s precepts.
Matt. v. 22, 23.

For what sort of deed is it to approach the peace of God8829

8829 Perhaps there may be an allusion to Phil. iv. 6, 7.

without peace? the remission of debts8830

8830 See chap. vii. above, and compare Matt. vi. 14, 15.

while you retain them? How will he appease his Father who is angry with his brother, when from the beginning “all anger” is forbidden us?8831

8831 “Ab initio” probably refers to the book of Genesis, the initium, or beginning of Scripture, to which he is about to refer. But see likewise Eph. iv. 31, Matt. v. 21, 22.  [Gen. iv. 6, 7.]

For even Joseph, when dismissing his brethren for the purpose of fetching their father, said, “And be not angry in the way.”8832

8832 Gen. xlv. 24: so the LXX.

He warned us, to be sure, at that time (for elsewhere our Discipline is called “the Way”8833

8833 See Acts ix. 2; xix. 9, 23, in the Greek.

), that when, set in “the way” of prayer, we go not unto “the Father” with anger. After that, the Lord, “amplifying the Law,”8834

8834 See Matt. v. 17.

openly adds the prohibition of anger against a brother to that of murder.8835

8835 Matt. v. 21, 22.

Not even by an evil word does He permit it to be vented.8836

8836 Matt. v. 21, 22; 1 Pet. iii. 9, etc.

Ever if we must be angry, our anger must not be maintained beyond sunset, as the apostle admonishes.8837

8837 Eph. iv. 26.

But how rash is it either to pass a day without prayer, while you refuse to make satisfaction to your brother; or else, by perseverance in anger, to lose your prayer? Eph. iv. 30.

nor a sad by a joyful,8839

8839 John xvii. 14; Rom. xiv. 17.

nor a fettered by a free.8840

8840 Ps. li. 12.

No one grants reception to his adversary: no one grants admittance except to his compeer. 1 Tim. ii. 8.

from falsehood, from murder, from cruelty, from poisonings,8842

8842 Or, “sorceries.”

from idolatry, and all the other blemishes which, conceived by the spirit, are effected by the operation of the hands.  These are the true purities;8843

8843 See Matt. xv. 10, 11, 17–20; xxiii. 25, 26.

not those which most are superstitiously careful about, taking water at every prayer, even when they are coming from a bath of the whole body. When I was scrupulously making a thorough investigation of this practice, and searching into the reason of it, I ascertained it to be a commemorative act, bearing on the surrender8844

8844 By Pilate. See Matt. xxvii. 24. [N. B. quoad Ritualia.]

of our Lord. We, however, pray to the Lord:  we do not surrender Him; nay, we ought even to set ourselves in opposition to the example of His surrenderer, and not, on that account, wash our hands.  Unless any defilement contracted in human intercourse be a conscientious cause for washing them, they are otherwise clean enough, which together with our whole body we once washed in Christ.8845

8845 i.e. in baptism.

See Matt. xxiii. 31; Luke xi. 48.

they do not dare even to raise them unto the Lord,8847

8847 I do not know Tertullian’s authority for this statement.  Certainly Solomon did raise his hands (1 Kings viii. 54), and David apparently his (see Ps. cxliii. 6; xxviii. 2; lxii. 4, etc.). Compare, too, Ex. xvii. 11, 12. But probably he is speaking only of the Israel of his own day. [Evidently.]

for fear some Isaiah should cry out,8848

8848 Isa. i. 15.

for fear Christ should utterly shudder.  We, however, not only raise, but even expand them; and, taking our model from the Lord’s passion8849

8849 i.e. from the expansion of the hands on the cross.

even in prayer we confess8850

8850 Or, “give praise.”

to Christ. Or, “reasonable service.” See Rom. xii. 1.

deserving of restraint, at all events, even on this ground, that they put us on a level with Gentiles.8853

8853 Or, “Gentile practices.”

As, e.g., it is the custom of some to make prayer with cloaks doffed, for so do the nations approach their idols; which practice, of course, were its observance becoming, the apostles, who teach concerning the garb of prayer,8854

8854 See 1 Cor. xi. 3–16.

would have comprehended in their instructions, unless any think that is was in prayer that Paul had left his cloak with Carpus!8855

8855 2 Tim. iv. 13.

God, forsooth, would not hear cloaked suppliants, who plainly heard the three saints in the Babylonian king’s furnace praying in their trousers and turbans.8856

8856 Dan. iii. 21, etc.

Routh and Oehler (after Rigaltius) refer us to Tob. xii. 12. They also, with Dodgson, refer to Luke i. 11. Perhaps there may be a reference to Rev. viii. 3, 4.

unless we are upbraiding God that prayer has wearied us! Luke xviii. 9–14.

The sounds of our voice, likewise, should be subdued; else, if we are to be heard for our noise, how large windpipes should we need! But God is the hearer not of the voice, but of the heart, just as He is its inspector. The demon of the Pythian oracle says:

Which is forbidden, Matt. vi. 5, 6.


See Bible:1Pet.5.14">Rom. xvi. 16; 1 Cor. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 26; 1 Pet. v. 14. [The sexes apart.]

Whom does peace impede when rendering service to his Lord? What kind of sacrifice is that from which men depart without peace?  Whatever our prayer be, it will not be better than the observance of the precept by which we are bidden to conceal our fasts;8865

8865 Matt. vi. 16–18.

for now, by abstinence from the kiss, we are known to be fasting. But even if there be some reason for this practice, still, lest you offend against this precept, you may perhaps defer your “peace” at home, where it is not possible for your fast to be entirely kept secret. But wherever else you can conceal your observance, you ought to remember the precept:  thus you may satisfy the requirements of Discipline abroad and of custom at home. So, too, on the day of the passover,8866

8866 i.e. “Good Friday,” as it is now generally called.

when the religious observance of a fast is general, and as it were public, we justly forego the kiss, caring nothing to conceal anything which we do in common with all. See 2 Tim. ii. 1, etc. [See Hermas, Vol. I., p. 33.]

—of course no gladness or sadness chanting to the camp abolishes the “stations” of the soldiers: for gladness will carry out discipline more willingly, sadness more carefully. See 1 Cor. xi. 1–16; 1 Tim. ii. 9, 10.

except in so far as it will not be presumptuously if we treat the subject in accordance with the apostle. Touching modesty of dress and ornamentation, indeed, the prescription of Peter8872

8872 1 Pet. iii. 1–6.

likewise is plain, checking as he does with the same mouth, because with the same Spirit, as Paul, the glory of garments, and the pride of gold, and the meretricious elaboration of the hair. 1 Cor. xi. 5.

as “to be veiled;” nor the sex generally, so as to say “females,” but a class of the sex, by saying “women:” for if he had named the sex by saying “females,” he would have made his limit absolute for every woman; but while he names one class of the sex, he separates another class by being silent. For, they say, he might either have named “virgins” specially; or generally, by a compendious term, “females.”
Gen. ii. 23. In the LXX. and in the Eng. ver. there is but the one word “woman.”

—(“female,” whereby the sex generally; “woman,” hereby a class of the sex, is marked).8876

8876 These words are regarded by Dr. Routh as spurious, and not without reason. Mr. Dodgson likewise omits them, and refers to de Virg. Vel. cc. 4 and 5.

So, since at that time the as yet unwedded Eve was called by the word “woman,” that word has been made common even to a virgin.8877

8877 In de Virg. Vel. 5, Tertullian speaks even more strongly: “And so you have the name, I say not now common, but proper to a virgin; a name which from the beginning a virgin received.”

Nor is it wonderful that the apostle—guided, of course, by the same Spirit by whom, as all the divine Scripture, so that book Genesis, was drawn up—has used the selfsame word in writing “women,” which, by the example of Eve unwedded, is applicable too to a “virgin.” In fact, all the other passages are in consonance herewith. For even by this very fact, that he has not named “virgins” (as he does in another place8878

8878 1 Cor. vii. 34 et seq.

where he is teaching touching marrying), he sufficiently predicates that his remark is made touching every woman, and touching the whole sex; and that there is no distinction made between a “virgin” and any other, while he does not name her at all. For he who elsewhere—namely, where the difference requires—remembers to make the distinction, (moreover, he makes it by designating each species by their appropriate names,) wishes, where he makes no distinction (while he does not name each), no difference to be understood. What of the fact that in the Greek speech, in which the apostle wrote his letters, it is usual to say, “women” rather than “females;” that is, γυναῖκας (gunaikas) rather than θηλείας (theleias)? Therefore if that word,8879

8879 γυνή.

which by interpretation represents what “female” (femina) represents,8880

8880 Mr. Dodgson appears to think that there is some transposition here; and at first sight it may appear so. But when we look more closely, perhaps there is no need to make any difficulty: the stress is rather on the words “by interpretation,” which, of course, is a different thing from “usage;” and by interpretation γυνή appears to come nearer to “femina” than to “mulier.”

is frequently used instead of the name of the sex,8881

8881 θηλεῖα.

he has named the sex in saying γυναῖκα; but in the sex even the virgin is embraced. But, withal, the declaration is plain: “Every woman,” saith he, “praying and prophesying with head uncovered,8882

8882 Or, “unveiled.”

dishonoureth her own head.”8883

8883 1 Cor. xi. 5.

What is “every woman,” but woman of every age, of every rank, of every condition? By saying “every” he excepts nought of womanhood, just as he excepts nought of manhood either from not being covered; for just so he says, “Every man.”8884

8884 1 Cor. xi. 4.

As, then, in the masculine sex, under the name of “man” even the “youth” is forbidden to be veiled; so, too, in the feminine, under the name of “woman,” even the “virgin” is bidden to be veiled. Equally in each sex let the younger age follow the discipline of the elder; or else let the male “virgins,”8885

8885 For a similar use of the word “virgin,” see Rev. xiv. 4.

too, be veiled, if the female virgins withal are not veiled, because they are not mentioned by name.  Let “man” and “youth” be different, if “woman” and “virgin” are different. For indeed it is “on account of the angels”8886

8886 1 Cor. xi. 10.

that he saith women must be veiled, because on account of “the daughters of men” angels revolted from God.8887

8887 See Gen. vi. 2 in the LXX., with the v. l. ed. Tisch. 1860; and compare Tertullian, de Idol. c. 9, and the note there. Mr. Dodgson refers, too, to de Virg. Vel. c. 7, where this curious subject is more fully entered into.

Who then, would contend that “women” alone—that is,8888

8888 i.e. according to their definition, whom Tertullian is refuting.

such as were already wedded and had lost their virginity—were the objects of angelic concupiscence, unless “virgins” are incapable of excelling in beauty and finding lovers? Nay, let us see whether it were not virgins alone whom they lusted after; since Scriptures saith “the daughters of men;”8889

8889 Gen. iv. 2.

inasmuch as it might have named “wives of men,” or “females,” indifferently.8890

8890 i.e. If married women had been meant, either word, “uxores” or “feminæ,” could have been used indifferently.

Likewise, in that it saith, “And they took them to themselves for wives,”8891

8891 Gen. vi. 2.

it does so on this ground, that, of course, such are “received for wives” as are devoid of that title. But it would have expressed itself differently concerning such as were not thus devoid. And so (they who are named) are devoid as much of widowhood as of virginity. So completely has Paul by naming the sex generally, mingled “daughters” and species together in the genus. Again, while he says that “nature herself,”8892

8892 1 Cor. xi. 14.

which has assigned hair as a tegument and ornament to women, “teaches that veiling is the duty of females,” has not the same tegument and the same honour of the head been assigned also to virgins?  If “it is shameful” for a woman to be shorn it is similarly so to a virgin too. From them, then, to whom is assigned one and the same law of the head,8893

8893 i.e. long hair.

one and the same discipline8894

8894 i.e. veiling.

of the head is exacted,—(which extends) even unto those virgins whom their childhood defends,8895

8895 i.e. “exempts.”

for from the first8896

8896 i.e. from her creation.

a virgin was named “female.” This custom,8897

8897 Of the “universal veiling of women.”

in short, even Israel observes; but if Israel did not observe it, our Law,8898

8898 i.e. as above, the Sermon on the Mount.

amplified and supplemented, would vindicate the addition for itself; let it be excused for imposing the veil on virgins also.  Under our dispensation, let that age which is ignorant of its sex8899

8899 i.e. mere infancy.

retain the privilege of simplicity. For both Eve and Adam, when it befell them to be “wise,”8900

8900 Gen. iii. 6.

forthwith veiled what they had learnt to know.8901

8901 Gen. ii. 27 (or in the LXX. iii. 1), and iii. 7, 10, 11.

At all events, with regard to those in whom girlhood has changed (into maturity), their age ought to remember its duties as to nature, so also, to discipline; for they are being transferred to the rank of “women” both in their persons and in their functions. No one is a “virgin” from the time when she is capable of marriage; seeing that, in her, age has by that time been wedded to its own husband, that is, to time.8902

8902 Routh refers us to de Virg. Vel. c. 11.

“But some particular virgin has devoted herself to God.  From that very moment she both changes the fashion of her hair, and converts all her garb into that of a ‘woman.’”  Let her, then, maintain the character wholly, and perform the whole function of a “virgin:” what she conceals8903

8903 i.e. the redundance of her hair.

for the sake of God, let her cover quite over.8904

8904 i.e. by a veil.

It is our business to entrust to the knowledge of God alone that which the grace of God effects in us, lest we receive from man the reward we hope for from God.8905

8905 i.e. says Oehler, “lest we postpone the eternal favour of God, which we hope for, to the temporal veneration of men; a risk which those virgins seemed likely to run who, when devoted to God, used to go veiled in public, but bareheaded in the church.”

Why do you denude before God8906

8906 i.e. in church.

what you cover before men?8907

8907 i.e. in public; see note 27, supra.

Will you be more modest in public than in the church? If your self-devotion is a grace of God, and you have received it, “why do you boast,” saith he, “as if you have not received it?”8908

8908 1 Cor. iv. 7.

Why, by your ostentation of yourself, do you judge others? Is it that, by your boasting, you invite others unto good?  Nay, but even you yourself run the risk of losing, if you boast; and you drive others unto the same perils! What is assumed from love of boasting is easily destroyed. Be veiled, virgin, if virgin you are; for you ought to blush. If you are a virgin, shrink from (the gaze of) many eyes. Let no one wonder at your face; let no one perceive your falsehood.8909

8909 i.e. as Muratori, quoted by Oehler, says, your “pious” (?) fraud in pretending to be married when you are a virgin; because “devoted” virgins used to dress and wear veils like married women, as being regarded as “wedded to Christ.”

You do well in falsely assuming the married character, if you veil your head; nay, you do not seem to assume it falsely, for you are wedded to Christ: to Him you have surrendered your body; act as becomes your Husband’s discipline. If He bids the brides of others to be veiled, His own, of course, much more. “But each individual man8910

8910 i.e. each president of a church, or bishop.

is not to think that the institution of his predecessor is to be overturned.” Many yield up their own judgment, and its consistency, to the custom of others. Granted that virgins be not compelled to be veiled, at all events such as voluntarily are so should not be prohibited; who, likewise, cannot deny themselves to be virgins,8911

8911 i.e. “are known to be such through the chastity of their manner and life” (Oehler).

content, in the security of a good conscience before God, to damage their own fame.8912

8912 “By appearing in public as married women, while in heart they are virgins” (Oehler).

Touching such, however, as are betrothed, I can with constancy “above my small measure”8913

8913 Does Tertullian refer to 2 Cor. x. 13? or does “modulus” mean, as Oehler thinks, “my rule?” [It seems to me a very plain reference to the text before mentioned, and to the Apostolic Canon of not exceeding one’s Mission.]

pronounce and attest that they are to be veiled from that day forth on which they shuddered at the first bodily touch of a man by kiss and hand. For in them everything has been forewedded: their age, through maturity; their flesh, through age; their spirit, through consciousness; their modesty, through the experience of the kiss their hope, through expectation; their mind through volition. And Rebecca is example enough for us, who, when her betrothed had been pointed out, veiled herself for marriage merely on recognition of him.8914

8914 Gen. xxiv. 64, 65.

Eph. iv. 27.

Similarly, too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we distinguish by the same solemnity of exultation.8916

8916 i.e. abstaining from kneeling: kneeling being more “a posture of solicitude” and of humility; standing, of “exultation.”

But who would hesitate every day to prostrate himself before God, at least in the first prayer with which we enter on the daylight?  At fasts, moreover, and Stations, no prayer should be made without kneeling, and the remaining customary marks of humility; for (then)8917

8917 i.e. at fasts and Stations. [Sabbath = Saturday, supra.]

we are not only praying, but deprecating, and making satisfaction to God our Lord.8918

8918 For the meaning of “satisfaction” as used by the Fathers, see Hooker, Eccl. Pol. vi. 5.

Touching times of prayer nothing at all has been prescribed, except clearly “to pray at every time and every place.”8919

8919 Eph. vi. 18; 1 Thess. v. 17; 1 Tim. ii. 8.

Matt. vi. 5, 6, which forbids praying in public.

(from praying) in public? In every place, he means, which opportunity or even necessity, may have rendered suitable: for that which was done by the apostles8921

8921 Paul and Silas (Acts xvi. 25).

(who, in gaol, in the audience of the prisoners, “began praying and singing to God”) is not considered to have been done contrary to the precept; nor yet that which was done by Paul,8922

8922 I have followed Muratori’s reading here.

who in the ship, in presence of all, “made thanksgiving to God.”8923

8923 Mr. Dodgson renders “celebrated the Eucharist;” but that rendering appears very doubtful. See Acts xxvii. 35.


Acts ii. 1–4, 14, 15.

Peter, on the day on which he experienced the vision of Universal Community,8926

8926 Communitatis omnis (Oehler). Mr. Dodgson renders, “of every sort of common thing.” Perhaps, as Routh suggests, we should read “omnium.”

(exhibited) in that small vessel,8927

8927 Vasculo. But in Acts it is, σκεῦός τι ὡς ὀθόνην μεγάλην [Small is here comparatively used, with reference to Universality of which it was the symbol.]

had ascended into the more lofty parts of the house, for prayer’s sake “at the sixth hour.”8928

8928 Acts x. 9.

The same (apostle) was going into the temple, with John, “at the ninth hour,”8929

8929 Acts iii. 1: but the man is not said to have been “paralytic,” but “lame from his mother’s womb.”

when he restored the paralytic to his health.  Albeit these practices stand simply without any precept for their observance, still it may be granted a good thing to establish some definite presumption, which may both add stringency to the admonition to pray, and may, as it were by a law, tear us out from our businesses unto such a duty; so that—what we read to have been observed by Daniel also,8930

8930 Dan. vi. 10; comp. Ps. lv. 17 (in the LXX. it is liv. 18).

in accordance (of course) with Israel’s discipline—we pray at least not less than thrice in the day, debtors as we are to Three—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: of course, in addition to our regular prayers which are due, without any admonition, on the entrance of light and of night. But, withal, it becomes believers not to take food, and not to go to the bath, before interposing a prayer; for the refreshments and nourishments of the spirit are to be held prior to those of the flesh, and things heavenly prior to things earthly. I have ventured to turn the first part of the sentence into a question. What “scripture” this may be, no one knows. [It seems to me a clear reference to Matt. xxv. 38, amplified by the 45th verse, in a way not unusual with our author.] Perhaps, in addition to the passages in Gen. xviii. and Heb. xiii. 2, to which the editors naturally refer, Tertullian may allude to such passages as Mark. ix. 37; Matt. xxv. 40, 45. [Christo in pauperibus.]

—especially “a stranger,” lest perhaps he be “an angel.”  But again, when received yourself by brethren, you will not make8932

8932 I have followed Routh’s conjecture, “feceris” for “fecerit,” which Oehler does not even notice.

earthly refreshments prior to heavenly, for your faith will forthwith be judged. Or else how will you—according to the precept8933

8933 Luke x. 5.

—say, “Peace to this house,” unless you exchange mutual peace with them who are in the house? [The author seems to have in mind (Hos. xiv. 2) “the calves of our lips.”]


1 Pet. ii. 5.

which has abolished the pristine sacrifices.  “To what purpose,” saith He, “(bring ye) me the multitude of your sacrifices? I am full of holocausts of rams, and I desire not the fat of rams, and the blood of bulls and of goats. For who hath required these from your hands?”8937

8937 Isa. i. 11. See the LXX.

What, then, God has required the Gospel teaches.  “An hour will come,” saith He, “when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and truth. For God is a Spirit, and accordingly requires His adorers to be such.”8938

8938 John iv. 23, 24.

We are the true adorers and the true priests,8939

8939 Sacerdotes; comp. de Ex. Cast. c. 7.

who, praying in spirit,8940

8940 1 Cor. xiv. 15; Eph. vi. 18.

sacrifice, in spirit, prayer,—a victim proper and acceptable to God, which assuredly He has required, which He has looked forward to8941

8941 Or, “provided.”

for Himself! This victim, devoted from the whole heart, fed on faith, tended by truth, entire in innocence, pure in chastity, garlanded with love,8942

8942 “Agape,” perhaps “the love-feast.”

we ought to escort with the pomp8943

8943 Or, “procession.”

of good works, amid psalms and hymns, unto God’s altar,8944

8944 Altare.

to obtain for us all things from God.
Dan. iii.

and from beasts,8947

8947 Dan. vi.

and from famine;8948

8948 1 Kings xviii.; James v. 17, 18.

and yet it had not (then) received its form from Christ. But how far more amply operative is Christian prayer! It does not station the angel of dew in mid-fires,8949

8949 i.e. “the angel who preserved in the furnace the three youths besprinkled, as it were, with dewy shower” (Muratori quoted by Oehler).  [Apocrypha, The Song, etc., Song of the Three Children 26,27" id="vi.iv.xxix-p7.1">verses 26, 27.]

nor muzzle lions, nor transfer to the hungry the rustics’ bread;8950

8950 2 Kings iv. 42–44.

it has no delegated grace to avert any sense of suffering;8951

8951 i.e. in brief, its miraculous operations, as they are called, are suspended in these ways.

but it supplies the suffering, and the feeling, and the grieving, with endurance: it amplifies grace by virtue, that faith may know what she obtains from the Lord, understanding what—for God’s name’s sake—she suffers. But in days gone by, withal prayer used to call down8952

8952 Or, “inflict.”

plagues, scatter the armies of foes, withhold the wholesome influences of the showers. Now, however, the prayer of righteousness averts all God’s anger, keeps bivouac on behalf of personal enemies, makes supplication on behalf of persecutors. Is it wonder if it knows how to extort the rains of heaven8953

8953 See Apolog. c. 5 (Oehler).

—(prayer) which was once able to procure its fires?8954

8954 See 2 Kings i.

Prayer is alone that which vanquishes8955

8955 [A reference to Jacob’s wrestling. Also, probably, to Matt. xi. 12.]

God. But Christ has willed that it be operative for no evil: He had conferred on it all its virtue in the cause of good.  And so it knows nothing save how to recall the souls of the departed from the very path of death, to transform the weak, to restore the sick, to purge the possessed, to open prison-bars, to loose the bonds of the innocent. Likewise it washes away faults, repels temptations, extinguishes persecutions, consoles the faint-spirited, cheers the high-spirited, escorts travellers, appeases waves, makes robbers stand aghast, nourishes the poor, governs the rich, upraises the fallen, arrests the falling, confirms the standing. Prayer is the wall of faith: her arms and missiles8956

8956 Or, “her armour defensive and offensive.”

against the foe who keeps watch over us on all sides. And, so never walk we unarmed. By day, be we mindful of Station; by night, of vigil. Under the arms of prayer guard we the standard of our General; await we in prayer the angel’s trump.8957

8957 1 Cor. xv. 52; 1 Thess. iv. 16.

The angels, likewise, all pray; every creature prays; cattle and wild beasts pray and bend their knees; and when they issue from their layers and lairs,8958

8958 Or, “pens and dens.”

they look up heavenward with no idle mouth, making their breath vibrate8959

8959 As if in prayer.

after their own manner. Nay, the birds too, rising out of the nest, upraise themselves heavenward, and, instead of hands, expand the cross of their wings, and say somewhat to seem like prayer.8960

8960 This beautiful passage should be supplemented by a similar one from St. Bernard: “Nonne et aviculas levat, non onerat pennarum numerositas ipsa? Tolle eas, et reliquum corpus pondere suo fertur ad ima. Sic disciplinam Christi, sic suave jugum, sic onus leve, quo deponimus, eo deprimimur ipsi:  quia portat potius quam portatur.” Epistola, ccclxxxv. Bernardi Opp. Tom. i. p. 691. Ed. (Mabillon.) Gaume, Paris, 1839. Bearing the cross uplifts the Christian.]

What more then, touching the office of prayer? Even the Lord Himself prayed; to whom be honour and virtue unto the ages of the ages! a.d. 197, as external evidence will shew.]

 Eph. iv. 30. [Some differences had risen between these holy sufferers, as to the personal merits of offenders who had appealed to them for their interest in restoring them to communion.

who has entered the prison with you; for if He had not gone with you there, you would not have been there this day. Do you give all endeavour, therefore, to retain Him; so let Him lead you thence to your Lord. The prison, indeed, is the devil’s house as well, wherein he keeps his family. But you have come within its walls for the very purpose of trampling the wicked one under foot in his chosen abode. You had already in pitched battle outside utterly overcome him; let him have no reason, then, to say to himself, “They are now in my domain; with vile hatreds I shall tempt them, with defections or dissensions among themselves.” Let him fly from your presence, and skulk away into his own abysses, shrunken and torpid, as though he were an outcharmed or smoked-out snake. Give him not the success in his own kingdom of setting you at variance with each other, but let him find you armed and fortified with concord; for peace among you is battle with him. Some, not able to find this peace in the Church, have been used to seek it from the imprisoned martyrs.8963

8963 [He favours this resource as sanctioned by custom, and gently persuades them, by agreeing as to its propriety, to bestow peace upon others.  But, the foresight of those who objected was afterwards justified, for in Cyprian’s day this practice led to greater evils, and he was obliged to discourage it (ep. xi.) in an epistle to confessors.]

And so you ought to have it dwelling with you, and to cherish it, and to guard it, that you may be able perhaps to bestow it upon others.
Matt. vi. 21.

Be there our heart, then, where we would have our treasure.
1 Cor. ix. 25.

We, with the crown eternal in our eye, look upon the prison as our training-ground, that at the goal of final judgment we may be brought forth well disciplined by many a trial; since virtue is built up by hardships, as by voluptuous indulgence it is overthrown.
Matt. xxvi. 41.

Let us not, withal, take delusive comfort from the Lord’s acknowledgment of the weakness of the flesh. For precisely on this account He first declared the spirit willing, that He might show which of the two ought to be subject to the other—that the flesh might yield obedience to the spirit—the weaker to the stronger; the former thus from the latter getting strength. Let the spirit hold convene with the flesh about the common salvation, thinking no longer of the troubles of the prison, but of the wrestle and conflict for which they are the preparation. The flesh, perhaps, will dread the merciless sword, and the lofty cross, and the rage of the wild beasts, and that punishment of the flames, of all most terrible, and all the skill of the executioner in torture. But, on the other side, let the spirit set clearly before both itself and the flesh, how these things, though exceeding painful, have yet been calmly endured by many,—and, have even been eagerly desired for the sake of fame and glory; and this not only in the case of men, but of women too, that you, O holy women, may be worthy of your sex. It would take me too long to enumerate one by one the men who at their own self-impulse have put an end to themselves. As to women, there is a famous case at hand: the violated Lucretia, in the presence of her kinsfolk, plunged the knife into herself, that she might have glory for her chastity.  Mucius burned his right hand on an altar, that this deed of his might dwell in fame. The philosophers have been outstripped,—for instance Heraclitus, who, smeared with cow dung, burned himself; and Empedocles, who leapt down into the fires of Ætna; and Peregrinus,8968

8968 [He is said to have perished circa a.d. 170.]

who not long ago threw himself on the funeral pile. For women even have despised the flames. Dido did so, lest, after the death of a husband very dear to her, she should be compelled to marry again; and so did the wife of Hasdrubal, who, Carthage being on fire, that she might not behold her husband suppliant as Scipio’s feet, rushed with her children into the conflagration, in which her native city was destroyed. Regulus, a Roman general, who had been taken prisoner by the Carthaginians, declined to be exchanged for a large number of Carthaginian captives, choosing rather to be given back to the enemy. He was crammed into a sort of chest; and, everywhere pierced by nails driven from the outside, he endured so many crucifixions. Woman has voluntarily sought the wild beasts, and even asps, those serpents worse than bear or bull, which Cleopatra applied to herself, that she might not fall into the hands of her enemy. But the fear of death is not so great as the fear of torture. And so the Athenian courtezan succumbed to the executioner, when, subjected to torture by the tyrant for having taken part in a conspiracy, still making no betrayal of her confederates, she at last bit off her tongue and spat it in the tyrant’s face, that he might be convinced of the uselessness of his torments, however long they should be continued. Everybody knows what to this day is the great Lacedæmonian solemnity—the διαμαστύγωσις, or scourging; in which sacred rite the Spartan youths are beaten with scourges before the altar, their parents and kinsmen standing by and exhorting them to stand it bravely out. For it will be always counted more honourable and glorious that the soul rather than the body has given itself to stripes. But if so high a value is put on the earthly glory, won by mental and bodily vigour, that men, for the praise of their fellows, I may say, despise the sword, the fire, the cross, the wild beasts, the torture; these surely are but trifling sufferings to obtain a celestial glory and a divine reward. If the bit of glass is so precious, what must the true pearl be worth? Are we not called on, then, most joyfully to lay out as much for the true as others do for the false? Joel ii. 28, 29. [The quotation here is a note of Montanistic prepossessions in the writer.]

And thus we—who both acknowledge and reverence, even as we do the prophecies, modern visions as equally promised to us, and consider the other powers of the Holy Spirit as an agency of the Church for which also He was sent, administering all gifts in all, even as the Lord distributed to every one8976

8976 [Routh notes this as undoubted evidence of a Montanistic author.  Reliquiæ, Vol. I. p. 455.]

as well needfully collect them in writing, as commemorate them in reading to God’s glory; that so no weakness or despondency of faith may suppose that the divine grace abode only among the ancients, whether in respect of the condescension that raised up martyrs, or that gave revelations; since God always carries into effect what He has promised, for a testimony to unbelievers, to believers for a benefit.  And we therefore, what we have heard and handled, declare also to you, brethren and little children, that as well you who were concerned in these matters may be reminded of them again to the glory of the Lord, as that you who know them by report may have communion with the blessed martyrs, and through them with the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and honour, for ever and ever.8977

8977 [St. Augustine takes pains to remind us that these Acta are not canonical. De Anima, cap. 2, opp. Tom. x. p. 481.]

Amen.
[The story in 2 Maccab. xii. 40–45, is there narrated as a thought suggested to the soldiers under Judas, and not discouraged by him, though it concerned men guilty of idolatry and dying in mortal sin, by the vengeance of God. It may have occurred to early Christians that their heathen kindred might, therefore, not be beyond the visitations of the Divine compassion.  But, obviously, even were it not an Apocryphal text, it can have no bearing whatever on the case of Christians.  The doctrine of Purgatory is that nobody dying in mortal sin can have the benefit of its discipline, or any share in the prayers and oblations of the Faithful, whatever.]

And for him I began earnestly to make supplication, and to cry with groaning to the Lord. Without delay, on that very night, this was shown to me in a vision.8987

8987 “Oromate.” [This vision, it must be observed, has nothing to do with prayers for the Christian dead, for this brother of Perpetua was a heathen child whom she supposed to be in the Inferi. It illustrates the anxieties Christians felt for those of their kindred who had not died in the Lord; even for children of seven years of age. Could the gulf be bridged and they received into Abraham’s bosom?  This dream of Perpetua comforted her with a trust that so it should be. Of course this story has been used fraudulently, to help a system of which these times knew nothing. Cyprian says expressly: “Apud Inferos confessio, non est, nec exomologesis illic fieri potest.” Epistola lii. p. 98. Opp. Paris, 1574. In the Edinburgh series (translation) this epistle is numbered 51, and elsewhere 54.]

I saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid colour, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age8988

8988 [There is not the slightest reason to suppose that this child had been baptized: the father a heathen and Perpetua herself a recent catechumen. Elucidation.]

who died miserably with disease—his face being so eaten out with cancer, that his death caused repugnance to all men.  For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval,8989

8989 “Diadema,” or rather “diastema.” [Borrowed from Luke xvi. 26. But that gulf could not be passed according to the evangelist.]

so that neither of us could approach to the other. And moreover, in the same place where Dinocrates was, there was a pool full of water, having its brink higher than was the stature of the boy; and Dinocrates raised himself up as if to drink. And I was grieved that, although that pool held water, still, on account of the height to its brink, he could not drink. And I was aroused, and knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then was the birth-day of Geta Cæsar, and I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me.

[Ps. xliv. 5. Also lx. 12; xci. 13; cviii. 13.]

And the people began to shout, and my backers to exult. And I drew near to the trainer and took the branch; and he kissed me, and said to me, ‘Daughter, peace be with you:’ and I began to go gloriously to the Sanavivarian gate.8997

8997 This was the way by which the victims spared by the popular clemency escaped from the amphitheatre.

Then I awoke, and perceived that I was not to fight with beasts, but against the devil.  Still I knew that the victory was awaiting me. This, so far, I have completed several days before the exhibition; but what passed at the exhibition itself let who will write.”
A presbyter, that is, whose office was to teach, as distinct from other presbyters. See Cyprian, Epistles, vol. i. Ep. xxiii. p. 68. note i. transl. [One of those referred to by St. James iii. 1, and by St. Paul, 1 Tim. v. 17.]

at the left hand, separate and sad; and they cast themselves at our feet, and said to us, ‘Restore peace between us, because you have gone forth and have left us thus.’ And we said to them, ‘Art not thou our father, and thou our presbyter, that you should cast yourselves at our feet?’ And we prostrated ourselves, and we embraced them; and Perpetua began to speak with them, and we drew them apart in the pleasure-garden under a rose-tree.  And while we were speaking with them, the angels said unto them, ‘Let them alone, that they may refresh themselves;9001

9001 More probably, “rest and refresh yourselves.” [“Go and enjoy,” or, “play,” or “take pleasure,” in the section preceding.]

and if you have any dissensions between you, forgive one another.’ And they drove them away. And they said to Optatus, ‘Rebuke thy people, because they assemble to you as if returning from the circus, and contending about factious matters.’ And then it seemed to us as if they would shut the doors.  And in that place we began to recognise many brethren, and moreover martyrs. We were all nourished with an indescribable odour, which satisfied us.  Then, I joyously awoke.”
John xvi. 24.

gave to them when they asked, that death which each one had wished for. For when at any time they had been discoursing among themselves about their wish in respect of their martyrdom, Saturninus indeed had professed that he wished that he might be thrown to all the beasts; doubtless that he might wear a more glorious crown. Therefore in the beginning of the exhibition he and Revocatus made trial of the leopard, and moreover upon the scaffold they were harassed by the bear. Saturus, however, held nothing in greater abomination than a bear; but he imagined that he would be put an end to with one bite of a leopard. Therefore, when a wild boar was supplied, it was the huntsman rather who had supplied that boar who was gored by that same beast, and died the day after the shows.  Saturus only was drawn out; and when he had been bound on the floor near to a bear, the bear would not come forth from his den. And so Saturus for the second time is recalled unhurt.

Republished, Oxford, 1838.

ingeniously turns the tables upon these errorists, by quoting the Prayers for the Dead, which were used in the Early Church, but which, such as they were, not only make no mention of a Purgatory, but refute the dogma, by their uniform limitation of such prayers to the blessed dead, and to their consummation of bliss at the Last day and not before.  Such a prayer seems to occur in 2 Tim. i. 18. The context (vers. 16–; 18, and iv. 19) strongly supports this view; Onesiphorus is spoken of as if deceased, apparently. But, as Chrysostom understands it, he was only absent (in Rome) from his household.  From i. 17 we should infer that he had left Rome.9012

9012 See Opp. Tom. xi. p. 657. Ed. Migne.

“Nullius boni;” compare Rom. vii. 18.

whereas it were becoming that such as have addressed themselves to the demonstration and commendation of some particular thing, should themselves first be conspicuous in the practice of that thing, and should regulate the constancy of their commonishing by the authority of their personal conduct, for fear their words blush at the deficiency of their deeds. And would that this “blushing” would bring a remedy, so that shame for not exhibiting that which we go to suggest to others should prove a tutorship into exhibiting it; except that the magnitude of some good things—just as of some ills too—is insupportable, so that only the grace of divine inspiration is effectual for attaining and practising them.  For what is most good rests most with God; nor does any other than He who possesses it dispense it, as He deems meet to each. And so to discuss about that which it is not given one to enjoy, will be, as it were, a solace; after the manner of invalids, who since they are without health, know not how to be silent about its blessings. So I, most miserable, ever sick with the heats of impatience, must of necessity sigh after, and invoke, and persistently plead for, that health of patience which I possess not; while I recall to mind, and, in the contemplation of my own weakness, digest, the truth, that the good health of faith, and the soundness of the Lord’s discipline, accrue not easily to any unless patience sit by his side.9015

9015 [Elucidation I.]

So is patience set over the things of God, that one can obey no precept, fulfil no work well-pleasing to the Lord, if estranged from it. The good of it, even they who live outside it,9016

9016 i.e. who are strangers to it.

honour with the name of highest virtue.  Philosophers indeed, who are accounted animals of some considerable wisdom, assign it so high a place, that, while they are mutually at discord with the various fancies of their sects and rivalries of their sentiments, yet, having a community of regard for patience alone, to this one of their pursuits they have joined in granting peace: for it they conspire; for it they league; it, in their affectation of9017

9017 Or, “striving after.”

virtue, they unanimously pursue; concerning patience they exhibit all their ostentation of wisdom. Grand testimony this is to it, in that it incites even the vain schools of the world9018

9018 Or, “heathendom”—sæculi.

unto praise and glory! Or is it rather an injury, in that a thing divine is bandied among worldly sciences? But let them look to that, who shall presently be ashamed of their wisdom, destroyed and disgraced together with the world9019

9019 Sæculo.

(it lives in). See Ps. lxxiv. 23 in A.V. It is Ps. lxxiii. in the LXX.

so that by His own patience He disparages Himself; for the cause why many believe not in the Lord is that they are so long without knowing9024

9024 Because they see no visible proof of it.

that He is wroth with the world.9025

9025 Sæculo.


So Mr. Dodgson; and La Cerda, as quoted by Oehler. See Ps. cxxxi. 1 in LXX., where it is Ps. cxxx.

but what is that which, in a certain way, has been grasped by hand9027

9027 1 John i. 1.

among men openly on the earth? God suffers Himself to be conceived in a mother’s womb, and awaits the time for birth; and, when born, bears the delay of growing up; and, when grown up, is not eager to be recognised, but is furthermore contumelious to Himself, and is baptized by His own servant; and repels with words alone the assaults of the tempter; while from being “Lord” He becomes “Master,” teaching man to escape death, having been trained to the exercise of the absolute forbearance of offended patience.9028

9028 I have followed Oehler’s reading of this very difficult and much disputed passage. For the expression, “having been trained,” etc., compare Heb. v. 8.

He did not strive; He did not cry aloud; nor did any hear His voice in the streets.  He did not break the bruised reed; the smoking flax He did not quench: for the prophet—nay, the attestation of God Himself, placing His own Spirit, together with patience in its entirety, in His Son—had not falsely spoken. There was none desirous of cleaving to Him whom He did not receive. No one’s table or roof did He despise: indeed, Himself ministered to the washing of the disciples’ feet; not sinners, not publicans, did He repel; not with that city even which had refused to receive Him was He wroth,9029

9029 Luke ix. 51–56.

when even the disciples had wished that the celestial fires should be forthwith hurled on so contumelious a town. He cared for the ungrateful; He yielded to His ensnarers. This were a small matter, if He had not had in His company even His own betrayer, and stedfastly abstained from pointing him out. Moreover, while He is being betrayed, while He is being led up “as a sheep for a victim,” (for “so He no more opens His mouth than a lamb under the power of the shearer,”)He to whom, had He willed it, legions of angels would at one word have presented themselves from the heavens, approved not the avenging sword of even one disciple. The patience of the Lord was wounded in (the wound of) Malchus. And so, too, He cursed for the time to come the works of the sword; and, by the restoration of health, made satisfaction to him whom Himself had not hurt, through Patience, the mother of Mercy. I pass by in silence (the fact) that He is crucified, for this was the end for which He had come; yet had the death which must be undergone need of contumelies likewise?9030

9030 Or, “yet had there been need of contumelies likewise for the undergoing of death?”

Nay, but, when about to depart, He wished to be sated with the pleasure of patience. He is spitted on, scourged, derided, clad foully, more foully crowned.  Wondrous is the faith of equanimity!  He who had set before Him the concealing of Himself in man’s shape, imitated nought of man’s impatience! Hence, even more than from any other trait, ought ye, Pharisees, to have recognised the Lord. Patience of this kind none of men would achieve. Such and so mighty evidences—the very magnitude of which proves to be among the nations indeed a cause for rejection of the faith, but among us its reason and rearing—proves manifestly enough (not by the sermons only, in enjoining, but likewise by the sufferings of the Lord in enduring) to them to whom it is given to believe, that as the effect and excellence of some inherent propriety, patience is God’s nature.
Obsequii. For the sentiment, compare Isa. i. 3.

Finally, (the creatures) which obey, acknowledge their masters. Do we hesitate to listen diligently to Him to whom alone we are subjected—that is, the Lord?  But how unjust is it, how ungrateful likewise, not to repay from yourself the same which, through the indulgence of your neighbour, you obtain from others, to him through whom you obtain it!  Nor needs there more words on the exhibition of obedience9040

9040 Obsequii.

due from us to the Lord God; for the acknowledgment9041

9041 See above, “the creatures…acknowledge their masters.”

of God understands what is incumbent on it.  Lest, however, we seem to have inserted remarks on obedience9042

9042 Obsequio.

as something irrelevant, (let us remember) that obedience9043

9043 Obsequio.

itself is drawn from patience. Never does an impatient man render it, or a patient fail to find pleasure9044

9044 “Oblectatur” Oehler reads with the mss.  The editors, as he says, have emended “Obluctatur,” which Mr. Dodgson reads.

in it. Who, then, could treat largely (enough) of the good of that patience which the Lord God, the Demonstrator and Acceptor of all good things, carried about in His own self?9045

9045 See the previous chapter.

To whom, again, would it be doubtful that every good thing ought, because it pertains9046

9046 See the previous chapter.

to God, to be earnestly pursued with the whole mind by such as pertain to God? By means of which (considerations) both commendation and exhortation9047

9047 See chap. i.

on the subject of patience are briefly, and as it were in the compendium of a prescriptive rule, established.9048

9048 [All our author’s instances of this principle of the Præscriptio are noteworthy, as interpreting its use in the Advs. Hæreses.]


See Ps. viii. 4–6.

For if he had endured (that), he would not have grieved; nor would he have envied man if he had not grieved. Accordingly he deceived him, because he had envied him; but he had envied because he had grieved: he had grieved because, of course, he had not patiently borne. What that angel of perdition9053

9053 Compare the expression in de Idol. iv., “perdition of blood” ="bloody perdition,” and the note there.  So here “angel of perdition” may ="lost angel.”

first was—malicious or impatient—I scorn to inquire: since manifest it is that either impatience took its rise together with malice, or else malice from impatience; that subsequently they conspired between themselves; and that they grew up indivisible in one paternal bosom. But, however, having been instructed, by his own experiment, what an aid unto sinning was that which he had been the first to feel, and by means of which he had entered on his course of delinquency, he called the same to his assistance for the thrusting of man into crime. The woman,9054

9054 Mulier. See de Orat. c. xxii.

immediately on being met by him—I may say so without rashness—was, through his very speech with her, breathed on by a spirit infected with impatience: so certain is it that she would never have sinned at all, if she had honoured the divine edict by maintaining her patience to the end. What (of the fact) that she endured not to have been met alone; but in the presence of Adam, not yet her husband, not yet bound to lend her his ears,9055

9055 1 Cor. vii. 3; compare also 1 Pet. iii. 7.

she is impatient of keeping silence, and makes him the transmitter of that which she had imbibed from the Evil One?  Therefore another human being, too, perishes through the impatience of the one; presently, too, perishes of himself, through his own impatience committed in each respect, both in regard of God’s premonition and in regard of the devil’s cheatery; not enduring to observe the former nor to refute the latter. Hence, whence (the origin) of delinquency, arose the first origin of judgment; hence, whence man was induced to offend, God began to be wroth. Whence (came) the first indignation in God, thence (came) His first patience; who, content at that time with malediction only, refrained in the devil’s case from the instant infliction9056

9056 Impetu.

of punishment. Else what crime, before this guilt of impatience, is imputed to man?  Innocent he was, and in intimate friendship with God, and the husbandman9057

9057 Colonus. Gen. ii. 15.

of paradise. But when once he succumbed to impatience, he quite ceased to be of sweet savour9058

9058 Sapere. See de Idol. c. i. sub fin.

to God; he quite ceased to be able to endure things celestial. Thenceforward, a creature9059

9059 Homo.

given to earth, and ejected from the sight of God, he begins to be easily turned by impatience unto every use offensive to God. For straightway that impatience conceived of the devil’s seed, produced, in the fecundity of malice, anger as her son; and when brought forth, trained him in her own arts. For that very thing which had immersed Adam and Eve in death, taught their son, too, to begin with murder. It would be idle for me to ascribe this to impatience, if Cain, that first homicide and first fratricide, had borne with equanimity and not impatiently the refusal by the Lord of his own oblations—if he is not wroth with his own brother—if, finally, he took away no one’s life. Since, then, he could neither have killed unless he had been wroth, nor have been wroth unless he had been impatient, he demonstrates that what he did through wrath must be referred to that by which wrath was suggested during this cradle-time of impatience, then (in a certain sense) in her infancy.  But how great presently were her augmentations! And no wonder, If she has been the first delinquent, it is a consequence that, because she has been the first, therefore she is the only parent stem,9060

9060 Matrix. Mr. Dodgson renders womb, which is admissible; but the other passages quoted by Oehler, where Tertullian uses this word, seem to suit better with the rendering given in the text.

too, to every delinquency, pouring down from her own fount various veins of crimes.9061

9061 Compare a similar expression in de Idol. ii. ad init.

Of murder we have spoken; but, being from the very beginning the outcome of anger,9062

9062 Which Tertullian has just shown to be the result of impatience.

whatever causes besides it shortly found for itself it lays collectively on the account of impatience, as to its own origin.  For whether from private enmities, or for the sake of prey, any one perpetrates that wickedness,9063

9063 i.e. murder.

the earlier step is his becoming impatient of9064

9064 i.e. unable to restrain.

either the hatred or the avarice.  Whatever compels a man, it is not possible that without impatience of itself it can be perfected in deed. Who ever committed adultery without impatience of lust? Moreover, if in females the sale of their modesty is forced by the price, of course it is by impatience of contemning gain9065

9065 i.e. want of power or patience to contemn gain.

that this sale is regulated.9066

9066 “Ordinatur;” but “orditur” has been very plausibly conjectured.

These (I mention) as the principal delinquencies in the sight of the Lord,9067

9067 Mr. Dodgson refers to ad Uxor. i. 5, q. v. sub fin.

for, to speak compendiously, every sin is ascribable to impatience. “Evil” is “impatience of good.” None immodest is not impatient of modesty; dishonest of honesty; impious of piety;9068

9068 Or, “unduteous of duteousness.”

unquiet of quietness. In order that each individual may become evil he will be unable to persevere9069

9069 i.e. impatient.

in being good. How, therefore, can such a hydra of delinquencies fail to offend the Lord, the Disapprover of evils? Is it not manifest that it was through impatience that Israel himself also always failed in his duty toward God, from that time when,9070

9070 I have departed slightly here from Oehler’s punctuation.

forgetful of the heavenly arm whereby he had been drawn out of his Egyptian affliction, he demands from Aaron “gods9071

9071 Ex. xxxii. 1; Acts vii. 39, 40.

as his guides;” when he pours down for an idol the contributions of his gold: for the so necessary delays of Moses, while he met with God, he had borne with impatience. After the edible rain of the manna, after the watery following9072

9072 i.e. the water which followed them, after being given forth by the smitten rock. See 1 Cor. x. 4.

of the rock, they despair of the Lord in not enduring a three-days’ thirst;9073

9073 See Num. xx. 1–6. But Tertullian has apparently confused this with Ex. xv. 22, which seems to be the only place where “a three-days’ thirst” is mentioned.

for this also is laid to their charge by the Lord as impatience. And—not to rove through individual cases—there was no instance in which it was not by failing in duty through impatience that they perished. How, moreover, did they lay hands on the prophets, except through impatience of hearing them? on the Lord moreover Himself, through impatience likewise of seeing Him? But had they entered the path of patience, they would have been set free.9074

9074 Free, i.e. from the bondage of impatience and of sin.


See Bible:Gal.3.6 Bible:Jas.2.23">Gen. xv. 6; Rom. iv. 3, 9, 22; Gal. iii. 6; James ii. 23.

but it was patience which proved his faith, when he was bidden to immolate his son, with a view to (I would not say the temptation, but) the typical attestation of his faith. But God knew whom He had accredited with righteousness.9076

9076 i.e. the trial was necessary not to prove his faith to God, who knows all whom He accounts righteous, but “typically” to us.

So heavy a precept, the perfect execution whereof was not even pleasing to the Lord, he patiently both heard, and (if God had willed) would have fulfilled.  Deservedly then was he “blessed,” because he was “faithful;” deservedly “faithful,” because “patient.” So faith, illumined by patience, when it was becoming propagated among the nations through “Abraham’s seed, which is Christ,”9077

9077 Gal. iii. 16.

and was superinducing grace over the law,9078

9078 John i. 17; Rom. vi. 14, 15.

made patience her pre-eminent coadjutrix for amplifying and fulfilling the law, because that alone had been lacking unto the doctrine of righteousness. For men were of old wont to require “eye for eye, and tooth for tooth”9079

9079 Matt. vi. 38, and the references there given.

and to repay with usury “evil with evil;” for, as yet, patience was not on earth, because faith was not either. Of course, meantime, impatience used to enjoy the opportunities which the law gave. That was easy, while the Lord and Master of patience was absent. But after He has supervened, and has united9080

9080 Composuit.

the grace of faith with patience, now it is no longer lawful to assail even with word, nor to say “fool”9081

9081 See Matt. v. 22; and Wordsworth in loco, who thinks it probable that the meaning is “apostate.”

even, without “danger of the judgment.”  Anger has been prohibited, our spirits retained, the petulance of the hand checked, the poison of the tongue9082

9082 Ps. cxl. 3; Rom. iii. 13; James iii. 8.

extracted. The law has found more than it has lost, while Christ says, “Love your personal enemies, and bless your cursers, and pray for your persecutors, that ye may be sons of your heavenly Father.”9083

9083 Matt. v. 44, 45.

Do you see whom patience gains for us as a Father? In this principal precept the universal discipline of patience is succinctly comprised, since evil-doing is not conceded even when it is deserved.
1 Tim. vi. 10. See de Idol. xi. ad init.

Let us not interpret that covetousness as consisting merely in the concupiscence of what is another’s: for even what seems ours is another’s; for nothing is ours, since all things are God’s, whose are we also ourselves. And so, if, when suffering from a loss, we feel impatiently, grieving for what is lost from what is not our own, we shall be detected as bordering on covetousness:  we seek what is another’s when we ill brook losing what is another’s. He who is greatly stirred with impatience of a loss, does, by giving things earthly the precedence over things heavenly, sin directly9088

9088 De proximo. See above, c. v. Deo de proximo amicus, “a most intimate friend to God.”

against God; for the Spirit, which he has received from the Lord, he greatly shocks for the sake of a worldly matter. Willingly, therefore, let us lose things earthly, let us keep things heavenly. Perish the whole world,9089

9089 Sæculum.

so I may make patience my gain! In truth, I know not whether he who has not made up his mind to endure with constancy the loss of somewhat of his, either by theft, or else by force, or else even by carelessness, would himself readily or heartily lay hand on his own property in the cause of almsgiving:  for who that endures not at all to be cut by another, himself draws the sword on his own body? Patience in losses is an exercise in bestowing and communicating. Who fears not to lose, finds it not irksome to give. Else how will one, when he has two coats, give the one of them to the naked,9090

9090 Luke iii. 11.

unless he be a man likewise to offer to one who takes away his coat his cloak as well?9091

9091 Matt. v. 40; Luke vi. 29.

How shall we fashion to us friends from mammon,9092

9092 Luke xvi. 9.

if we love it so much as not to put up with its loss? We shall perish together with the lost mammon.  Why do we find here, where it is our business to lose?9093

9093 “Alluding to Christ’s words in Matt. x. 39” (Rigalt. quoted by Oehler).

To exhibit impatience at all losses is the Gentiles’ business, who give money the precedence perhaps over their soul; for so they do, when, in their cupidities of lucre, they encounter the gainful perils of commerce on the sea; when, for money’s sake, even in the forum, there is nothing which damnation (itself) would fear which they hesitate to essay; when they hire themselves for sport and the camp; when, after the manner of wild beasts, they play the bandit along the highway. But us, according to the diversity by which we are distinguished from them, it becomes to lay down not our soul for money, but money for our soul, whether spontaneously in bestowing or patiently in losing.
i.e. money and the like. Compare Matt. vi. 25; Luke xii. 23.

Far from a servant of Christ be such a defilement as that the patience which has been prepared for greater temptations should forsake him in frivolous ones. If one attempt to provoke you by manual violence, the monition of the Lord is at hand: “To him,” He saith, “who smiteth thee on the face, turn the other cheek likewise.”9097

9097 Matt. v. 39.

Let outrageousness9098

9098 Improbitas.

be wearied out by your patience.  Whatever that blow may be, conjoined9099

9099 Constrictus. I have rendered after Oehler: but may not the meaning be “clenched,” like the hand which deals the blow?

with pain and contumely, it9100

9100 As Oehler says “the blow” is said to “receive” that which, strictly, the dealer of it receives.

shall receive a heavier one from the Lord.  You wound that outrageous9101

9101 Improbum.

one more by enduring: for he will be beaten by Him for whose sake you endure.  If the tongue’s bitterness break out in malediction or reproach, look back at the saying, “When they curse you, rejoice.”9102

9102 Matt. v. 11, 12; Luke vi. 22, 23.

The Lord Himself was “cursed” in the eye of the law;9103

9103 Deut. xxi. 23; Gal. iii. 13. Tertullian’s quotations here are somewhat loose. He renders words which are distinct in the Greek by the same in his Latin.

and yet is He the only Blessed One. Let us servants, therefore, follow our Lord closely; and be cursed patiently, that we may be able to be blessed. If I hear with too little equanimity some wanton or wicked word uttered against me, I must of necessity either myself retaliate the bitterness, or else I shall be racked with mute impatience. When, then, on being cursed, I smite (with my tongue,) how shall I be found to have followed the doctrine of the Lord, in which it has been delivered that “a man is defiled,9104

9104 Communicari—κοινοῦσθαι. See Mark vii. 15, “made common,” i.e. profane, unclean. Compare Acts x. 14, 15 in the Greek.

not by the defilements of vessels, but of the things which are sent forth out of his mouth.” Again, it is said that “impeachment9105

9105 Reatum. See de Idol. i. ad init., “the highest impeachment of the age.”

awaits us for every vain and needless word.”9106

9106 Matt. xii. 36. Tertullian has rendered ἀργόν by “vani et supervacui.”

It follows that, from whatever the Lord keeps us, the same He admonishes us to bear patiently from another. I will add (somewhat) touching the pleasure of patience. For every injury, whether inflicted by tongue or hand, when it has lighted upon patience, will be dismissed9107

9107 Dispungetur: a word which, in the active, means technically “to balance accounts,” hence “to discharge,” etc.

with the same fate as, some weapon launched against and blunted on a rock of most stedfast hardness. For it will wholly fall then and there with bootless and fruitless labour; and sometimes will recoil and spend its rage on him who sent it out, with retorted impetus. No doubt the reason why any one hurts you is that you may be pained; because the hurter’s enjoyment consists in the pain of the hurt. When, then, you have upset his enjoyment by not being pained, he must needs he pained by the loss of his enjoyment. Then you not only go unhurt away, which even alone is enough for you; but gratified, into the bargain, by your adversary’s disappointment, and revenged by his pain.  This is the utility and the pleasure of patience. 1 Thess. iv. 13, not very strictly rendered.

And justly; or, believing the resurrection of Christ we believe also in our own, for whose sake He both died and rose again. Since, then, there is certainty as to the resurrection of the dead, grief for death is needless, and impatience of grief is needless. For why should you grieve, if you believe that (your loved one) is not perished? Why should you bear impatiently the temporary withdrawal of him who you believe will return?  That which you think to be death is departure. He who goes before us is not to be lamented, though by all means to be longed for.9109

9109 Desiderandus.

That longing also must be tempered with patience. For why should you bear without moderation the fact that one is gone away whom you will presently follow?  Besides, impatience in matters of this kind bodes ill for our hope, and is a dealing insincerely with the faith.  And we wound Christ when we accept not with equanimity the summoning out of this world of any by Him, as if they were to be pitied. “I desire,” says the apostle, “to be now received, and to be with Christ.”9110

9110 Phil. i. 23, again loosely rendered: e.g. ἀναλῦσαι ="to weigh anchor,” is rendered by Tertullian “recipi.”

How far better a desire does he exhibit! If, then, we grieve impatiently over such as have attained the desire of Christians, we show unwillingness ourselves to attain it.
See Gal. v. 26; Phil. ii. 3.

and malice, on the other, is always9112

9112 Nunquam non.

odious to the Lord; in this case indeed most of all, when, being provoked by a neighbour’s malice, it constitutes itself superior9113

9113 i.e. perhaps superior in degree of malice.

in following out revenge, and by paying wickedness doubles that which has once been done. Revenge, in the estimation of error,9114

9114 i.e. of the world and its erroneous philosophies.

seems a solace of pain; in the estimation of truth, on the contrary, it is convicted of malignity. For what difference is there between provoker and provoked, except that the former is detected as prior in evil-doing, but the latter as posterior? Yet each stands impeached of hurting a man in the eye of the Lord, who both prohibits and condemns every wickedness. In evil doing there is no account taken of order, nor does place separate what similarity conjoins. And the precept is absolute, that evil is not to be repaid with evil.9115

9115 Rom. xii. 17.

Like deed involves like merit. How shall we observe that principle, if in our loathing9116

9116 Fastidientes, i.e. our loathing or abhorrence of sin. Perhaps the reference may be to Rom. xii. 9.

we shall not loathe revenge? What honour, moreover, shall we be offering to the Lord God, if we arrogate to ourselves the arbitrament of vengeance? We are corrupt9117

9117 Isa. lxiv. 6.

—earthen vessels.9118

9118 Isa. lxiv. 8; 2 Cor. iv. 7.

With our own servant-boys,9119

9119 Servulis.

if they assume to themselves the right of vengeance on their fellow-servants, we are gravely offended; while such as make us the offering of their patience we not only approve as mindful of humility, of servitude, affectionately jealous of the right of their lord’s honour; but we make them an ampler satisfaction than they would have pre-exacted9120

9120 Præsumpsissent.

for themselves. Is there any risk of a different result in the case of a Lord so just in estimating, so potent in executing? Why, then, do we believe Him a Judge, if not an Avenger too? This He promises that He will be to us in return, saying, “Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will avenge;”9121

9121 Deut. xxxii. 35; Ps. xciv. 1; Rom. xii. 19; Heb. x. 30.

that is, Leave patience to me, and I will reward patience. For when He says, “Judge not, lest ye be judged,”9122

9122 Matt. vii. 1; Luke vi. 37.

does He not require patience? For who will refrain from judging another, but he who shall be patient in not revenging himself? Who judges in order to pardon? And if he shall pardon, still he has taken care to indulge the impatience of a judger, and has taken away the honour of the one Judge, that is, God. How many mischances had impatience of this kind been wont to run into! How oft has it repented of its revenge! How oft has its vehemence been found worse than the causes which led to it!—inasmuch as nothing undertaken with impatience can be effected without impetuosity:  nothing done with impetuosity fails either to stumble, or else to fall altogether, or else to vanish headlong.  Moreover, if you avenge yourself too slightly, you will be mad; if too amply, you will have to bear the burden.9123

9123 i.e. the penalty which the law will inflict.

What have I to do with vengeance, the measure of which, through impatience of pain, I am unable to regulate? Whereas, if I shall repose on patience, I shall not feel pain; if I shall not feel pain, I shall not desire to avenge myself.
Prov. iii. 11, 12; Heb. xii. 5, 6; Rev. iii. 19.

O blessed servant, on whose amendment the Lord is intent! with whom He deigns to be wroth! whom He does not deceive by dissembling His reproofs! On every side, therefore, we are bound to the duty of exercising patience, from whatever quarter, either by our own errors or else by the snares of the Evil One, we incur the Lord’s reproofs. Of that duty great is the reward—namely, happiness.  For whom but the patient has the Lord called happy, in saying, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of the heavens?”9126

9126 Matt. v. 3.

No one, assuredly, is “poor in spirit,” except he be humble. Well, who is humble, except he be patient? For no one can abase himself without patience, in the first instance, to bear the act of abasement. “Blessed,” saith He, “are the weepers and mourners.”9127

9127 Matt. v. 4.

Who, without patience, is tolerant of such unhappinesses? And so to such, “consolation” and “laughter” are promised.  “Blessed are the gentle:”9128

9128 Matt. v. 5.

under this term, surely, the impatient cannot possibly be classed. Again, when He marks “the peacemakers”9129

9129 Matt. v. 9.

with the same title of felicity, and names them “sons of God,” pray have the impatient any affinity with “peace?”  Even a fool may perceive that.  When, however, He says, “Rejoice and exult, as often as they shall curse and persecute you; for very great is your reward in heaven,”9130

9130 Matt. v. 11, 12, inexactly quoted.

of course it is not to the impatience of exultation9131

9131 Exultationis impatientiæ.

that He makes that promise; because no one will “exult” in adversities unless he have first learnt to contemn them; no one will contemn them unless he have learnt to practise patience.
Septuagies septies. The reference is to Matt. xviii. 21, 22. Compare de Orat. vii. ad fin. and the note there.

Who that is contemplating a suit against his adversary will compose the matter by agreement,9136

9136 Matt. v. 25.

unless he first begin by lopping off chagrin, hardheartedness, and bitterness, which are in fact the poisonous outgrowths of impatience? How will you “remit, and remission shall be granted” you9137

9137 Luke vi. 37.

if the absence of patience makes you tenacious of a wrong? No one who is at variance with his brother in his mind, will finish offering his “duteous gift at the altar,” unless he first, with intent to “reconciliate his brother,” return to patience.9138

9138 Matt. v. 23, 24.

If “the sun go down over our wrath,” we are in jeopardy:9139

9139 Eph. iv. 26. Compare de Orat. xi.

we are not allowed to remain one day without patience. But, however, since Patience takes the lead in9140

9140 Gubernet.

every species of salutary discipline, what wonder that she likewise ministers to Repentance, (accustomed as Repentance is to come to the rescue of such as have fallen,) when, on a disjunction of wedlock (for that cause, I mean, which makes it lawful, whether for husband or wife, to persist in the perpetual observance of widowhood),9141

9141 What the cause is is disputed. Opinions are divided as to whether Tertullian means by it “marriage with a heathen” (which as Mr. Dodgson reminds us, Tertullian—de Uxor. ii. 3—calls “adultery”), or the case in which our Lord allowed divorce.  See Matt. xix. 9.

she9142

9142 i.e. patience.

waits for, she yearns for, she persuades by her entreaties, repentance in all who are one day to enter salvation? How great a blessing she confers on each!  The one she prevents from becoming an adulterer; the other she amends. So, too, she is found in those holy examples touching patience in the Lord’s parables. The shepherd’s patience seeks and finds the straying ewe:9143

9143 Luke xv. 3–6.

for Impatience would easily despise one ewe; but Patience undertakes the labour of the quest, and the patient burden-bearer carries home on his shoulders the forsaken sinner.9144

9144 Peccatricem, i.e. the ewe.

That prodigal son also the father’s patience receives, and clothes, and feeds, and makes excuses for, in the presence of the angry brother’s impatience.9145

9145 Luke xv. 11–32.

He, therefore, who “had perished” is saved, because he entered on the way of repentance. Repentance perishes not, because it finds Patience (to welcome it).  For by whose teachings but those of Patience is Charity9146

9146 Dilectio = ἀγάπη. See Trench, New Testament Syn., s. v. ἀγάπη; and with the rest of this chapter compare carefully, in the Greek, 1 Cor. xiii. [Neander points out the different view our author takes of the same parable, in the de Pudicit. cap. 9, Vol. IV. this series.]

—the highest sacrament of the faith, the treasure-house of the Christian name, which the apostle commends with the whole strength of the Holy Spirit—trained? “Charity,” he says, “is long suffering;” thus she applies patience: “is beneficent;” Patience does no evil: “is not emulous;” that certainly is a peculiar mark of patience:  “savours not of violence:”9147

9147 Protervum = Greek περπερεύεται.

she has drawn her self-restraint from patience: “is not puffed up; is not violent;”9148

9148 Proterit = Greek ἀσχημονεῖ.

for that pertains not unto patience:  “nor does she seek her own” if, she offers her own, provided she may benefit her neighbours: “nor is irritable;” if she were, what would she have left to Impatience? Accordingly he says, “Charity endures all things; tolerates all things;” of course because she is patient. Justly, then, “will she never fail;”9149

9149 Excidet = Greek ἐκλείπει, suffers eclipse.

for all other things will be cancelled, will have their consummation. “Tongues, sciences, prophecies, become exhausted; faith, hope, charity, are permanent:” Faith, which Christ’s patience introduced; hope, which man’s patience waits for; charity, which Patience accompanies, with God as Master.
Phil. iii. 8.

inasmuch as it is a quality which has been exhibited by the Lord Himself in bodily virtue as well; if it is true that the ruling mind easily communicates the gifts9151

9151 “Invecta,” generally = "movables", household furniture.

of the Spirit with its bodily habitation. What, therefore, is the business of Patience in the body? In the first place, it is the affliction9152

9152 Or, mortification, “adflictatio.”

of the flesh—a victim9153

9153 i.e. fleshly mortification is a “victim,” etc.

able to appease the Lord by means of the sacrifice of humiliation—in making a libation to the Lord of sordid9154

9154 Or, “mourning.” Comp. de Pæn. c. 9.

raiment, together with scantiness of food, content with simple diet and the pure drink of water9155

9155 [The “water vs. wine” movement is not a discovery of our own times. “Drink a little wine,” said St. Paul medicinally; but (as a great and good divine once remarked) “we must not lay stress on the noun, but the adjective; let it be very little.”]

in conjoining fasts to all this; in inuring herself to sackcloth and ashes.  This bodily patience adds a grace to our prayers for good, a strength to our prayers against evil; this opens the ears of Christ our God,9156

9156 Christi dei.

dissipates severity, elicits clemency.  Thus that Babylonish king,9157

9157 Dan. iv. 33–37. Comp. de Pæn. c. 12. [I have removed an ambiguity by slightly touching the text here.]

after being exiled from human form in his seven years’ squalor and neglect, because he had offended the Lord; by the bodily immolation of patience not only recovered his kingdom, but—what is more to be desired by a man—made satisfaction to God. Further, if we set down in order the higher and happier grades of bodily patience, (we find that) it is she who is entrusted by holiness with the care of continence of the flesh: she keeps the widow,9158

9158 1 Tim. v. 3, 9, 10; 1 Cor. vii. 39, 40.

and sets on the virgin the seal9159

9159 1 Cor. vii. 34, 35.

and raises the self-made eunuch to the realms of heaven.9160

9160 Matt. xix. 12.

That which springs from a virtue of the mind is perfected in the flesh; and, finally, by the patience of the flesh, does battle under persecution.  If flight press hard, the flesh wars with9161

9161 Ad. It seems to mean flesh has strength given it, by patience, to meet the hardships of the flight. Compare the πρὸς πλησμονὴν τῆς σαρκὸς, of St. Paul in Col. ii. 23. [Kaye compares this with the De Fuga, as proof of the author’s freedom from Montanism, when this was written.]

the inconvenience of flight; if imprisonment overtake9162

9162 Præveniat: “prevent” us, before we have time to flee.

us, the flesh (still was) in bonds, the flesh in the gyve, the flesh in solitude,9163

9163 Solo.

and in that want of light, and in that patience of the world’s misusage.9164

9164 [Elucidation III.]

When, however, it is led forth unto the final proof of happiness,9165

9165 i.e. martyrdom.

unto the occasion of the second baptism,9166

9166 Comp. Luke xii. 50.

unto the act of ascending the divine seat, no patience is more needed there than bodily patience. If the “spirit is willing, but the flesh,” without patience, “weak,”9167

9167 Matt. xxvi. 41.

where, save in patience, is the safety of the spirit, and of the flesh itself?  But when the Lord says this about the flesh, pronouncing it “weak,” He shows what need there is of strengthening, it—that is by patience—to meet9168

9168 “Adversus,” like the “ad” above, note 21, p. 713.

every preparation for subverting or punishing faith; that it may bear with all constancy stripes, fire, cross, beasts, sword; all which prophets and apostles, by enduring, conquered!
Acts vii. 59, 60.

Oh, happy also he who met all the violence of the devil by the exertion of every species of patience!9170

9170 Job. See Job i. and ii.

—whom neither the driving away of his cattle nor those riches of his in sheep, nor the sweeping away of his children in one swoop of ruin, nor, finally, the agony of his own body in (one universal) wound, estranged from the patience and the faith which he had plighted to the Lord; whom the devil smote with all his might in vain. For by all his pains he was not drawn away from his reverence for God; but he has been set up as an example and testimony to us, for the thorough accomplishment of patience as well in spirit as in flesh, as well in mind as in body; in order that we succumb neither to damages of our worldly goods, nor to losses of those who are dearest, nor even to bodily afflictions.  What a bier9171

9171 “Feretrum”—for carrying trophies in a triumph, the bodies of the dead, and their effigies, etc.

for the devil did God erect in the person of that hero! What a banner did He rear over the enemy of His glory, when, at every bitter message, that man uttered nothing out of his mouth but thanks to God, while he denounced his wife, now quite wearied with ills, and urging him to resort to crooked remedies! How did God smile,9172

9172 Compare Ps. ii. 4.

how was the evil one cut asunder,9173

9173 i.e. with rage and disappointment.

while Job with mighty equanimity kept scraping off9174

9174 Job ii. 8.

the unclean overflow of his own ulcer, while he sportively replaced the vermin that brake out thence, in the same caves and feeding-places of his pitted flesh! And so, when all the darts of temptations had blunted themselves against the corslet and shield of his patience, that instrument9175

9175 Operarius.

of God’s victory not only presently recovered from God the soundness of his body, but possessed in redoubled measure what he had lost. And if he had wished to have his children also restored, he might again have been called father; but he preferred to have them restored him “in that day.”9176

9176 See 2 Tim. iv. 8. There is no authority for this statement of Tertullian’s in Scripture. [It is his inference rather.]

Such joy as that—secure so entirely concerning the Lord—he deferred; meantime he endured a voluntary bereavement, that he might not live without some (exercise of) patience.
Compare with this singular feature, Isa. xxxvii. 22.

her clothing, moreover, about her bosom white and well fitted to her person, as being neither inflated nor disturbed.  For Patience sits on the throne of that calmest and gentlest Spirit, who is not found in the roll of the whirlwind, nor in the leaden hue of the cloud, but is of soft serenity, open and simple, whom Elias saw at his third essay.9180

9180 i.e., as Rigaltius (referred to by Oehler), explains, after the two visions of angels who appeared to him and said, “Arise and eat.” See 1 Kings xix. 4–13. [It was the fourth, but our author having mentioned two, inadvertently calls it the third, referring to the “still small voice,” in which Elijah saw His manifestation.]

For where God is, there too is His foster-child, namely Patience. When God’s Spirit descends, then Patience accompanies Him indivisibly. If we do not give admission to her together with the Spirit, will (He) always tarry with us? Nay, I know not whether He would remain any longer. Without His companion and handmaid, He must of necessity be straitened in every place and at every time. Whatever blow His enemy may inflict He will be unable to endure alone, being without the instrumental means of enduring.
i.e. professional “diners out.” Comp. Phil. iii. 19.

submit to contumelious patronage, in the subjection of their liberty to their gullet. Such pursuits of patience the Gentiles are acquainted with; and they eagerly seize a name of so great goodness to apply it to foul practises:  patient they live of rivals, and of the rich, and of such as give them invitations; impatient of God alone. But let their own and their leader’s patience look to itself—a patience which the subterraneous fire awaits! Let us, on the other hand, love the patience of God, the patience of Christ; let us repay to Him the patience which He has paid down for us! Let us offer to Him the patience of the spirit, the patience of the flesh, believing as we do in the resurrection of flesh and spirit.
See—A Plain Commentary on the Four Gospels, intended chiefly for Devotional Reading. Oxford, 1854.  Also (Vol. I. p. 28) Philadelphia, 1855.

but a reference to any good concordance will strikingly exemplify the admirable comment of this “godly and well-learned man.”  See his comments on Matt. iv. 7 and Luke xxi. 19.

The Reverend Clergy who may read this note will forgive a brother, who begins to be in respect of years, like “Paul the aged,” for remarking, that the reading of the Ante-Nicene Fathers often leads him to sigh—“Such were they from whom we have received all that makes life tolerable, but how intolerable it was for them: are we, indeed, such as they would have considered Christians?” God be praised for His mercy and forbearance in our days; but, still it is true that “we have need of patience.” Is not much of all that we regard as “the world’s misusage,” the gracious hand of the Master upon us, giving us something for the exercise of that Patience, by which He forms us into His own image? (Heb. xii. 3.) Impatience of obscurity, of poverty, of ingratitude, of misrepresentation, of “the slings and arrows” of slander and abuse, is a revolt against that indispensable discipline of the Gospel which requires us to “endure afflictions” in some form or other. Who can complain when one thinks what it would have cost us to be Christians in Tertullian’s time? The ambition of the Clergy is always rebellion against God, and “patient waiting” is its only remedy. One will find profitable reading on this subject in Massillon,9186

9186 Œuvres, Tom. vi. pp. 133–5. Ed. Paris, 1824.

de l’Ambition des Clercs: “Reposez-vous sur le Seigneur du soin de votre destinée: il saura bien accomplir, tout seul, les desseins qu’il a sur vous. Si votre élévation est son bon plaisir, elle sera, aussi son ouvrage. Rendez-vous en digne seulement par la retraite, par la frayeur, par la fuite, par les sentiments vifs de votre indignité…c’est ainsi que les Chrysostome, les Grégoire, les Basil, les Augustin, furent donnés à l’Église.”

Indexes


Index of Scripture References