out, that is to say, before, the truth of the gospel. With regard, then, to the pending » question, of Luke's Gospel (so far as its being the common property '° of ourselves and Mar- cion enables it to be decisive of the truth,") that portion of it which we alone receive '^ is so much older than Marcion, that Marcion, himself once believed it, when in the first warmth of faith he contributed money to the Catholic church, which along with himself was afterwards rejected, '^ when he fell away from cur truth into his own heresy. What if the Marcionites have denied that he held the primitive faith amongst ourselves, in the face even of his own letter? What, if they do not acknowledge the letter? They, at any rate, receive his Antitheses; and more than that, they make ostentatious use '•* of them. Proof out of these is enough for me. For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current amongst us '^ (we shall see whether it be also 1 Ratio.
2 Prsjudicans.
3 Posterius revincetur. See De Prcescriptione Hceret., which goes on this principle of time. Compare especially chapters xxix. and XXX. [p. 256, supra^ 4 Falsum.
5 Passione.
6 Materia.
7 De veritate materiam. 3 Saeculo post.
9 Interim. | 'oCommunio ejus. \ " De veritate disceptat.
12 Quod est secundum nos. [A note of T.'s position.]
13 Projectam. [Catholic =: Primitive.] i4Pijfcrunt. ^5 Penes nos.
current with Marcion), is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was inter- polated by the defenders of Judaism, for the purpose of such a conglomeration with it of the law and the prophets as should enable them out of it to fashion their Christ, surely he could not have so argued about it, unless he had found it (in such a form). No one censures things before they exist,'* wi\en he knows not whether they will come to pass. Emendation never precedes the fault. To be sure,''' an amender of that Gospel, which had been all topsy-turvy'* from the days of Tibe- rius to those of Antoninus, first presented himself in Marcion alone — so long looked for by Christ, who was all along regretting that he had been in so great a hurry to send out his apostles without the support of Marcion! But for all that,'' heresy, which is for ever mending the Gospels, and corrupting them in the act, is an affair of man's audacity, not of God's authority; and if Marcion be even a disciple, he is yet not " above his master;" ^ if Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, " Whether it be I or they, so we preach;" " if Marcion be a prophet, even " the spirits of the prophets will be subject to the prophets," ^^ for they are not the authors of confusion, but of peace; or if Marcion be actually an angel, he must rather be designated "as anathema than as a preacher of the gospel," "^ because it is a strange gospel which he has preached. So that, whilst he amends, he only confirms both positions: both that our Crospel is the prior one, for he amends that which he has previously fallen in with; and that that is the later one, which, by putting it together out of the emendations of ours, he has made his own Gospel, and a novel one too.
CHAP. V. BY THE RULE OF ANTIQUITY, THE CATHOLIC GOSPELS ARE FOUND TO BE TRUE, INCLUDING THE REAL ST. LUKe's. MARCION 's ONLY A MUTILATED EDITION. THE HERE- TIC'S WEAKNESS AND INCONSISTENCY IN U;- NORING THE OTHER GOSPELS. ""* On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apos- •6 Post futura. 17 Sane. '8 Eversi. »9 Nisi quod.
< [On this whole chapter and subject, consult Kaye, pp. 278- TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book IV.
ties, which has been kept as a sacred deposit ' in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near= (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly 3 bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. We have also St. John's foster churches.* For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the orders of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author. In the same manner is recognised the excel- lent source* of the other churches. I say, therefore, that in them (and not simply such of them as were founded by apostles, but in all those which are united with them in the fellowship of the mystery of the gospel of Christ ">) that Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion's Gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it known without be- ing at the same time* condemned. It too, of course,' has its churches, but specially its own — as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their original,'" you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apos- tolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their found- er, or some one of Marcion's swarm." Even wasps make combs; " so also these Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence '^ to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means,'" and according to their usage — I mean the Gospels of John and Mat- thew— whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's '^ whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form'* of the Gospel men unsually ascribe to Paul.'^ And it may well seem '* that the works which disci- ples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict ac- count'- concerning these (other Gospels) also, 'SacTosanctum. Inviolate. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 384. Compare De Prcescript. Hceret. c. 36, supra.
2 De proximo. Westcott renders this, " who are nearest to us." See in loco.
3et...et. [N.B. Not Peter's See, then.]
4 Alumnas ecclesias. He seems to allude to the seven churches of the Apocalypse.
5 [Not the Order of bishops (as we now speak) but of their suc- cession from St. John. Kaye, p. 219.]
6 Generositas.
7 De societate sacramenti. [i.e. Catholic Unity.] * Eadem.
9 Plane. >° Censum. "' Examine.
>2p'avos. See Pliny, Nat. Hist. xi. 21. '3 Patrocinabitur. [Jones on the Canon, Vol. I. p. 66.] '4 Proinde per illas.
'?See Hieronymus, Catal. Scriptt. Eccles. c. 8. '6 Digestura.
'8 Capit videri. »9Flagitandus.
for having omitted them, and insisted in prefer- ence =° on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free course in the churches, as well as Luke's Gospel, from the beginning. Nay, it is even more credible that they ^' existed from the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they were prior, and coeval in origin with ^ the churches themselves. But how comes it to pass, if the apostles published nothing, that their disciples were more forward in such a work; for they could not have been disciples, without any instruction from their masters? If, then, it be evident that these (Gospels) also were current in the churches, why did not Mar- cion touch them — either to amend them if they were adulterated, or to acknowledge them if they were uncorrupt? For it is but natural ^^ that they who were perverting the gospel, should be more solicitous about the perversion of those things whose authority they knew to be more generally received. Even the false apostles (were so called) on this very account, because they imitated the apostles by means of their falsification. In as far, then, as he might have amended what there was to amend, if found corrupt, in so far did he firmly im- ply ^'^ that all was free from corruption which he did not think required amendment. In short, ""s he simply amended what he thought was corrupt; though, indeed, not even this justly, because it was not really corrupt. For if the (Gospels) of the apostles^ have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke's, which is received amongst us,-^ so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke's Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then be- came diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, how- ever late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-con- demned ="* either way — when once "^ he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again ^' subverts it by shameless tampering.
20 Potius institerit.
2' The Gospels of the apostles John and Matthew, and perhaps Mark's also, as being St. Peter's.
22 Dedicata cum.
23Competit.
-•» Confirmavit.
-S Denique.
^ That is, the canonical Gospel of St. Luke, as distinct from Marcion's corruption of it. [N.B. " Us" = Catholics ] 28 Traducto.
29 Nunc — nunc.
CHAP. VII.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION oD Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms ' agahist heretics for the faith- of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, ^ and that au- thority of churches* which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on.
CHAP. VI. — MARCION's OBJECT IN ADULTERAT- ING THE GOSPEL. NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHRIST OF THE CREATOR AND THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPEL. NO RIVAL CHRIST ADMISSI- BLE. THE CONNECTION OF THE TRUE CHRIST WITH THE DISPENSATION OF THE OLD TESTA- MENT ASSERTED.
But we now advance a step further on, and challenge (as we promised to do) the very Gos- pel of Marcion, with the intention of thus proving that it has been adulterated. For it is certain 5 that the whole aim at which he has strenuously laboured even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres in this, that he ]nay establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to this rival god, and a.s alien from the law and the prophets. It is certain, also, that with this view* he has erased everything that was contrary to his own opinion and made for the Creator, as if it had been interpolated by His advocates, whilst everything which agreed with his own opinion he has retained. The latter statements we shall strictly examine; ^ and if they shall turn out rather for our side, and shatter the assumption of Marcion, we shall embrace them. It will then become evi- dent, that in retaining them he has shown no less of the defect of blindness, which charac- terizes heresy, than he displayed when he erased all the former class of subjects. Such, then, is to be* the drift and form of my little treatise; subject, of course, to whatever con- dition may have become requisite on both sides of the question.' Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was or- dained by God the Creator for the restoration ■ Expedimur.
2 Fide, integrity.
3 Posteritati falsariorum praescribentem.
4 [Mark the authority of churches. He uses the ^hxraX—guod ab omnibus^ 5 Certe, for certo.
6 Propterea.
7 Conveniemus.
8 Sic habebit.
9 This seems to be the sense of the words, " sub ilia utique con- ditione quae ex utraque parte condicta sit."
of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come. Between these he interposes the separation of '° a great and absolute difference — as great as lies between what is just and what is good; " as great as lies between the law and the gos- pel; as great, (in short,) as is the difference between Judaism and Christianity. Hence will arise also our rule," by which we deter- mine '3 that there ought to be nothing in com- mon between the Christ of the rival god and the Creator; but that (Christ) must be pro- nounced to belong to the Creator,'" if He has administered His dispensations, fulfilled His prophecies, promoted '^ His laws, given reality to '* His promises, revived His mighty power, '^ remoulded His determinations '^ expressed His attributes. His properties. This law and this rule I earnestly request the reader to have ever in his mind, and so let him begin to investigate whether Christ be Marcion' s or the Creator's.
CHAP. VII. — MARCION REJECTED THE PRECED- ING PORTION OF ST. LUKE's GOSPEL. THERE- FORE THIS REVIEW OPENS WITH AN EXAMINA- TION OF THE CASE OF THE EVIL SPIRIT IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF CAPERNAUM. HE WHOM THE DEMON ACKNOWLEDGED WAS THE CREATOR'S CHRIST.
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tibe- rius'« (for such is Marcion's proposition) he " came down to the Galilean city of Caper- naum," of course meaning^ from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own. What then had been his course,^' for him to be described as first descending from his own heaven to the Creator's? For why should I abstain from censuring those parts of the statement which do not satisfy the requirement of an ordinary narrative, but always end in a falsehood? To be sure, our censure has been once for all expressed in the question, which we have al- ready" suggested: Whether, when descend- ing 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, asloScindit.
loScindit.
" That is, between what is severe and judicial and punitive on one side, that is, the Creator's; and what is mild, merciful, and forgiving, on the other, that is, the Redeemer's side (Rigalt.).
'2 Prjescriptio.
'3 Defigimus.
'4 Creatoris pronunciandum.
'5 Adjuverit.
I* Reprsesentaverit.
'7 Restauraverit virtutes ejus.
iSSententias reformaverit.
'9 Luke iii. i and iv. 31.
20 Utique.
2' Ecquid ordinis.
22 See above, book i. chap, xxiii. [Comp. i. cap. xix.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book IV.
suming that he came down. For we must not be too nice in inquiring' whether it is supposed that he was seen in any place. To come into view= indicates ^ a sudden unex- pected glance, which for a moment fixed '* the eye upon the object that passed before the view, without staying. But when it happens that a descent has been effected, it is apparent, and comes under the notice of the eyes.s Moreover, it takes account of /aef, and thus obliges one to examine in what condition, with what preparation,^ with how much vio- lence 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 cer- tainly was not easy to be believed, even after the asseveration. It is, in short, too bad ' that Romulus should have had in Proculus an avoucher of his ascent to heaven, when the Christ of (this) god could not find any one to announce his descent from heaven; just as if the ascent of the one and the descent of the other were not effected on one and the same ladder of falsehood! Then, what had he to do with Galilee, if he did not belong to the Creator by whom * that region was des- tined (for His Christ) when about to enter on His ministry?* As Isaiah says: "Drink in this first, and be prompt, O region of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, and ye others who (inhabit) the sea-coast, and that of Jordan, Galilee of the nations, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light; upon you, who inhabit (that) land, sitting in the shadow of death, the light hath arisen."'" It is, how- ever, 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," he should rather have made Pontus his place of descent than Galilee. But since both the place and the work of illumination according ' This is here the force of viderit, our author's very favourite idiom.
2 Apparere.
3 Sapit.
* ImpeKerit.
5 Descendisse autem, duin 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 tal<e the last with Oehler, only understanding the clause as a parenthesis.
^Suggestu.
7 Indignum.
8Cui.
9 Ingressuro pradicationem.
•" This is the literal rendering of Tertullian's version of the prophet's words, which occur chap. ix. i, 2. The first clause closely follows the LXX. (ed. Tisch.): ToOto TTpatrov Trie, tox" noUi. 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 Taxi) noiei, from the hiphil oi ^Tr>, had been faultily written tixyy Trie, and the latter had crept into the text with the marginal note TrpioTov, instead of a repetition of raxv. However this be, Tertullian's old Latin Kible had the passage thus: " Hoc primum bibito, cito facito, regio Zabulon," etc. •• Si utique.
to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern '^ that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset qf Ills mim'sfrj, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them; '3 for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation.''' It will, however, be vain for him to deny that Christ uttered in word what He forthwith did partially indeed. For the prophecy about place He at once fulfilled. From heaven straight to the synagogue. As the adage runs: " The business on which we are come, do at once." Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; " '^ and, " It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs,"'* — in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite. But facts will satisfy me instead of words. Withdraw all the sayings of my Christ, His acts shall speak. Lo, He enters the synagogue; surely (this is going) to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Behold, it is to Israelites first that He offers the " bread " of His doctrine; surely it is because they are " children " that He shows them this pri- ority.'' 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 stran- gers to the Creator, if He especially belonged not to the Creator? And yet how could He have been admitted into the synagogue — one so abruptly appearing,'** so unknown; one, of whom no one had as yet been apprised of His tribe, His nation. His family, and lastly. His enrolment in the census of Augustus — that most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of Rome? They cer- tainly would have remembered, if they did not know Him to be circumcised, that He must not be admitted into their most holy places. And even if He had the general right of entering '9 the synagogue (like other Jews), yet the function of giving instruction was al- lowed only to a man who was extremely well known, and examined and tried, and for some time invested with the privilege after experi- ence duly attested elsewhere. But "they were all astonished at His doctrine." Of course they were; " for, says (St. Luke), " His word was with power ^ — not because He taught in opposition to the law and the proph- '= Agnoscere.
'4 Additum.
'7 Pra;fert.
'8 Tarn repentinus.
'9 Ktsi passim adiretur.
X CHAP. VII.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
ets. No doubt, His divine discourse' gave forth both power and grace, building up ratlier than pulhng down the substance of the hiw 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 con- sequence of a rival god; for he would have been unable to teach anything to the dispar- agement of the law and the prophets, and so far of the Creator also, without premising the doctrine of a different and rival divinity. In- asmuch, then, as the Scripture makes no other statement on the matter than tliat the simple force and power of His word produced aston- ishment, it more naturally^ shows that His teaching was in accordance with the Creator, by not denying (that it was so), than that it was in opposition to the Creator, by not as- serting (such a fact). And thus He will either have to be acknowledged as belonging to Him, 3 in accordance with whom He taught; or else will have to be adjudged a deceiver, since He taught in accordance with One whom He had come to oppose. In the same pas- sage, "the spirit of an unclean devil" ex- claims: "What have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus? Art Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God."'' I do not here raise the question whether this appellation was suitable to one who ought not to be called Christ, unless he were sent by the Creator. ^ Elsewhere* there has been already given. a full consideration of His titles. My present discussion is, how the evil spirit could have known that He was called by such a name, when there had never at any time been uttered about Him a single proph- ecy by a god who was unknown, and up to that time silent, of whom it was not possible for Him to be attested as "the Holy One," as (of a god) unknown even to his own Cre- ator. What similar evenf couid he then have published ^ of a ne7a deity, whereby he might betaken for " the holy one " of the rival god? Simply that he went into the synagogue, and did nothing even in word against the Creator? As therefore he could not by any means ac- knowledge him, whom he was ignorant of, to be Jesus and the Holy One of God; so did he acknowledge Him whom he knew (to be 1 Eloquium.
2 Facilius.
3 That is, the Creator.
5 Si non Creatoris.
6 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.
r Quid tale edideriu 33 both). For he remembered how that the proph- et had prophesied ** of " the Holy One" of God, and how that God's name of "Jesus" was in the son of Nun.' These facts he had also received '° from the angel, according to our Gospel: " Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Hol\ One, the Son of God;"" and, "Thou shalt call his name yif-i-//-?. " '= Thus he actually had (al- though 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 per- tain 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 de- ploring himself, and deprecating his own ca- lamity; at the prospect of which he adds: " Art Thou come to destroy us? " So com- pletely did he acknowledge in Jesus the Son of that God who was judicial and avenging, and (so to speak) severe, '^ and not of him who was simply good,"* and knew not how to de- stroy or how to punish! Now for what pur- pose have we adduced this passage first? '^ In order to show that Jesus was neither acknowl- edged 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 jt had been Christ's highest glory to have come for the destruction of demons, and not for the salva- tion of mankind; whereas His wish really was that His disciples should not glory in the sub- jection of evil spirits but in the fair beauty of salvation.'* Why else '^ did He rebuke him? If it was because he was entirely wrong (in his invocation), then He was neither Jesus nor the Holy One of God; if it was because he was partially wrong — for having supposed him to be, rightly enough,'^ Jesus and the Holy One of God, but also as belonging to the Creator — most unjustly would He have rebuked him for thinking what he knew he ought to think (about Him), and for not sup- posing 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,