that Paul would arise out of the tribe of Ben- jamin, 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 nour- ishment, 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 re- morse and reparation," on his receiving from him good for evil, we have nothing else than an anticipation '^ of Paul in Saul — belonging, too, as they did, to the same tribe — and of Jesus in David, from whom He descended ac- cording to the Virgin's genealogy." Should you, however, disapprove of these types, ^ the Acts of the Apostles,"' at all events, have handed down to me this career of Paul, which you must not refuse to accept. Thence I dem- onstrate that from a persecutor he became "an apostle, not of men, neither by man; " =^ thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason for rejecting your de- fence of him, ^3 and for bearing fearlessly your taunt. "Then you deny the Apostle Paul." I do not calumniate him whom I defend. ''■* I deny him, to compel you to the proof of him. I deny him, to convince you that he is mine. If you have regard to our belief you should admit the particulars which comprise it. If you challenge us to your be- lief, (pray) tell us what things constitute its basis. ^5 Either prove the truth of what you believe, or failing in your proof, (tell us) how you believe. Else what conduct is yours, ^ be- lieving in opposition to Him from whom alone comes the proof of that which you believe? Take now from my point of view"^ the apos- tle, 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 '7.Satisfactio.
•8 Non aliud portendebat quam.
'9 Secundum Virginis censum.
20 Figurarum sacramenta.
2' 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 Epipha- nius. The same thing appears from the more ancient authority of TertuUian, 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 apos- tles, 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 TertuUian says) very evi- dent, since from it we can plainly show that the God of the Chris- tians and the God of the Jews, or the Creator, was the same being and that Christ was sent by Hnn, and by no other" (Lardner' Works, Hist, of Heretics, chap. x. sec. 41).
2.1 Inde te a defensione ejus expello.
24 An insinuation that Marcion's defence of Paul was, in fact, a calumny of the apostle, =5 Praestruant earn.
26 Qualis es.
'■'7 Habe nunc de raeo.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCTON.
adversary on the mere ground of a simple rule,' that even an apostle who is said not to belong to the Creator — nay, is displayed as in actual hostility to the Creator — can be fairly regarded as teaching^ nothing, knowing nothing, wishing nothing in favour of the Creator whilst it would be a first principle with him to set forth ^ another god with as much eagerness as he would use in withdraw- ing 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 possi- bly pass from allegiance to the Creator with- out knowing to whom he had to cross over. For either Christ had already revealed an- other god — in which case the apostle's testi- mony would also follow to the same effect, for fear of his not being else regarded-* as an apostle of the god whom Christ had revealed, and because of the impropriety of his being concealed by the apostle who had been al- ready revealed by Christ — or Christ had made no such revelation concerning God; theti 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 un- doubtedly 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, be- cause we wish at once to profess that we shall pursue the same method here in the apostle's case as we adopted before in Christ's case, to prove that he proclaimed no new god; ^ that is, we shall draw our evidence from the epis- tles of St. Paul himself. Now, the garbled form in which we have found the heretic's Gospel will have already prepared us to ex- pect to find'^ the epistles also mutilated by him with like perverseness — and that even as respects their number. ' CHAP. II. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
THE ABOLITION OF THE ORDINANCES OF THE MOSAIC LAW NO PROOF OF ANOTHER GOD. THE DIVINE LAWGIVER, THE CREATOR HIM- SELF, WAS THE ABROGATOR. THE APOSTLE's DOCTRINE IN THE FIRST CHAPTER SHOWN TO ACCORD WITH THE TEACHING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES SHOWN TO BE GENUINE AGAINST MARCION. THIS BOOK AGREES WITH THE PAULINE EPIS- TLES.
The epistle which we also allow to be the " In ipso gradu praescriptionis.
3 Edicere.
4 Ne non haberetur.
5 Nullum alium deum circumlatum.
6 Prsejudicasse debebit.
7 Marclon only received ten of St. Paul's epistles, and these al- tered by himself.
most decisive^ against Judaism, is that wherein the apostle instructs the Galatians. For the abolition of the ancient law we fully admit, and hold that it actually proceeds from the dispensation of the Creator, — a point which we have already often treated in the course of our discussion, when we showed that the innovation was foretold by the prophets of our God.' Now, if the Creator indeed promised that " the ancient things should pass away," '° to be superseded by a new course of things which should arise, whilst Christ marks the period of the separation when He says, " The law and the prophets were until John " " — thus making the Baptist the limit between the two dispensations of the old things then terminating — and the new things then begin- ning, the apostle cannot of course do other- wise, (coming as he does) in Christ, who was revealed after John, than invalidate "the old things" and confirm " the new," and yet pro- mote thereby the faith of no other god than the Creator, at whose instance " it was fore- told that the ancient things should pass away. Therefore both the abrogation of the law and the establishment of the gospel help my argu- ment 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 in- credible that the law should be set aside by its own author. Again, '3 if they had at all heard of any other god from the apostle, would they not have concluded at once, of themselves, that they must give up the law of that God whom they had left, in order to follow another? For what man would be long in learning, that he ought to pursue a new discipline, after he had taken up with a new god? Since, however, '•* the same God was declared in the gospel which had always been so well known in the law, the only change being in the dispensation, 's the sole point of the question to be discussed was, whether the law of the Creator ought by the gospel to be excluded in the Christ of the Creator? Take away this point, and the controversy falls to the ground. Now, since they would all know of themselves,'* on the withdrawal of this point, that they must of course renounce all submission to the Creator by reason of their " Pnncipalem.
9 See above, in book i. chap, xx., also in book iv. chap. i. i>3Comp. Isa. xliii. i8, 19, and Ixv. 17, with 2 Cor. v. 17. '2 Apud quern. '3 Porro. '4 Immo quia. '5 Disciplina. '0 Ultro.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book v.
faith in another god, there could have been no call for the apostle to teach them so earn- estly that which their own belief must have spontaneously suggested to them. Therefore the entire purport of this epistle is simply to show us that the supersession ' of the law comes from the appointment of the Creator — a point, which we shall still have to keep in mind.' Since also he makes mention of no other god (and he could have found no other opportunity of doing so, more suitable than when his purpose was to set forth the reason for the abolition of the law — especially as the prescription of a new god would have afforded a singularly good and most sufficient reason), it is clear enough in what sense he writes, " I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him who hath called you to His grace to another gospel "3 — (He means) " another " as to the conduct it prescribes, not in respect of its worship; "another" as to the discipline it teaches, not in respect of its divinity; because it is the office of'* Christ's gospel to call men from the law to grace, not from the Creator to another god. For nobody had induced them to apostatize from^ the Creator, that they should seem to "be removed to another gospel," simply when they return again to the Creator. When he adds, too, the words, "which is not another,"* he confirms the fact that the gospel which he maintains is the Creator's. For the Creator Himself promises the gospel, when He says by Isaiah: "Get thee up into the high mountain, thou that bringest to Sion good tidings; lift up thy voice with strength^ thou that bringest the gospel to Jerusalem." ' Also when, with respect to the apostles personally. He says, " How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that bring good tidings of good " ^ — even proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles, because He also says, " In His name shall the Gentiles trust; "« that is, tn the name of Christ, to whom He says, " I have given thee as a light of the Gentiles."'" How- ever, you will have it that it is the gospel of a new god which was then set forth by the apostle. So that there are two gospels for" two gods; and the apostle made a great mistake ' Discessionem.
»Ut adhuc suggeremus.
4 Deberet.
5 Moverat illos a.
7 Isa. xl. 9 (Septuagint).
9We have here an instance of the high authorityof the Septua- gint version. It comes from the Seventy: Kai i-n\ rti ovb/maTi ovToO i6vy\ i\itio\iai.v (Isa. xlii. 4). From this Tertullian, as usual, quoted it. But what is much more important, St. Matthew has adopted it; see chap. xi:. ver. 21. This beautiful promise of the Creator does not occur in its well-known form m the Hebrew orig- inal.
'"Isa. xlii. 6.
"Apud: "administered by."
when he said that "there is not another" gospel.''' since there is (on the hypothesis)'^ another; and so he might have made a better defence of his gospel, by rather demonstrating this, than by insisting on its being but one. But perhaps, to avoid this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards, "Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed," '■♦ because he was aware that the Creator was going to introduce a gospel! But you thus entangle yourself still more. For this is now the mesh in which you are caught. To affirm that there are two gospels, is not the part of a man who has already denied that there is another. His meaning, however, is clear, for he has mentioned himself first (in the anathema): " But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel." '^ It is by way of an example that he has expressed himself. If even he himself might not preach any other gospel, then neither might an angel. He said "angel"' in this way, that he might show how much more men ought not to be believed, when neither an angel nor an apostle ought to be; not that he meant to apply'* an angel to the gospel of the Creator. He then cursorily touches on his own conversion from a perse- cutor to an apostle — confirming thereby the Acts of the Apostles,'^ in which book may be found the very subject '^ of this epistle, how that certain persons interposed, and said that men ought to be circumcised, and that the law of Moses was to be observed; and how the apostles, when consulted, determined, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that " a yoke should not be put upon men's necks which their fathers even had not been able to bear." '9 Now, since the Acts of the Apos- tles thus agree with Paul, it becomes apparent why you reject them. It is because they de- clare no other God than the Creator, and prove Christ to belong to no other God than the Creator; whilst the promise of the Holy Ghost is shown to have been fulfilled in no other document than the Acts of the Apostles. Now, it is not very likely that these =° should be found in agreement with the apostle, on the one hand, when they described his career in accordance with his own statement; but should, on the other hand, be at variance with him when they announce the (attribute of) divinity in the Creator's Christ — as if Paul •3 Cum sit. '6 Referret.
>7 A similar remark occurs in Prascript. Httretic. c. xxiii. p. 253. '8 Ipsa materia.
'9 See Gal. i. 11-24, compared with Acts xv. 5-29. 2"" The Acts of the Apostles " is alwaysa//?<»-rt/phrasc in Ter» tuUian.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION did not follow' the preaching of the apostles when he received from them the prescrip- tion = of not teaching the Law.^ CHAP. III. — ST. PAUL QUITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ST. PETER AND OTHER APOSTLES OF THE CIRCUMCISION. HIS CENSURE OF ST. PETER EXPLAINED, AND RESCUED FROM MARCION's MISAPPLICATION. THE STRONG PROTESTS OF THIS EPISTLE AGAINST JUDAIZERS. YET ITS TEACHING IS SHOWN TO BE IN KEEPING WITH THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS. MARCION 'S TAMPERING WITH ST. PAUL's WRITINGS CEN- SURED.
But with regard to the countenance * of Peter and the rest of the apostles, he tells us ^ that " fourteen years after he went up to Jeru- salem," in order to confer with them ^ about the rule which he followed in his gospel, lest perchance he should all those years have been running, and be running still, in vain, (which would be the case,) of course, if his preaching of the gospel fell short of their method. ^ So great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you wish on all oc- casions* to be understood as in alliance with Judaism! When indeed he says, that " neither was Titus circumcised," ' he for the first time shows us that circumcision was the only question connected with the mainte- nance " of the law, which had been as yet agitated by those whom he therefore calls "false brethren unawares brought in."" These persons went no further than to insist on a continuance of the law, retaining un- questionably a sincere belief in the Creator. They perverted the gospel in their teaching, not indeed by such a tampering with the Scripture " as should enable them to ex- punge '3 the Creator's Christ, but by so re- taining the ancient r/gtme as not to exclude the Creator's law. Therefore he says: " Be- cause of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ, that they might bring us into bondage, to whom we gave place by subjection not even for an hour."'" Let us only attend to the dear's sense and to the reason of the thing, and the perversion of the • Ut non secutus sit.
2 Formam.
sDedocendae legis; i.e., of Moses.
4 Ad patrocinium.
5 Scriiit often takes the place of inquit: naturally enough as referring to the epistles.
7 Formara.
8 Si quando.
'"Ex defensione.
'^Interpolatione Scripturx. «3 Qua eflUngerent.
'S Ipsi.
28 Scripture will be apparent. When he first says, " Neither Titus, who was with me, be- ing a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised," and then adds, " And that because of false brethren unawares brought in,"'* etc., he gives us an insight into his reason '^ for acting in a clean contrary way,'* showing us where- fore he did that which he would neither have done nor shown to us, if that had not hap- pened which induced him to act as he did. But then '' I want you to tell us whether they would have yielded to the subjection that was demanded, =° if these false brethren had not crept in to spy out their liberty? I appre- hend not. They therefore gave way (in a partial concession), because there were per- sons whose weak faith required consideration." For their rudimentary belief, which was still in suspense about the observance of the law, deserved this concessive treatment," when even the apostle himself had some suspicion that he might have run, and be still running, in vain. ^3 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, ac- cording to their arrangement with him.^ He therefore made some concession, as was nec- essary, for a time; and this was the reason why he had Timothy circumcised, ^^ and the Nazarites introduced into the temple,^ which incidents are described in the Acts. Their truth may be inferred from their agreement with the apostle's own profession, how "to the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and to them that were under 17 Incipit reddere rationem., '^ Contrarii utique facti. [Farrar, Si, Paul, pp. 232 and 261.]
19 Denique.
20 See Conybeare and Howson, in loc. -' Fuerunt propter quos crederetur.
"2 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, ani- mated by the bitterest sectarian spirit; and although they were numerically a small party, yet we know the power of a turbulent minority. But besides these Judaizing zealots, there was a large proportion of the Christians at Jeru.salem, whose Christianity, though more smcere 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 preju- dices too rudely; lest they should be tempted to make shipwreck of their faith and renounce their Christianity altogether." These were they whose pn-judices required to he 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.; "4 Ex censu eorum: see Gal. ii. g, 10, 'S Acts xvi. 3.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book v.
the law, as under the law," — and so here with respect to those who come in secretly, — " and lastly, how he became all things to all men, that he might gain all." ' Now, inasmuch as the circumstances require such an interpreta- tion 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 abol- ish if he had published a new god. Rightly, then, did Peter and James and John give their right hand of fellowship to Paul, and agree on such a division of their work, as that Paul should go to the heathen, and themselves to the circumcision.'' Their agreement, also, "to remember the poor"^ was in complete conformity with the law of the Creator, which cherished the poor and needy, as has been shown in our observations on your Gospel.* It is thus certain that the question was one which simply regarded the law, while at the same time it is apparent what portion of the law it was convenient to have observed. Paul, however, censures Peter for not walking straightforwardly according to the truth of the gospel-. No doubt he blames him; but it was solely because of his inconsistency in the matter of " eating," ^ which he varied according to the sort of persons (whom he asso- ciated with) " fearing them which were of the circumcision," ^ but not on account of any perverse opinion touching another god. For if such a question had arisen, others also would have been "resisted face to face" by the man who had not even spared Peter on the comparatively small matter of his doubtful conversation. But what do the Marcionites wish to have believed (on the point)? For the rest, the apostle must (be permitted to) go on with his own statement, wherein he says that "a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith: "^ faith, however, in the same God to whom belongs the law also. For of course he would have bestowed no la- bour 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 sev- erance. Justly, therefore, did he refuse to "build up again (the structure of the law) which he had overthrown."^ The law, in- deed, had to be overthrown, from the moment when John "cried in the wilderness. Prepare ye the ways of the Lord," that valleys' and * See above, book iv. chap. xiv. p. 365.
5 Victus: see Gal. ii. 12; or, liTing, see ver. 14.
*Gal. ii. 18 (see Conybeare and Howson).
9 Rivi: the ivadys of the East.
hills and mountains may be filled up and lev- elled, and the crooked and the rough ways be made straight and smooth '° — in other words, that the difficulties of the law might be changed into the facilities of the gospel. For he remembered that the time was come of which the Psalm spake, "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast off their yoke from us; " " since the time when " the nations be- came tumultuous, and the people imagined vain counsels; " when " the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered to- gether against the Lord, and against His Christ," " in order that thenceforward man might be justified by the liberty of faith, not by servitude to the law,*^ " because the just shall live by his faith."'" Now, although the prophet Habakkuk first said this, yet you have the apostle here confirming the prophets, even as Christ did. The object, therefore, of the faith whereby the just man shall live, will be that same God to whom likewise be- longs the law, by doing which no man is justified. Since, then, there equally are found the curse in the law and the blessing in faith, you have both conditions set forth by '^ the Creator: " Behold," says He, " I have set be- fore you a blessing and a curse." '^ You can- not establish a diversity of authors because there happens to be one of things; for the di- versity is itself proposed by one and the same author. Why, however, " Christ was made a curse for us," '' is declared by the apostle himself in a way which quite helps our side, as being the result of the Creator's appoint- ment. But yet it by no means follows, be- cause the Creator said of old, " Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,"'* that Christ belonged to another god, and on that account was accursed even then in the law. And how, indeed, could the Creator have cursed by anticipation one whom He knew not of? Why, however, may it not be more suitable for the Creator to have delivered His own Son to His own curse, than to have sub- mitted 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