CHAP. XVI. — THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS. AN ABSURD ERASURE OF MARCION; ITS OBJECT TRANSPARENT. THE FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE HEATHEN AS WELL AS THE JEWS COULD NOT BE ADMINISTERED BY MARCION's CHRIST. THE MAN OF SIN WHAT? INCONSISTENCY OF MARCION 'S VIEW. THE ANTICHRIST. THE GREAT EVENTS OF THE LAST APOSTASY WITHIN THE PROVIDENCE AND INTENTION OF THE CREATOR, WHOSE ARE ALL THINGS FROM THE BEGINNING. SIMILARITY OF THE PAULINE PRECEPTS WITH THOSE OF THE CREATOR.
We are obliged from time to time to recur 1 I Thess. V. 23. For a like application of this passage, see also our author's treatise, De Resurrect. Carnis, cap. xlvii. [Eluci- dation I.]
2 It is remarkable that our author quotes this text of the i/tree 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 separ- ation and </iVz«V7« he opposed and denied. See his De Aninia, cap. X. St. Augustine more fully still maintained a similar opin- ion. See also his De Anima, iv. 32. Bp. Ellicott, in his inter- esting sermon On the Three/old Nature of Man^ has given these references, and also a sketch of patristic opinion on 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 view. Bp. Bull, Hammond, and Jackson hold the trichotomy, as the triple nature is called; others, like Bp. Butler, deny the possibility of dividing our im- material 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 jija/ and j/?VzV as component parts of one principle. See also Bp. EUicott's Destiny 0/ the Creature, sermon v. and notes.
3 On this paradox, that souls are corporeal, see his treatise De Anima, v., and following chapters (Oehler). [See also cap. x. supra.'\ 4 Qusc = caro.
to certain topics in order to affirm truths which are connected with them. We repeat then here, that as the Lord is by the apostle proclaimed s as the awarder of both weal and woe,* He must be either tiie Creator, or (as Marcion would be loth to admit) One like the Creator — "with whom it is a righteous thing to recompense tribulation to them who afflict us, and to ourselves, who are afflicted, rest, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed as com- ing from heaven with the angels of His might and in flaming fire."' The heretic, however, has erased the flaming fire, no doubt that he might extinguish all traces herein of our own God. But the folly of the obliteration is clearly seen. For as the apostle declares that the Lord will come " to take vengeance on them that know not God and that obey not the gos- pel, who," he says, " shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power" * — it follows that, as He comes to inflict pun- ishment. He must require " the flaming fire." Thus on this consideration too we must, not- withstanding Marcion's opposition, conclude that Christ belongs to a God who kindles the flames 9 (of vengeance), and therefore to the Creator, inasmuch as He takes vengeance on such as know not the Lord, that is, on the heathen. For he has mentioned separately " those who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" '° whether they be sinners among Christians or among Jews. Now, to inflict punishment on the heathen, who very likely have never heard of the Gospel, is not the function of that God who is naturally unknown, and who is revealed nowhere else than in the Gospel, and therefore cannot be known by all men." The Creator, however, ought to be known even by (the light of) nature, for He may be understood from His works, and may thereby become the object of a more widely spread knowledge. To Hi7n, therefore, does it appertain to punish such as know not God, for none ought to be ignorant of Him. In the (apostle's) phrase, " From the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power," '^ he uses the words of Isaiah, who for the express reason makes the self-same Lord "arise to shake terribly the earth." '^ Well, but who is " the man of sin, the son of perdition," who must first be revealed before the Lord comes; " who opposeth and exalteth ' of both the eternal sentences.'
5 Circumferri. ^Utriusque meriti: 9Crematoris Dev.
>i Non omnibus scibilis.
»3 Isa. ii. 19. The whole verse is to the point.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book v.
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? " ' Ac- cording indeed to our view, he is Antichrist; as it is taught us in both the ancient and the new prophecies, = and especially by the Apos- tle 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, 3 and do not ac- knowledge* 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 Crea- tor'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? " s "Because," he says, "they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved; for which cause God shall send them an in- stinct of delusion* (to believe a lie), that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."' If therefore he be Antichrist, (as we hold), and comes according to the Creator's purpose, it must be God the Creator who sends him to fasten in their error those who did not believe the truth, that they might be saved; His likewise must be the truth and the salvation, who avenges (the contempt of) them by send- ing error as their substitute^ — that is, the Creator, to whom that very wrath is a fitting attribute, which deceives with a lie those who are not captivated with truth. If, however, he is not Antichrist, as we suppose (him to be) then He is the Christ of the Creator, as Marcion will have it. In this case how hap- pens it that he^ can suborn the Creator's Christ to avenge his truth? But should he after all agree with us, that Antichrist is here meant, I must then likewise ask how it is that he finds Satan, an angel of the Creator, nec- essary to his purpose? Why, too, should 2 The prophets of the Old and the New Testament.
4Solventes Jesum. This expression receives some explanation from the Vulgate version of i John iv. 3: " Et omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum Christum ex Deo non est. From Irenjeus, Vol. I., 443 (Harvey, ii. 89), we learn that the Gnostics (//V/Vf^/ Jesus from Christ: " Alterum quidem Jesum intelligunt, alterum autem Christum,"— an error which was met in that clause of the creed expressing faith in " One Lord Jesus Christ." Grabe, after So- crates, Hist. Eccles. vii. 32, says that the oldest mss. of St. John's epistle read jrai' Ttvtviia. b Avet TOf 'Itjo'oCv. If so, Tertullian must be regarded as combining the two readings, viz., that uhicli we find in the received text and this just quoted. Thus (Jrabe. It would be better to say that T. read ver. 2 as we have it, only omitting '\i\<jovvi and m ver. 3 read the old lection to which So- crates refers instead of itav ■nvf.v^t.o. 6 /ni; 6/oioAoyei.
S 2 Thess. ii. o.
^Summissu erroris 9 Marcion, or rather his Christ, who on the hypothesis absurdly employs the Creator's Christ on the flagrantly inconsistent mission uf avenging his truth, i.e. Marcionism.
Antichrist be slain by Him, whilst commis- sioned by the Creator to execute the func- tion '° of inspiring men with their love of un- truth? In short, it is incontestable that the emissary," and the truth, and the salvation belong to Him to whom also appertain the wrath, and the jealousy," and "the sending of the strong delusion," '^ on those who de- spise 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,"* and indications (of His divinity), '5 but who in spite of all this evidence has not been acknowledged; or he who has been brought out to view '^ once for all in one only copy of the gospel — and even that without any sure authority — which actu- ally makes no secret of proclaiming another god? Now He who has the right of inflicting the vengeance, has also sole claim to that which occasions'' the vengeance, I mean the Gospel; (in other words,) both the truth and (its accompanying) salvation. The charge, that " if any would not work, neither should he eat," '^ is in strict accordance with the precept of Him who ordered that "the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn should not be muzzled." '» CHAP. XVII. — THE EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEANS. THE PROPER DESIGNATION IS TO THE EPHE- SIANS. RECAPITULATION OF ALL THINGS IN CHRIST FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CREA- TION. NO ROOM FOR MARCION's CHRIST HERE. NUMEROUS PARALLELS BETWEEN THIS EPISTLE AND PASSAGES IN THE OLD TESTA- MENT. THE PRINCE OF THE POWER OF THE AIR, AND THE GOD OF THIS WORLD WHO?
CREATION AND REGENERATION THE WORK OF ONE GOD. HOW CHRIST HAS MADE THE LAW OBSOLETE. K VAIN ERASURE OF MARCION 's. THE APOSTLES AS WELL AS THE PROPHETS FROM THE CREATOR.
We have it on the true tradition "^ of the Church, that this epistle was sent to the Ephe- '0 Habens fungi...Creator!. " Angelum: the Antichrist sent by the Creator. ■= yUmulatio.
'4 Plagis: " heavy strokes," in opposition to the previous " ben*' /iciis."
'6 Productus est.
'7 Materia.
»9Deut. XXV. 4.
=oVeritati.
CHAP. XVII.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
sians, not to the Laodiceans. Marcion, how- ever, was very desirous of giving it the new title (of Laodicean),' as if he were extremely accurate in investigating such a point. But of what consequence are the titles, since in writing to a certain church the apostle did in fact write to all? It is certain that, whoever they were to whom he wrote,^ he declared Him to be God in Christ with whom all things agree which are predicted. 3 Now, to what god will most suitably belong all those things which relate to "that good pleasure, which God hath purposed in the mystery of His will, that in the dispensation of the fulness of times He might recapitulate" (if I may so say, according to the exact meaning of the Greek word-*) "all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth," ^ but to Him whose are all things from their begin- ning, 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 be- lieve 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 op- posites be gathered together into him by whom they are in short destroyed? Again, what Christ do the following words announce, when the apostle says: "That we should be to the praise of His glory, who first trusted in Christ?"* Now who could have first trusted — i.e. previously trusted' — in God, before His advent, except the Jews to whom I Titulum interpolare gestiit: or, " of corrupting its title."
^Certe tamen.
3 For a discussion on the title of this epistle in a succinct shape, the reader is referred to Dean Alford's Gr. Test. vol. iii. Prole- ^omena, chap. ii. sec. 2.
* a»'a)ce<|)aAatii)<rao-9ai, " to sum up into a head."
7 He explains " prsesperasse by ante sperasse."
30 Christ was previously announced, from the beginning? He who was thus foretold, was also foretrusted. Hence tlie apostle refers the statement to himself, that is, to the Jews, in order that he may draw a distinction with respect to the Gentiles, (when he goes on to say:) " In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel (of your salvation); in whom ye believed, and were sealed with His Holy Spirit of promise." "^ Of what promise? That which was made through Joel: "In the last days will I pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh," ' that is, on all nations. Therefore the Spirit and the Gospel will be found in the Christ, who was foretrusted, because foretold. Again, "the Father of glory " '° is He whose Christ, when ascending to heaven, is celebrated as "the King of Glory " in the Psalm: " Who is this King of Glory? the Lord of Hosts, He is the King of Glory." " From Him also is besought " the spirit of wisdom," '^ at whose disposal is enumerated that sevenfold distribution of the spirit of grace by Isaiah. '^ He likewise will grant "the enlightenment of the eyes of the understanding," '■* who has also enriched our natural eyes with light; to whom, moreover, the blindness of the people is offensive: "And who is blind, but my servants?...yea, the servants of God have become blind." '^ In His gift, too, are " the riches (of the glory) of His inheritance in the saints," '* who prom- ised such an inheritance in the call of the Gentiles: "Ask of me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance." ^' It was He who " wrought in Christ His mighty power, by raising Him from the dead, and setting Him at His own right hand, and putting all things under His feet " '^ — even the same who said: "Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool." '' For in another passage the Spirit says to the Father concerning the Son: "Thou hast put all things under His feet."=^ Now, it from all these facts which are found in the Creator there is yet to be deduced ^'^ another god and another Christ, let us go in quest of the Cre- ator. I suppose, forsooth,-^ we find Him, when he speaks of such as " were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein they had walked -' Infertur. '^- Plane.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book v.
according to the course of this world, accord- ing to the prince of the power of the air, who worketh in the children of disobedience." ' But Marcion must not here interpret the world as meaning the God of the world. ^ For a creature bears no resemblance to the Creator; the thing made, none to its Maker; the world, none to God. He, moreover, who is the Prince of the power of the ages must not be thought to be called the prince of the power of the air; for He who is chief over the higher powers derives no title from the lower powers, although these, too, may be ascribed to Him, Nor, again, can He possibly seem to be the instigator 3 of that unbelief which He Him- self had rather to endure at the hand of the Jews and the Gentiles alike. We may there- fore simply conclude that " these designations are unsuited to the Creator. There is i^n- other 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 wilt go up above the clouds; I will behke the Most High."s 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 ap- pellation the god of this world. * For he has filled the whole world with the lying pretence of his own divinity. To be sure,^ if he had not existed, we might then possibly have ap- plied these descriptions to the Creator. But the apostle, too, had lived in Judaism; and when he parenthetically observed of the sins (of that period of his life), " in which also we all had our conversation in times past," ^ he must not be understood to indicate that the Creator was the lord of sinful men, and the prince of this air; but as meaning that in his Judaism he had been one of the children of disobedience, having the devil as his instigator — when he persecuted the church and the Christ of the Creator. Therefore he says: " We also were the children of wrath," but "by nature. "9 Let the heretic, however, not contend that, because the Creator called the Jews childrcfi, therefore the Creator is the lord of wrath. '° For when (the apostle) says," We ^ Deo mundi: i.e. the God who made the world.
3 Operator: in reference to the expression in ver. 2, " who now ifp> ketk" etc.
< Sufficit igitiir si.
S Isa. xiv. 13, 14. An ine.\act quotation from the Septuagint.
'On this and another meaning given to the phrase in a Cor. iv. 4. see above, chap. j-i.
7 Plane: an ironical particle here.
were by nature the children of wrath," inas- much as the Jews were not the Creator's chil- dren 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," " who, of course, were not children of God. It is manifest that sins, and lusts of the flesh, and unbelief, and anger, are ascribed to the common nature of all mankind, the devil however leading that nature astray,'- which he has already infected with the implanted germ of sin. "We," says he, "are His workmanship, created in Christ." '^ It is one thing to make (as a workman), another thing to create. But he assigns both to One. Man is the workmanship of the Creator. He therefore who made man (at first), created him also in Christ. As touching the sub- stance of nature. He " made" him; as touch- ing 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 com- monwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise,"* having no hope, and without God in the world." '^ Now, without what God and without what Christ were these Gentiles? Surely, without Him to whom the commonwealth '* of Israel belonged, and the covenants and the promise. " But now in Christ," says he, " ye who were sometimes far off are made nigh by His blood." '^ From whom were they far off before? From the (privileges) whereof he speaks above, even from the Christ of the Creator, from the com- monwealth of Israel, from the covenants, from the hope of the promise, from God Himself. Since this is the case, the Gentiles are conse- quently 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 com- prises 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 Crea- tor from afar. The apostle had in mind that it had been predicted concerning the call of 'fi In Marcion's sense, "Captante.
■4 Literally, " the covenants and their promise."
'6 Conversatio: rather, "intercourse with Israel."
CHAP. XVIII.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
the Gentiles from their distant alienation in words like these: " They who were far off from me have come to my righteousness."' For the Creator's righteousness no less than His peace was announced in Christ, as we have often shown already. Therefore he says: " He is our peace, who hath made both one " - — that IS, the Jewish nation and the Gentile world. What is near, and what was far off, now that " the middle wall has been broken down " of their " enmity," (are made one) " in His flesh." 3 But Marcion erased the pro- noun His, that he might make the enmity refer to flesh, as if (the apostle spoke) of a carnal enmity, instead of the enmity which was a rival to Christ.'' And thus you have (as I have said elsewhere) exhibited the stu- pidity of Pontus, rather than the adroitness of a Marrucinian,^ for you here deny him flesh to whom in the verse above you allowed blood! Since, however, He has made the law obsolete^ by His own precepts, even by Him- self 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, shalt do no murder," when He says, shalt not speak evil of thy neighbour,") it is impossible to make an adversary of the law