Book V.
Book V.
Wherein Tertullian proves, with respect to St. Paul's epistles, what he had proved in the preceding book with respect to St. Luke's gospel. Far from being at variance, they were in perfect unison with the writings of the old testament, and therefore testified that the Creator was the only god, and that the Lord Jesus was his Christ. As in the preceding books, Tertullian supports his argument with profound reasoning, and many happy illustrations of holy scripture.
Chapter I.-Introductory. The Apostle Paul Himself Not the Preacher of a New God. Called by Jesus Christ, Although After the Other Apostles, His Mission Was from the Creator. States How. The Argument, as in the Case of the Gospel, Confining Proofs to Such Portions of St. Paul's Writings as Marcion Allowed.
There is nothing without a beginning but God alone. Now, inasmuch as the beginning: occupies the first place in the condition of all things, so it must necessarily take precedence in the treatment of them, if a clear knowledge is to be arrived at concerning their condition; for you could not find the means of examining even the quality of anything, unless you were certain of its existence, and that after discovering its origin.(1) Since therefore I am brought, in the course of my little work, to this point,(2) I require to know of Marcion the origin of his apostles(3) even-I, who am to some degree a new disciple,(4) the follower of no other master; who at the same time(5) can believe nothing, except that nothing ought to be believed hastily(6) (and that I may further say is hastily believed, which is believed without any examination(7) of its beginning); in short, I who have the best reason possible for bringing this inquiry to a most careful solution,(8) since a man is affirmed to me to be an apostle whom I do not find mentioned in the Gospel in the catalogue(9) of the apostles. Indeed, when I hear that this man was chosen by the Lord after He had attained His rest in heaven, I feel that a kind of improvidence is imputable to Christ, for not knowing before that this man was necessary to Him; and because He thought that he must be added to the apostolic body in the way of a fortuitous encounter(10) 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,(11) if you have never taken on board your small craft(12) any contraband goods or smuggler's cargo, if you have never thrown overboard or tampered with a freight, you are still more careful and conscientious, I doubt not, in divine things; and so I should be glad if you would inform us under what bill of lading(13) you admitted the Apostle Paul on board, who ticketed him,(14) what owner forwarded him,(15) who handed him to you,(16) that so you may land him without any misgiving,(17) lest he should turn out to belong to him,(18) who can substantiate his claim to him by producing all his apostolic writings.(19) He professes himself to be "an apostle"-to use his own, words-"not of men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ."(20) 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;(21) one man appends his seal, another registers in the public records.(22) 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."(23) Now if any one can pretend that he is Christ, how much more might a man profess to be an apostle of Christ! But still, for my own part, I appear(24) in the character of a disciple and an inquirer; that so I may even thus(25) 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."(26) 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,(27) on his receiving from him good for evil, we have nothing else than an anticipation(28) 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.(29) Should you, however, disapprove of these types,(30) the Acts of the Apostles,(31) 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; "(32) thence am I led to believe the Apostle himself; thence do I find reason for rejecting your defence of him,(33) and for bearing fearlessly your taunt. "Then you deny the Apostle Paul." I do not calumniate him whom I defend.(34) 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.(35) Either prove the truth of what you believe, or failing in your proof, (tell us) how you believe. Else what conduct is yours,(36) believing in opposition to Him from whom alone comes the proof of that which you believe? Take now from my point of view(37) 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,(38) 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(39) nothing, knowing nothing, wishing nothing in favour of the Creator whilst it would be a first principle with him to set forth(40) another god with as much eagerness as he would use in withdrawing us from the law of the Creator. It is not at all likely that he would call men away from Judaism without showing them at the same time what was the god in whom he invited them to believe; because nobody could possibly pass from allegiance to the Creator without knowing to whom he had to cross over. For either Christ had already revealed another god-in which case the apostle's testimony would also follow to the same effect, for fear of his not being else regarded(41) 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;(42) that is, we shall draw our evidence from the epistles of St. Paul himself. Now, the garbled form in which we have found the heretic's Gospel will have already prepared us to expect to find(43) the epistles also mutilated by him with like perverseness-and that even as respects their number.(44)
Chapter II.-On the Epistle to the Galatians. The Abolition of the Ordinances of the Mosaic Law No Proof of Another God. The Divine Lawgiver, the Creator Himself, Was the Abrogator. The Apostle's Doctrine in the First Chapter Shown to Accord with the Teaching of the Old Testament. The Acts of the Apostles Shown to Be Genuine Against Marcion. This Book Agrees with the Pauline Epistles.
The epistle which we also allow to be the most decisive(45) 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.(46) Now, if the Creator indeed promised that "the ancient things should pass away,"(47) 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"(48) -thus making the Baptist the limit between the two dispensations of the old things then terminating-and the new things then beginning, the apostle cannot of course do otherwise, (coming as he does) in Christ, who was revealed after John, than invalidate "the old things" and confirm "the new," and yet promote thereby the faith of no other god than the Creator, at whose instance(49) 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,(50) 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,(51) 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,(52) 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,(53) on the withdrawal of this point, that they must of course renounce all submission to the Creator by reason of their faith in another god, there could have been no call for the apostle to teach them so earnestly that which their own belief must have spontaneously suggested to them. Therefore the entire purport of this epistle is simply to show us that the supersession(54) of the law comes from the appointment of the Creator-a point, which we shall still have to keep in mind.(55) 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"(56) -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(57) 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(58) 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,"(59) 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."(60) 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"(61) -even proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles, because He also says, "In His name shall the Gentiles trust; "(62) that is, in the name of Christ, to whom He says, "I have given thee as a light of the Gentiles."(63) However, you will have it that it is the gospel of a new god which was then set forth by the apostle. So that there are two gospels for(64) two gods; and the apostle made a great mistake when he said that "there is not another" gospel,(65) since there is (on the hypothesis)(66) 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,"(67) 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."(68) 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(69) 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,(70) in which book may be found the very subject(71) 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."(72) Now, since the Acts of the Apostles thus agree with Paul, it becomes apparent why you reject them. It is because they declare no other God than the Creator, and prove Christ to belong to no other God than the Creator; whilst the promise of the Holy Ghost is shown to have been fulfilled in no other document than the Acts of the Apostles. Now, it is not very likely that these(73) should be found in agreement with the apostle, on the one hand, when they described his career in accordance with his own statement; but should, on the other hand, be at variance with him when they announce the (attribute of) divinity in the Creator's Christ-as if Paul did not follow(74) the preaching of the apostles when he received from them the prescription(75) of not teaching the Law.(76)
Chapter III.-St. Paul Quite in Accordance with St. Peter and Other Apostles of the Circumcision. His Censure of St. Peter Explained, and Rescued from Marcion's Misapplication. The Strong Protests of This Epistle Against Judaizers, Yet Its Teaching is Shown to Be in Keeping with the Law and the Prophets, Marcion's Tampering with St. Paul's Writings Censured.
But with regard to the countenance(77) of Peter and the rest of the apostles, he tells us(78) that "fourteen years after he went up to Jerusalem," in order to confer with them(79) 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.(80) So great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you wish on all occasions(81) to be understood as in alliance with Judaism! When indeed he says, that "neither was Titus circumcised,"(82) he for the first time shows us that circumcision was the only question connected with the maintenance(83) of the law, which had been as yet agitated by those whom he therefore calls "false brethren unawares brought in."(84) These persons went no further than to insist on a continuance of the law, retaining unquestionably a sincere belief in the Creator. They perverted the gospel in their teaching, not indeed by such a tampering with the Scripture(85) as should enable them to expunge(86) 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."(87) Let us only attend to the clear(88) 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,"(89) etc., he gives us an insight into his reason(90) for acting in a clean contrary way,(91) showing us wherefore he did that which he would neither have done nor shown to us, if that had not happened which induced him to act as he did. But then(92) I want you to tell us whether they would have yielded to the subjection that was demanded,(93) 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.(94) For their rudimentary belief, which was still in suspense about the observance of the law, deserved this concessive treatment,(95) when even the apostle himself had some suspicion that he might have run, and be still running, in vain.(96) 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.(97) He therefore made some concession, as was necessary, for a time; and this was the reason why he had Timothy circumcised,(98) and the Nazarites introduced into the temple,(99) 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."(100) 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.(101) Their agreement, also, "to remember the poor"(102) 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.(103) 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,"(104) which he varied according to the sort of persons (whom he associated with) "fearing them which were of the circumcision,"(105) 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: "(106) 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."(107) The law, indeed, had to be overthrown, from the moment when John "cried in the wilderness, Prepare ye the ways of the Lord," that valleys(108) and hills and mountains may be filled up and levelled, and the crooked and the rough ways be made straight and smooth(109) -in other words, that the difficulties of the law might be changed into the facilities of the gospel.
HOME 
TOP