Chapter IV.—Another Instance of Marcion’s Tampering with St. Paul’s Text.  The Fulness of Time, Announced by the Apostle, Foretold by the Prophets. Mosaic Rites Abrogated by the Creator Himself. Marcion’s Tricks About Abraham’s Name. The Creator, by His Christ, the Fountain of the Grace and the Liberty Which St. Paul Announced. Marcion’s Docetism Refuted.

“But,” says he, “I speak after the manner of men: when we were children, we were placed in bondage under the elements of the world.”2999    This apparent quotation is in fact a patching together of two sentences from Gal. iii. 15 and iv. 3 (Fr. Junius). “If I may be allowed to guess from the manner in which Tertullian expresseth himself, I should imagine that Marcion erased the whole of chap. iii. after the word λέγω in ver. 15, and the beginning of chap. iv., until you come to the word ὅτε in ver. 3. Then the words will be connected thus: ‘Brethren, I speak after the manner of men…when we were children we were in bondage under the elements of the world; but when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son.’ This is precisely what the argument of Tertullian requires, and they are the very words which he connects together” (Lardner, Hist. of Heretics, x. 43). Dr. Lardner, touching Marcion’s omissions in this chap. iii. of the Epistle to the Galatians, says: “He omitted vers. 6, 7, 8, in order to get rid of the mention of Abraham, and of the gospel having been preached to him.” This he said after St. Jerome, and then adds: “He ought also to have omitted part of ver. 9, σὺν τῷ πιστῷ ᾽Αβραάμ, which seems to have been the case, according to T.’s manner of stating the argument against him” (Works, History of Heretics, x. 43). This, however, was not said “after the manner of men.” For there is no figure3000    Exemplum. here, but literal truth. For (with respect to the latter clause of this passage), what child (in the sense, that is, in which the Gentiles are children) is not in bondage to the elements of the world, which he looks up to3001    Suspicit. in the light of a god? With regard, however, to the former clause, there was a figure (as the apostle wrote it); because after he had said, “I speak after the manner of men,” he adds), “Though it be but a man’s covenant, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.”3002    Gal. iii. 15. This, of course, is consistent in St. Paul’s argument. Marcion, however, by erasing all the intervening verses, and affixing the phrase “after the manner of men” to the plain assertion of Gal. iv. 3, reduces the whole statement to an absurdity. For by the figure of the permanency of a human covenant he was defending the divine testament. “To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He said not ‘to seeds,’ as of many; but as of one, ‘to thy seed,’ which is Christ.”3003    Gal. iii. 16. Fie on3004    Erubescat. Marcion’s sponge! But indeed it is superfluous to dwell on what he has erased, when he may be more effectually confuted from that which he has retained.3005    So, instead of pursuing the contents of chap. iii., he proceeds to such of chap. iv. as Marcion reserved. “But when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son”3006    Gal. iv. 4.—the God, of course, who is the Lord of that very succession of times which constitutes an age; who also ordained, as “signs” of time, suns and moons and constellations and stars; who furthermore both predetermined and predicted that the revelation of His Son should be postponed to the end of the times.3007    In extremitatem temporum. “It shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain (of the house) of the Lord shall be manifested”;3008    Isa. ii. 2 (Sept). “and in the last days I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh”3009    Joel iii. 28, as quoted by St. Peter, Acts ii. 17. as Joel says. It was characteristic of Him (only)3010    Ipsius. to wait patiently for the fulness of time, to whom belonged the end of time no less than the beginning. But as for that idle god, who has neither any work nor any prophecy, nor accordingly any time, to show for himself, what has he ever done to bring about the fulness of time, or to wait patiently its completion? If nothing, what an impotent state to have to wait for the Creator’s time, in servility to the Creator! But for what end did He send His Son? “To redeem them that were under the law,”3011    Gal. iv. 5. in other words, to “make the crooked ways straight, and the rough places smooth,” as Isaiah says3012    Isa. xl. 4.—in order that old things might pass away, and a new course begin, even “the new law out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,”3013    Isa. ii. 3. and “that we might receive the adoption of sons,”3014    Gal. iv. 5. that is, the Gentiles, who once were not sons.  For He is to be “the light of the Gentiles,” and “in His name shall the Gentiles trust.”3015    Isa. xlii. 4, 6. That we may have, therefore the assurance that we are the children of God, “He hath sent forth His Spirit into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.”3016    Gal. iv. 6. For “in the last days,” saith He, “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.”3017    Joel iii. 28, as given in Acts ii. 17.

Now, from whom comes this grace, but from Him who proclaimed the promise thereof? Who is (our) Father, but He who is also our Maker?  Therefore, after such affluence (of grace), they should not have returned “to weak and beggarly elements.”3018    Gal. iv. 9. By the Romans, however, the rudiments of learning are wont to be called elements. He did not therefore seek, by any depreciation of the mundane elements, to turn them away from their god, although, when he said just before, “Howbeit, then, ye serve them which by nature are no gods,”3019    Gal. iv. 8. he censured the error of that physical or natural superstition which holds the elements to be god; but at the God of those elements he aimed not in this censure.3020    Nec sic taxans. He tells us himself clearly enough what he means by “elements,” even the rudiments of the law: “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years”3021    Gal. iv. 10.—the sabbaths, I suppose, and “the preparations,”3022    Cœnas puras: probably the παρασκευαί mentioned in John xix. 31. and the fasts, and the “high days.”3023    See also John xix. 31. For the cessation of even these, no less than of circumcision, was appointed by the Creator’s decrees, who had said by Isaiah, “Your new moons, and your sabbaths, and your high days I cannot bear; your fasting, and feasts, and ceremonies my soul hateth;”3024    Isa. i. 13, 14. also by Amos, “I hate, I despise your feast-days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies;”3025    Amos v. 21. and again by Hosea, “I will cause to cease all her mirth, and her feast-days, and her sabbaths, and her new moons, and all her solemn assemblies.”3026    Hos. ii. 11. The institutions which He set up Himself, you ask, did He then destroy? Yes, rather than any other. Or if another destroyed them, he only helped on the purpose of the Creator, by removing what even He had condemned. But this is not the place to discuss the question why the Creator abolished His own laws. It is enough for us to have proved that He intended such an abolition, that so it may be affirmed that the apostle determined nothing to the prejudice of the Creator, since the abolition itself proceeds from the Creator. But as, in the case of thieves, something of the stolen goods is apt to drop by the way, as a clue to their detection; so, as it seems to me, it has happened to Marcion: the last mention of Abraham’s name he has left untouched (in the epistle), although no passage required his erasure more than this, even his partial alteration of the text.3027    In other words, Marcion has indeed tampered with the passage, omitting some things; but (strange to say) he has left untouched the statement which, from his point of view, most required suppression. “For (it is written) that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman; but he who was of the bond maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman was by promise: which things are allegorized”3028    Allegorica: on the importance of rendering ἀλληγορούμενα by this participle rather than by the noun “an allegory,” as in A.V., see Bp. Marsh’s Lectures on the Interpretation of the Bible, pp. 351–354. (that is to say, they presaged something besides the literal history); “for these are the two covenants,” or the two exhibitions (of the divine plans),3029    Ostensiones: revelationes perhaps. as we have found the word interpreted, “the one from the Mount Sinai,” in relation to the synagogue of the Jews, according to the law, “which gendereth to bondage”—“the other gendereth” (to liberty, being raised) above all principality, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come, “which is the mother of us all,” in which we have the promise of (Christ’s) holy church; by reason of which he adds in conclusion: “So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond woman, but of the free.”3030    Gal. iv. 21–26, 31. In this passage he has undoubtedly shown that Christianity had a noble birth, being sprung, as the mystery of the allegory indicates, from that son of Abraham who was born of the free woman; whereas from the son of the bond maid came the legal bondage of Judaism. Both dispensations, therefore, emanate from that same God by whom,3031    Apud quem. as we have found, they were both sketched out beforehand. When he speaks of “the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,”3032    Gal. v. 1. does not the very phrase indicate that He is the Liberator who was once the Master? For Galba himself never liberated slaves which were not his own, even when about to restore free men to their liberty.3033    Tertullian, in his terse style, takes the case of the emperor, as the highest potentate, who, if any, might make free with his power. He seizes the moment when Galba was saluted emperor on Nero’s death, and was the means of delivering so many out of the hands of the tyrant, in order to sharpen the point of his illustration. By Him, therefore, will liberty be bestowed, at whose command lay the enslaving power of the law. And very properly. It was not meet that those who had received liberty should be “entangled again with the yoke of bondage”3034    Gal. v. 1.—that is, of the law; now that the Psalm had its prophecy accomplished: “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us, since the rulers have gathered themselves together against the Lord and against His Christ.”3035    Ps. ii. 3, 2. All those, therefore, who had been delivered from the yoke of slavery he would earnestly have to obliterate the very mark of slavery—even circumcision, on the authority of the prophet’s prediction. He remembered how that Jeremiah had said, “Circumcise the foreskins of your heart;”3036    Jer. iv. 4. as Moses likewise had enjoined, “Circumcise your hard hearts”3037    Deut. x. 16.—not the literal flesh. If, now, he were for excluding circumcision, as the messenger of a new god, why does he say that “in Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision?”3038    Gal. v. 6. For it was his duty to prefer the rival principle of that which he was abolishing, if he had a mission from the god who was the enemy of circumcision.

Furthermore, since both circumcision and uncircumcision were attributed to the same Deity, both lost their power3039    Utraque vacabat. in Christ, by reason of the excellency of faith—of that faith concerning which it had been written, “And in His name shall the Gentiles trust?”3040    Isa. xlii. 4.—of that faith “which,” he says “worketh by love.”3041    Gal. v. 6. By this saying he also shows that the Creator is the source of that grace. For whether he speaks of the love which is due to God, or that which is due to one’s neighbor—in either case, the Creator’s grace is meant: for it is He who enjoins the first in these words, “Thou shalt love God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength;”3042    Deut. vi. 5. and also the second in another passage:  “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”3043    Lev. xix. 18. “But he that troubleth you shall have to bear judgment.”3044    Gal. v. 10. From what God? From (Marcion’s) most excellent god? But he does not execute judgment. From the Creator? But neither will He condemn the maintainer of circumcision. Now, if none other but the Creator shall be found to execute judgment, it follows that only He, who has determined on the cessation of the law, shall be able to condemn the defenders of the law; and what, if he also affirms the law in that portion of it where it ought (to be permanent)? “For,” says he, “all the law is fulfilled in you by this:  ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’”3045    Gal. v. 14. If, indeed, he will have it that by the words “it is fulfilled” it is implied that the law no longer has to be fulfilled, then of course he does not mean that I should any more love my neighbour as myself, since this precept must have ceased together with the law. But no! we must evermore continue to observe this commandment. The Creator’s law, therefore, has received the approval of the rival god, who has, in fact, bestowed upon it not the sentence of a summary dismissal,3046    Dispendium. but the favour of a compendious acceptance;3047    Compendium: the terseness of the original cannot be preserved in the translation.the gist of it all being concentrated in this one precept! But this condensation of the law is, in fact, only possible to Him who is the Author of it.  When, therefore, he says, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ,”3048    Gal. vi. 2. since this cannot be accomplished except a man love his neighbour as himself, it is evident that the precept, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (which, in fact, underlies the injunction, “Bear ye one another’s burdens”), is really “the law of Christ,” though literally the law of the Creator. Christ, therefore, is the Creator’s Christ, as Christ’s law is the Creator’s law.  “Be not deceived,3049    Erratis: literally, “ye are deceived.” God is not mocked.”3050    Gal. vi. 7. But Marcion’s god can be mocked; for he knows not how to be angry, or how to take vengeance. “For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”3051    Gal. vi. 7. It is then the God of recompense and judgment who threatens3052    Intentat. this. “Let us not be weary in well-doing;”3053    Gal. vi. 9. and “as we have opportunity, let us do good.”3054    Gal. vi. 10. Deny now that the Creator has given a commandment to do good, and then a diversity of precept may argue a difference of gods. If, however, He also announces recompense, then from the same God must come the harvest both of death3055    Corruptionis. and of life. But “in due time we shall reap;”3056    Gal. vi. 9. because in Ecclesiastes it is said, “For everything there will be a time.”3057    Eccles. iii. 17. Moreover, “the world is crucified unto me,” who am a servant of the Creator—“the world,” (I say,) but not the God who made the world—“and I unto the world,”3058    Gal. vi. 14. not unto the God who made the world. The world, in the apostle’s sense, here means life and conversation according to worldly principles; it is in renouncing these that we and they are mutually crucified and mutually slain. He calls them “persecutors of Christ.”3059    See Gal. vi. 17, κόπους μοι μηδεὶς παρεχέτω, “let no one harass me.” But when he adds, that “he bare in his body the scars3060    Stigmata: the scars not of circumcision, but of wounds suffered for His sake (Conybeare and Howson). of Christ”—since scars, of course, are accidents of body3061    Corporalia.—he therefore expressed the truth, that the flesh of Christ is not putative, but real and substantial,3062    Solidam. the scars of which he represents as borne upon his body.

CAPUT IV.

Adhuc, inquit (Gal., III, IV, V et VI), secundum 0475Dhominem dico, dum essemus parvuli, sub elementis mundi eramus positi, ad deserviendum eis. Atquin non 0476A est hoc humanitus dictum: non enim exemplum est, sed veritas. Quis enim parvulus, utique sensu, quod sunt nationes, non elementis subjectus est mundi, quae pro Deo suspicit ? Illud autem facit , quod cum secundum hominem dixisset, tamen testamentum hominis nemo spernit aut superordinat. Exemplo enim humani testamenti permanentis, divinum tuebatur. Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, et semini ejus. Non dixit, seminibus, quasi pluribus; sed semini, tanquam uni, quod Christus est. Erubescat spongia Marcionis, nisi quod ex abundanti retracto quae abstulit, cum validius sit illum ex his revinci quae servavit. Cum autem evenit impleri tempus, misit Deus Filium suum; utique is, qui etiam ipsorum temporum Deus est, quibus saeculum constat; qui signa 0476B quoque temporum ordinavit, soles, et lunas, et sidera, et stellas; qui Filii denique sui revelationem in extremitatem temporum et disposuit et praedicavit (Is., II, 2): In novissimis diebus erit manifestus mons Domini, et (Joel, II, 28): In novissimis diebus effundam de spiritu meo in omnem carnem, secundum Joclem. Ipsius erat sustinuisse tempus impleri, cujus erat etiam finis temporis sicut initium. Caeterum Deus ille otiosus, nec operationis, nec praedicationis ullius, atque ita nec temporis alicujus, quid omnino egit quod efficeret tempus impleri, etiam implendum sustineri? Si nihil, satis vanum est ut Creatoris tempora sustinuerit serviens Creatori. Cui autem rei misit Filium suum? Ut eos qui sub lege erant, redimeret: hoc est, ut efficeret (Is., XL, 4) tortuosa0476Cin viam rectam, et aspera in vias lenes , secundum Esaiam; ut vetera transirent, et nova orirentur; Lex nova ex Sion, et sermo Domini ex Hierusalem (Is. II, 3): et ut adoptionem filiorum acciperemus, utique nationes, quae filii non eramus. Et ipse enim lux erit nationum, et in nomine ejus nationes sperabunt. Itaque, ut certum esset nos filios Dei esse, misit Spiritum suum in corda nostra, clamantem, Abba, Pater. In novissimis enim, inquit (Joel, II, 28), diebus effundam de meo Spiritu in omnem carnem. Cujus gratiae, nisi cujus et promissio gratiae? quis Pater, nisi qui et factor? Post has itaque divitias, non erat revertendum ad infirma et mendica elementa. Elementa autem apud Romanos quoque etiam primae litterae solent dici. Non ergo per mundialium elementorum derogationem 0476D a Deo eorum avertere cupiebat; etsi dicendo supra: Si ergo his qui non natura sunt Dei servitis; physicae, 0477A id est, naturalis superstitionis elementa pro Deo habentis sugillabat errorem, nec sic tamen elementorum Deum taxans. Sed quae velit intelligi elementa, primas scilicet litteras legis, ipse declarat: Dies observatis, et menses, et tempora, et annos, et sabbata, ut opinor, et coenas puras, et jejunia et dies magnos. Cessare enim ab his quoque sicut et circumcisione oportebat ex decretis Creatoris, qui et per Esaiam (Is. I, 14): Neomenias vestras et sabbata et diem magnum non sustinebo: jejunium et ferias et caeremonias vestras odit anima mea; et per Amos (Am. V, 21): Odi, rejeci caeremonias vestras, et non odoraborin frequentiis vestris. Item per Osee (Os. II, 11): Avertam universas jucunditates ejus, et caeremonias ejus, et sabbata, et neomenias ejus, et omnes frequentias ejus.0477B Quae ipse constituerat, inquis, erasit? Magis quam alius: aut si alius, ergo ille adjuvit sententiam Creatoris, auferens quae et ille damnaverat. Sed non hujus loci quaestio, cur leges suas Creator infregerit. Sufficit quod infracturum probavimus, ut confirmetur nihil Apostolum adversus Creatorem determinasse, cum et ipsa amolitio Legis a Creatore sit. Sed ut furibus solet aliquid excidere de praeda in indicium, ita credo et Marcionem novissimam Abrahae mentionem dereliquisse, nullam magis auferendam, etsi ex parte convertit . Si enim Abraham duos liberos habuit, unum ex ancilla, et alium ex libera: sed qui 0477Cex ancilla, carnaliter natus est; qui vero ex libera, per 0478Arepromissionem; quae sunt allegorica, id est, aliud portendentia: haec sunt enim duo testamenta, sive duae ostensiones, sicut invenimus interpretatum: unum a monte Sina, in synagogam Judaeorum, secundum legem, generans in servitutem; aliud super omnem principatum, generans vim, dominationem, et omne nomen quod nominatur, non tantum in hoc aevo, sed in futuro; quae est mater nostra, in quam repromisimus sanctam Ecclesiam; ideoque adjicit: Propter quod, fratres, non sumus ancillae filii, sed liberae. Utique manifestavit et christianismi generositatem in filio Abrahae ex libera nato allegoriae habere sacramentum, sicut et judaismi servitutem legalem in filio ancillae; atque ita ejus Dei esse utramque dispositionem, apud quem invenimus utriusque dispositionis 0478B delineationem . Ipsum quod ait, Qua libertate Christus nos manumisit, nonne eum constituit manumissorem, qui fuit Dominus? Alienos enim servos ne Galba quidem manumisit, facilius liberos soluturus. Ab eo igitur praestabitur libertas, apud quem fuit servitus legis. Et merito. Non decebat manumissos rursus jugo servitutis, id est, legis adstringi, jam Psalmo (Ps. II) adimpleto: Dirumpamus vincula eorum, et abjiciamus a nobis jugum ipsorum; postquam archontes congregati sunt in unum adversus Dominum, et adversus Christum ipsius. De servitute igitur exemptos, ipsam servitutis notam 0478C eradere perseverabat, circumcisionem; ex praedicationis 0479A scilicet propheticae auctoritate; memor dictum per Hieremiam (Jerem. IV, 4): Et circumcidimini praeputiacordis vestri. Quia et Moyses (Deut. X, 16): Circumcidetis duricordiam vestram, id est, non carnem. Denique, si circumcisione ab alio Deo veniens excludebat, cur etiam praeputiationem negat quidquam valere in Christo, sicut et circumcisionem? praeferre enim debebat aemulam ejus, quam expugnabat, si ab aemulo circumcisionis Deo esset. Porro, quia et circumcisio et praeputiatio uni Deo deputabantur, ideo utraque in Christo vacabat, propter fidei praelationem; illius fidei, de qua erat scriptum (Is. XLII, 4): Et in nomine ejus nationes credent; illius fidei, quam dicendo per dilectionem perfici, sic quoque Creatoris ostendit. Sive enim dilectionem 0479B dicit quae in Deum, et hoc Creatoris est (Deut. VI): Diliges Deum ex toto corde tuo, et ex tota anima tua, et ex totis viribus tuis; sive quae in proximum: et proximum tuum tanquam te, Creatoris est. Qui autem turbat vos, judicium feret. A quo Deo? Ab optimo? Sed ille non judicat. A Creatore? Sed nec ille damnabit assertorem circumcisionis. Quod si non erit alius qui judicet nisi Creator, jam ergo non damnabit Legis defensores, nisi qui ipse eam cessare constituit. Quid nunc, si et confirmat illam ex parte qua debet? Tota enim, inquit, Lex invobis adimpleta est: Diliges proximum tuum tanquam te. Aut si sic vult intelligi, Adimpleta est, quasi jam non adimplenda, ergo non vult ut diligam proximum tanquam me, ut et hoc cum lege cessaverit; sed perseverandum 0479C erit semper in isto praecepto. Ergo lex Creatoris etiam ab adversario probata est; nec dispendium, sed compendium ab eo consecuta est, redacta summa in unum jam praeceptum. Sed nec hoc alii magis competit, quam auctori. Atque adeo cum dicit: Onera vestra invicem sustinete, et sic adimplebitis legem Christi; si hoc non potest fieri, nisi quis diligat proximum suum tanquam se, apparet, Diliges proximum tuumtanquam te, per quod auditur: Invicem onera vestra portate, Christi esse legem, quae sit Creatoris: atque ita Christum Creatoris esse, dum Christi est lex Creatoris. Erratis, Deus non deridetur. Atquin derideri potest Deus Marcionis, qui nec irasci novit, nec ulcisci. Quod enim seminaverithomo, hoc et metet. Ergo retributionis 0479D et judicii Deus intentat. Bonum autem facientes non fatigemur; et: Dum habemus tempus, operemur 0480Abonum. Nega Creatorem bonum facere praecipisse, et diversa doctrina sit diversae divinitatis. Porro, si retributionem praedicat, ab eodem erit et corruptionis messis et vitae. Tempore autem suo metemus; quia et Ecclesiastes , Tempus, inquit (Eccl., III, 17), erit omni rei. Sed et mihi famulo Creatoris mundus crucifixus est; non tamen Deus mundi; et ego mundo, non tamen Deo mundi. Mundum enim, quantum ad conversationem ejus posuit cui renuntiando mutuo transfigimur, et invicem morimur, persecutores vocat Christi; cum vero adjicit, Stigmata Christi in corpore suo gestare se (utique corporalia competunt), jam non putativam , sed veram et solidam carnem professus est Christi, cujus stigmata corporalia ostendit.