anf03. latin christianity: its founder, tertulliananf03. latin christianity: its founder, tertullian...

ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder,Tertullian

by

Philip Schaff

Christian Classics Ethereal Library

About this documentThis document has been generated from XSL (Extensible Stylesheet Language) source with RenderX XEP Formatter, version 3.7.3 Client Academic.

For more information about XSL, visit the official World Wide Web Consortium XSL homepage: http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL

For more information about RenderX and XEP, visit the RenderX site: http://www.renderx.com

http://www.ccel.org/

About ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian by Tertullian

ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, TertullianTitle:http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.htmlURL:Schaff, PhilipAuthor(s):Menzies, Allan (1845-1916) (Editor)Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal LibraryPublisher:Originally printed in 1885, the ten-volume set, Ante-Nicene Fathers,brings together the work of early Christian thinkers. In particular, it

Description:

brings together the writings of the early Church fathers prior to thefourth century Nicene Creed. These volumes are noteworthy for theirinclusion of entire texts, and not simply fragments or excerpts fromthese great writings. The translations are fairly literal, providing bothreaders and scholars with a good approximation of the originals. Thisparticular volume focuses on the work of Tertullian, who is often calledthe "father of Latin Christianity." It brings together three of his mostimportant works. These writings were heavily influential on the earlyChurch, and for good reason, as they are inspirational andencouraging. These volumes also come with many useful notes,providing the reader with new levels of understanding. Overall,Ante-Nicene Fathers, or any part of it, is a welcome addition to one'sreading list.Tim PerrineCCEL Staff WriterCopyright Christian Classics Ethereal LibraryRights:2006-01-18Date Created:Carefully proofed and converted to ThMLStatus:All; Early Church; ProofedCCEL Subjects:BR65LC Call no:

ChristianityLC Subjects:Early Christian Literature. Fathers of the Church, etc.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.htmlhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/authInfo.html

Table of Contents

p. iiAbout This Book. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 1Title Page.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 2Second Title Page.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 3Preface.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 4Apologetic.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 4Title Page.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 4Introductory Note.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 22Apology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 22Chapter I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 24Chapter II.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 26Chapter III.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 27Chapter IV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 29Chapter V.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 30Chapter VI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 31Chapter VII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 33Chapter VIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 34Chapter IX.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 36Chapter X.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 37Chapter XI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 39Chapter XII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 40Chapter XIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 41Chapter XIV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 42Chapter XV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 43Chapter XVI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 45Chapter XVII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 45Chapter XVIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 46Chapter XIX.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 47Chapter XX.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 48Chapter XXI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 52Chapter XXII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 53Chapter XXIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 55Chapter XXIV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 56Chapter XXV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 58Chapter XXVI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 59Chapter XXVII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

Philip SchaffANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian

p. 60Chapter XXVIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 60Chapter XXIX.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 61Chapter XXX.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 62Chapter XXXI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 62Chapter XXXII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 62Chapter XXXIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 63Chapter XXXIV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 64Chapter XXXV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 65Chapter XXXVI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 66Chapter XXXVII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 67Chapter XXXVIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 67Chapter XXXIX.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 70Chapter XL.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 71Chapter XLI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 72Chapter XLII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 73Chapter XLIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 73Chapter XLIV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 74Chapter XLV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 75Chapter XLVI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 76Chapter XLVII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 78Chapter XLVIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 80Chapter XLIX.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 81Chapter L.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 83Elucidations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 89On Idolatry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 89Wide Scope of the Word Idolatry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 90Idolatry in Its More Limited Sense. Its Copiousness.. . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 91Idolatry: Origin and Meaning of the Name.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 92Idols Not to Be Made, Much Less Worshipped. Idols and Idol-Makers inthe Same Category.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 93Sundry Objections or Excuses Dealt with.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 94Idolatry Condemned by Baptism. To Make an Idol Is, in Fact, to WorshipIt.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 95Grief of the Faithful at the Admission of Idol-Makers into the Church; Nay,Even into the Ministry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 95Other Arts Made Subservient to Idolatry. Lawful Means of Gaining aLivelihood Abundant.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 97Professions of Some Kinds Allied to Idolatry. Of Astrology inParticular.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 98Of Schoolmasters and Their Difficulties.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv


p. 100Connection Between Covetousness and Idolatry. Certain Trades, HoweverGainful, to Be Avoided.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 101Further Answers to the Plea, How Am I to Live?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 103Of the Observance of Days Connected with Idolatry.. . . . . . . . . . . .p. 104Of Blasphemy. One of St. Paul's Sayings.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 105Concerning Festivals in Honour of Emperors, Victories, and the Like.Examples of the Three Children and Daniel.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 107Concerning Private Festivals.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 108The Cases of Servants and Other Officials. What Offices a Christian ManMay Hold.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 109Dress as Connected with Idolatry.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 111Concerning Military Service.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 111Concerning Idolatry in Words.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 112Of Silent Acquiescence in Heathen Formularies.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 113Of Accepting Blessing in the Name of Idols.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 114Written Contracts in the Name of Idols. Tacit Consent.. . . . . . . . . . .p. 115General Conclusion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 116Elucidations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 118The Shows, or De Spectaculis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 118Chapter I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 119Chapter II.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 120Chapter III.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 121Chapter IV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 122Chapter V.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 123Chapter VI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 123Chapter VII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 124Chapter VIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 125Chapter IX.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 125Chapter X.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 127Chapter XI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 127Chapter XII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 128Chapter XIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 129Chapter XIV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 129Chapter XV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 130Chapter XVI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 130Chapter XVII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 131Chapter XVIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 132Chapter XIX.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 132Chapter XX.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 133Chapter XXI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

v


p. 134Chapter XXII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 134Chapter XXIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 135Chapter XXIV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 135Chapter XXV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 136Chapter XXVI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 136Chapter XXVII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 137Chapter XXVIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 138Chapter XXIX.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 138Chapter XXX.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 140The Chaplet, or De Corona.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 140Chapter I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 141Chapter II.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 142Chapter III.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 143Chapter IV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 144Chapter V.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 145Chapter VI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 146Chapter VII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 147Chapter VIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 148Chapter IX.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 149Chapter X.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 151Chapter XI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 153Chapter XII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 154Chapter XIII.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 155Chapter XIV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 156Chapter XV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 157Elucidations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 158To Scapula.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 158Chapter I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 159Chapter II.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 160Chapter III.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 161Chapter IV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 163Chapter V.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 164Elucidations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 164Ad Nationes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 164Book I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 164The Hatred Felt by the Heathen Against the Christians is Unjust,Because Based on Culpable Ignorance.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 167

The Heathen Perverted Judgment in the Trial of Christians. They WouldBe More Consistent If They Dispensed with All Form of Trial. TertullianUrges This with Much Indignation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi


p. 168The Great Offence in the Christians Lies in Their Very Name. The NameVindicated.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 170The Truth Hated in the Christians; So in Measure Was It, of Old, inSocrates. The Virtues of the Christians.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 172

The Inconsistent Life of Any False Christian No More Condemns TrueDisciples of Christ, Than a Passing Cloud Obscures a SummerSky.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 173The Innocence of the Christians Not Compromised by the IniquitousLaws Which Were Made Against Them.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 174The Christians Defamed. A Sarcastic Description of Fame; Its Deceptionand Atrocious Slanders of the Christians Lengthily Described.. . . . .

p. 179The Calumny Against the Christians Illustrated in the Discovery ofPsammetichus. Refutation of the Story.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 180The Christians are Not the Cause of Public Calamities: There WereSuch Troubles Before Christianity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 182

The Christians are Not the Only Contemners of the Gods. Contempt ofThem Often Displayed by Heathen Official Persons. Homer Made theGods Contemptible.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 188The Absurd Cavil of the Ass's Head Disposed of.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 188

The Charge of Worshipping a Cross. The Heathens Themselves MadeMuch of Crosses in Sacred Things; Nay, Their Very Idols Were Formedon a Crucial Frame.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 190The Charge of Worshipping the Sun Met by a Retort.. . . . . . . . . . .

p. 191The Vile Calumny About Onocoetes Retorted on the Heathen byTertullian.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 192The Charge of Infanticide Retorted on the Heathen.. . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 193Other Charges Repelled by the Same Method. The Story of the NobleRoman Youth and His Parents.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 195The Christian Refusal to Swear by the Genius of Cæsar. Flippancy andIrreverence Retorted on the Heathen.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 197Christians Charged with an Obstinate Contempt of Death. Instances ofthe Same are Found Amongst the Heathen.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 198

If Christians and the Heathen Thus Resemble Each Other, There isGreat Difference in the Grounds and Nature of Their Apparently SimilarConduct.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 199Truth and Reality Pertain to Christians Alone. The Heathen Counselledto Examine and Embrace It.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 201Book II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii


p. 201

The Heathen Gods from Heathen Authorities. Varro Has Written a Workon the Subject. His Threefold Classification. The Changeable Characterof that Which Ought to Be Fixed and Certain.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 203Philosophers Had Not Succeeded in Discovering God. The Uncertaintyand Confusion of Their Speculations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 205The Physical Philosophers Maintained the Divinity of the Elements; TheAbsurdity of the Tenet Exposed.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 207Wrong Derivation of the Word Qe . The Name Indicative of the TrueDeity. God Without Shape and Immaterial. Anecdote of Thales.. . . . .

p. 209The Physical Theory Continued. Further Reasons Advanced Againstthe Divinity of the Elements.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 211The Changes of the Heavenly Bodies, Proof that They are Not Divine.Transition from the Physical to the Mythic Class of Gods.. . . . . . . .

p. 212The Gods of the Mythic Class. The Poets a Very Poor Authority in SuchMatters. Homer and the Mythic Poets. Why Irreligious.. . . . . . . . . .

p. 214

The Gods of the Different Nations. Varro's Gentile Class. Their Inferiority.A Good Deal of This Perverse Theology Taken from Scripture. Serapisa Perversion of Joseph.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 216

The Power of Rome. Romanized Aspect of All the Heathen Mythology.Varro's Threefold Distribution Criticised. Roman Heroes (ÆneasIncluded,) Unfavourably Reviewed.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 219A Disgraceful Feature of the Roman Mythology. It Honours SuchInfamous Characters as Larentina.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 220The Romans Provided Gods for Birth, Nay, Even Before Birth, to Death.Much Indelicacy in This System.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 222

The Original Deities Were Human--With Some Very QuestionableCharacteristics. Saturn or Time Was Human. Inconsistencies of OpinionAbout Him.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 225The Gods Human at First. Who Had the Authority to Make Them Divine?Jupiter Not Only Human, But Immoral.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 228

Gods, Those Which Were Confessedly Elevated to the Divine Condition,What Pre-Eminent Right Had They to Such Honour? Hercules an InferiorCharacter.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 230

The Constellations and the Genii Very Indifferent Gods. The RomanMonopoly of Gods Unsatisfactory. Other Nations Require Deities Quiteas Much.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 232

Inventors of Useful Arts Unworthy of Deification. They Would Be theFirst to Acknowledge a Creator. The Arts Changeable from Time toTime, and Some Become Obsolete.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii


p. 232

Conclusion, the Romans Owe Not Their Imperial Power to Their Gods.The Great God Alone Dispenses Kingdoms, He is the God of theChristians.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 235Appendix: A Fragment Concerning the Execrable Gods of theHeathen.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 238Elucidation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 238An Answer to the Jews.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 238Occasion of Writing. Relative Position of Jews and GentilesIllustrated.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 240The Law Anterior to Moses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 243Of Circumcision and the Supercession of the Old Law.. . . . . . . . . . .p. 246Of the Observance of the Sabbath.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 247Of Sacrifices.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 249Of the Abolition and the Abolisher of the Old Law.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 250The Question Whether Christ Be Come Taken Up.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 252Of the Times of Christ's Birth and Passion, and of Jerusalem'sDestruction.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 256Of the Prophecies of the Birth and Achievements of Christ.. . . . . . . .

p. 263Concerning the Passion of Christ, and Its Old Testament Predictions andAdumbrations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 268Further Proofs, from Ezekiel. Summary of the Prophetic Argument ThusFar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 270Further Proofs from the Calling of the Gentiles.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 271Argument from the Destruction of Jerusalem and Desolation ofJudea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 277Conclusion. Clue to the Error of the Jews.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 280The Soul's Testimony.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 280Chapter I.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 282Chapter II.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 283Chapter III.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 284Chapter IV.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 286Chapter V.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 287Chapter VI.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 288Elucidations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 289A Treatise on the Soul.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 289It is Not to the Philosophers that We Resort for Information About theSoul But to God.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 291The Christian Has Sure and Simple Knowledge Concerning the SubjectBefore Us.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 293The Soul's Origin Defined Out of the Simple Words of Scripture.. . . . .

ix


p. 294In Opposition to Plato, the Soul Was Created and Originated atBir th. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 295Probable View of the Stoics, that the Soul Has a Corporeal Nature.. . . .

p. 296The Arguments of the Platonists for the Soul's Incorporeality, Opposed,Perhaps Frivolously.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 299The Soul's Corporeality Demonstrated Out of the Gospels.. . . . . . . .p. 299Other Platonist Arguments Considered.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 300Particulars of the Alleged Communication to a Montanist Sister.. . . . .

p. 303The Simple Nature of the Soul is Asserted with Plato. The Identity of Spiritand Soul.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 305Spirit--A Term Expressive of an Operation of the Soul, Not of Its Nature.To Be Carefully Distinguished from the Spirit of God.. . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 307Difference Between the Mind and the Soul, and the Relation BetweenThem.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 308The Soul's Supremacy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 309The Soul Variously Divided by the Philosophers; This Division is Not aMaterial Dissection.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 310The Soul's Vitality and Intelligence. Its Character and Seat in Man.. . . .p. 312The Soul's Parts. Elements of the Rational Soul.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 313The Fidelity of the Senses, Impugned by Plato, Vindicated by ChristHimself.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 316Plato Suggested Certain Errors to the Gnostics. Functions of theSou l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 320The Intellect Coeval with the Soul in the Human Being. An Example fromAristotle Converted into Evidence Favourable to These Views.. . . . . .

p. 322The Soul, as to Its Nature Uniform, But Its Faculties Variously Developed.Varieties Only Accidental.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 323As Free-Will Actuates an Individual So May His Character Change.. . .p. 325Recapitulation. Definition of the Soul.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 326The Opinions of Sundry Heretics Which Originate Ultimately withPlato.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 326Plato's Inconsistency. He Supposes the Soul Self-Existent, Yet Capableof Forgetting What Passed in a Previous State.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 329Tertullian Refutes, Physiologically, the Notion that the Soul is IntroducedAfter Birth.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 332Scripture Alone Offers Clear Knowledge on the Questions We Have BeenControverting.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 333Soul and Body Conceived, Formed and Perfected in ElementSimultaneously.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

x


p. 335The Pythagorean Doctrine of Transmigration Sketched andCensured.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 337The Pythagorean Doctrine Refuted by Its Own First Principle, that LivingMen are Formed from the Dead.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 338Further Refutation of the Pythagorean Theory. The State of ContemporaryCivilisation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 339Further Exposure of Transmigration, Its InextricableEmbarrassment.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 340Empedocles Increased the Absurdity of Pythagoras by Developing thePosthumous Change of Men into Various Animals.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 343The Judicial Retribution of These Migrations Refuted with Raillery.. . . .

p. 345These Vagaries Stimulated Some Profane Corruptions of Christianity.The Profanity of Simon Magus Condemned.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 346The Opinions of Carpocrates, Another Offset from the PythagoreanDogmas, Stated and Confuted.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 349The Main Points of Our Author's Subject. On the Sexes of the HumanRace.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 349On the Formation and State of the Embryo. Its Relation with the Subjectof This Treatise.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 351On the Growth of the Soul. Its Maturity Coincident with the Maturity ofthe Flesh in Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 352The Evil Spirit Has Marred the Purity of the Soul from the VeryBir th. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 353The Body of Man Only Ancillary to the Soul in the Commission ofEvil.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 354

Notwithstanding the Depravity of Man's Soul by Original Sin, There is YetLeft a Basis Whereon Divine Grace Can Work for Its Recovery by SpiritualRegeneration.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 355Sleep, the Mirror of Death, as Introductory to the Consideration ofDeath. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 356Sleep a Natural Function as Shown by Other Considerations, and by theTestimony of Scripture.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 358The Story of Hermotimus, and the Sleeplessness of the Emperor Nero.No Separation of the Soul from the Body Until Death.. . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 359Dreams, an Incidental Effect of the Soul's Activity. Ecstasy.. . . . . . . .

p. 360Diversity of Dreams and Visions. Epicurus Thought Lightly of Them,Though Generally Most Highly Valued. Instances of Dreams.. . . . . . .

p. 362Dreams Variously Classified. Some are God-Sent, as the Dreams ofNebuchadnezzar; Others Simply Products of Nature.. . . . . . . . . . . .

xi


p. 363Causes and Circumstances of Dreams. What Best Contributes to EfficientDreaming.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 364No Soul Naturally Exempt from Dreams.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 365The Absurd Opinion of Epicurus and the Profane Conceits of the HereticMenander on Death, Even Enoch and Elijah Reserved for Death.. . . . .

p. 366Death Entirely Separates the Soul from the Body.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 368All Kinds of Death a Violence to Nature, Arising from Sin.--Sin an IntrusionUpon Nature as God Created It.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 369The Entire Soul Being Indivisible Remains to the Last Act of Vitality; NeverPartially or Fractionally Withdrawn from the Body.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 370Whither Does the Soul Retire When It Quits the Body? Opinions ofPhilosophers All More or Less Absurd. The Hades of Plato.. . . . . . . .

p. 371The Christian Idea of the Position of Hades; The Blessedness of ParadiseImmediately After Death. The Privilege of the Martyrs.. . . . . . . . . . .

p. 373

Refutation of the Homeric View of the Soul's Detention from Hades Owingto the Body's Being Unburied. That Souls Prematurely Separated fromthe Body Had to Wait for Admission into Hades Also Refuted.. . . . . .

p. 375Magic and Sorcery Only Apparent in Their Effects. God Alone Can Raisethe Dead.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 377Conclusion. Points Postponed. All Souls are Kept in Hades Until theResurrection, Anticipating Their Ultimate Misery or Bliss.. . . . . . . . .

p. 380Anti-Marcion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 380Title Page.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 380Introduction, by the American Editor.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 383The Prescription Against Heretics.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 383Introductory. Heresies Must Exist, and Even Abound; They are a Probationto Faith.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 384

Analogy Between Fevers and Heresies. Heresies Not to Be WonderedAt: Their Strength Derived from Weakness of Men's Faith. They HaveNot the Truth. Simile of Pugilists and Gladiators in Illustration.. . . . . .

p. 385

Weak People Fall an Easy Prey to Heresy, Which Derives Strength fromthe General Frailty of Mankind. Eminent Men Have Fallen from Faith;Saul, David, Solomon. The Constancy of Christ.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 387

Warnings Against Heresy Given Us in the New Testament. SundryPassages Adduced. These Imply the Possibility of Falling intoHeresy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 387

Heresy, as Well as Schism and Dissension, Disapproved by St. Paul,Who Speaks of the Necessity of Heresies, Not as a Good, But, by theWill of God, Salutary Trials for Training and Approving the Faith ofChristians.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xii


p. 388

Heretics are Self-Condemned. Heresy is Self-Will, Whilst Faith isSubmission of Our Will to the Divine Authority. The Heresy ofApelles.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 389

Pagan Philosophy the Parent of Heresies. The Connection BetweenDeflections from Christian Faith and the Old Systems of PaganPhilosophy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 391

Christ's Word, Seek, and Ye Shall Find, No Warrant for HereticalDeviations from the Faith. All Christ's Words to the Jews are for Us, NotIndeed as Specific Commands, But as Principles to Be Applied.. . . . .

p. 393The Research After Definite Truth Enjoined on Us. When We HaveDiscovered This, We Should Be Content.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 394

One Has Succeeded in Finding Definite Truth, When He Believes.Heretical Wits are Always Offering Many Things for Vain Discussion, ButWe are Not to Be Always Seeking.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 395

After We Have Believed, Search Should Cease; Otherwise It Must Endin a Denial of What We Have Believed. No Other Object Proposed forOur Faith.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 396A Proper Seeking After Divine Knowledge, Which Will Never Be Out ofPlace or Excessive, is Always Within the Rule of Faith.. . . . . . . . . . .

p. 396

Summary of the Creed, or Rule of Faith. No Questions Ever Raised AboutIt by Believers. Heretics Encourage and Perpetuate Thought Independentof Christ's Teaching.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 397Curiosity Ought Not Range Beyond the Rule of Faith. Restless Curiosity,the Feature of Heresy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 399Heretics Not to Be Allowed to Argue Out of the Scriptures. The Scriptures,in Fact, Do Not Belong to Them.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 400

Apostolic Sanction to This Exclusion of Heretics from the Use of theScriptures. Heretics, According to the Apostle, are Not to Be DisputedWith, But to Be Admonished.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 400Heretics, in Fact, Do Not Use, But Only Abuse, Scripture. No CommonGround Between Them and You.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 401

Great Evil Ensues to the Weak in Faith, from Any Discussion Out of theScriptures. Conviction Never Comes to the Heretic from Such aProcess.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 402Appeal, in Discussion of Heresy, Lies Not to the Scriptures. The ScripturesBelong Only to Those Who Have the Rule of Faith.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 402

Christ First Delivered the Faith. The Apostles Spread It; They FoundedChurches as the Depositories Thereof. That Faith, Therefore, is Apostolic,Which Descended from the Apostles, Through Apostolic Churches.. . .

xiii


p. 403

All Doctrine True Which Comes Through the Church from the Apostles,Who Were Taught by God Through Christ. All Opinion Which Has NoSuch Divine Origin and Apostolic Tradition to Show, is Ipso FactoFalse.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 404

Attempt to Invalidate This Rule of Faith Rebutted. The Apostles SafeTransmitters of the Truth. Sufficiently Taught at First, and Faithful in theTransmission.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 406

The Apostles Not Ignorant. The Heretical Pretence of St. Peter'sImperfection Because He Was Rebuked by St. Paul. St. Peter NotRebuked for Error in Teaching.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 407

St. Peter's Further Vindication. St. Paul Not Superior to St. Peter inTeaching. Nothing Imparted to the Former in the Third Heaven EnabledHim to Add to the Faith. Heretics Boast as If Favoured with Some of theSecrets Imparted to Him.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 408

The Apostles Did Not Keep Back Any of the Deposit of Doctrine WhichChrist Had Entrusted to Them. St. Paul Openly Committed His WholeDoctrine to Timothy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 409

The Apostles Did in All Cases Teach the Whole Truth to the WholeChurch. No Reservation, Nor Partial Communication to FavouriteFriends.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 410

Granted that the Apostles Transmitted the Whole Doctrine of Truth, MayNot the Churches Have Been Unfaithful in Handing It On? Inconceivablethat This Can Have Been the Case.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 411

The One Tradition of the Faith, Which is Substantially Alike in theChurches Everywhere, a Good Proof that the Transmission Has BeenTrue and Honest in the Main.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 412

The Truth Not Indebted to the Care of the Heretics; It Had Free CourseBefore They Appeared. Priority of the Church's Doctrine a Mark of ItsTruth.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 412

Comparative Lateness of Heresies. Marcion's Heresy. Some PersonalFacts About Him. The Heresy of Apelles. Character of This Man;Philumene; Valentinus; Nigidius, and Hermogenes.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 414Truth First, Falsehood Afterwards, as Its Perversion. Christ's ParablePuts the Sowing of the Good Seed Before the Useless Tares.. . . . . .

p. 415

None of the Heretics Claim Succession from the Apostles. New ChurchesStill Apostolic, Because Their Faith is that Which the Apostles Taughtand Handed Down. The Heretics Challenged to Show Any ApostolicCredentials.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiv


p. 416

Present Heresies (Seedlings of the Tares Noted by the Sacred Writers)Already Condemned in Scripture. This Descent of Later Heresy from theEarlier Traced in Several Instances.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 418

No Early Controversy Respecting the Divine Creator; No Second GodIntroduced at First. Heresies Condemned Alike by the Sentence and theSilence of Holy Scripture.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 419

Let Heretics Maintain Their Claims by a Definite and Intelligible Evidence.This the Only Method of Solving Their Questions. Catholics AppealAlways to Evidence Traceable to Apostolic Sources.. . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 420

The Apostolic Churches the Voice of the Apostles. Let the HereticsExamine Their Apostolic Claims, in Each Case, Indisputable. The Churchof Rome Doubly Apostolic; Its Early Eminence and Excellence. Heresy,as Perverting the Truth, is Connected Therewith.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 421

Heretics Not Being Christians, But Rather Perverters of Christ's Teaching,May Not Claim the Christian Scriptures. These are a Deposit, Committedto and Carefully Kept by the Church.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 422

Harmony of the Church and the Scriptures. Heretics Have Tampered withthe Scriptures, and Mutilated, and Altered Them. Catholics Never Changethe Scriptures, Which Always Testify for Them.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 423

What St. Paul Calls Spiritual Wickednesses Displayed by Pagan Authors,and by Heretics, in No Dissimilar Manner. Holy Scripture Especially Liableto Heretical Manipulation. Affords Material for Heresies, Just as VirgilHas Been the Groundwork of Literary Plagiarisms, Different in Purportfrom the Original.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 424

No Difference in the Spirit of Idolatry and of Heresy. In the Rites of Idolatry,Satan Imitated and Distorted the Divine Institutions of the Older Scriptures.The Christian Scriptures Corrupted by Him in the Perversions of theVarious Heretics.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 425The Conduct of Heretics: Its Frivolity, Worldliness, and Irregularity. TheNotorious Wantonness of Their Women.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 426

Heretics Work to Pull Down and to Destroy, Not to Edify and Elevate.Heretics Do Not Adhere Even to Their Own Traditions, But HarbourDissent Even from Their Own Founders.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 427

Loose Company Preferred by Heretics. Ungodliness the Effect of TheirTeaching the Very Opposite of Catholic Truth, Which Promotes the Fearof God, Both in Religious Ordinances and Practical Life.. . . . . . . . . .

p. 428

Heresy Lowers Respect for Christ, and Destroys All Fear of His GreatJudgment. The Tendency of Heretical Teaching on This Solemn Articleof the Faith. The Present Treatise an Introduction to Certain OtherAnti-Heretical Works of Our Author.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xv


p. 430Elucidations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 432The Five Books Against Marcion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 432Introductory Notes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 436Book I. Wherein is described the god of Marcion. He is shown to beutterly wanting in all the attributes of the true God.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 436

Preface. Reason for a New Work. Pontus Lends Its Rough Characterto the Heretic Marcion, a Native. His Heresy Characterized in a BriefInvective.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 439Marcion, Aided by Cerdon, Teaches a Duality of Gods; How HeConstructed This Heresy of an Evil and a Good God.. . . . . . . . . . .

p. 440The Unity of God. He is the Supreme Being, and There Cannot Be aSecond Supreme.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 441

Defence of the Divine Unity Against Objection. No Analogy BetweenHuman Powers and God's Sovereignty. The Objection OtherwiseUntenable, for Why Stop at Two Gods?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 443

The Dual Principle Falls to the Ground; Plurality of Gods, of WhateverNumber, More Consistent. Absurdity and Injury to Piety Resulting fromMarcion's Duality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 444

Marcion Untrue to His Theory. He Pretends that His Gods are Equal,But He Really Makes Them Diverse. Then, Allowing Their Divinity,Denies This Diversity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 445

Other Beings Besides God are in Scripture Called God. This ObjectionFrivolous, for It is Not a Question of Names. The Divine Essence is theThing at Issue. Heresy, in Its General Terms, Thus Far Treated.. . . . .

p. 446Specific Points. The Novelty of Marcion's God Fatal to His Pretensions.God is from Everlasting, He Cannot Be in Any Wise New.. . . . . . . .

p. 447

Marcion's Gnostic Pretensions Vain, for the True God is NeitherUnknown Nor Uncertain. The Creator, Whom He Owns to Be God,Alone Supplies an Induction, by Which to Judge of the True God.. . . .

p. 450

The Creator Was Known as the True God from the First by His Creation.Acknowledged by the Soul and Conscience of Man Before He WasRevealed by Moses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 451

The Evidence for God External to Him; But the External Creation WhichYields This Evidence is Really Not Extraneous, for All Things are God's.Marcion's God, Having Nothing to Show for Himself, No God at All.Marcion's Scheme Absurdly Defective, Not Furnishing Evidence for HisNew God's Existence, Which Should at Least Be Able to Compete withthe Full Evidence of the Creator.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xvi


p. 453

Impossibility of Acknowledging God Without This External Evidence OfHis Existence. Marcion's Rejection of Such Evidence for His GodSavours of Impudence and Malignity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 454

The Marcionites Depreciate the Creation, Which, However, is a WorthyWitness of God. This Worthiness Illustrated by References to theHeathen Philosophers, Who Were Apt to Invest the Several Parts ofCreation with Divine Attributes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 455

All Portions of Creation Attest the Excellence of the Creator, WhomMarcion Vilifies. His Inconsistency Herein Exposed. Marcion's Own GodDid Not Hesitate to Use the Creator's Works in Instituting His OwnReligion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 457

The Lateness of the Revelation of Marcion's God. The Question of thePlace Occupied by the Rival Deities. Instead of Two Gods, MarcionReally (Although, as It Would Seem, Unconsciously) Had Nine Godsin His System.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 458

Marcion Assumes the Existence of Two Gods from the AntithesisBetween Things Visible and Things Invisible. This Antithetical Principlein Fact Characteristic of the Works of the Creator, the One God--Makerof All Things Visible and Invisible.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 460

Not Enough, as the Marcionites Pretend, that the Supreme God ShouldRescue Man; He Must Also Have Created Him. The Existence of GodProved by His Creation, a Prior Consideration to His Character.. . . . .

p. 461Notwithstanding Their Conceits, the God of the Marcionites Fails in theVouchers Both of Created Evidence and of Adequate Revelation.. . . .

p. 462

Jesus Christ, the Revealer of the Creator, Could Not Be the Same asMarcion's God, Who Was Only Made Known by the Heretic Some CXV.Years After Christ, and That, Too, on a Principle Utterly Unsuited to theTeaching of Jesus Christ, I.e., the Opposition Between the Law and theGospels.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 463

Marcion, Justifying His Antithesis Between the Law and the Gospel bythe Contention of St. Paul with St. Peter, Shown to Have Mistaken St.Paul's Position and Argument. Marcion's Doctrine Confuted Out of St.Paul's Teaching, Which Agrees Wholly with the Creator'sDecrees.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 465

St. Paul Preached No New God, When He Announced the Repeal ofSome of God's Ancient Ordinances. Never Any Hesitation About Beliefin the Creator, as the God Whom Christ Revealed, Until Marcion'sHeresy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xvii


p. 466

God's Attribute of Goodness Considered as Natural; The God of MarcionFound Wanting Herein. It Came Not to Man's Rescue When FirstWanted.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 469God's Attribute of Goodness Considered as Rational. Marcion's GodDefective Here Also; His Goodness Irrational and Misapplied.. . . . .

p. 471

The Goodness of Marcion's God Only Imperfectly Manifested; It SavesBut Few, and the Souls Merely of These. Marcion's Contempt of theBody Absurd.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 473

God is Not a Being of Simple Goodness; Other Attributes Belong toHim. Marcion Shows Inconsistency in the Portraiture of His Simply Goodand Emotionless God.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 475In the Attribute of Justice, Marcion's God is Hopelessly Weak andUngodlike. He Dislikes Evil, But Does Not Punish Its Perpetration.. . .

p. 477Dangerous Effects to Religion and Morality of the Doctrine of So Weaka God.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 478

This Perverse Doctrine Deprives Baptism of All Its Grace. If MarcionBe Right, the Sacrament Would Confer No Remission of Sins, NoRegeneration, No Gift of the Spirit.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 479

Marcion Forbids Marriage. Tertullian Eloquently Defends It as Holy,and Carefully Discriminates Between Marcion's Doctrine and His OwnMontanism.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 482Book II. Wherein Tertullian shows that the creator, or demiurge, whomMarcion calumniated, is the true and good God.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 482The Methods of Marcion's Argument Incorrect and Absurd. The ProperCourse of the Argument.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 483

The True Doctrine of God the Creator. The Heretics Pretended to aKnowledge of the Divine Being, Opposed to and Subversive ofRevelation. God's Nature and Ways Past Human Discovery. Adam'sHeresy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 485

God Known by His Works. His Goodness Shown in His Creative Energy;But Everlasting in Its Nature; Inherent in God, Previous to All Exhibitionof It. The First Stage of This Goodness Prior to Man.. . . . . . . . . . .

p. 486

The Next Stage Occurs in the Creation of Man by the Eternal Word.Spiritual as Well as Physical Gifts to Man. The Blessings of Man'sFree-Will.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 489

Marcion's Cavils Considered. His Objection Refuted, I.e., Man's FallShowed Failure in God. The Perfection of Man's Being Lay in His Liberty,Which God Purposely Bestowed on Him. The Fall Imputable to Man'sOwn Choice.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xviii


p. 490

This Liberty Vindicated in Respect of Its Original Creation; Suitable Alsofor Exhibiting the Goodness and the Purpose of God. Reward andPunishment Impossible If Man Were Good or Evil Through Necessityand Not Choice.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 493

If God Had Anyhow Checked Man's Liberty, Marcion Would Have BeenReady with Another and Opposite Cavil. Man's Fall Foreseen by God.Provision Made for It Remedially and Consistently with His Truth andGoodness.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 494

Man, Endued with Liberty, Superior to the Angels, Overcomes Eventhe Angel Which Lured Him to His Fall, When Repentant and ResumingObedience to God.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 495

Another Cavil Answered, I.e., the Fall Imputable to God, Because Man'sSoul is a Portion of the Spiritual Essence of the Creator. The DivineAfflatus Not in Fault in the Sin of Man, But the Human Will Which WasAdditional to It.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 497

Another Cavil Met, I.e., the Devil Who Instigated Man to Sin Himselfthe Creature of God. Nay, the Primeval Cherub Only Was God's Work. The Devilish Nature Superadded by Wilfulness. In Man's Recovery theDevil is Vanquished in a Conflict on His Own Ground.. . . . . . . . . .

p. 499

If, After Man's Sin, God Exercised His Attribute of Justice and Judgment,This Was Compatible with His Goodness, and Enhances the True Ideaof the Perfection of God's Character.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 500

The Attributes of Goodness and Justice Should Not Be Separated. Theyare Compatible in the True God. The Function of Justice in the DivineBeing Described.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 501

Further Description of the Divine Justice; Since the Fall of Man It HasRegulated the Divine Goodness. God's Claims on Our Love and OurFear Reconciled.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 503

Evil of Two Kinds, Penal and Criminal. It is Not of the Latter Sort thatGod is the Author, But Only of the Former, Which are Penal, andIncluded in His Justice.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 504The Severity of God Compatible with Reason and Justice. WhenInflicted, Not Meant to Be Arbitrary, But Remedial.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 505

To the Severity of God There Belong Accessory Qualities, Compatiblewith Justice. If Human Passions are Predicated of God, They Must NotBe Measured on the Scale of Human Imperfection.. . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 507Trace God's Government in History and in His Precepts, and You WillFind It Full of His Goodness.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xix


p. 508

Some of God's Laws Defended as Good, Which the MarcionitesImpeached, Such as the Lex Talionis. Useful Purposes in a Social andMoral Point of View of This, and Sundry Other Enactments.. . . . . . .

p. 510

The Minute Prescriptions of the Law Meant to Keep the PeopleDependent on God. The Prophets Sent by God in Pursuance of HisGoodness. Many Beautiful Passages from Them Quoted in Illustrationof This Attribute.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 511

The Marcionites Charged God with Having Instigated the Hebrews toSpoil the Egyptians. Defence of the Divine Dispensation in thatMatter.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 513The Law of the Sabbath-Day Explained. The Eight Days' ProcessionAround Jericho. The Gathering of Sticks a Violation.. . . . . . . . . . .

p. 514The Brazen Serpent and the Golden Cherubim Were Not Violations ofthe Second Commandment. Their Meaning.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 516God's Purposes in Election and Rejection of the Same Men, Such asKing Saul, Explained, in Answer to the Marcionite Cavil.. . . . . . . . .

p. 517Instances of God's Repentance, and Notably in the Case of theNinevites, Accounted for and Vindicated.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 519God's Dealings with Adam at the Fall, and with Cain After His Crime,Admirably Explained and Defended.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 521The Oath of God: Its Meaning. Moses, When Deprecating God's WrathAgainst Israel, a Type of Christ.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 522

Other Objections Considered. God's Condescension in the Incarnation.Nothing Derogatory to the Divine Being in This Economy. The DivineMajesty Worthily Sustained by the Almighty Father, Never Visible toMan. Perverseness of the Marcionite Cavils.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 525The Tables Turned Upon Marcion, by Contrasts, in Favour of the TrueGod.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 526

Marcion's Own Antitheses, If Only the Title and Object of the Work BeExcepted, Afford Proofs of the Consistent Attributes of the TrueGod.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 528

Book III. Wherein Christ is shown to be the Son of God, Who created theworld; to have been predicted by the prophets; to have taken human fleshlike our own, by a real incarnation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 528Introductory; A Brief Statement of the Preceding Argument in Connectionwith the Subject of This Book.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 529Why Christ's Coming Should Be Previously Announced.. . . . . . . . .

p. 530Miracles Alone, Without Prophecy, an Insufficient Evidence of Christ'sMission.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xx


p. 532Marcion's Christ Not the Subject of Prophecy. The AbsurdConsequences of This Theory of the Heretic.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 533Sundry Features of the Prophetic Style: Principles of ItsInterpretation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 535Community in Certain Points of Marcionite and Jewish Error. Propheciesof Christ's Rejection Examined.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 538Prophecy Sets Forth Two Different Conditions of Christ, One Lowly, theOther Majestic. This Fact Points to Two Advents of Christ.. . . . . . .

p. 540Absurdity of Marcion's Docetic Opinions; Reality of Christ'sIncarnation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 542Refutation of Marcion's Objections Derived from the Cases of the Angels,and the Pre-Incarnate Manifestations of the Son of God.. . . . . . . . .

p. 543The Truly Incarnate State More Worthy of God Than Marcion's FantasticFlesh.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 544Christ Was Truly Born; Marcion's Absurd Cavil in Defence of a PutativeNativity.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 546Isaiah's Prophecy of Emmanuel. Christ Entitled to that Name.. . . . .

p. 547

Isaiah's Prophecies Considered. The Virginity of Christ's Mother a Sign.Other Prophecies Also Signs. Metaphorical Sense of Proper Names inSundry Passages of the Prophets.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 550Figurative Style of Certain Messianic Prophecies in the Psalms. MilitaryMetaphors Applied to Christ.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 552The Title Christ Suitable as a Name of the Creator's Son, But Unsuitedto Marcion's Christ.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 553The Sacred Name Jesus Most Suited to the Christ of the Creator. Joshuaa Type of Him.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 555Prophecies in Isaiah and the Psalms Respecting Christ'sHumiliation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 556Types of the Death of Christ. Isaac; Joseph; Jacob Against Simeon andLevi; Moses Praying Against Amalek; The Brazen Serpent.. . . . . . .

p. 558Prophecies of the Death of Christ.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 560The Subsequent Influence of Christ's Death in the World Predicted. TheSure Mercies of David. What These are.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 562The Call of the Gentiles Under the Influence of the GospelForetold.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 564The Success of the Apostles, and Their Sufferings in the Cause of theGospel, Foretold.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 566The Dispersion of the Jews, and Their Desolate Condition for RejectingChrist, Foretold.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxi


p. 568Christ's Millennial and Heavenly Glory in Company with HisSaints.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 572

Book IV. In Which Tertullian Pursues His Argument. Jesus is the Christof the Creator. He Derives His Proofs from St. Luke's Gospel; That Beingthe Only Historical Portion of the New Testament Partially Accepted byMarcion. This Book May Also Be Regarded as a Commentary on St.Luke. It Gives Remarkable Proof of Tertullian's Grasp of Scripture, andProves that “The Old Testament is Not Contrary to the New.“ It AlsoAbounds in Striking Expositions of Scriptural Passages, EmbracingProfound Views of Revelation, in Connection with the Nature ofMan.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 572

Examination of the Antitheses of Marcion, Bringing Them to the Testof Marcion's Own Gospel. Certain True Antitheses in the Dispensationsof the Old and the New Testaments. These Variations Quite Compatiblewith One and the Same God, Who Ordered Them.. . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 575

St. Luke's Gospel, Selected by Marcion as His Authority, and Mutilatedby Him. The Other Gospels Equally Authoritative. Marcion's Terms ofDiscussion, However, Accepted, and Grappled with on the Footing ofSt. Luke's Gospel Alone.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 578

Marcion Insinuated the Untrustworthiness of Certain Apostles WhomSt. Paul Rebuked. The Rebuke Shows that It Cannot Be Regarded asDerogating from Their Authority. The Apostolic Gospels PerfectlyAuthentic.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 579

Each Side Claims to Possess the True Gospel. Antiquity the Criterionof Truth in Such a Matter. Marcion's Pretensions as an Amender of theGospel.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 581

By the Rule of Antiquity, the Catholic Gospels are Found to Be True,Including the Real St. Luke's. Marcion's Only a Mutilated Edition. TheHeretic's Weakness and Inconsistency in Ignoring the OtherGospels.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 584

Marcion's Object in Adulterating the Gospel. No Difference Betweenthe Christ of the Creator and the Christ of the Gospel. No Rival ChristAdmissible. The Connection of the True Christ with the Dispensationof the Old Testament Asserted.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 585

Marcion Rejected the Preceding Portion of St. Luke's Gospel. ThereforeThis Review Opens with an Examination of the Case of the Evil Spiritin the Synagogue of Capernaum. He Whom the Demon AcknowledgedWas the Creator's Christ.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 589Other Proofs from the Same Chapter, that Jesus, Who Preached atNazareth, and Was Acknowledged by Certain Demons as Christ the

xxii


Son of God, Was the Creator's Christ. As Occasion Offers, the DoceticErrors of Marcion are Exposed.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 592

Out of St. Luke's Fifth Chapter are Found Proofs of Christ's Belongingto the Creator, E.g. In the Call of Fishermen to the Apostolic Office, andin the Cleansing of the Leper. Christ Compared with the ProphetElisha.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 597

Further Proofs of the Same Truth in the Same Chapter, from the Healingof the Paralytic, and from the Designation Son of Man Which JesusGives Himself. Tertullian Sustains His Argument by Several Quotationsfrom the Prophets.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 601

The Call of Levi the Publican. Christ in Relation to the Baptist. Christas the Bridegroom. The Parable of the Old Wine and the New.Arguments Connecting Christ with the Creator.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 605

Christ's Authority Over the Sabbath. As Its Lord He Recalled It fromPharisaic Neglect to the Original Purpose of Its Institution by the Creatorthe Case of the Disciples Who Plucked the Ears of Corn on the Sabbath.The Withered Hand Healed on the Sabbath.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 610

Christ's Connection with the Creator Shown. Many Quotations Out ofthe Old Testament Prophetically Bear on Certain Events of the Life ofJesus--Such as His Ascent to Praying on the Mountain; His Selectionof Twelve Apostles; His Changing Simon's Name to Peter, and Gentilesfrom Tyre and Sidon Resorting to Him.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 612

Christ's Sermon on the Mount. In Manner and Contents It So Resemblesthe Creator's Dispensational Words and Deeds. It Suggests Thereforethe Conclusion that Jesus is the Creator's Christ. The Beatitudes.. . . .

p. 616

Sermon on the Mount Continued. Its Woes in Strict Agreement with theCreator's Disposition. Many Quotations Out of the Old Testament inProof of This.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 621

The Precept of Loving One's Enemies. It is as Much Taught in theCreator's Scriptures of the Old Testament as in Christ's Sermon. TheLex Talionis of Moses Admirably Explained in Consistency with theKindness and Love Which Jesus Christ Came to Proclaim and Enforcein Behalf of the Creator. Sundry Precepts of Charity Explained.. . . . .

p. 626

Concerning Loans. Prohibition of Usury and the Usurious Spirit. TheLaw Preparatory to the Gospel in Its Provisions; So in the PresentInstance. On Reprisals. Christ's Teaching Throughout Proves Him toBe Sent by the Creator.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 630Concerning the Centurion's Faith. The Raising of the Widow's Son.John Baptist, and His Message to Christ; And the Woman Who Was a

xxiii


Sinner. Proofs Extracted from All of the Relation of Christ to theCreator.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 634

The Rich Women of Piety Who Followed Jesus Christ's Teaching byParables. The Marcionite Cavil Derived from Christ's Remark, WhenTold of His Mother and His Brethren. Explanation of Christ's ApparentRejection Them.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 638

Comparison of Christ's Power Over Winds and Waves with Moses'Command of the Waters of the Red Sea and the Jordan. Christ's PowerOver Unclean Spirits. The Case of the Legion. The Cure of the Issueof Blood. The Mosaic Uncleanness on This Point Explained.. . . . . .

p. 642

Christ's Connection with the Creator Shown from Several Incidents inthe Old Testament, Compared with St. Luke's Narrative of the Missionof the Disciples. The Feeding of the Multitude. The Confession of St.Peter. Being Ashamed of Christ. This Shame is Only Possible of theTrue Christ. Marcionite Pretensions Absurd.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 647

The Same Conclusion Supported by the Transfiguration. MarcionInconsistent in Associating with Christ in Glory Two Such EminentServants of the Creator as Moses and Elijah. St. Peter's IgnoranceAccounted for on Montanist Principle.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 652

Impossible that Marcion's Christ Should Reprove the FaithlessGeneration. Such Loving Consideration for Infants as the True ChristWas Apt to Shew, Also Impossible for the Other. On the Three DifferentCharacters Confronted and Instructed by Christ in Samaria.. . . . . .

p. 655

On the Mission of the Seventy Disciples, and Christ's Charge to Them.Precedents Drawn from the Old Testament. Absurdity of Supposingthat Marcion's Christ Could Have Given the Power of Treading onSerpents and Scorpions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 659

Christ Thanks the Father for Revealing to Babes What He HadConcealed from the Wise. This Concealment Judiciously Effected bythe Creator. Other Points in St. Luke's Chap. X. Shown to Be OnlyPossible to the Creator's Christ.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 664

From St. Luke's Eleventh Chapter Other Evidence that Christ Comesfrom the Creator. The Lord's Prayer and Other Words of Christ. TheDumb Spirit and Christ's Discourse on Occasion of the Expulsion. TheExclamation of the Woman in the Crowd.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 668

Christ's Reprehension of the Pharisees Seeking a Sign. His Censureof Their Love of Outward Show Rather Than Inward Holiness. ScriptureAbounds with Admonitions of a Similar Purport. Proofs of His Missionfrom the Creator.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxiv


p. 672

Examples from the Old Testament, Balaam, Moses, and Hezekiah, toShow How Completely the Instruction and Conduct of Christ Are inKeeping with the Will and Purpose of the Creator.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 675

Parallels from the Prophets to Illustrate Christ's Teaching in the Restof This Chapter of St. Luke. The Sterner Attributes of Christ, in HisJudicial Capacity, Show Him to Have Come from the Creator. IncidentalRebukes of Marcion's Doctrine of Celibacy, and of His Altering of theText of the Gospel.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 681

Parables of the Mustard-Seed, and of the Leaven. Transition to theSolemn Exclusion Which Will Ensue When the Master of the HouseHas Shut the Door. This Judicial Exclusion Will Be Administered byChrist, Who is Shown Thereby to Possess the Attribute of theCreator.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 682

Christ's Advice to Invite the Poor in Accordance with Isaiah. The Parableof the Great Supper a Pictorial Sketch of the Creator's OwnDispensations of Mercy and Grace. The Rejections of the InvitationParalleled by Quotations from the Old Testament. Marcion's ChristCould Not Fulfil the Conditions Indicated in This Parable. The Absurdityof the Marcionite Interpretation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 686

A Sort of Sorites, as the Logicians Call It, to Show that the Parables ofthe Lost Sheep and the Lost Drachma Have No Suitable Application tothe Christ of Marcion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 686

The Marcionite Interpretation of God and Mammon Refuted. TheProphets Justify Christ's Admonition Against Covetousness and Pride. John Baptist the Link Between the Old and the New Dispensations ofthe Creator. So Said Christ--But So Also Had Isaiah Said Long Before.One Only God, the Creator, by His Own Will Changed the Dispensations.No New God Had a Hand in the Change.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 689

Moses, Allowing Divorce, and Christ Prohibiting It, Explained. JohnBaptist and Herod. Marcion's Attempt to Discover an Antithesis in theParable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man in Hades Confuted. TheCreator's Appointment Manifested in Both States.. . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 695

The Judicial Severity of Christ and the Tenderness of the Creator,Asserted in Contradiction to Marcion. The Cure of the Ten Lepers. OldTestament Analogies. The Kingdom of God Within You; This TeachingSimilar to that of Moses. Christ, the Stone Rejected by the Builders.Indications of Severity in the Coming of Christ. Proofs that He is Notthe Impassible Being Marcion Imagined.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 700The Parables of the Importunate Widow, and of the Pharisee and thePublican. Christ's Answer to the Rich Ruler, the Cure of the Blind Man.

xxv


His Salutation--Son of David. All Proofs of Christ's Relation to theCreator, Marcion's Antithesis Between David and ChristConfuted.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 704

Christ and Zacchæus. The Salvation of the Body as Denied by Marcion.The Parable of the Ten Servants Entrusted with Ten Pounds. Christ aJudge, Who is to Administer the Will of the Austere Man, I.e. TheCreator.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 705

Christ's Refutations of the Pharisees. Rendering Dues to Cæsar andto God. Next of the Sadducees, Respecting Marriage in the Resurrection.These Prove Him Not to Be Marcion's But the Creator's Christ. Marcion'sTamperings in Order to Make Room for His Second God, Exposed andConfuted.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 709

Concerning Those Who Come in the Name of Christ. The Terrible Signsof His Coming. He Whose Coming is So Grandly Described Both in theOld Testament and the New Testament, is None Other Than the Christof the Creator. This Proof Enhanced by the Parable of the Fig-Tree andAll the Trees. Parallel Passages of Prophecy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 715

How the Steps in the Passion of the Saviour Were Predetermined inProphecy. The Passover. The Treachery of Judas. The Institution ofthe Lord's Supper. The Docetic Error of Marcion Confuted by the Bodyand the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 717

The Woe Pronounced on the Traitor a Judicial Act, Which DisprovesChrist to Be Such as Marcion Would Have Him to Be. Christ's ConductBefore the Council Explained. Christ Even Then Directs the Minds ofHis Judges to the Prophetic Evidences of His Own Mission. The MoralResponsibility of These Men Asserted.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 720

Other Incidents of the Passion Minutely Compared with Prophecy. Pilateand Herod. Barabbas Preferred to Jesus. Details of the Crucifixion. TheEarthquake and the Mid-Day Darkness. All Wonderfully Foretold in theScriptures of the Creator. Christ's Giving Up the Ghost No Evidence ofMarcion's Docetic Opinions. In His Sepulture There is a RefutationThereof.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 723

Conclusions. Jesus as the Christ of the Creator Proved from the Eventsof the Last Chapter of St. Luke. The Pious Women at the Sepulchre.The Angels at the Resurrection. The Manifold Appearances of ChristAfter the Resurrection. His Mission of the Apostles Amongst All Nations. All Shown to Be in Accordance with the Wisdom of the Almighty Father,as Indicated in Prophecy. The Body of Christ After Death No MerePhantom. Marcion's Manipulation of the Gospel on This Point.. . . . .

p. 726Dr. Holmes' Note.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xxvi


p. 728Elucidations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p. 733Additional Note.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 733

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'sgospel. Far from being at variance, they were in perfect unison with thewritings of the Old Testament, and therefore testified that the Creatorwas the only God, and that the Lord Jesus was his Christ. As in thepreceding books, Tertullian supports his argument with profoundreasoning, and many happy illustrations of Holy Scripture.. . . . . . . . .

p. 733

Introductory. The Apostle Paul Himself Not the Preacher of a New God. Called by Jesus Christ, Although After the Other Apostles, His MissionWas from the Creator. States How. The Argument, as in the Case ofthe Gospel, Confining Proofs to Such Portions of St. Paul's Writings asMarcion Allowed.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 737

On the Epistle to the Galatians. The Abolition of the Ordinances of theMosaic Law No Proof of Another God. The Divine Lawgiver, the CreatorHimself, Was the Abrogator. The Apostle's Doctrine in the First ChapterShown to Accord with the Teaching of the Old Testament. The Acts ofthe Apostles Shown to Be Genuine Against Marcion. This Book Agreeswith the Pauline Epistles.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 740

St. Paul Quite in Accordance with St. Peter and Other Apostles of theCircumcision. His Censure of St. Peter Explained, and Rescued fromMarcion's Misapplication. The Strong Protests of This Epistle AgainstJudaizers. Yet Its Teaching is Shown to Be in Keeping with the Lawand the Prophets. Marcion's Tampering with St. Paul's WritingsCensured.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 745

Another Instance of Marcion's Tampering with St. Paul's Text. TheFulness of Time, Announced by the Apostle, Foretold by the Prophets. Mosaic Rites Abrogated by the Creator Himself. Marcion's Tricks AboutAbraham's Name. The Creator, by His Christ, the Fountain of the Graceand the Liberty Which St. Paul Announced. Marcion's DocetismRefuted.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 751

The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The Pauline Salutation of Graceand Peace Shown to Be Anti-Marcionite. The Cross of Christ Purposedby the Creator. Marcion Only Perpetuates the Offence and Foolishnessof Christ's Cross by His Impious Severance of the Gospel from theCreator. Analogies Between the Law and the Gospel in the Matter ofWeak Things, and Foolish Things and Base Things.. . . . . . . . . . .

p. 755The Divine Way of Wisdom, and Greatness, and Might. God's Hidingof Himself, and Subsequent Revelation. To Marcion's God Such a

xxvii


Concealment and Manifestation Impossible. God's Predestination. NoSuch Prior System of Intention Possible to a God Previously Unknownas Was Marcion's. The Powers of the World Which Crucified Christ. St.Paul, as a Wise Master-Builder, Associated with Prophecy. SundryInjunctions of the Apostle Parallel with the Teaching of the OldTestament.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 759

St. Paul's Phraseology Often Suggested by the Jewish Scriptures. ChristOur Passover--A Phrase Which Introduces Us to the Very Heart of theAncient Dispensation. Christ's True Corporeity. Married and UnmarriedStates. Meaning of the Time is Short. In His Exhortations and Doctrine,the Apostle Wholly Teaches According to the Mind and Purposes ofthe God of the Old Testament. Prohibition of Meats and DrinksWithdrawn by the Creator.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 764

Man the Image of the Creator, and Christ the Head of the Man. SpiritualGifts. The Sevenfold Spirit Described by Isaiah. The Apostle and theProphet Compared. Marcion Challenged to Produce Anything LikeThese Gifts of the Spirit Foretold in Prophecy in His God.. . . . . . . .

p. 768

The Doctrine of the Resurrection. The Body Will Rise Again. Christ'sJudicial Character. Jewish Perversions of Prophecy Exposed andConfuted. Messianic Psalms Vindicated. Jewish and RationalisticInterpretations on This Point Similar. Jesus--Not Hezekiah orSolomon--The Subject of These Prophecies in the Psalms. None ButHe is the Christ of the Old and the New Testaments.. . . . . . . . . . .

p. 773

Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body, Continued. How are the DeadRaised? and with What Body Do They Come? These QuestionsAnswered in Such a Sense as to Maintain the Truth of the Raised Body,Against Marcion. Christ as the Second Adam Connected with the Creatorof the First Man. Let Us Bear the Image of the Heavenly. The TriumphOver Death in Accordance with the Prophets. Hosea and St. PaulCompared.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 778

The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. The Creator the Father ofMercies. Shown to Be Such in the Old Testament, and Also in Christ.The Newness of the New Testament. The Veil of Obdurate BlindnessUpon Israel, Not Reprehensible on Marcion's Principles. The Jews Guiltyin Rejecting the Christ of the Creator. Satan, the God of This World.The Treasure in Earthen Vessels Explained Against Marcion. TheCreator's Relation to These Vessels, I.e. Our Bodies.. . . . . . . . . . .

p. 784

The Eternal Home in Heaven. Beautiful Exposition by Tertullian of theApostle's Consolatory Teaching Against the Fear of Death, So Apt toArise Under Anti-Christian Oppression. The Judgment-Seat of

xxviii


Christ--The Idea, Anti-Marcionite. Paradise. Judicial Characteristics ofChrist Which are Inconsistent with the Heretical Views About Him; TheApostle's Sharpness, or Severity, Shows Him to Be a Fit Preacher ofthe Creator's Christ.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 787

The Epistle to the Romans. St. Paul Cannot Help Using Phrases WhichBespeak the Justice of God, Even When He is Eulogizing the Merciesof the Gospel. Marcion Particularly Hard in Mutilation of This Epistle.Yet Our Author Argues on Common Ground. The Judgment at Last WillBe in Accordance with the Gospel. The Justified by Faith Exhorted toHave Peace with God. The Administration of the Old and the NewDispensations in One and the Same Hand.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 792

The Divine Power Shown in Christ's Incarnation. Meaning of St. Paul'sPhrase. Likeness of Sinful Flesh. No Docetism in It. Resurrection ofOur Real Bodies. A Wide Chasm Made in the Epistle by Marcion'sErasure. When the Jews are Upbraided by the Apostle for TheirMisconduct to God; Inasmuch as that God Was the Creator, a Proof isin Fact Given that St. Paul's God Was the Creator. The Precepts at theEnd of the Epistle, Which Marcion Allowed, Shown to Be in ExactAccordance with the Creator's Scriptures.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 797

The First Epistle to the Thessalonians. The Shorter Epistles Pungentin Sense and Very Valuable. St. Paul Upbraids the Jews for the DeathFirst of Their Prophets and Then of Christ. This a Presumption that BothChrist and the Prophets Pertained to the Same God. The Law of Nature,Which is in Fact the Creator's Discipline, and the Gospel of Christ BothEnjoin Chastity. The Resurrection Provided for in the Old Testamentby Christ. Man's Compound Nature.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 800

The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. An Absurd Erasure of Marcion;Its Object Transparent. The Final Judgment on the Heathen as Well asthe Jews Could Not Be Administered by Marcion's Christ. The Man ofSin--What? Inconsistency of Marcion's View. The Antichrist. The GreatEvents of the Last Apostasy Within the Providence and Intention of theCreator, Whose are All Things from the Beginning. Similarity of thePauline Precepts with Those of the Creator.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 803

The Epistle to the Laodiceans. The Proper Designation is to theEphesians. Recapitulation of All Things in Christ from the Beginning ofthe Creation. No Room for Marcion's Christ Here. Numerous ParallelsBetween This Epistle and Passages in the Old Testament. The Princeof the Power of the Air, and the God of This World--Who? Creation andRegeneration the Work of One God. How Christ Has Made the Law

xxix


Obsolete. A Vain Erasure of Marcion's. The Apostles as Well as theProphets from the Creator.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 808

Another Foolish Erasure of Marcion's Exposed. Certain FigurativeExpressions of the Apostle, Suggested by the Language of the OldTestament. Collation of Many Passages of This Epistle, with Preceptsand Statements in the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Prophets. AllAlike Teach Us the Will and Purpose of the Creator.. . . . . . . . . . .

p. 813

The Epistle to the Colossians. Time the Criterion of Truth and Heresy.Application of the Canon. The Image of the Invisible God Explained.Pre-Existence of Our Christ in the Creator's Ancient Dispensations. What is Included in the Fulness of Christ. The Epicurean Character ofMarcion's God. The Catholic Truth in Opposition Thereto. The Law isto Christ What the Shadow is to the Substance.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

p. 817

The Epistle to the Philippians. The Variances Amongst the Preachersof Christ No Argument that There Was More Than One Only Christ. St.Paul's Phrases--Form of a Servant, Likeness, and Fashi

anf03. latin christianity: its founder, tertulliananf03. latin christianity: its founder, tertullian...

Documents