but actually was Emmanuel, that is, God with us ; and that
with respect to the spoils of Damascus and Samaria, the Jews
were misled by their preconceived notions that the Messiah was
to be a warlike prince and conqueror ; whereas the words of the
prophet were accomplished when the Magi brought to the infant
Jesus their offerings of gold, and frankincense, and myrrh the
peculiar produce of Arabia and the East. Tertullian admits
that, in the Psalms and other parts of the Old Testament, the
Messiah is spoken of as a triumphant warrior ; but the expres-
sions, he observes, are to be understood of spiritual triumphs
achieved over the corrupt hearts and perverse dispositions of
man. With respect to the word virgin, Tertullian observes that
the prophet begins with telling Ahaz that the Lord would give
him a sign, meaning evidently that some event would take place
out of the ordinary course of nature ; whereas the pregnancy of
a young female is an event of daily occurrence. In order, there-
1 e.g.
2 Tertullian here connects, as Justin Martyr had done before him, Isaiah vii. 14
with viii. 4, and gives a similar explanation of the passage. See the Dialogue
with Trypho, part ii. p. 303 A, p. 310 C.
232 The Ecclesiastical History of the
fore, to give any consistent meaning to the prophet's words, we
must suppose him to have alluded to the pregnancy of a virgin.
One of the objections urged by the Jews was, that in no part
of the Old Testament was it predicted that the future deliverer
should bear the name of Jesus. To this Tertullian replies, that
Joshua was the type of Christ ; and that when Moses changed
his name from Oshea to Joshua or Jesus, because he was destined
to conduct the Israelites into the earthly Canaan, it was mani-
festly implied that the Messiah, who was to introduce mankind
into the heavenly Canaan, would also be called Jesus. Our
author then shows from Isaiah xi. 2 that the Messiah was to
spring from the seed of David from Isaiah liii. that He was to
undergo severe humiliations and sufferings with the greatest
patience from Isaiah Iviii. that He was to be a preacher of
righteousness and from Isaiah xxxv. that He was to work
miracles. All these marks, by which the Messiah was to be
distinguished, were actually found in Jesus.
But the death of Jesus on the cross constituted, in the opinion of
the Jews, the strongest argument against the belief that He was the
promised Messiah. 1 It had been expressly declared, in the Mosaic
law, that " he who was hanged on a tree was accursed of God." 2
Was it then credible that God would expose the Messiah to a
death so ignominious ? Nor could any passage of Scripture be
produced in which it was predicted that the Messiah was to die
on the cross. To the former part of this objection Tertullian
replies, that the persons, of whom Moses declared that they
were accursed, were malefactors men who had committed sins
worthy of death. How then could the declaration be applicable
to Jesus, in whose mouth was no guile, and whose life was one
uninterrupted course of justice and benevolence ? With respect
to the latter part of the objection, Tertullian admits that the
particular mode of the Messiah's death is nowhere expressly
predicted in the Old Testament, but contends that it is in many
places obscurely prefigured for instance, in the twenty-second
Psalm. He then goes on to produce various passages of Scrip-
ture, in which he finds allusions to the form of the cross
allusions which were certainly never contemplated by the sacred
penman, and are so grossly extravagant that it is difficult to
conceive how they could ever enter into the head of any rational
being. I know not whether it will be deemed any apology for
1 C. 10. 2 Deut. xxi. 22.
Second and Third Centuries. 233
Tertullian to observe that he was not the inventor of these fancies ;
for it argues perhaps a more lamentable weakness of judgment
to have copied, than to have invented them : most, however,
if not all, are to be found in Justin Martyr. In speaking of the
circumstances connected with our Saviour's Passion, Tertullian
asserts that the preternatural darkness at the crucifixion was
predicted by the prophet Amos. 1 " But not only," continues
our author, " did the prophets predict the death of the Messiah :
they foretold also the dispersion of the Jewish people, and the
destruction of Jerusalem." 2 The passages which he alleges in
proof of this statement are Ezekiel viii. 12 and Deuteronomy
xxviii. 64. "Here, then," he says, addressing the Jews, "we
find an additional proof that Jesus was the Christ : your rejec-
tion of Him has been followed by a series of the most grievous
calamities that ever befel a nation your holy temple has been
consumed with fire, and you are forbidden to set foot upon the
territory of your ancestors. Was it not also foretold of the
Messiah that the Gentiles should be His inheritance, and the ends of
the earth His possession ? was He not described as the light of
the Gentiles? and are not these predictions accomplished in
the diffusion of the gospel of Jesus through every part of the
known world ? " 3
"We, therefore, do not err when we affirm that the Messiah is
already come. 4 The error is yours, who still look for His coming.
The Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem of Judah, according
to the prophet. 5 But at the present moment no one of the stock
of Israel remains at Bethlehem : either, therefore, the prophecy
is already fulfilled, or its fulfilment is impossible." Tertullian
concludes with pointing out the source of the error of the Jews,
who did not perceive that two advents of Christ were announced
in Scripture the first in humiliation, the second in glory. 6
Fixing their thoughts exclusively on the latter, they refused to
acknowledge a meek and suffering Saviour.
Such were the arguments by which Tertullian endeavoured to
show, in opposition to the objections of the Jews, that Jesus of
Nazareth was the promised Messiah. It appears from them that
the controversy then stood precisely on the same footing on
which it stands in the present day; and that the Jews of his
time resorted to the same subterfuges and cavils as the modern
1 C. viii. 9. 2 C. it. 3 C. 12 ; Ps. ii. 7 ; Isa. xlii. 6.
4 C. 13. 5 Micah v. i. 6 C. 14.
234 The Ecclesiastical History of the
Jews, in order to evade the force of the prophecies which, as
the Christians maintained, had been fulfilled in Jesus. If we
return to Bishop Pearson, we shall find that the course which he
pursues in establishing the truth of the second Article of the
Creed, differs not very materially from that of our author. 1 We
notice this resemblance for the purpose of removing, at least in
part, the unfavourable impression which Mosheim's strictures are
calculated to create against this portion of Tertullian's labours.
In judging also of the treatise adversus fadceos, we should bear
in mind that it has come down to us in a corrupt state, some
passages bearing evident marks of interpolation. 2 We will con-
clude our remarks upon it with observing that Tertullian, when
he charges the Jews with confounding the two advents of Christ,
makes no allusion to the notion of two Messiahs one suffering,
the other triumphant ; whence we are warranted in concluding
either that he was ignorant of this device, or that it had not
been resorted to in his day.
To return to Mosheim. In his enumeration of the heresies
which divided the Church in the second century, he first
mentions that which originated in a superstitious attachment to
the Mosaic law. 3 This heresy is scarcely noticed by Tertullian.
There can indeed be little doubt that, after the promulgation of
Adrian's edict, those Christians who had united the observance
of the Mosaic ritual with the profession of the gospel, fearful
lest they should be confounded with the Jews, gradually aban-
doned the Jewish ceremonies so that in the time of Tertullian
the number of Judaizing Christians had become extremely small. 4
We are now speaking of those whom Mosheim calls Nazarenes
who, though they retained the Mosaic rites, believed all the
fundamental articles of the Christian faith. 5 The Ebionites, on
the contrary, who also maintained the necessity of observing the
ceremonial law, rejected many essential doctrines of Christianity.
They are more than once mentioned by Tertullian, who always
speaks of them as having received their appellation from their
1 See p. 76, where he shows that Joshua was a type of Christ. See also
article iii. "born of the Virgin Mary," and article iv. " was crucified."
2 See c. 5 and c. 14, sub fine. 3 Century ii. part ii. chap. v.
4 See Wilson's Illustrationof tJie Method of Explaining the New Testament, etc.,
c. ii, where he enumerates the different causes which contributed to the gradual
extinction of the Judaizing Christians, or, as he terms them, Christian Jews.
6 The Jews, in Tertullian's time, appear to have called Christians in general by
the name of Nazarenes. Adv. Marcionem, 1. iv. c. 8, sub initio. Apud Hebrceos
Christianas, 1. iii. c. 12.
* De Pr&scriptione H&reticorum, c. 33.
Second and Third Centuries. 235
founder Ebion. He did not write any express treatise against
them; but we learn from incidental notices in his works that
they denied the miraculous conception, 1 and affirmed that Jesus
was not the Son of God, but a mere man born according to
the ordinary course of nature. 2
The next heresies of which Mosheim speaks are those which
he imagines to have arisen from the attempt to explain the doc-
trines of Christianity in a manner conformable to the dictates of the
Oriental philosophy concerning the origin of evil. In every age,
both before and since the promulgation of the gospel, this ques-
tion has been found to baffle the powers of the human under-
standing, and to involve in an endless maze of error all who have
engaged in the unavailing research. Of this Tertullian was fully
aware ; and he traces the rise of many of the heretical opinions
which he combats to the curiosity of vain .and presumptuous men
venturing to explore the hidden things of God. 3 But though he
so far connects philosophy with heresy as to style the philosophers
the ancestors of the heretics, 4 yet neither he nor any other of the
early Fathers appears to have thought that the heretics derived
their notions from the Oriental philosophy. 5 On the contrary,
Tertullian repeatedly charges them with borrowing from Pytha-
goras and Plato and other Greek philosophers. 6 In like manner
Irenaeus affirms that Valentinus was indebted for his succession
of yEons to the Theogonies of the Greek poets. 7 It will be said,
perhaps, that the authority of the early Fathers can be of little
weight in the determination of this question, on account of their
ignorance of the Eastern languages ; and that it matters little
whether the heretics derived their opinions directly from the East,
or indirectly through the medium of Pythagoras and Plato, the
germ of whose philosophy is known to have been formed during
1 " Quam utique virginem constat fuisse, licet Ebion resistat." De Virgiuibiis
velandis, c. 6.
2 De Prcescriptione Hareticorum, c. 33; de Carne Christi, cc. 14, 18, 24.
3 " Unde malum, et quare ? et unde homo, et quomodo ? et quod proxime Val-
entinus proposuit, unde Deus?" DePrascriptione Hceereticorum, c. 7.
4 " Hsereticorum Patriarchs Philosophi." Adv. Hermogenem, c. 8 ; de Aniina,
cc. 3, 23. " Ipsi illi sapientiae professores, de quorum ingeniis omnis hreresis ani-
matur." Adv. Marcionem, 1. i. c. 13. See also 1. v. c. 19.
5 Mosheim refers to Clemens Alexandrinus, 1. vii. c. 17, p. 898, and to Cyprian,
ep. 75. But those passages only confirm his statement that Basilides, Cerdo,
and the other heretics began to publish their opinions about the time of Adrian :
respecting the Oriental origin of the opinions they are silent.
6 " Ubi tune Marcion, Ponticus, Nauclerus, Stoicae studiosus? ubi Valentinus,
Platonicas Sectator?" De Prascriptione f/ccreticoram, c. 30.
7 L. ii. c. 19.
236 The Ecclesiastical History of the
their residence in Egypt. The present is not a fit opportunity
for inquiring into the reality of this alleged connexion between
the Oriental and Platonic philosophies. Our object in the above
observations is merely to show that if any weight is to be attached
to the opinions of the early Fathers, the heresies which Mosheim
calls Oriental ought rather to be denominated Grecian.
Mosheim speaks of two branches into which the Oriental
heretics were divided the Asiatic and the Egyptian branch.
Elxai, whom he mentions as the head of the former, appears to
have been entirely unknown to Tertullian ; nor does Mosheim
himself seem to have arrived at any certain conclusion respecting
this heretic ; for he doubts whether the followers of Elxai were
to be numbered among the Christian or Jewish sects. Of Satur-
ninus, whom he also mentions as a leader of the Asiatic branch,
the name occurs but once in our author's writings. 1 He is there
described as a disciple of Menander, who was himself a disciple
of Simon Magus ; and he is said to have maintained the follow-
ing extraordinary doctrine respecting the origin of the human
race that man was formed by the angels, an imperfect image of
the Supreme Being that he crept upon the ground like a worm
in a state of utter helplessness and inability to stand upright,
until the Supreme Being mercifully animated him with the spark
of life, and raised him from the earth and that at his death this
spark will bring him back to the original source of his existence.
Of Cerdo, whom Mosheim also numbers among the leaders of
the Asiatic sect, Tertullian only states that Marcion borrowed
many notions from him. 2 But against Marcion himself our
author expressly composed five books, in which he has entered
into an elaborate examination and confutation of that heretic's
errors.
From various notices scattered over Tertullian's writings we
may collect that Marcion was a native of Pontus 3 that he
flourished during the reign of Antoninus Pius and the pontifi-
cate of Eleutherius, being originally in communion with the
Church at Rome that he was a man of a restless temper, fond of
novelties, by the publication of which he unsettled the faith of
1 De Animd, c. 23.
2 Adv. Marcionem, 1. i. cc. 2, 22, sub fine ; 1. iii. c. 21 ; 1. iv. c. 17.
3 De Free scriptione Hcereticorum, c. 30 ; adv. Marcionem, 1. i. cc. i. 19. Ter-
tullian frequently calls Marcion Ponticus Nauclertis, because his countrymen, the
natives of Pontus, were chiefly occupied in nautical pursuits, 1. i. c. 18, sub fine ;
Second and Third Centuries. 237
the weaker brethren, and was in consequence more than once
ejected from the congregation that he afterwards became sensible
of his errors, and expressed a wish to be reconciled to the Church
and that his wish was granted, on condition that he should bring
back with him those whom he had perverted by his doctrines. 1
He died, however, before he was formally restored to its com-
munion. Tertullian refers in confirmation of some parts of this
statement to a certain letter of Marcion, the genuineness of which
appears to have been questioned by his followers. 2 Marcion,
like many other heretics, was betrayed into his errors and extra-
vagances by the desire of framing a system which would reconcile
the existence of evil in the universe with the perfect power and
wisdom and goodness of the Supreme Being. 3 But the precise
nature of his opinions will be best understood from a brief
analysis of the five books written by our author against them,
and still extant amongst his works.
Tertullian had previously written two works in refutation of
Marcion's doctrines. The first was a hurried composition, the
defects of which he intended to supply by a second or more
perfect treatise. 4 Of the latter a copy was obtained by a person
who, having afterwards embraced the opinions of Marcion, pub-
lished it in a very inaccurate form. Our author was in conse-
quence obliged in self-defence to compose the five books, of
which we shall now proceed to give an account.
After an exordium 5 in which he abuses not only Marcion
but also the Pontus Euxinus, because that heretic happened to
be born upon its shores Tertullian proceeds to say that Marcion
1 Adv. Marcionem, 1. v. c. 19 ; 1. iv. c. 4, where it is said that Marcion in the
first fervour of his faith made a donation of a sum of money to the Church, which
was returned to him when he was expelled from its communion. Some learned
men doubt the story respecting Marcion's repeated ejections from the Church,
and suppose that Tertullian confounded Marcion with Cerdo. Lardner's History
of Heretics, c. 9, sect. 3.
2 ' ' Sicut et ipse confiteris in quadam epistola : et tui non negant, et nostri pro-
bant." De Came Christ, c. 2. But in the fourth book against Marcion, c. 4, we
find the following sentence: "Quid nunc si negaverint Marcionitae primam
apud nos fidem ejus, adversus epistolam quoque ipsius? quid si nee epistolam
agnoverint?"
3 " Languensenim (quod et nunc multi, et maxime haeretici) circa mali quses-
tionem, Unde malum?" Adv. Marcionem, 1. i. c. 2.
4 " Primum opusculum, quasi properatum, pleniore postea compositione resci-
deram. Hanc quoque nondum exemplariis suffectam fraude tune fratris, dehinc
apostatae, amisi, qui forte descripserat quasdam mendosissime, et exhibuit fre-
quentiae. Emendationis necessitas facta est," etc., 1. i. c. i.
* C. i.
238 The Ecclesiastical History of the
held the doctrine of two gods the one the author of evil, who
created the world ; the other a deity of pure benevolence, who
was unknown to mankind until revealed by Christ. 1 In con-
futation of this doctrine, Tertullian first observes that in the
definition of God are comprised the ideas of supreme power,
eternal duration, and self-existence. 2 "The unity of the Deity
is a necessary consequence from this definition, since the sup-
position of two supreme beings involves a contradiction in
terms. Nor can this conclusion be evaded by a reference to
worldly monarchs, who are as numerous as the kingdoms into
which the earth is divided, each being supreme in his own
dominions.-" We cannot thus argue from man to God. Two
deities, in every respect equal, are in fact only one deity :
nor, if you introduce two, can any satisfactory reason be assigned
why you may not, with Valentinus, introduce thirty. 4 Should
Marcion reply that he does not assert the perfect equality of his
two deities, he would by that very reply give up the point in
dispute. 5 He would admit that the inferior of the two is not
strictly entitled to the name of God, since he does not possess
the attributes of the Godhead, and that the name is applied to
him only in a subordinate sense, in which we find it occasionally
used in Scripture."
" How absurd," proceeds Tertullian, addressing the Mavcionites,
" is the notion that, during the whole interval between the crea-
tion and the coming of Christ, the Supreme Being should have
remained utterly unknown ; while the inferior deity, the Demi-
urge, received the undivided homage of mankind ! "' It would
surely be more reasonable to assign the superiority to that Being
who had manifested His power in the works of creation, than to
him who had not even afforded any evidence of his existence/'
But, in order to evade the force of this argument, you affect to
despise the world in which you live ; 7 and notwithstanding the
innumerable instances of skill and contrivance which it exhibits
1 Tertullian supposes Marcion to have adopted this notion of a God of pure
benevolence from the Stoics. " Inde Marcionis Deus melior, de tranquillitate,
a Stoicis venerat." De Prcescriptione Hareticorum, c. j.
" C. 3. " Quantum humana conditio de Deo definire potest, id definio quod et
omnium conscientia agnoscet, Deum summum esse magnum, in teternitate
constitutum, innatum, infectum, sine initio, sine fine."
3 C. 4. Tertullian ought rather to have contended that the illustration strength-
ened his argument. In each kingdom there is only one supreme power ; but
the universe is God's kingdom ; there is therefore only one Supreme Power in
the universe.
4 C. 5. 5 Cc. 6, 7. 6 Cc. 9, 10, ii, 12. " Cc. 13, 14.
Second and Third Centuries. 239
on every side, you represent it as altogether unworthy to be
regarded as the work of the Supreme Being. Yet Christ,
whom you suppose to have been sent to deliver man from the
dominion of the Demiurge, has been content to allow the use
of the elements and productions of this vile world, even in the
sacraments which He has instituted of water, and oil, and milk,
and honey in baptism, and of bread in the Eucharist. Nay, you
yourselves also, with unaccountable inconsistency, have recourse
to them for sustenance and enjoyment. How, moreover, do
you account for the fact that, notwithstanding two hundred
years have elapsed since the birth of Christ, the old world
the work of the Demiurge still continues to subsist, and has
not been superseded by a new creation proceeding from the
Supreme Being, whom you suppose to have been revealed in
Christ ? " l Tertullian here states incidentally that, according to
Marcion, the world was created by the Demiurge out of pre-
existent matter. 2
In answer to our author's last question, the Marcionites appear
to have affirmed that, as the Supreme Being was invisible, so
also were His works ; and that the deliverance of man from the
dominion of the Demiurge was an incontestable manifestation of
His power. 3 "Why, then," rejoins Tertullian, "was the deliver-
ance so long delayed? 4 Why was man left, during the whole
interval between the creation and Christ's advent, under the
power of a malignant deity ? And in what manner was the
Supreme Deity at last revealed ? 5 We admit two modes of
arriving at the knowledge of God by His works, and by express
revelation. But the Supreme Deity could not be known by
His works, inasmuch as the visible world in which we live
was not made by Him, but by the Demiurge. You will there-
fore answer that He was made known by express revelation :
'in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, Christ Jesus,
a Spirit of health (Spiritus salutaris), condescended to come
down from heaven.' 6 How then happened it that the purpose
of His coming was still kept secret from mankind ? that the full
disclosure of the truth was reserved till the reign of Antoninus
Pius, 7 when Marcion first began to teach that the God revealed
1 C. 15.
2 "Sed ex materia et ille fuisse debebit, eadem ratione occurrente illi quoque
Deo, quse opponeretur Creatori, ut asque Deo." Compare 1. v. c. 19.
3 C. 16. C. 17. B C. 18. C. 19.
7 Tertullian places an interval of 115 years and 6i months between Tiberius and
Antoninus Pius.
240 The Ecclesiastical History of the
by Christ was a different God from the Creator ; and that the
Law and the Gospel were at variance with each other ? "
Marcion appears to have appealed, in confirmation of his
opinions, to the dispute between St. Paul and St Peter, respect-
ing the observance of the ceremonial law ; and to have argued
that the part then taken by the former, in denying the necessity
of any such observance, implied a conviction in his mind
that there was an opposition between the Law and the Gospel. 1
To this argument Tertullian answers that the inference is
incorrect, since in the Old Testament, which, according to
Marcion, was a revelation from the Demiurge, the cessation of
the ceremonial law, and the introduction of a more spiritual
system, are clearly predicted. "But," he adds, "if St. Paul
had known that Christ came for the purpose of revealing a
God distinct from the Creator, that fact alone would have been
decisive as to the abolition of the ceremonial law ; and he would
have spared himself the unnecessary trouble of proving that it
was no longer obligatory. The real difficulty with which the
apostle had to contend arose from the fact that the law and the
gospel proceeded from the same God ; since it thence became
necessary to explain why observances, which God had Himself
enjoined under the former, were no longer to be deemed
obligatory under the latter." 2 Our author then urges the agree-
ment of all the Churches, which traced their descent from the
apostles, in the belief that Christ was sent by the Creator of this
world, as a proof of the truth of that belief. 3
Tertullian lastly contends that Marcion's system does not even
accomplish the main object which its author had in view it
does not establish" the pure benevolence of his supposed Supreme