| << | Contents | >> |
Anti-Marcion
Moreover, when he blames dissensions and schisms, which undoubtedly are evils, he immediately adds heresies likewise. Now, that which he subjoins to evil things, he of course confesses to be itself an evil; and all the greater, indeed, because he tells us that his belief of their schisms and dissensions was grounded on his knowledge that “there must be heresies also.”[1891] For he shows us that it was owing to the prospect of the greater evil that he readily believed the existence of the lighter ones; and so far indeed was he from believing, in respect of evils (of such a kind), that heresies were good, that his object was to forewarn us that we ought not to be surprised at temptations of even a worse stamp, since (he said) they tended “to make manifest all such as were approved;”[1892] in other words, those whom they were unable to pervert.[1893] In short, since the whole passage[1894] points to the maintenance of unity and the checking of divisions, inasmuch as heresies sever men from unity no less than schisms and dissensions, no doubt he classes heresies under the same head of censure as he does schisms also and dissensions. And by so doing, he makes those to be “not approved,” who have fallen into heresies; more especially when with reproofs he exhorts[1895] men to turn away from such, teaching them that they should “all speak and think the selfsame thing,”[1896] the very object which heresies do not permit.
On this point, however, we dwell no longer, since it is the same Paul who, in his Epistle to the Galatians, counts “heresies” among “the sins of the flesh,”[1897] who also intimates to Titus, that “a man who is a heretic” must be “rejected after the first admonition,” on the ground that “he that is such is perverted, and committeth sin, as a self-condemned man.”[1898] Indeed, in almost every epistle, when enjoining on us (the duty) of avoiding false doctrines, he sharply condemns[1899] heresies. Of these the practical effects[1900] are false doctrines, called in Greek heresies,[1901] a word used in the sense of that choice which a man makes when he either teaches them (to others)[1902] or takes up with them (for himself).[1903] For this reason it is that he calls the heretic self-condemned,[1904] because he has himself chosen thatfor which he is condemned. We, however, are not permitted to cherish any object[1905] after our own will, nor yet to make choice of that which another has introduced of his private fancy. In the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine[1906] which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even “an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel” (than theirs), he would be called accursed[1907] by us. The Holy Ghost had even then foreseen that there would be in a certain virgin (called) Philumene[1908] an angel of deceit, “transformed into an angel of light,”[1909] by whose miracles and illusions[1910] Apelles was led (when) he introduced his new heresy.
These are “the doctrines” of men and “of demons”[1911] produced for itching ears of the spirit of this world’s wisdom: this the Lord called “foolishness,”[1912] and “chose the foolish things of the world” to confound even philosophy itself. For (philosophy) it is which is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and the dispensation of God. Indeed[1913] heresies are themselves instigated[1914] by philosophy. From this source came the Æons, and I known not what infinite forms,[1915] and the trinity of man[1916] in the system of Valentinus, who was of Plato’s school. From the same source came Marcion’s better god, with all his tranquillity; he came of the Stoics. Then, again, the opinion that the soul dies is held by the Epicureans; while the denial of the restoration of the body is taken from the aggregate school of all the philosophers; also, when matter is made equal to God, then you have the teaching of Zeno; and when any doctrine is alleged touching a god of fire, then Heraclitus comes in. The same subject-matter is discussed over and over again[1917] by the heretics and the philosophers; the same arguments[1918] are involved. Whence comes evil? Why is it permitted? What is the origin of man? and in what way does he come? Besides the question which Valentinus has very lately proposed—Whence comes God? Which he settles with the answer: From enthymesis and ectroma.[1919] Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions,[1920] so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions—embarrassing[1921] even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of[1922] nothing! Whence spring those “fables and endless genealogies,”[1923] and “unprofitable questions,”[1924] and “words which spread like a cancer?”[1925] From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, “See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost.”[1926] He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from “the porch of Solomon,”[1927] who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.”[1928] Away with[1929] all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our palmary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.
I come now to the point which (is urged both by our own brethren and by the heretics). Our brethren adduce it as a pretext for entering on curious inquiries,[1930] and the heretics insist on it for importing the scrupulosity (of their unbelief).[1931] It is written, they say, “Seek, and ye shall find.”[1932] Let us remember at what time the Lord said this. I think it was at the very outset of His teaching, when there was still a doubt felt by all whether He were the Christ, and when even Peter had not yet declared Him to be the Son of God, and John (Baptist) had actually ceased to feel assurance about Him.[1933] With good reason, therefore, was it then said, “Seek, and ye shall find,” when inquiry was still be to made of Him who was not yet become known. Besides, this was said in respect of the Jews. For it is to them that the whole matter[1934] of this reproof[1935] pertains, seeing that they had (a revelation) where they might seek Christ.
“They have,” says He, “Moses and Elias,”[1936]—in other words, the law and the prophets, which preach Christ; as also in another place He says plainly, “Search the Scriptures, in which ye expect (to find) salvation; for they testify of me;”[1937] which will be the meaning of “Seek, and ye shall find.” For it is clear that the next words also apply to the Jews: “Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”[1938] The Jews had formerly been in covenant with[1939] God; but being afterwards cast off on account of their sins, they began to be[1940] without God. The Gentiles, on the contrary, had never been in covenant with God; they were only as “a drop from a bucket,” and “as dust from the threshing floor,”[1941] and were ever outside the door. Now, how shall he who was always outside knock at the place where he never was? What door does he know of, when he has passed through none, either by entrance or ejection? Is it not rather he who is aware that he once lived within and was thrust out, that (probably) found the door and knocked thereat? In like manner, “Ask, and ye shall receive,”[1942] is suitably said[1943] to one who was aware from whom he ought to ask,—by whom also some promise had been given; that is to say, “the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob.” Now, the Gentiles knew nothing either of Him, or of any of His promises. Therefore it was to Israel that he spake when He said, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”[1944] Not yet had He “cast to the dogs the children’s bread;”[1945] not yet did He charge them to “go into the way of the Gentiles.”[1946] It is only at the last that He instructs them to “go and teach all nations, and baptize them,”[1947] when they were so soon to receive “the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, who should guide them into all the truth.”[1948] And this, too, makes towards the same conclusion. If the apostles, who were ordained[1949] to be teachers to the Gentiles, were themselves to have the Comforter for their teacher, far more needless[1950] was it to say to us, “Seek, and ye shall find,” to whom was to come, without research,[1951] our instruction[1952] by the apostles, and to the apostles themselves by the Holy Ghost. All the Lord’s sayings, indeed, are set forth for all men; through the ears of the Jews have they passed on to us. Still most of them were addressed to Jewish persons;[1953] they therefore did not constitute instruction properly designed[1954] for ourselves, but rather an example.[1955]
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0001 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page