who gave the Mosaic Law. For what need was there, on that supposition, to enter into a long discussion, for the purpose of proving that the Gospel had superseded the use of the Ceremonial Law, when the very fact, that they proceeded from different, or, to speak more accurately, from hostile Deities, accounted at once for the abolition of the latter? Tertullian examines in like manner the 96 two Epistles to the Corinthians, that 97 to the Romans, which he states to have been grievously mutilated by the Marcionites, 98 the two to the Thessalonians, and those to the 99 Ephesians, 100 Colossians, and Philippians. The same reasons, which prevented us from entering into any minute investigation of the quotations from the Gospels, induce us to be equally concise in our notice of the quotations from St. Paul's Epistles. The detail would be extremely tedious, and the information derived from it in no respect proportioned to the time which it would necessarily occupy,

101

When we examine the opinions of Marcion, whether upon points of faith or practice, we find that they all flowed by natural consequence from the leading article of his

Creed-that the world was created by a Deity distinct from the Supreme Deity, out of preexistent matter. As the flesh or body of man was the work of the Demiurge, it was held by the Marcionites in abhorrence. Hence their 102 assertion that Christ was neither born of the Virgin Mary, nor passed through the customary stages of infancy and boyhood, but 103 descended at once from heaven, a full-grown man, in 104 appearance only, not in realityhence 105 the opprobrious terms in which they spoke of the body, and 106 their denial of its resurrection-hence 107 their aversion to marriage, which they carried to such a length, that they refused to administer the rite of Baptism to a married man, or 108 to admit him to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, until he had repudiated his wife. We find in Tertullian no mention of that notion respecting an intermediate kind of Deity, of a mixed nature, neither perfectly good nor perfectly evil, which

102 L. iv. c. 10. sub fine.

N

103 L. iv. c. 7. sub in. c. 21. De Carne Christi, cc. 1, 7. 104 L. i. cc. 11, 22. sub in. 24. L. ii. c. 28. L. iii. cc. 8, 9, 10. L. iv. cc. 8, 42. de Res. Carnis, c. 2. De Carne Christi, cc. 4, 6. de Animâ, c. 17. De Præscriptione Hæreticorum,

c. 33.

105 L. iii. c. 11. De Carne Christi, c. 4.

106 L. i. c. 24. L. iv. c. 37. L. v. c. 10.

107 L. i. cc. 1, 24, 29. L. i. c. 3.

L. iv. c. 11. L. v. c. 7. Ad Uxorem,

108 L. iv. c. 34.

109 Mosheim ascribes to Marcion. 110 Lardner thinks that the distinction which Marcion made between his two Deities, was, that the one was good, the other just; but in the second Chapter of the first Book Tertullian expressly says, that Marcion conceived the Creator of the world to be the author of evil, and that he was led into that error by misinterpreting certain passages of Scripture. The other charges brought against him by our author are, that he denied the freedom of the will; and that 112 he rejected some, and mutilated or corrupted other portions of Scripture. His followers 113 were charged with being addicted to astrology. Like other Heretical leaders, he 14 appears to have been attended

109 Cent. II. Part II. Chap. V. Sect. 7.

110 History of Heretics, Chap. X. Sect. 12.

111 De Animâ, c. 21.

De

112 De Præscriptione Hæreticorum, c. 38. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 1. Marcion necessarily rejected the whole of the Old Testament, as proceeding from the Demiurge. Præscriptione Hæreticorum, c. 30. Tertullian mentions also his rejection of St. Matthew's Gospel, L. iv. c. 34—of St. John's Gospel, de Carne Christi, c. 3—of the Acts of the Apostles, L. v. c. 2. De Præscriptione Hæreticorum, c. 22-of the Apocalypse, L. iv. c. 5-of the two Epistles to Timothy and of that to Titus, L. iv. cap. ult. The reader will find in Lardner a detailed account of the alterations which Mar

cion made in St. Luke's Gospel, and in the two Epistles of St. Paul which he received. History of Heretics, Chap. X. Sect. 35, &c.

113 L. i. c. 18.

114 L. v. c. 8. sub fine.

by females, who pretended to great sanctitya practice probably adopted in imitation of the Apostles.

Mosheim speaks of Lucan, Severus, Blastus, and Apelles, as followers of Marcion, who deviated in some respects from the tenets of their master. 115 Lucan is once mentioned by Tertullian as holding the opinion, that neither the soul nor the body would rise again, but a sort of third substance-an opinion which our author supposes him to have borrowed from Aristotle. The 116 name of Apelles occurs frequently in Tertullian's writings. He is described as a disciple of Marcion, who endeavoured to improve upon his master's doctrine; and the 117 account given of him is, that, being unable to comply with Marcion's strict notions on the subject of continence, he left that Heretic and went to Alexandria, where he met with a female named Philumena, who performed various magical illusions by the assistance of an evil spirit. To this woman he

115 De Res. Carnis, c. 2. sub fine.

116 Hoc meminisse debuerat Apelles, Marcionis de discipulo emendátor. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 17. De Carne Christi, c. 6. sub in.

117 De Præscriptione Hæreticorum, c. 30. See also cc. 6. 10. 37. De Carne Christi, c. 24. Lardner questions the story of the incontinence of Apelles. History of Heretics, Chap. XII. Sect. 3.

denied the

first 119 pro

attached himself, and under her instruction composed a work called pavépwoeis, or Revelations. Like his master, 118 he resurrection of the body, and at hibited marriage. He 120 affirmed that the souls of men were tempted to come down from the super-celestial regions-the regions above the heavens which invest this earth-by the allurements offered to them by the fiery angel, the God 121 both of the Israelites and of the Gentiles; who no sooner got them into his power than he surrounded them with sinful flesh. The 122 distinction of sexes existed in these souls, previously to their descent upon earth; and was from them communicated to the

118 De Præscriptione Hæreticorum, c. 33.

119 Ibid.

120 De Animâ, c. 23. De Carne Christi, c. 8. De Res. Carnis, c. 5.

121 Tertullian's expression is, ab igneo Angelo, Deo Israelis et nostro. By the word nostro, I suppose Tertullian to mean that the fiery angel was not merely the God of the Jews, as some of the Heretics supposed with respect to their inferior Deity, but also of the Gentiles. But in the Tract de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, c. 34. Tertullian speaks as if the fiery angel was the God of Israel only, Apelles Creatorem, Angelum nescio quem gloriosum superioris Dei, faceret Deum Legis et Israëlis, illum igneum affirmans. In c. 7. he traces this notion of a fiery angel to the philosophical tenets of Heraclitus. I conceive it rather to have been derived from the circumstances attending the appearance of God to Moses in the burning bush.

122 De Animâ, c. 36.