Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

blaspheming him who is declared to be God by the law and the prophets; who, as he says, appears to be author of evil, delighting in war, inconstant, and contrary to himself. But Jesus,' he says, came from the Father, who is superior to the God that made the world. He came into Judea in the time of Pontius Pilate, governor under Tiberius Cæsar. He appeared. to them in the form of a man, dissolving the law and the prophets, and all the works of him that made the world. Moreover he mutilated the gospel according to Luke, striking out all that relates to our Lord's nativity, and taking away many other things from our Lord's discourses, especially where he speaks of the Creator of this world as his Father; thus delivering to his disciples not the gospel, but a scrap of it. In like manner he curtails the epistles of the apostle Paul, taking away those passages where the apostle plainly speaks of the Creator of the world, as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also his quotations from the prophetical writings, that foretel the coming of the Lord.. He held that the soul only will be saved; as for the body, it being taken from matter, it is with him, incapable of salvation. Beside all these blasphemies, he maintained that Cain and the people of Sodom, and the Ægyptians, and all the nations in general, though they had lived in all manner of wickedness, were saved by the Lord when he descended into hell (or the invisible world, the receptacle of departed spirits) for they came to him, and he took them up into his kingdom. But that Abel,. and Enoch, and Noah, and the patriarchs, and the prophets, and other righteous men, who walked with God, and pleased him, did not obtain salvation. For,' says he, they knew their God had been wont to tempt or try them: and they suspected that now a temptation was laid in their way. Therefore they would not come to Jesus, nor believe in him: for which reason,' as he their souls remained in hell.'

says,

[ocr errors]

So Irenæus. This passage of so early a writer will be of great use to us; but I need not. observe his order in all things.

It will be proper for us first to obserye Marcion's time and history, and then his principles or opinions.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]

a

Ir is not easy to settle exactly Marcion's time. Cave supposeth that he came to Rome in the year 127; and about the year 130 became a follower of Cerdon, and an open heretic. Milltoo, who likewise follows Pearson as to the early time of Hyginus, is of much the same opinion.. Pagi placeth the spreading of Marcion's heresy in the year 144. But he thinks that this heresy, as is common in other cases, may be said to have had several beginnings, according to divers computations. Marcion, according to him, came to Rome soon after the death of Hyginus, which, he says, cannot be deferred beyond the year 141. But he had before that broached his opinions in Syria, and probably had begun to do so in the reign of Adrian, or at least in the beginning of the reign of Antoninus the Pious. Coming to Rome, presently after the death of Hyginus, when the see was vacant, and the presbyters of that church not receiving him, he re turned into Asia, and spread his principles with greater zeal and openness, about the year 144,. where, as he says, Tertullian placeth Marcion. Petavius was very much of the same opinion, whose words I place somewhat at length in the margin. Let us now observe some particulars in the ancients.

a Hist. Lit. in Marcion. T. i. p. 55. Proleg. n. 307.

c Crit. in Baron. 144. n. 3. Postremum, atque omnium difficillimum est, quod de Marcione nobis [ex J. M. Apologia] objicitur. Quem, ut consentanea loquamur, affirmandum est non Antonino demum imperante, sed sub Adriano cœpisse. Atque haud scio an duo illius distinguenda sint tempora, ut in plerisque hæresibus accidit; ita ut sub Adriano primum eruperit, postea vero sub Antonino longe lateque propagatis erroribus celebre sibi nomen pepererit-Hygini obitus confertur in annum Antonini

Irenæus, who, as we have seen, says

xviii. ante quod tempus Marcionem hæresim suam disseminâsse necesse est; cum Justinus, qui Antonino, et quidem imperii ejus initio, Apologiam obtulit, Marcionis meminerit: Quare duplex, uti conjiciebamus, Marcionitarum ortus esse debet. Nam primum in Ponto Asia duntaxat nefariunr dogma prædicavit, idque Adriano imperante. Postea sub Antonino, majores trahens spiritus, vehementius in eosdem errores cœpit incumbere. Hygino vero demum mortuo, primitus dogma Cerdonis interpolâsse Marcionem nullo modo censeo. Petay. Animad. ad H. 46. Epiph. p. 53. ·

[ocr errors]

that Cerdon was at Rome in the time of Hyginus, and makes Marcion his disciple or imme 'diate successor,' says likewise in another place, that Marcion acted chiefly under Anicetus, who was the tenth in the succession of the bishops of Rome.'

Clement of Alexandria * speaks of Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion, as being all in the reign of Adrian, and the first, or elder Antoninus, much about the same time, though this last was somewhat after the other two.

Tertullian speaks of Marcion as the first who had taught a different God, and superior to the Creator; and often mentions the time in which he lived, but never with exactness, as if he had any certain information about it. He once speaks of Marcion and Valentinus together, as both flourishing in the time of Antoninus, and in the episcopate of Eleutherius. In another place he speaks of Marcion as certainly being a heretic of Antoninus's time, * but in what year his heresy arose he was not solicitous to know.

Celsus, who might write about the year 150, mentioned the Marcionites, as we learn from ' Origen.

But perhaps Justin Martyr's works may lead us nearer the time of Marcion than any thing else. He wrote against Marcion. That work is mentioned by Irenæus, as well as by1 Euse bius. And it is reckoned to be different from his work against all heresies, mentioned by him self in his first apology: in which he twice speaks of Marcion, as still living. That apology was written in the time of the elder Antoninus, in the year 140, or not long after. Consequently, it is reasonable to think that Marcion had appeared in the year 130, or very soon after; for Marcion had many followers when Justin wrote that apology. And when he says that Marcion was still living, it is implied that he had made a figure for some time.

SECTION III.

The History of him as given by Epiphanius.

THE Common account of Marcion, taken from Epiphanius," is to this purpose: that he was 'born at Sinope in Pontus, where his father was bishop. For some while,' as he Marcion says, ' lived a retired life, in strict continence. But having admitted an affection for a young woman, ' and having been guilty of uncleanness with her, he was excommunicated by his father; who ⚫ would never after receive him, though Marcion earnestly entreated him, and made professions ' of sincere repentance. Being uneasy under the reproaches which he met with in his own country, he went abroad, and arrived at Rome soon after the death of Hyginus. Here he attempted to be received to communion, and moreover aimed to be made bishop. But, being disappointed in both those attempts, the presbyters of that church rejecting him, he was exasperated,

[ocr errors]

a Marcion autem illi succedens invaluit sub Aniceto deci

mum locum episcopatus obtinente. Iren. l. 3. c. 4. n. 3. 206. b Strom. 1. 7. p. 764. C. D.

Nemo alterum Deum ausus est suspicari. Facilius de Filio quam de Patre hæsitabatur; donec Marcion, præter Creatorem, alium Deum solius bonitatis induceret. Præser. Hær. cap. 34. p. 344. B.

Quum igitur sub Antonino primus Marcion hunc Deum induxerit, sicut probavimus atque ita non a Christo revela fum, quem constet a Marcione primum prædicatum. Adv. Marcion. 1. 1. c. 19. p. 443. A.

d Ubi tunc Marcion, Ponticus nauclerus, Stoïcæ studiosus? Ubi Valentinus, Platonicæ sectator? Nam constat illos, neque (alio) olim fuisse, Antonini fere principatu, et in Catholicæ primo doctrinam credidisse, apud Ecclesiam Romanensem, sub episcopatu Eleutherii benedicti. De Pr. cap. 30. p.

242. A.

e Quoto quidem anno Antonini majoris de Ponto suo exhalaverit aura canicularis, non curavi investigare. De quo tamen constat, Antonianus hæreticus est, sub Pio impius, &c. Adv. Marcion, 1. 1. c. 19. p. 443. A.

f

* Εμνήσθη δ' ὁ Κελσος και Μαρκιωνίζων προϊσαμένων, Μαρ xiva. Contr. Cels. 1. 5. c. 62. p. 676. Bened. 272. lan. 8 Και καλώς Ιεςίνος εν τω προς Μαρκίωνα συνταγματι . Iren. 1. 4. c. 6. [al. 14.] p. 233.

Vid. Euseb. 1. 4. c. 11. p. 125. B. et c. 18. p. 141. A. i Sed et contra Marcionem insignia volumina et alius liber contra omnes hæreses. Hier. de V. I. c. 23.

* Εσι δε ήμιν και συνταγμα κατα πασων των γεγενημένων aipeσewv. Ap. 1. p. 70. C.

1 ος και νυν επί εςι διδασκων της πειθόμενος- ὃς κατά παν γενος ανθρώπων πολλες πεποίηκε βλασφημίας λέγειν. Αρ.

P. 70. A.

Και νυν διδασκει, ᾧ πολλοι πεισθεντες. Ib. p. 92. A. Conf. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 253. D.

- Τον δε πρωτον αυτο διον παρθενιαν δήθεν ησκει· μονάζων γαρ υπήρχε εξωσται της εκκλησίας ύπο το ίδιο πατρός Πολλα δήθεν ὁ Μαρκιων καθικέτευσας και αιτήσας μετανοιαν δε ειληφε παρα τε ίδιες πατρος- και ανεισιν εις την Ρώμην αυτήν ζηλω λοιπον επαρθεις, ως εκ απειληφε την προεδρίαν τε καὶ εισδυσιν της εκκλησιας. Η. 42. n. 1. p. 302. Β. C. D.

[ocr errors]

Whereupon he joined himself to Cerdon, who, a little before, had begun to spread his peculiar • opinions in the city of Rome.'

a

b

That Marcion was a native of Pontus is allowed by all. So said Irenæus at the beginning of the long passage before transcribed from him. And, in like manner, many other ancient authors. He is called a sailor, or mariner, by Rhodon in Eusebius, and very often by Tertullian: but for what reason is not certain. Nor is it likely that a bishop's son, and a learned man, as Marcion was, should ever have followed such an occupation. Perhaps those authors refer only to his country as bordering upon the sea, or his native city, a sea port.

с

SECTION IV.

The Story of his deceiving a young Woman held doubtful by many..

[ocr errors]

THE story told by Epiphanius, of Marcion's deceiving a young woman, is also in the Appendix to Tertullian's Prescriptions. But it may be called in question.. I see that the learned. and excellent Ittigius doubted the truth of it.

I think that there are in Epiphanius's account some particulars that give the whole an appearance of improbability. For why should Marcion's father, refuse to receive him into communion upon confession and repentance, which seem to have been sincere, if indeed he had so fallen as is said? And his future conduct appears to have been free from reproach. Moreover his attempt to be received at Rome, and even to obtain a bishopric of the church, is inconsistent with the supposition of so shameful a fall as that imputed to him by Epiphanius..

SECTION V..

Several Observations tending to shew its Incredibility..

BEAUSOBRE has a long argument upon this point, taken from the silence of ancient writers,. and consisting of many particulars. I shall abridge it ::

1. Irenæus appears to have been totally unacquainted with this affair. But is it possible that he who had been at Rome should be ignorant of it if true? or, if he had known it, could he have avoided the mention of it? Moreover he writes against a heretic that condemned marriage as a state not sufficiently pure. How could he forget to say that this same person had been guilty of fornication if he knew it ?

2. Tertullian wrote five books against Marcion. He did not neglect any occasion to decry his adversary; nevertheless he says nothing of this scandalous adventure.

3. After having spoken of Marcion, Tertullian proceeds to his disciple Apelles: who he says, having committed a fault with a woman, and thus apostatized from the Marcionite continence, did no more dare to show himself before his holy master, and therefore retired to Alexandria. The same thing is mentioned in the Additions to Tertullian's Prescrip

• Καθως και ὁ ναύτης Μαρκιων. Ap. Euseb. l. 5. c. 13. p. 177. B.

Ubi tunc Marcion, Ponticus nauclerus, stoicæ studiosus. De Pr. c. 30. p. 242. A. Scilicet nauclero illi non quidern Rhodia lex, sed Pontica caverat. Adv. M. 1. 3. cap. 6. p. 480. C. Quamobrem, Pontice nauclere, si nunquam furtivas merces in acatos tuas recepisti, &c. Adv. M. 1. 5. cap. 1. p. 515. D.

• Nautam vocat Rhodon-nauclerum Tertullianus: an quod artem nauticam primitus exercuerit? an quod uterque ludens in voce Pontus, Marcionis patriæ nomine, quæ et Asiæ regionem, et mare significat, illum nautam aut nauclerum vocet, quasi marinum hominem, in mari natum-Mass. Diss. Iren. p. 68.

h

[blocks in formation]

tions. We may take another opportunity to consider what the fault of Apelles was. But whether it were marriage or adultery, or fornication, here was a fair occasion for Tertullian to mention a fault of the like kind, if he had known of any such thing. Tillemont inquiring into the author of the Additions to Tertullian's book of Prescriptions, appears to have been very sensible of this difficulty.

4. The silence of the before mentioned writers, Irenæus and Tertullian, adds Beausobre, appears to me an invincible proof of Marcion's innocence: at least it is a proof of their unac quaintedness with that scandalous affair. Let us however shew that neither was it known in the East: forasmuch as Clement of Alexandria and Origen say nothing of it, though they do not spare Marcion. Clement in particular fills up almost all his third book of Stromata in rehearsing and confuting the arguments of Marcion and other Encratites against marriage. If these men had not observed the rules of chastity: if Marcion, who is mentioned more than twenty times in that book, had transgressed these rules in a scandalous manner, and had been on that account, excommunicated by his own father, is it conceivable that St. Clement should say nothing of it? These proud men, says Clement, boast of imitating our Saviour who never married, and possessed nothing in this world. But they should know that God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble. Here he should by all means have mentioned the fall of Marcion, and unquestionably would have done so if he had known any thing of the matter.

b

5. Eusebius informs us of many authors who had written against Marcion: Justin Martyr, Dionysius of Corinth, Theophilus of Antioch, Philip of Gortyna, Modestus, Melito, and Apollinaris. He had read their writings. Nevertheless he makes no mention of this scandalous action of our heresiarch; which must be allowed to be a certain proof that it was not taken notice of in those works.

с

6. Jerom says that Marcion sent before him to Rome a woman, to prepare the minds of people for his heresy. It is not known whence he had that particular. But he does not say that Marcion had seduced her or any other woman: which would have been so much to his purpose, that it cannot be imagined Jerom would have omitted it, if he had known any thing of it: since he omits not even conjectures and the slightest reports that tend to blacken the reputation of a heretic.

7. From the Greeks and Latins let us pass to the Syrians. St. Ephrem lived at Edessa, which was not very far from Sinope. There were many Marcionites in that country, which induced him to write against them. His hymns against divers heretics, particularly against Marcion, are still in being. As Marcion had misled many by his austerities, Ephrem endeavours to undeceive them. He says that Marcion's apostles were wolves, but they had sheep's clothing:: and that the devil put a cowl upon him that he might deceive the children of light. And afterwards: Marcion imitated the serpent, and recommended fasting. How comes it about that Ephrem does not here unmask the man, and shew his hypocrisy; that at his very first setting out, he had shamefully fallen, and violated that virtue which was the glory of his sect, and by which many people were imposed upon?

posteaquam in carnem suam lapsus est, a Marcione separatus est. Pr. cap. 51. p. 254. A.

a Ce qu'il y a encore d'embarrassant, et à quoi je ne sai s'il est aisé de trouver aucune reponse raisonnable, c'est, que dans tout son grand ouvrage contre Marcion, fait après ce catalogue, s'il en est l'auteur, il ne luy reproche jamais une faute si grande et si honteuse. Il n'étoit pas homme à lui épargner ce reproche. Mem. Ec. T. 3. note vii, sur Tertullien.

b Μιμείσθαι δ' αυτός οἱ μεγαλαυχοι φασι τον κύριον, μήτε γήμαντα, μήτε τι εν τῷ κόσμῳ κτησαμενον. κ. λ. Clem. Str. 1. 3. p. 446. C.

Marcion Romam præmisit mulierem, quæ decipiendos sibi animos præpararet. Ad. Ctesiph. T. iv. p. 477. M. dEx hoc hyinno discimus, Marcionem austerioris vitæ speciem affectâsse,- -abstinentiam et cælibatum simulâsse, suisque symmystis indixisse. Lupos Diabolus Apostolorum vice Marcioni dedit. Ut illos operiret, agnorum vestimenta sur' ripuit.' Et infra: Saccum Marcioni accommodavit, ut filios Mucis infuscaret. Et paucis interjectis: Marcion, anguem 'imitatus, jejunium amavit.' Asseman. Bib. Or. T. i. p. 119.

[ocr errors]

SECTION VI.

Some Reason to suspect it was the Invention of Epiphanius.

a

BUT what then shall we say to Epiphanius? One knows not well what to say; but if he had any authority for it, it must have been slight. We may be apt to suspect it was an invention of his own. Philaster and he seem to have drawn from the same source. They both say that Marcion was of Sinope, and that he proposed to explain to the presbyters of Rome, our Lord's parable concerning old bottles and old garments. I do not remember to have read these particulars in any authors more ancient than these, who lived much about the same time: which makes me conjecture that they copied one and the same original. Nevertheless the story of Marcion's fall is not in Philaster; which shews that he never knew it, and that it was not in the author whom he made use of; which may lead persons a little suspicious to mistrust that Epiphanius himself is the author of the story.

SECTION VII.

He began to propagate his Errors in his own Country, for which he was expelled by his Father.

BEAUSOBRE therefore concludes, from all these proofs, that the scandalous adventure of Marcion is, at the most, only a false report which Epiphanius had met with; and that the crime of this heresiarch, for which his father expelled him from the church, was his errors, which he had begun to publish in his own country.

Beausobre is not the only person who thinks that Marcion had published his notions in his own country: though many of the ancients reckon him a disciple of Cerdon, with whom he first became acquainted at Rome.

SECTION VIII.

His way of Life was very unsettled.

MARCION came to Rome soon after the death of Hyginus, whilst that see was vacant; and not meeting with much encouragement there, in a short time he went again into Asia. But he must have returned to Rome, if it was there that Polycarp saw him. Marcion's unsettled and wandering course of life is reflected upon by Tertullian and St. Ephrem. Marcion was once a catholic, as Tertullian often says, and thence argues the novelty of his opinion.

с

a Marcion, genere Ponticus, de civitate Sinope, urbem Romam devenit, ibique degens sceleratam hæresim seminabat, atque interrogans presbyteros sanctos ecclesiæ catholicæ sensûs sui eis errorem mortiferum propinabat, dicens ita: Quid est quod in Evangelio, dicente Domino, scriptum est: Nemo pannum rudem mittit in vestimentum vetus, neque vinum novum in utres veteres-? Et iterum: non est arbor bona, quæ faciat malum fructum, neque arbor mala, quæ faciat bonum fructum, &c. Philast. H. 45. p. 94, 95. Conf. Epiph. Hær. 42. n. 2. p. 303.

Tradit S. Epiphanius, Marcionem, e patrio solo expulsum,

[ocr errors]

Romam profugisse, atque subinde alia ex aliis loca mutâsse. Quapropter eumdem Caïno comparat S. Ephræm. Quoniam vero Marcion suum conditorem ejuraverat, mundum sibi 'ubique infestum habuit fremens.' Quamobrem a Tertulliano Hamaxobio instabilior,' dictus est. Lib. i. c. 1. Asseman. B. O. Tom. i. p. 119.

Te quidem plane non amâsti, cum ab ecclesiâ et fide Christi recessisti. De Carn. Xti. cap. 4. p. 360. C. Sicut et ipse confiteris in quâdam epistolâ; et tui non negant, et nostri probant. Ibid. cap. 2. p. 359. A.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »