Chapter II.—On the Epistle to the Galatians. The Abolition of the Ordinances of the Mosaic Law No Proof of Another God. The Divine Lawgiver, the Creator Himself, Was the Abrogator. The Apostle’s Doctrine in the First Chapter Shown to Accord with the Teaching of the Old Testament. The Acts of the Apostles Shown to Be Genuine Against Marcion. This Book Agrees with the Pauline Epistles.

The epistle which we also allow to be the most decisive2913    This is Oehler’s arrangement of the chapter, for the sake of the sense. The former editions begin this third chapter with “Sed enim Marcion nactus.”    Principalem. against Judaism, is that wherein the apostle instructs the Galatians. For the abolition of the ancient law we fully admit, and hold that it actually proceeds from the dispensation of the Creator,—a point which we have already often treated in the course of our discussion, when we showed that the innovation was foretold by the prophets of our God.2914    Aliud est si.    See above, in book i. chap. xx., also in book iv. chap. i. Now, if the Creator indeed promised that “the ancient things should pass away,”2915    Sacramentum.    Comp. Isa. xliii. 18, 19, and lxv. 17, with 2 Cor. v. 17. to be superseded by a new course of things which should arise, whilst Christ marks the period of the separation when He says, “The law and the prophets were until John”2916    Habuit utique.    Luke xvi. 16.—thus making the Baptist the limit between the two dispensations of the old things then terminating—and the new things then beginning, the apostle cannot of course do otherwise, (coming as he does) in Christ, who was revealed after John, than invalidate “the old things” and confirm “the new,” and yet promote thereby the faith of no other god than the Creator, at whose instance2917    Paraturam.    Apud quem. it was foretold that the ancient things should pass away. Therefore both the abrogation of the law and the establishment of the gospel help my argument even in this epistle, wherein they both have reference to the fond assumption of the Galatians, which led them to suppose that faith in Christ (the Creator’s Christ, of course) was obligatory, but without annulling the law, because it still appeared to them a thing incredible that the law should be set aside by its own author. Again,2918    Sed enim.    Porro. if they had at all heard of any other god from the apostle, would they not have concluded at once, of themselves, that they must give up the law of that God whom they had left, in order to follow another?  For what man would be long in learning, that he ought to pursue a new discipline, after he had taken up with a new god? Since, however,2919    See Gal. ii. 13, 14.    Immo quia. the same God was declared in the gospel which had always been so well known in the law, the only change being in the dispensation,2920    Compare what has been already said in book i. chap. 20, and below in book v. chap. 3. See also Tertullian’s treatise, De Præscript. Hæret. chap. 23. [Kaye, p. 275.]    Disciplina. the sole point of the question to be discussed was, whether the law of the Creator ought by the gospel to be excluded in the Christ of the Creator? Take away this point, and the controversy falls to the ground. Now, since they would all know of themselves,2921    Statum.    Ultro. on the withdrawal of this point, that they must of course renounce all submission to the Creator by reason of their faith in another god, there could have been no call for the apostle to teach them so earnestly that which their own belief must have spontaneously suggested to them. Therefore the entire purport of this epistle is simply to show us that the supersession2922    Propria.    Discessionem. of the law comes from the appointment of the Creator—a point, which we shall still have to keep in mind.2923    Variare convictum.    Ut adhuc suggeremus. Since also he makes mention of no other god (and he could have found no other opportunity of doing so, more suitable than when his purpose was to set forth the reason for the abolition of the law—especially as the prescription of a new god would have afforded a singularly good and most sufficient reason), it is clear enough in what sense he writes, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him who hath called you to His grace to another gospel”2924    1 Cor. ix. 22.    Gal. i. 6, 7.—He means) “another” as to the conduct it prescribes, not in respect of its worship; “another” as to the discipline it teaches, not in respect of its divinity; because it is the office of2925    Integrum.    Deberet. Christ’s gospel to call men from the law to grace, not from the Creator to another god. For nobody had induced them to apostatize from2926    Inde nostra digesta.    Moverat illos a. the Creator, that they should seem to “be removed to another gospel,” simply when they return again to the Creator.  When he adds, too, the words, “which is not another,”2927    Germanum instrumentum.    Gal. i. 7. he confirms the fact that the gospel which he maintains is the Creator’s. For the Creator Himself promises the gospel, when He says by Isaiah: “Get thee up into the high mountain, thou that bringest to Sion good tidings; lift up thy voice with strength, thou that bringest the gospel to Jerusalem.”2928    That is, according to the Marcionite cavil.    Isa. xl. 9 (Septuagint). Also when, with respect to the apostles personally, He says, “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that bring good tidings of good”2929    De titulo quoque.    Isa. lii. 7.—even proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles, because He also says, “In His name shall the Gentiles trust;”2930    We have here an instance of the high authority of the Septuagint version. It comes from the Seventy: Καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνοματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν (Isa. xlii. 4.) From this Tertullian, as usual, quoted it. But what is much more important, St. Matthew has adopted it; see chap. xii, ver. 21. This beautiful promise of the Creator does not occur in its well-known form in the Hebrew original. that is, in the name of Christ, to whom He says, “I have given thee as a light of the Gentiles.”2931    Isa. xlii. 6. However, you will have it that it is the gospel of a new god which was then set forth by the apostle. So that there are two gospels for2932    Apud: “administered by.” two gods; and the apostle made a great mistake when he said that “there is not another” gospel,2933    Gal. i. 7. since there is (on the hypothesis)2934    Cum sit. another; and so he might have made a better defence of his gospel, by rather demonstrating this, than by insisting on its being but one. But perhaps, to avoid this difficulty, you will say that he therefore added just afterwards, “Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel, let him be accursed,”2935    Gal. i. 8. because he was aware that the Creator was going to introduce a gospel! But you thus entangle yourself still more. For this is now the mesh in which you are caught. To affirm that there are two gospels, is not the part of a man who has already denied that there is another. His meaning, however, is clear, for he has mentioned himself first (in the anathema): “But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel.”2936    Gal. i. 8. It is by way of an example that he has expressed himself. If even he himself might not preach any other gospel, then neither might an angel. He said “angel” in this way, that he might show how much more men ought not to be believed, when neither an angel nor an apostle ought to be; not that he meant to apply2937    Referret. an angel to the gospel of the Creator.  He then cursorily touches on his own conversion from a persecutor to an apostle—confirming thereby the Acts of the Apostles,2938    A similar remark occurs in Præscript. Hæretic. c. xxiii. p. 253. in which book may be found the very subject2939    Ipsa materia. of this epistle, how that certain persons interposed, and said that men ought to be circumcised, and that the law of Moses was to be observed; and how the apostles, when consulted, determined, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that “a yoke should not be put upon men’s necks which their fathers even had not been able to bear.”2940    See Gal. i. 11–24, compared with Acts xv. 5–29. Now, since the Acts of the Apostles thus agree with Paul, it becomes apparent why you reject them. It is because they declare no other God than the Creator, and prove Christ to belong to no other God than the Creator; whilst the promise of the Holy Ghost is shown to have been fulfilled in no other document than the Acts of the Apostles.  Now, it is not very likely that these2941    “The Acts of the Apostles” is always a plural phrase in Tertullian. should be found in agreement with the apostle, on the one hand, when they described his career in accordance with his own statement; but should, on the other hand, be at variance with him when they announce the (attribute of) divinity in the Creator’s Christ—as if Paul did not follow2942    Ut non secutus sit. the preaching of the apostles when he received from them the prescription2943    Formam. of not teaching the Law.2944    Dedocendæ legis; i.e., of Moses.

CAPUT II.

Principalem (Gal., I) adversus judaismum epistolam 0471A nos quoque confitemur, quae Galatas docet. Amplectimur etenim omnem illam legis veteris abolitionem, ut et ipsam de Creatoris venientem dispositione, sicut saepe jam in isto ordine tractavimus, de praedicata novatione a prophetis Dei nostri. Quod si Creator quidem vetera cessura promisit, novis scilicet orituris; Christus vero tempus distinctionis istius (Lex et Prophetae usque ad Joannem) terminum in Joanne statuens inter utrumque ordinem, desinentium exinde veterum et incipientium novorum; necessarie et Apostolus in Christo post Joannem revelato vetera infirmat, nova vero confirmat, atque ita non alterius Dei fidem curat quam Creatoris, apud quem et vetera decessura praedicabantur. Igitur et Legis destructio, et Evangelii aedificatio, pro me faciunt in 0471B ista quoque Epistola, ad eam Galatarum praesumptionem pertinentes, qua praesumebant Christum utputa Creatoris, salva Creatoris lege credendum: quod adhuc incredibile videretur, legem a suo auctore deponi. Porro, si omnino alium Deum ab Apostolo audissent, ultro utique scissent abscedendum sibi esse a lege ejus Dei quem reliquissent, alium secuti. Quis enim exspectaret diutius discere, quod novam deberet sectari disciplinam, qui novum Deum recepisset? Imo, quia eadem quidem divinitas praedicabatur in Evangelio, quae semper nota fuerat in Lege, disciplina vero non eadem, hic erat totus quaestionis status, an lex Creatoris ab Evangelio deberet excludi in Christo Creatoris. Denique, aufer hunc statum, et vacat quaestio. Vacante autem quaestione, ultro omnibus agnoscentibus 0471C discedendum sibi esse ab ordine Creatoris per fidem Dei alterius, nulla Apostolo materia competisset, id tam presse docendi, quod ultro fides ipsa dictasset. Igitur tota intentio Epistolae istius nihil aliud docet, quam Legis discessionem venientem de Creatoris dispositione, ut adhuc suggeremus. Si item nullius novi Dei exerit mentionem, quod nusquam magis fecisset, quam in ista materia, ut rationem scilicet ablegandae Legis unica hac et sufficientissima definitione proponeret novae divinitatis, apparet quomodo scribat: Miror vos tam cito transferri, ab eo qui vos vocavit in gratiam, ad aliud evangelium: ex conversatione aliud, non ex religione; ex disciplina, non ex divinitate. Quoniam quidem Evangelium Christi a Lege evocare deberet ad gratiam, non a 0471D Creatore ad alium Deum. Nemo enim illos moverat a Creatore, ut viderentur sic ad aliud Evangelium transferri, quasi dum ad Creatorem transferuntur. Nam et adjiciens, quod aliud Evangelium omnino non esset, Creatoris confirmat id, quod esse defendit. Si 0472A enim et Creator Evangelium repromittit, dicens per Esaiam (Is., XL, 9): Ascende in montem excelsum, qui evangelizas Sioni; extolle vocem in valentia tua, qui evangelizas Hierusalem. Item (Is., LII, 7) ad apostolorum personam: Quam tempestivi pedes evangelizantium pacem, evangelizantium bona; utique et nationibus evangelizantium; quoniam et: In nomine ejus, inquit (Is., XLII, 4), nationes sperabunt, Christi scilicet; cui ait: Posui te in lumen nationum. Est autem Evangelium etiam Dei novi, quod vis, tunc ab Apostolo defensum. Jam ergo duo sunt Evangelia apud duos Deos, et mentitus erit Apostolus, dicens quod aliud omnino non est, cum sit et aliud; cum sic suum Evangelium defendere potuisset, ut potius demonstraret, non ut unum determinaret. Sed fortasse 0472B ut fugias hinc; et ideo , dices, subtexit: Licet angelus de coelo aliter evangelizaverit, anathema sit; quia et Creatorem sciebat evangelizaturum. Rursus ergo te implicas. Hoc est enim quo astringeris. Duo enim Evangelia confirmare, non est ejus qui aliud jam negarit. Tamen lucet sensus ejus qui suam praemisit personam. Sed et si nos aut angelus de coelo aliter evangelizaverit; verbi enim gratia dictum est. Caeterum, si nec ipse aliter evangelizaturus, utique nec angelus. Ita angelum ad hoc nominavit, quo multo magis hominibus non esset credendum, quando nec angelo, nec apostolo; non angelum ad Evangelium referret Creatoris. Exinde, decurrens ordinem conversionis suae de persecutore in apostolum; scripturam Actorum Apostolicorum confirmat, apud quam 0472C ipsa etiam Epistolae istius materia recognoscitur, intercessisse quosdam , qui dicerent circumcidi oportere, et observandam esse Moysi legem: tunc apostolos de ista quaestione consultos, ex auctoritate spiritus renuntiasse, non esse imponenda onera hominibus, quae patres ipsi non potuissent sustinere. Quod si et ex hoc congruunt Paulo apostolorum Acta, cur ea respuatis jam apparet, ut Deum scilicet non alium praedicantia quam Creatorem, nec Christum alterius quam Creatoris, quando nec promissio Spiritus Sancti aliunde probetur exhibita, quam de instrumento Actorum. Quae utique verisimile non est, ex parte quidem Apostolo convenire, cum ordinem ejus secundum ipsius testimonium ostendunt; ex parte vero dissidere, cum divinitatem in Christo 0472D Creatoris annuntiant; ut praedicationem quidem apostolorum omnino sit secutus Paulus, qui formam ab eis dedocendae legis accepit.