PART III. THE LOST PAULINE GOSPELS.

Under this head are classed such Gospels as have a distinct anti‐

Judaizing, Antinomian tendency. They were in use among the Churches of

Asia Minor, and eventually found their way into Egypt.

This class may probably be subdivided into those which bore a strong

affinity to the Canonical Gospel of St. Luke, and those which were

independent compilations.

To the first class belongs—

1. The Gospel of the Lord.

To the second class—

1. The Gospel of Eve.

2. The Gospel of Perfection.

3. The Gospel of Philip.

4. The Gospel of Judas.

I. The Gospel Of The Lord.

The Gospel of the Lord, Εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Κυρίου, was the banner under which

the left of the Christian army marched, as the right advanced under that

of the Gospel of the Hebrews.

The Gospel of the Lord was used by Marcion, and apparently before him by

Cerdo.(389)

In opposition to Ebionitism, with its narrow restraints and its low

Christology, stood an exclusive Hellenism. Ebionitism saw in Jesus the Son

of David, come to re‐edit the Law, to provide it with new sanction, after

he had winnowed the chaff from the wheat in it. Marcionism looked to the

Atonement, the salvation wrought by Christ for all mankind, to the

revelation of the truth, the knowledge (γνῶσις) of the mysteries of the

Godhead made plain to men, through God the good and merciful, who sent His

Son to bring men out of ignorance into light, out of the bondage of the

Law into the freedom of the Gospel.(390)

The Gospel, in the eyes of Marcion and the extreme followers of St. Paul,

represented free grace, overflowing goodness, complete reconciliation with

God.

But such goodness stood contrasted with the stern justice of the Creator,

as revealed in the books of the Old Testament; infinite, unconditioned

forgiveness was incompatible with the idea of God as a Lawgiver and a

Judge. The restraint of the Law and the freedom of the Gospel could no

more emanate from the same source than sweet water and bitter.

Therefore the advanced Pauline party were led on to regard the God who is

revealed in the Old Testament as a different God from the God revealed by

Christ. Cerdo first, and Marcion after him, represented the God of this

world, the Demiurge, to be the author of evil; but the author of evil only

in so far as that his nature being incomplete, his work was incomplete

also. He created the world, but the world, partaking in his imperfection,

contains evil mixed with good. He created the angel‐world, and part of it,

through defect in the divinity of their first cause, fell from heaven.

The germs of this doctrine, it was pretended, were to be found in St.

Paul’s Epistles. In the second to the Corinthians, after speaking of the

Jews as blinded to the revelation of the Gospel by the veil which is on

their faces, the apostle says: “The God of this world hath blinded the

minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of

Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”(391) St. Paul

had no intention of representing the God of the Jews who veiled their eyes

as opposed to Christ; but it is easy to see how readily those who followed

his doctrine of antagonism between the Law and the Gospel would be led to

suppose that he did identify the God of the Law with the principle of

obstructiveness and of evil.

So also St. Paul’s teaching that sin was produced by the Law, that it had

no positive existence, but was called into being by the imposition of the

Commandments, lent itself with readiness to Marcion’s system. “The Law

entered, that the offence might abound.”(392) “The motions of sins are by

the Law.”(393) “I had not known sin, but by the Law: for I had not known

lust, except the Law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”(394)

This Law, imposed by the God of the Jews, is then the source of sin. It is

imposed, not on the spirit, but on the flesh. In opposition to it stands

the revelation of Jesus Christ, which repeals the Law of the Jews. “The

Law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law

of sin and death.”(395) “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified

without the deeds of the Law.”(396) “Before faith came, we were kept under

the Law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

Wherefore the Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we

might be justified by faith; but after that faith is come, we are no

longer under a schoolmaster.”(397)

We find in St. Paul’s writings all the elements of Marcion’s doctrine, but

not compacted into a system, because St. Paul never had worked out such a

theory, and would have shrunk from the conclusions which might be drawn

from his words, used in the heat of argument, for the purpose of opposing

an error, not of establishing a dogmatic theory.

The whole world lay, according to Marcion, under the dispensation of the

Demiurge, and therefore under a mixed government of good and evil. To the

Jewish nation this Demiurge revealed himself. His revelation was stern,

uncompromising, imperfect. Then the highest God, the God of love and

mercy, who stood opposed to the inferior God, the Creator, the God of

justice and severity, sent Jesus Christ for the salvation of all (ad

salutem omnium gentium) to overthrow and destroy (arguere, redarguere,

ἐλέγχειν, καταλεύειν) “the Law and the Prophets,” the revelation of the

world‐God, the God of the Jews.

The highest God, whose realm and law were spiritual, had been an unknown

God (deus ignotus) till Christ came to reveal Him. The God of this world

and of the Jews had a carnal realm, and a law which was also carnal. They

formed an antithesis, and true Christianity consisted in emancipation from

the carnal law. The created world under the Demiurge was bad; matter was

evil; spirit alone was pure. Thus the chain unrolled, and lapsed into

Manichaeism. Cerdo and Marcion stood in the same relation to Manes that

Paul stood in to them. Manichaeism was not yet developed; it was

developing.

Gnosticism, with easy impartiality, affected Ebionitism on one side and

Marcionism on the other, intensifying their opposition. It was like oxygen

combining here to form an alkali, there to generate an acid.

The God of love, according to Marcion, does not punish. His dealings with

man are, all benevolence, communication of free grace, bestowal of ready

forgiveness. For if sin be merely violation of the law of the God of this

world, it is indifferent to the highest God, who is above the Demiurge,

and regards not his vexatious restrictions on the liberty of man.

Yet Marcion was not charged by his warmest antagonists with immorality.

They could not deny that the Marcionites entirely differed from other

Pauline Antinomians in their moral conduct—that, for example, in their

abhorrence of heathen games and pastimes they came fully up to the

standard of the most rigid Catholic Christians. While many of the

disciples of St. Paul, who held that an accommodation with prevailing

errors was allowable, that no importance was to be attached to externals,

found no difficulty in evading the obligation to become martyrs, the

Marcionites readily, fearlessly, underwent the interrogations of the

judges and the tortures of the executioner.(398)

Marcion, there is no doubt, regarded St. Paul as the only genuine apostle,

the only one who remained true to his high calling. He taught that Christ,

after revealing himself in his divine power to the God of this world, and

confounding him unto submission, manifested himself to St. Paul,(399) and

commissioned him to preach the gospel.

He rejected all the Scriptures now accounted canonical, except the

Epistles of St. Paul, which formed with him an “Apostolicon,” in which

they were arranged in the following order:—The Epistle to the Galatians,

the First and Second to the Corinthians, the Epistles to the Romans, the

Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon, and to the

Philippians.(400)

Besides the Epistles of St. Paul, he made use of an original Gospel, which

he asserted was the evangelical record cited and used by Paul himself. The

other Canonical Gospels he rejected as corrupted by Judaizers.

This Gospel bore a close resemblance to that of St. Luke. “Marcion,” says

Irenaeus, “has disfigured the entire Gospel, he has reconstructed it after

his own fancy, and then boasts that he possesses the true Gospel.”(401)

Tertullian assures us that Marcion had cut out of St. Luke’s Gospel

whatever opposed his own doctrines, and retained only what was in favour

of them.(402) This statement, as we shall see presently, was not strictly

true.

Epiphanius is more precise. He goes most carefully over the Gospel used by

Marcion, and discusses every text which, he says, was modified by the

heretic.(403)

The charge of mutilating the Canonical Gospels was brought by the orthodox

Fathers against both the Ebionites on one side, and the Marcionites and

Valentinians on the other, because the Gospels they used did not exactly

agree with those employed by the middle party in the Church which

ultimately prevailed. But the extreme parties on their side made the same

charge against the Catholics.(404) It is not necessary to believe these

charges in every case.

If the Gospels(405) were compiled as in the manner I have contended they

were, such discrepancies must have occurred. Every Church had its own

collection of the “Logia” and of the “Practhenta” of Christ. The more

voluminous of these collections, those better strung together, thrust the

earlier, less complete, collections into the back‐ground. And these

collections were continually being augmented by the acquisition of fresh

material; and this new material was squeezed into the existing text, often

without much consideration for the chain of story or teaching which it

broke and dislocated.

Marcion was too conscientious and earnest a man wilfully to corrupt a

Gospel. He probably brought with him to Rome the Gospel in use at Sinope

in Pontus, of which city, according to one account, his father was bishop.

The Church in Sinope had for its first bishop, Philologus, the friend of

St. Paul, if we may trust the pseudo‐Hippolytus and Dorotheus. It is

probable that the Church of Sinope, when founded, was furnished by St.

Paul with a collection of the records of Christ’s life and teaching such

as he supplied to other “Asiatic” churches. And this collection was, no

doubt, made by his constant companion Luke.

Thus the Gospel of Marcion may be Luke’s original Gospel. But there is

every reason to believe that Luke’s Gospel went through considerable

alteration, probably passed through a second edition with considerable

additions to it made by the evangelist’s own hand, before it became what

it now is, the Canonical Luke.

He may have found reason to alter the arrangement of certain incidents; to

insert whole paragraphs which had come to him since he had composed his

first rough sketch; to change certain expressions where he found a

difference in accounts of the same sayings, or to combine several.

Moreover, the first edition was published in the full heat of the Pauline

controversy. Its strong Paulinianism lies on the surface. But afterwards,

when this excitement had passed away, and the popular misconception of

Pauline sola‐fidianism had become a general offence to morals and

religion, then Luke came under the influence of St. John, and tempered his

Gospel by adding to it incidents Paul did not care to have inserted in the

Gospel he wished his converts to receive, or the accuracy of which, as

disagreeing with his own views, he was disposed to question.

Of this I shall have more to say presently. It is necessary, in the first

place, briefly to show that Marcion’s Gospel contained a different

arrangement of the narrative from the Canonical Luke, and was without many

passages which it is not possible to believe he wilfully excluded. For

instance, in Marcion’s Gospel: “And as he entered into a certain village,

there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off: and they

lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. And

when he saw them, he said unto them, Go, show yourselves unto the priests.

And it came to pass, that as they went, they were cleansed. And many

lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them

was cleansed saving Naaman the Syrian. And one of them, when he saw that

he was healed,” &c. Here the order is Luke xvii. 12, 13, 14, iv. 27, xvii.

15. Such a disturbance of the text in the Canonical Gospel could serve no

purpose, would not support any peculiar view of Marcion, and cannot

therefore have been a wilful alteration. And in the first chapter of

Marcion’s Gospel this is the sequence of verses whose parallels in St.

Luke are: iii. 1, iv. 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 16, 20 21, 22,

23, 28, 29, 30, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44.

Thus the order of events is different in the two Gospels. Christ goes

first to Capernaum in the “Gospel of the Lord,” and afterwards to

Nazareth, an inversion of the order as given in the Gospel of St. Luke.

Again, in this instance, no purpose was served by this transposition. It

is unaccountable on the theory that Marcion corrupted the Gospel of Luke;

but if we suppose that Luke revised the arrangement of his Gospel after

its first publication, the explanation is simple enough.

But what is far more conclusive of the originality of Marcion’s Gospel is,

that his Gospel was without several passages which occur in St. Luke, and

which do apparently favour his views. Such are Luke xi. 51, xiii. 30 and

34, xx. 9‐16. These contain strong denunciations of the Jews by Jesus

Christ, and a positive declaration that they had fallen from their place

as the elect people. Marcion insisted on the abrogation of the Old

Covenant; it was a fundamental point in his system; he would consequently

have found in these passages powerful arguments in favour of his thesis.

He certainly would not have excluded them from his Gospel, had he tampered

with the text, as Irenaeus and Tertullian declare.

Yet Marcion would not scruple to use the knife upon a Gospel that came

into his hands, if he found in it passages that wholly upset his doctrine

of the Demiurge and of asceticism. For when the Church was full of

Gospels, and none were as yet settled authoritatively as canonical,

private opinion might, unrebuked, choose one Gospel and reject the others,

or subject any Gospel to critical supervision. The manner in which the

Gospels were composed laid them open to criticism. Any Church might

hesitate to accept a saying of our Lord, and incorporate it with the

Gospel with which it was acquainted, till satisfied that the saying was a

genuine, apostolic tradition. And how was a Church to be satisfied? By

internal evidence of genuineness, when the apostles themselves had passed

away. Consequently, each Church was obliged to exert its critical faculty

in the composition of its Gospel. And that the churches did exert their

judgment freely is evidenced by the mass of apocryphal matter which

remains, the dross after the refining, piled up in the Gospels of

Nicodemus, of the Infancy of Thomas, and of Joseph the Carpenter. All of

which was deliberately rejected as resting on no apostolic authority, as

not found in any Church to be read at the sacred mysteries, but as mere

folk‐tales buzzed about, nowhere producing credentials of authenticity.

Marcion, following St. Paul, declared that the Judaizing Church had

“corrupted the word of God,”(406) meaning such “logia” as, “I am not come

to destroy the Law or the Prophets.” “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot

or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all is

fulfilled.”(407) These texts would naturally find no place in the original

Pauline Gospels used by the Churches he had founded. In St. Luke’s Gospel,

accordingly, the Law and the Prophets are said to have been until John,

and since then the Gospel, “the kingdom of God.”(408) But the following

verse in St. Luke’s Gospel is, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass,

than one tittle of the Law to fail”—a contradiction of the immediately

preceding verse, which declares that the Law has ceased with the

proclamation of the Gospel. This verse, therefore, cannot have existed in

its present form in the original Gospel of St. Luke, and must have been

modified when a reconciliation had been effected between Petrine and

Pauline Christianity.

It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that the verse should read

differently in Marcion’s Gospel, which contains the uncorrupted original

passage, and runs thus “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than

for one tittle of my words to fail;” or perhaps, “It is easier for heaven

and earth to pass, than one tittle of the words of the Lord to fail;” for

in this instance we have not the exact words.(409)

But though Marcion certainly endured the presence of texts in his Gospel

which militated against his system, he may have cut out other passages.

Passages, or words only, which he thought had crept into the text without

authority. This can scarcely be denied when the texts are examined which

are wanting in his Gospel. No strong conservative attachment to any

particular Gospels had grown up in the Church as yet; no texts had been

authoritatively sanctioned. As late as the end of the second century (A.D.

190), the Church of Rhossus was using its own Gospel attributed to Peter,

till Serapion, bishop of Antioch, thinking that it contained Docetic

errors, probably because of omissions, suppressed it,(410) and substituted

for it, in all probability, one of the more generally approved Gospels.

The Church of Rhossus was neither heretical nor schismatical; it formed

part of the Catholic Church, and, no objection was raised against its use

of a Gospel of its own, till it was suggested that this Gospel contained

errors of doctrine. No question was raised whether it was an authentic

Gospel by Peter or not; the standard by which it was measured was the

traditional faith of the Church. It did not agree with this standard, and

was therefore displaced. St. Epiphanius and St. Jerome assert, probably

unjustifiably, that the orthodox did not hesitate to amend their Gospels,

if they thought there were passages in them objectionable or doubtful.

Thus they altered the passage in which Jesus is said to have wept over

Jerusalem (Luke xix. 41). St. Epiphanius frankly tells us so. “The

orthodox,” says he, “have eliminated these words, urged to it by fear, and

not feeling either their purpose or force.”(411) But it is more likely

that the weeping of Jesus over Jerusalem was inserted by Luke in his

Gospel at the time of reconciliation under St. John, so as to make the

Pauline Gospel exhibit Jesus moved with sympathy for the holy city, the

head‐quarters of the Law. The passage is not in Marcion’s Gospel; and

though it is possible he may have removed it, it is also possible that he

did not find it in the Pauline Gospel of the Church at Sinope.

St. Jerome says that Luke xxii. 43, 44, were also eliminated from some

copies of the Canonical Gospel. “The Greeks have taken the liberty of

extracting from their texts these two verses, for the same reason that

they removed the passage in which it is said he wept.... This can only

come from superstitious persons, who think that Jesus Christ could not

have become as weak as is represented.”(412) St. Hilary says that these

verses were not found in many Greek texts, or in some Latin ones.(413)

But here, also, the assertion of St. Jerome and St. Hilary cannot be taken

as a statement of fact, but rather as a conclusion drawn by them from the

fact that all copies of the Gospel of St. Luke did not contain these two

verses. They are wanting in the Gospel of our Lord, and may be an addition

made to the Gospel of St. Luke, after it had been first circulated. There

is reason to suppose that after St. Luke had written his Gospel,

additional matter may have been provided him, and that he published a

second, and enlarged, edition of his Gospel. Thus some Churches would be

in possession of the first edition, and others of the second, and Jerome

and Epiphanius, not knowing this, would conclude that those in possession

of the first had tampered with their text.

The Gospel of Marcion has been preserved to us almost in its entirety.

Tertullian regarded Marcionism as the most dangerous heresy of his day. He

wrote against it, and carefully went through the Marcionite Gospel to show

that it maintained the Catholic faith, though it differed somewhat from

the Gospel acknowledged by Tertullian, and that therefore Marcion’s

doctrine was untenable.(414) He does not charge Marcion with having

interpolated or curtailed a Canonical Gospel, for Marcion was ready to

retort the charge against the Gospel used by Tertullian.(415)

It is not probable that Tertullian passed over any passage in the “Gospel

of the Lord” which could by any means be made to serve against Marcion’s

system. This is the more probable, because Tertullian twists the texts to

serve his purpose which in the smallest degree lend themselves to being so

treated.(416)

St. Epiphanius has gone over much the same ground as Tertullian, but in a

different manner. He attempts to show how wickedly Marcion had corrupted

the Word of God, and how ineffectual his attempt had been, inasmuch as

passages in his corrupted Gospel served to destroy his system.

With these two purposes he went through the whole of the “Gospel of the

Lord,” and accompanied it with a string of notes, indicating all the

alterations and omissions he found in it. Each text from Marcion’s Gospel,

or Scholion, is accompanied by a refutation. Epiphanius is very

particular. He professes to disclose “the fraud of Marcion from beginning

to end.” And the pains he took to do this thoroughly appear from the

minute differences between the Gospels which he notices.(417) At the same

time, he does not extract long passages entire from the Gospel, but

indicates their subject, where they agreed exactly with the received text.

It is possible, therefore, that other slight differences may have existed

which escaped his eye, but the differences can only have been slight.

The following table gives the contents of the Gospel of Marcion. It

contains nothing that is not found in St. Luke’s Gospel. But some of the

passages do not agree exactly with the parallel passages in the Canonical

Gospel.

THE GOSPEL (Τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον).(418)

Chap. i.(419)

1. Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius

Pilate ruling in Judea, Jesus came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee,

and straightway on the Sabbath days, going into the synagogue, he

taught.(420)

2. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word was with power.

3. And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean

devil, and cried out with a loud voice,

4. Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, Jesus?(421) Art

thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.

5. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And

when the devil had thrown him in the midst, he came out of him, and hurt

him not.

6. And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a

word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean

spirits, and they come out.

7. And he arose out of the synagogue,(422) and entered into Simon’s house.

And Simon’s wife’s mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought

him for her.

8. And he stood over her, and rebuked the fever, and it left her: and

immediately she arose and ministered unto them.

9. And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round

about.

10. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.(423)

11. And he came to Nazareth;(424) and, as his custom was, he went into the

synagogue on the Sabbath day,(425) and he began to preach to them.(426)

12. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which

proceeded out of his mouth.(427)

13. And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb,

Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do

also here.(428)

14. But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of

Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great

famine was throughout the land;

15. But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of

Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.

16. And many lepers were in the time of Eliseus the prophet in

Israel,(429) and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.

17. And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were

filled with wrath,

18. And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow

of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down

headlong.

19. But he passing through the midst of them, went his way to

Capernaum.(430)

20. And when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with divers

diseases brought them unto him, &c. (as St. Luke iv. 40‐44).

Chap. ii.

Same as St. Luke v.

Verse 14 differed slightly. For εἰς μαρτύριον αὐτοῖς, Marcion’s Gospel had

ἵνα τοῦτο ἦ μαρτύριον ῦμιν, “that this may be a testimony to you.”

Chap. iii.

Same as St. Luke vi.

Verse 17, for μετ᾽ αὐτῶν, Marcion read ἐν αὐτοῖς; “among them” for “with

them.”

Chap. iv.

Same as St. Luke vii.

Verses 29‐35 omitted.

Chap. v.

Same as St. Luke viii.

But verse 19 was omitted by Marcion.

And verse 21 read: “And he answering, said unto them, Who is my mother,

and who are my brethren?(431) My mother and my brethren are these which

hear the word of God, and do it.”

Chap vi.

Same as St. Luke ix.

But verse 31 was omitted.

Chap. vii.

Same as St. Luke x.

But verse 21 read: “In that hour he rejoiced in the Spirit, and said, I

praise and thank thee, Lord of Heaven, that those things which were hidden

from the wise and prudent thou hast revealed to babes: even so, Father;

for so it seemed good in thy sight.”(432)

And verse 22 ran: “All things are delivered to me of my Father, and no man

hath known the Father save the Son, nor the Son save the Father, and he to

whom the Son hath revealed;”(433) in place of, “All things are delivered

to me of my Father; and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and

who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.”

And verse 25: “Doing what shall I obtain life?” “eternal,” αἰώνιον, being

omitted.

Chap. viii.

Same as St. Luke xi.

But verse 2: “When ye pray, say, Father, may thy Holy Spirit come to us,

thy kingdom come,” &c., in place of “Hallowed be thy name.”(434)

Verse 29: in Marcion’s Gospel it ended, “This is an evil generation: they

seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it.” What follows in St.

Luke’s Gospel, “but the sign of Jonas the prophet,” and verses 30‐32, were

omitted.

Verse 42: “Woe unto you, Pharisees! ye tithe mint and rue and all manner

of herbs, and pass over the calling(435) and the love of God,” &c.

Verses 49‐51 were omitted by Marcion.

Chap. ix.

Same as St. Luke xii.

But verses 6, 7, and “τῶν ἀγγέλων” in 8 and 9 omitted.

Verse 32 read: “Fear not, little flock; for it is the Father’s good

pleasure to give you the kingdom.”(436)

And verse 38 ran thus: “And if he shall come in the evening watch, and

find thus, blessed are those servants.”(437)

Chap. x.

Same as St. Luke xiii. 11‐28.

Marcion’s Gospel was without verses 1‐10.

Verse 28: for “Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets,” Marcion

read, “all the righteous,”(438) and added “held back” after “cast.”(439)

Verses 29‐35 of St. Luke’s chapter were not in Marcion’s Gospel.

Chap. xi.

Same as St. Luke xiv.

Verses 7‐11 omitted.

Chap. xii.

Same as St. Luke xv. 1‐10.

Verses 11‐32 omitted.

Chap. xiii.

Same as St. Luke xvi.

But verse 12: “If ye have not been faithful in that which is another

man’s, who will give you that which is mine?”(440)

And verse 17: for “One tittle of the Law shall not fall,” Marcion read,

“One tittle of my words shall not fall.”(441)

Chap. xiv.

Same as St. Luke xvii.

But verse 2: εἰ μὴ ἐγεννήθη, ἢ μύλος ὀνικὸς,(442) “if he had not been

born, or if a mill‐stone,” &c.

Verses 9, 10: Marcion’s Gospel had, “Doth he thank that servant because he

did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise do ye,

when ye shall have done all those things that are commanded you.”

Omitting, “Say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was

our duty to do.”

Verse 14: “And he sent them away, saying, Go show yourselves unto the

priests,” &c., in place of, “And when he saw them, he said unto them,”

&c.(443)

Verse 18 ran: “These are not found returning to give glory to God. And

there were many lepers in the time of Eliseus the prophet in Israel; and

none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.”(444)

Chap. xv.

Same as St. Luke xviii. 1‐30, 35‐43.

Verse 19: “Jesus said to him, Do not call me good; one is good, the

Father.”(445)

Verses 31‐34 were absent from Marcion’s Gospel.

Chap. xvi.

Same as St. Luke xix. 1‐28.

Verses 29‐48 absent.

Verse 9: “For that he also is a son of Abraham,” was not in Marcion’s

text.

Chap. xvii.

Same as St. Luke xx. 1‐8, 19‐36, 39‐47.

Verses 9‐18 not in Marcion’s Gospel.

Verse 19: “They perceived that he had spoken this parable against them,”

not in Marcion’s text.

Verse 35: “But they which shall be accounted worthy of God to obtain that

world,” &c.(446)

Verses 37, 38, omitted.

Chap. xviii.

Same as St. Luke xxi. 1‐17, 19, 20, 23‐38.

Verses 18, 21, 22, were not in Marcion’s Gospel.

Chap. xix.

Same as St. Luke xxii. 1‐15, 19‐27, 31‐34, 39‐48, 52‐71.

Verses absent were therefore 16‐18, 28‐30, 35‐38, 45‐51.

Chap. xx.

Same as St. Luke xxiii.

Verse 2: “And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this one

perverting the nation, and destroying the Law and the Prophets, and

forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and leading away the women and

children.”(447)

Verse 43: “Verily I say unto thee, To‐day shalt thou be with me.”(448)

Chap. xxi.

Same as St. Luke xxiv. 1‐26, 28‐51.

Verse 25: “O fools and sluggish‐hearted in believing all those things

which he said to you,” in place of, “in believing all those things which

the prophets spake.”(449)

Verse 27 was omitted.

Verse 32: “And while he opened to us the Scriptures,” omitted.

Verse 44: “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet

with you.” What follows in St. Luke, “that all things must be fulfilled,

which were written in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms,

concerning me,” was omitted.

Verse 45 was omitted.

Verse 46 ran: “That thus it behoved Christ to suffer,” &c.; so that the

whole sentence read, “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I

was yet with you, That thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from

the dead the third day.”

Verses 52 and 53 were omitted.

I shall now make a few remarks on some of the passages absent from

Marcion’s Gospel, or which, in it, differ from the Canonical Gospel of St.

Luke.

1. It was not attributed to St. Luke. It was Τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον, not κατὰ

Λουκᾶν. Tertullian explicitly says, “Marcion inscribes no name on his

Gospel,”(450) and in the “Dialogue on the Right Faith” it is asserted that

he protested his Gospel was _the_ Gospel, the only one; and that the

multiplicity of Gospels used by Catholics, and their discrepancies, were a

proof that none of these other Gospels were genuine. He even went so far

as to assert that his Gospel was written by Christ,(451) and when closely

pressed on this point, and asked whether Christ wrote the account of his

own passion and resurrection, he said it was so, but afterwards hesitated,

and asserted that it was probably added by St. Paul.

This shows plainly enough that Marcion had received the Gospel, probably

from the Church of Sinope, where it was the only one known, and that he

had heard nothing about St. Luke as its author; indeed, knew nothing of

its origin. He treated it with the utmost veneration, and in his

veneration for it attributed its authorship to the Lord himself; supposing

the words of St. Paul, “the Gospel of Christ,”(452) “the Gospel of his

Son,”(453) “the Gospel of God,”(454) to mean that Jesus Christ was the

actual author of the book.

Marcion, it may be remarked, would have had no objection to acknowledging

St. Luke as the compiler of the Gospel, as that evangelist was a devoted

follower of St. Paul. If he did not do so, it was because at Sinope the

Gospel read in the Church was not known by his name.

2. Marcion’s Gospel was without the Preface, Luke i. 1‐4.

This Preface is certainly by St. Luke, but was added, we may conjecture,

after the final revision of his Gospel, when he issued the second edition.

Its absence from Marcion’s Gospel shows that it did not accompany the

first edition.

3. The narrative of the nativity, Luke i. ii., is not in Marcion’s Gospel.

It has been supposed by critics that he omitted this narrative purposely,

because his Christ was descended from the highest God, had no part with

the world of the Demiurge, and had therefore no earthly mother.(455) But

if so, why did Marcion suffer the words, “Thy mother and thy brethren

stand without desiring to see thee” (Luke viii. 20), to remain in his

Gospel?

And it does not appear that Marcion denied the incarnation _in toto_, and

went to the full extreme of Docetic doctrine. On the contrary, he taught

that Christ deceived the God of this World, by coming into it as a man.

The Demiurge trusted he would be his Messiah, to confirm the Law for ever.

But when he saw that Christ was destroying the Law, he inflicted on him

death. And this was only possible, because Christ was, through his human

nature, subject to his power.

It is a less violent supposition that in the Church of Sinope the Gospel

was, like that of St. Mark, without a narrative of the nativity and

childhood of Jesus. It is probable, moreover, that the first two chapters

of St. Luke’s Gospel were added at a later period. The account of the

nativity and childhood is taken from the mouths of the blessed Virgin

Mary, of eye‐witnesses, or contemporaries. “Mary kept all these things and

pondered them in her heart,” and “His mother kept all these sayings in her

heart.”(456) This is our guaranty that the story is true. Mary kept them

in memory, and the evangelist appeals to her memory for them. So with

regard to the account of the nativity of the Baptist, “All they that heard

these things laid them up in their hearts.”(457) To their recollections

also the evangelist appeals as his authority.

Now it is not probable that St. Luke or St. Paul were brought in contact

with the Virgin and the people about Hebron, relatives of the Baptist.

Their lives were spent in Asia Minor. But St. John, we know, became the

guardian of the blessed Virgin after the death of Christ.(458) Greek

ecclesiastical tradition declares that she accompanied him to Ephesus. But

be that as it may, St. John almost certainly would have tenderly and

reverently collected the “memorabilia” of the blessed Mother concerning

her Divine Son’s birth and infancy.

St. John had the organizing and disciplining of the “Asiatic” churches

founded by St. Paul after the removal of the Apostle of the Gentiles. When

he came to Ephesus, and went through the Churches of Asia Minor, he found

a Gospel compiled by St. Luke in general use. To this he added such

particulars as were expedient to complete it, amongst others the

“recollections” of St. Mary, and the relatives of the Baptist. It is most

probable that he gave them to St. Luke to work into his narrative, and

thus to form a second edition of his Gospel.(459) That the Gospel of St.

Luke was retouched after the abatement of the anti‐legal excitement can

hardly be doubted. We shall see instances as we proceed.

4. The section relating to the Baptist (Luke iii. 2‐19), with which the

most ancient Judaizing Gospels opened, was absent from that of Marcion.

John belonged to the Old Covenant; he could not therefore be regarded as

revealing the Gospel of the unknown God. This is thought by Baur,

Hilgenfeld and Volckmar, to be the reason of the omission. But the

explanation is strained. I think it probable, as stated above, that St.

Luke when with St. Paul had not got the narrative of those who had heard

and seen the birth of the Baptist and his preaching beyond Jordan. Had

Marcion, moreover, objected to the Baptist as belonging to the Old

Covenant, he would not have suffered the presence in his Gospel of the

passage, Luke vii. 24‐28, containing the high commendation of John, “This

is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,

which shall prepare the way before thee.”

5. There is no mention in Marcion’s Gospel of the baptism of our Lord

(Luke iii. 21, 22). This is given very briefly in St. Luke’s Gospel. To

the Nazarene Church this event was of the utmost importance; it was

regarded as the beginning of the mission of Jesus, the ratification by God

of his Messiahship, and therefore the Gospels of Mark and of the Hebrews

opened with it. But the significance was not so deeply felt by the Gentile

converts, and therefore the circumstance is despatched in a few words.

6. The genealogy of Joseph is not given (Luke iii. 23‐38). This is not to

be wondered at. It is an evidently late interpolation, clumsily foisted

into the sacred text, rudely interrupting the narrative.

(21): “Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus

also being baptized, and praying, the heaven opened, (22) and the Holy

Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came

from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well

pleased. (iv. 1): And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from

Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness.” Such is the

natural order. But it is interrupted by the generation of Joseph, the

supposed father of Jesus, from Adam. This generation does not concern

Jesus at all, but it came through some Jewish Christians into the hands of

the Church in Asia Minor, and was forced between the joints of the sacred

text, to the interruption of the narrative and the succession of

ideas.(460) Marcion had it not in the Gospel brought from Pontus.

7. The narrative of the Temptation is not in Marcion’s Gospel. It can have

been no omission of his, for it would have tallied admirably with his

doctrine. He held that the God of this world believed Christ at first to

be the Messiah, but finally was undeceived. In the narrative of the

Temptation the devil offers Christ all the kingdoms of the world and the

glory of them. He takes the position which in Marcion’s scheme was

occupied by the Demiurge. Had he possessed the record of the Temptation,

it would have mightily strengthened his position.

8. The “Gospel of our Lord” opens with the words, “In the fifteenth year

of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate ruling in Judaea (ἡγεμονεύοντος in

place of ἐπιτροπεύοντος, an unimportant difference), Jesus came down to

Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and straightway on the Sabbath days, going

into the synagogue, he taught” (εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὴν συναγωγὴν ἐδίδασκε in

place of καὶ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν), again an unimportant

variation.

9. The words “Jesus of Nazareth”(461) are in Marcion’s Gospel simply

“Jesus.” This may have been done by Marcion on purpose. But there is no

evidence that it was omitted in xxiv. 19.

10. The order of events, as given in Luke iv., is changed. Jesus, in

Marcion’s Gospel, goes first to Capernaum, and then to Nazareth, reversing

the order in St. Luke.

THE GOSPEL OF THE LORD. THE GOSPEL OF ST. LUKE, iv.

14‐40.

9. Christ goes to Capernaum, 1. Christ comes into Galilee,

and enters the synagogue to and the fame of him goes round

teach. about (14).

10. All are astonished at his 2. He teaches in the

doctrine and power. synagogues of Galilee, being

glorified of all (15).

11. He heals the demoniac.

12. All are amazed at his 3. He comes to Nazareth, and

power. goes into the synagogue (16).

14. He enters Simon’s house, 4. He opens Esaias, and

and heals his wife’s mother. interprets his prophecy

(17‐21).

13. His fame spreads.

2. He teaches in the 5. All bare him witness, and

synagogues, being glorified of wonder at his gracious words,

all. but ask if he is not Joseph’s

son (22).

3. He comes to Nazareth, and

goes into the synagogue.

5. All bare him witness, and 6. Christ quotes a proverb,

wonder at his gracious words. and combats it (23‐27).

6. Christ quotes a proverb, 7. The Nazarenes seek to throw

and combats it. him down a precipice (28, 29).

7. The Nazarenes seek to throw

him down a precipice.

8. He escapes, and goes to 8. He escapes, and goes to

Capernaum. Capernaum (30, 31).

15. At sunset he heals the 9. He teaches in the synagogue

sick. at Capernaum (31).

10. All are astonished at his

doctrine and power (32).

11. He heals the demoniac

(33‐35).

12. All are amazed at his

power (36).

13. His fame spreads (37).

14. He enters Simon’s house,

and heals his wife’s mother

(38, 39).

15. At sunset he heals the

sick (40).

By placing the subject‐matter of the two narratives side by side, and

numbering that of St. Luke consecutively, and giving the corresponding

paragraphs, with their numbers as in Luke’s order, arranged in the

Marcionite succession, the reader is able at once to see the difference.

No doctrinal question was touched by this transposition. The only

explanation of it which is satisfactory is that each Gospel contained

fragments which were pieced together differently. One block consisted of

paragraphs 2‐8; another, of paragraphs 9‐14; another 15. Besides these

blocks, there were chips, splinters, the paragraphs 1, 13, 15. Marcion’s

Gospel was without 1 and 4.

Par. 2, verse 15: “He taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all,”

was common to both Gospels. In Marcion’s, most appropriately, it came

after Christ has performed miracles; less judiciously in Luke’s does it

come before the performance of miracles.

Par. 13: “And the fame of him went out into every place of the country

round about.” St. Luke put this after Christ had taught in Nazareth and

Capernaum; in Marcion’s Gospel it was before he had been to Nazareth, but

immediately after the healing of Simon’s wife’s mother. It ought probably

to occupy the place assigned it in Marcion’s text. The fame of Christ

spreads. They in Nazareth hear of it, and say, “What we have heard done in

Capernaum, do also here.”

Par. 15: “Now when the sun was setting, all they that had any sick with

divers diseases brought them unto him,” &c., as in St. Luke iv. 40, 41.

This Marcion’s Gospel has immediately after the healing of the sick wife

of Simon, as though the rumour of the miracle attracted all who had sick

relations to bring them to Christ. No doubt the paragraph should rightly

stand in connection with this miracle of healing the fevered woman.

But there are omissions supposed to have been made purposely by Marcion.

In verse 16 of St. Luke’s Gospel, c. iv.: “He came to Nazareth, where he

had been brought up,” in the “Gospel of the Lord” ran, “He came to

Nazareth” only. But it is not improbable that “where he had been brought

up” was a gloss which crept into the text after the addition of the

narrative of the early years of Christ had been added to the Canonical

Gospel.

All the reading from the prophet Esaias, and the exposition of the

prophecy (Luke iv. 17‐21) was omitted, there can be small question, by

Marcion, because it mutilated against his views touching the prophets as

ministers, not of the God of Christ, but of the God of this world.

Luke iv. 23: “Do also here in thy country,” changed into, “Do also here.”

It is possible that “in thy country” may be a gloss which has crept into a

later text of St. Luke’s Gospel, or was inserted by Luke in his second

edition.

11. Luke vii. 29‐35 are wanting in Marcion’s Gospel. That verses 29‐32

should have been purposely excluded, it is impossible to suppose, as they

favoured Marcion’s tenets. It has been argued that the rest of the verses,

33‐35, were cut out by Marcion because in verse 34 it is said, “The Son of

Man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man and a

winebibber.” But the “Gospel of the Lord” contained Luke v. 33: “Why do

the disciples of John fast often, and make long prayers, and likewise the

disciples of the Pharisees; but thine eat and drink;” and the example of

Christ going to the feast prepared by Levi is retained (v. 29).

12. Luke viii. 19: “Then came to him his mother and his brethren,” &c.,

omitted; but the next verse, “And it was told him by certain which said,

Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.” This

cannot be admitted as a mutilation by Marcion. Had he cut out verse 19, he

would also have removed verse 20. Rather is verse 19 an amplification of

the original text. The “saying” of Jesus was known in the “Asiatic”

churches; and when Luke wove it into the text of his Gospel, he introduced

it with the words, “Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and

could not come at him for the press,” words not necessary, but deducible

from the preserved text, and useful as introducing it.

13. Luke x. 21: “In that hour he rejoiced in the spirit, and said, I

praise and thank thee, Lord of heaven, that those things which are hidden

from the wise and prudent thou hast revealed to babes.” The version in

Luke’s Gospel may have been tampered with by Marcion, lest God should

appear harsh in hiding “those things from the wise and prudent.” But it is

more likely that Marcion’s text is the correct one. Why should Christ

thank God that he has hidden the truth from the wise and prudent? The

reading in Marcion’s Gospel is not only a better one, but it also appears

to be an independent one. He has, “I praise and thank thee.” The received

text differs in different codices; in some, Jesus rejoices “in the

Spirit;” in others, “in the Holy Spirit.”

14. Luke x. 22: “All things are delivered to me of my Father, and no man

hath known the Father save the Son, nor the Son save the Father, and he to

whom the Son hath revealed him.” No doctrinal purpose was effected by the

change. It is therefore probable that the Sinope Gospel ran as in

Marcion’s text.

15. Luke x. 25: “Doing what shall I obtain life?” “eternal” being omitted,

it is thought, lest Jesus should seem to teach that eternal life was to be

obtained by fulfilling the Law.(462) But Marcion did not alter the same

question when asked by the ruler, in Luke xviii. 18; for then Christ,

after he has referred him to the Law, goes on to impose on him a higher

law—that of love. But “eternal” may be an addition to Luke’s text in the

second edition.

16. The first petition in the Lord’s Prayer differs in Marcion’s Gospel

from that in St. Luke. Marcion has, “Father! may thy Holy Spirit come to

us, Thy kingdom come,” &c., instead of, “Father! (which art in heaven—not

in the most ancient copies of St. Luke) Hallowed be thy name,” &c. No

purpose was served by this difference; and we must not attribute to

Marcion in this instance wilful alteration of the sacred text. It is

apparent that several versions of the Lord’s Prayer existed in the first

age of the Church, and that this was the form in which it was accepted and

used in Pontus, perhaps throughout Asia Minor.

That the Lord’s Prayer in St. Luke’s Gospel stood originally as in

Marcion’s Gospel is made almost certain by verse 13. After giving the form

of prayer, xi. 2‐4, Christ instructs his disciples on the readiness of God

to answer prayer. “And,” he continues, “if ye then, being evil, know how

to give good gifts unto your children; how much more shall your heavenly

Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” How ready will He be to

give that which you have learned to ask in the first petition of the

prayer I have just taught you! The petition was altered in the received

text later, to accommodate it to the form given in St. Matthew’s Gospel.

17. Luke xi. 29: “There shall no sign be given.” What follows in St.

Luke’s Gospel, “but the sign of the prophet Jonas,” and verses 30‐32, were

not found in Marcion’s Gospel. Perhaps all this was inserted in the second

edition of St. Luke’s Gospel. But also perhaps the allusions to the

Ninevites and the Queen of the South were omitted, because of the

condemnation pronounced on the generation which received not Christ

through them; and Jesus was not the manifestation of the God of judgment,

but of the God of mercy.

18. So also “judgment” was turned into “calling,” in verse 42; and also

the verses 49‐51, in which the blood of the prophets is said to be

“required of this generation.”

19. Luke xii. 38: “The evening watch” is perhaps an earlier reading than

the received one: “If he shall come in the second watch, or come in the

third watch;” which has the appearance of an expansion of the simpler

text.

The evening watch was the first watch. The Christians in the first age

thought that our Lord would come again immediately. But as he did not

return again in glory in the first watch, they altered the text to “the

second watch or the third watch.” Consequently Marcion’s text is the

original unaltered one.

20. Luke xii. 6, 7: “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not

one of them is forgotten before God? But even the very hairs of your head

are all numbered. Fear not therefore; ye are of more value than many

sparrows.” Perhaps Marcion omitted this because he did not hold that the

Supreme God concerned Himself with the fate of men’s bodies.

But more probably the passage did not occur in the original Pauline

Gospel, but was grafted into it afterwards when St. Matthew’s Gospel came

into the hands of the Asiatic Christians, when it was transferred from it

(x. 29‐31) verbatim to Luke’s Gospel.

21. Marcion’s Gospel was without Luke xiii. 1‐10.

The absence of the account of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had

mingled with their sacrifices, and of those on whom the tower in Siloam

fell, which occurs in the received text, removes a difficulty. St. Luke

says, “There were present at that season some that told him of the

Galilaeans, whose blood,” &c., as though it were a circumstance which had

just taken place, whereas this act of barbarity was committed when

Quirinus, not Pilate, was governor, twenty‐four years before the

appearance of Jesus. And no tower in Siloam is mentioned in any account of

Jerusalem. The mention of the Galilaeans in the canonical text has the

appearance of an anachronism, and probably did not exist in the Gospel

which Marcion received, and was a late addition to the Gospel of Luke.

The parable of the fig‐tree which follows may, however, have been removed

by Marcion lest the Supreme God should appear as a God of judgment against

those who produced no fruit, _i.e._ did no works. But it is more probable

that this parable, which has an anti‐Pauline moral, was not in the

original edition of Luke’s Gospel.

22. Luke xii. i 28: “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye

shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the

kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out,” altered into, “when ye

shall see all the righteous in the kingdom of God, and ye yourselves cast

and held back without.”(463)

The change of “the righteous” into “Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob,” in the

deutero‐Luke, clearly disturbs the train of thought. Ye Jews shall weep

when ye see the δικαίοι, those made righteous through faith, by the

righteousness which is _not_ of the Law, Gentiles from East and West, in

the kingdom, and ye yourselves cast out.

Hilgenfeld thinks that the account of the Judgment by St. Matthew and St.

Luke is couched in terms coloured by the respective parties to which the

evangelists belonged, and that the sentences on the lost are sharpened to

pierce the antagonistic party. Thus, in the Gospel of St. Luke, Christ

dooms to woe those who are workers of unrighteousness, ἐργάται

ἀδικίας,(464) using the Pauline favourite expression to designate those

who are cast out to weeping and gnashing of teeth, as men who have not

received the righteousness which is of faith; whereas, in St. Matthew it

is the workers of anomia, οἱ ἐργαζόμενοι τὴν ἀνομίαν,(465) by which

Hilgenfeld thinks the Pauline anti‐legalists are not obscurely hinted at,

who are hurled into outer darkness. In St. Luke it is curious to notice

how the lost are described as Jews: “We have eaten and drunk in thy

presence, and thou hast taught in our streets;” whereas the elect who “sit

down in the kingdom of God” come “from the east and from the west, and

from the north and from the south,” that is to say, are Gentiles.

In Marcion’s text we have therefore the ἀδικαίοι shut and cast out, and

the δικαίοι sitting overthroned in the kingdom of God. It can scarcely be

doubted that this is the correct reading, and that “Abraham, Isaac and

Jacob,” was substituted for δικαίοι at a later period with a conciliatory

purpose.

The rest of the chapter, 31‐35, is not to be found in Marcion’s Gospel.

The first who are to be last, and the last first, not obscurely means that

the Gentiles shall precede the Jews. This was in the “Gospel of the Lord,”

which was, however, without the warning given to Christ, “Get thee out,

and depart hence; for Herod will kill thee,” and the lamentation of the

Saviour over the holy city, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the

prophets,” &c. Why Marcion should omit this is not clear. It was probably

not in the Gospel of Sinope.

23. Luke xiv. 7‐11. The same may be said of the parable put forth to those

bidden to a feast, when Christ marked how they chose out the chief rooms.

It has been supposed by critics that Marcion omitted it, lest Jesus should

seem to sanction feasting; but this reason is far‐fetched, and it must be

remembered that he did retain Luke v. 29 and 33.

24. Luke xv. 11‐32. The parable of the Prodigal Son is omitted. That it is

left out, as is suggested by some critics, because the elder son signifies

mystically the Jewish Church, and the prodigal son represents the Heathen

world, is to transfer such allegorical interpretations back to an earlier

age than we are justified in doing. Marcion was not bound to admit such an

interpretation of the parable, if received in his day. Marcion, moreover,

opposed allegorizing the sayings of Scripture, and insisted on their

literal interpretation. Neander says, “The other Gnostics united with

their theosophical idealism a mystical, allegorizing interpretation of the

Scriptures. Marcion, simple in heart, was decidedly opposed to this

artificial method of interpretation. He was a zealous advocate of the

literal interpretation which prevailed among the antagonists of

Gnosticism.”(466) It is therefore most improbable that a popular

interpretation of this parable, if such an interpretation existed at that

time, should have induced Marcion to omit the parable.

25. Luke xvi. 12: “If ye have not been faithful in that which is another

man’s, who will give you that which is mine?” Surely a reading far

preferable to that in the Canonical Gospel, “who will give you that which

is your own?”

26. Luke, xvi. 17: “One tittle of my words shall not fall,” in place of,

“One tittle of the Law shall not fall.” As has been already remarked, the

reading in St. Luke is evidently corrupt, altered deliberately by the

party of conciliation. Marcion’s is the genuine text.

27. Luke xvii. 9, 10. The saying, “We are unprofitable servants; we have

done that which was our duty to do,” was perhaps omitted by Marcion, lest

the Gospel should seem to sanction the idea that any obligation whatever

rested on the believer. The received text is thoroughly Pauline,

inculcating the worthlessness of man’s righteousness. Hahn and Ritschl

argue that the whole of the parable, 7‐10, was not in Marcion’s Gospel;

and this is probable, though St. Epiphanius only says that Marcion cut

out, “We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty

to do.”(467) The whole Parable has such a Pauline ring, that it would

probably have been accepted in its entirety by Marcion, if his Gospel had

contained it; and the parable is divested of its point and meaning if only

the few words are omitted which St. Epiphanius mentions as deficient.

28. Luke xvii. 18: “There are not found returning to give glory to God.

And there were many lepers in the time of Eliseus the prophet in Israel;

and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.” In the Gospel of

the Lord, this passage concerning the lepers in the time of Eliseus occurs

_twice_; once in chap. i. v. 15, as already given, and again here. It has

been preserved in St. Luke’s Gospel in only one place, in that

corresponding with Marcion i. 15, viz. Luke iv. 27.

It is clear that this was a fragmentary saying of our Lord drifting about,

which the compiler of the Sinope Gospel inserted in two places where it

thought it would fit in with other passages. When St. Luke’s Gospel was

revised, it was found that this passage occurred twice, and that it was

without appropriateness in chap. xvii. after verse 18, and was therefore

cut out. But in Marcion’s Gospel it remained, a monument of the manner in

which the Gospels were originally constructed.

29. Luke xviii. 19. Marcion had: “Jesus said to him, Do not call me good;

one is good, the Father;” another version of the text, not a deliberate

alteration.

30. Luke xviii. 31‐34. The prophecies of the passion omitted by Marcion.

31. Luke xix. 29‐46. The ride into Jerusalem on an ass, and the expulsion

of the buyers and sellers from the Temple, are omitted.

Why the Palm‐Sunday triumphal entry should have been excluded does not

appear. In St. Luke’s Gospel Jesus is not hailed as “King of the Jews” and

“Son of David.” Had this been the case, these two titles, we may conclude,

would have been eliminated from the narrative; but we see no reason why

the whole account should be swept away. It probably did not exist in the

original Gospel Marcion obtained in Pontus.

Did Marcion cut out the narrative of the expulsion of the buyers and

sellers from the Temple? I think not. St. John, in his Gospel, gives that

event in his second chapter as occurring, not at the close of the ministry

of Christ, but at its opening.

St. John is the only evangelist who can be safely relied upon for giving

the chronological order of events. St. Matthew, as has been already shown,

did not write the acts of our Lord, but his sayings only; and St. Mark was

no eye‐witness.

A Pauline Gospel would not contain the account of the purifying of the

Temple, and the saying, “My house is the house of prayer.” But when St.

Matthew’s Gospel, or St. Mark’s, found its way into Asia Minor, this

passage was extracted from one of them, and interpolated in the Lucan

text, in the same place where it occurred in those Gospels—at the end of

the ministry, and therefore in the wrong place.

32. Luke xx. 9‐18. The parable of the vineyard and the husbandmen. This

Marcion probably omitted because it made the Lord of the vineyard, who

sent forth the prophets, the same as the Lord who sent his son. The lord

of the vineyard to Marcion was the Demiurge, but the Supreme Lord sent

Christ.

33. Luke xx. 37, 38, omitted by Marcion, because a reference to Moses, and

God, as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

34. Luke xxi. 18: “There shall not an hair of your head perish,” omitted,

perhaps, lest the God of heaven, whom Christ revealed, should appear to

concern himself about the vile bodies of men, under the dominion of the

God of this world; but more probably this verse did not exist in the

original text. The awkwardness of its position has led many critics to

reject it as an interpolation,(468) and the fact of Marcion’s Gospel being

without it goes far to prove that the original Luke Gospel was without it.

35. Luke xxi. 21, 22. The warning given by our Lord to his disciples to

flee from Jerusalem when they see it encompassed with armies. Verse 21 was

omitted no doubt because of the words, “These be the days of vengeance,

that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” This jarred with

Marcion’s conception of the Supreme God as one of mercy, and of Jesus as

proclaiming blessings and forgiveness, in place of the vengeance and

justice of the World‐God.

36. Luke xxii. 16‐18. The distribution of the paschal cup among the

disciples is omitted.

37. Luke xxii. 28‐30. The promise that the apostles should eat and drink

in Christ’s kingdom and judge the twelve tribes, was omitted by Marcion,

as inconsistent with his views of the spiritual nature of the heavenly

kingdom; and that judgment should be committed by the God of free

forgiveness to the apostles, was in his sight impossible. Why Luke xxiii.

43, 47‐49, were not in Marcion’s Gospel does not appear; they can hardly

have been omitted purposely.

38. Luke xxiii. 2. In Marcion’s Gospel it ran: “And they began to accuse

him, saying, We found this one perverting the nation, and destroying the

Law and the Prophets, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and

leading away the women and children.”

It is not possible that Marcion should have forced the words “destroying

the Law and the Prophets” into the text, for these are the accusations of

_false_ witnesses. And this is precisely what Marcion taught that Christ

had come to do. Both this accusation and that other, that he drew away

after him the women and children from their homes and domestic duties and

responsibilities, most probably did exist in the original text. It is not

improbable that they were both made to disappear from the authorized text

later, when the conciliatory movement began.

39. Luke xxiv. 43. In Marcion’s Gospel, either the whole of the verse,

“Verily, I say unto thee, To‐day shalt thou be with me in Paradise,” was

omitted, or more probably only the words “in Paradise.” Marcion would not

have purposely cut out such an instance of free acceptance of one who had

all his life transgressed the Law, but he may have cancelled the words “in

Paradise.”

40. Luke xxiv. 25 stood in Marcion’s Gospel, “O fools, and in heart slow

to believe all that he spake unto you;” and 27 and 45, which relate that

Jesus explained to the two disciples out of Moses and the Prophets how he

must suffer, and that he opened their understanding to understand the

Scriptures, were both absent.

41. Luke xxiv. 46. Instead of Christ appealing to the Prophets, Marcion

made him say, “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet

with you, that thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead

the third day.” This was possibly Marcion’s doing.

The other differences between Marcion’s Gospel and the Canonical Gospel of

St. Luke are so small, that the reader need not be troubled with them

here. For a fuller and more particular account of Marcion’s Gospel he is

referred to the works indicated in the footnote.(469)

It will be seen from the list of differences between the “Gospel of our

Lord” and the Gospel of St. Luke, that all the apparent omissions cannot

be attributed to Marcion. The Gospel he had he regarded with supreme awe;

it was because his Gospel was so ancient, so hallowed by use through many

years, that it was invested by him with sovereign authority, and that he

regarded the other Gospels as apocryphal, or at best only deutero‐

canonical.

It is by no means certain that even where his Gospel has been apparently

tampered with to suit his views, his hands made the alterations in it.

What amplifications St. Luke’s Gospel passed through when it underwent

revision for a second edition, we cannot tell.

The Gospel of our Lord, if not the original Luke Gospel—and this is

probable—was the basis of Luke’s compilation. But that it was Luke’s first

edition of his Gospel, drawn up when St. Paul was actively engaged in

founding Asiatic Churches, is the view I am disposed to take of it. As

soon as a Church was founded, the need of a Gospel was felt. To satisfy

this want, Paul employed Luke to collect memorials of the Lord’s life, and

weave them together into an historical narrative.

The Gospel of our Lord contains nothing which is not found in that of St.

Luke. The arrangement is so similar, that we are forced to the conclusion

that it was either used by St. Luke, or that it was his original

composition. If he used it, then his right to the title of author of the

third Canonical Gospel falls to the ground, as what he added was of small

amount. Who then composed the Gospel? We know of no one to whom tradition

even at that early age attributed it.

St. Luke was the associate of St. Paul; ecclesiastical tradition

attributes to him a Gospel. That of “Our Lord” closely resembles the

Canonical Luke’s Gospel, and bears evidence of being earlier in

composition, whilst that which is canonical bears evidence of later

manipulation. All these facts point to Marcion’s Gospel as the original

St. Luke—not, however, quite as it came to Marcion, but edited by the

heretic.

That the first edition of Luke bore a stronger Pauline impress than the

second is also probable. The Canonical Luke has the Pauline stamp on it

still, but beside it is the Johannite seal. More fully than any other

Gospel does it bring out the tenderness of Christ towards sinners, a

feature which has ever made it exceeding precious to those who have been

captives and blind and bruised, and to whom that Gospel proclaims Christ

as their deliverer, enlightener and healer.(470)

It is not necessary here to point out the finger‐mark of Paul in this

Gospel; it has been often and well done by others. It is an established

fact, scarcely admitting dispute, that to him it owes its colour, and that

it reflects his teaching.(471)

And it was this Gospel, in its primitive form, before it had passed under

the hands of St. John, or had been recast by its author, that I think we

may be satisfied Marcion possessed. That he made a few erasures is

probable, I may almost say certain; but that he ruthlessly carved it to

suit his purpose cannot be established.

Of the value of Marcion’s Gospel for determining the original text of the

third Gospel, it is difficult to speak too highly.

II. The Gospel Of Truth.

Valentine, by birth an Egyptian, probably of Jewish descent, it may be

presumed received his education at Alexandria. From this city he travelled

to Rome (circ. A.D. 140); in both places he preached the Catholic faith,

and then retired to Cyprus.(472) A miserable bigotry which refused to see

in a heretic any motives but those which are evil, declared that in

disgust at not obtaining a bishopric which he coveted, and to which a

confessor was preferred, Valentine lapsed into heresy. We need no such

explanation of the cause of his secession from orthodoxy. He was a man of

an active mind and ardent zeal. Christian doctrine was then a system of

facts; theology was as yet unborn. What philosophic truths lay at the

foundation of Christian belief was unsuspected. Valentine could not thus

rest. He strove to break through the hard facts to the principles on which

they reposed. He was a pioneer in Christian theology.

And for his venturous essay he was well qualified. His studies at

Alexandria had brought him in contact with Philonism and with Platonism.

He obtained at Cyprus an acquaintance with the doctrines of Basilides. His

mind caught fire, his ideas expanded. The Gnostic seemed to him to open

gleams of light through the facts of the faith he had hitherto professed

with dull, unintelligent submission; and he placed himself under the

inspiration and instruction of Basilides.

But he did not follow him blindly. The speculations of the Gnostic kindled

a train of ideas which were peculiarly Valentine’s own.

The age was not one to listen patiently to his theorizing. Men were called

on to bear testimony by their lives to facts. They could endure the rack,

the scourge, the thumbscrew, the iron rake, for facts, not for ideas. That

Jesus had lived and died and mounted to heaven, was enough for their

simple minds. They cared nothing, they made no effort to understand, what

were the causes of evil, what its relation to matter.

Consequently Valentine met with cold indifference, then with hot

abhorrence. He was excommunicated. Separation embittered him. His respect

for orthodoxy was gone; its hold upon him was lost; and he allowed himself

to drift in the wide sea of theosophic speculation wherever his ideas

carried him.

Valentine taught that in the Godhead, exerting creative power were

manifest two motions—a positive, the evolving, creative, life‐giving

element; and the negative, which determined, shaped and localized the

creative force. From the positive force came life, from the negative the

direction life takes in its manifestation.

The world is the revelation of the divine ideas, gradually unfolding

themselves, and Christ and redemption are the perfection and end of

creation. Through creation the idea goes forth from God; through Christ

the idea perfected returns to the bosom of God. Redemption is the recoil

wave of creation, the echo of the fiat returning to the Creator’s ear.

The manifestation of the ideas of God is in unity; but in opposition to

unity exists anarchy; in antagonism with creation emerges the principle of

destruction. The representative of destruction, disunion, chaos, is Satan.

The work of creation is infinite differentiation in perfect harmony. But

in the midst of this emerges discord, an element of opposition which seeks

to ruin the concord in the manifestation of the divine ideas. Therefore

redemption is necessary, and Christ is the medium of redemption, which

consists in the restoration to harmony and unity of that which by the

fraud of Satan is thrown into disorder and antagonism.

But how comes it that in creation there should be a disturbing element?

That element must issue in some manner from the Creator; it must arise

from some defect in Him. Therefore, Valentinian concluded, the God who

created the world and gave source to the being of Satan cannot have been

the supreme, all‐good, perfect God.

But if redemption be the perfecting of man, it must be the work of the

only perfect God, who thereby counteracts the evil that has sprung up

through the imperfection of the Demiurge.

Therefore Jesus Christ is an emanation from the Supreme God, destroying

the ill effects produced in the world by the faulty nature of the Creator,

undoing the discord and restoring all to harmony.

Jesus was formed by the Demiurge of a wondrously constituted ethereal

body, visible to the outward sense. This Jesus entered the world through

man, as a sunbeam enters a chamber through the window. The Demiurge

created Jesus to redeem the people from the disorganizing, destructive

effects of Satan, to be their Messiah.

But the Supreme God had alone power perfectly to accomplish this work;

therefore at the baptism of Christ, the Saviour (Soter) descended on him,

consecrating him to be the perfect Redeemer of mankind, conveying to him a

mission and power which the Demiurge could not have given.

In all this we see the influence of Marcion’s ideas.

We need not follow out this fundamental principle of his theosophy into

all its fantastic formularies. If Valentine was the precursor of Hegel in

the enunciation of the universal antinomy, he was like Hegel also in

involving his system in a cloud of incomprehensible terminology, in

producing bewilderment where he sought simplicity.

Valentine accepted the Old Testament, but only in the same light as he

regarded the great works of the heathen writers to be deserving of

regard.(473) Both contained good, noble examples, pure teaching; but in

both also was the element of discord, contradictory teaching, and bad

example. Ptolemy, the Valentinian who least sacrificed the moral to the

theosophic element, scarcely dealt with the Old Testament differently from

St. Paul. He did not indeed regard the Old Testament as the work of the

Supreme God; the Mosaic legislation seemed to him to be the work of an

inferior being, because, as he said, it contained too many imperfections

to be the revelation of the Highest God, and too many excellences to be

attributed to an evil spirit. But, like the Apostle of the Gentiles, he

saw in the Mosaic ceremonies only symbols of spiritual truth, and, like

him, he thought that the symbol was no longer necessary when the idea it

revealed was manifested in all its clearness. Therefore, when the ideas

these symbols veiled had reached and illumined men’s minds, the necessity

for them—husks to the idea, letters giving meaning to the thought—was at

an end.

Like St. Paul, therefore, he treated the Old Testament as a preparation

for the New one, but as nothing more. We ascertain Ptolemy’s views from a

letter of his to Flora, a Catholic lady whom he desired to convert to

Valentinianism.(474)

In this letter he laboured to show that the God of this world (the

Demiurge) was not the Supreme God, and that the Old Testament Scriptures

were the revelation of the Demiurge, and not of the highest God. To prove

the first point, Ptolemy appealed to apostolic tradition—no doubt to

Pauline teaching—which had come down to him, and to the words of the

Saviour, by which, he admits, all doctrine must be settled. In this letter

he quotes largely from St. Paul’s Epistles, and from the Gospels of St.

Matthew and St. John.

Like Marcion, Ptolemy insisted that the Demiurge, the God of this world,

was also the God who revealed himself in the Old Testament, and that to

this God belonged justice, wrath and punishment; whereas to the Supreme

Deity was attributed free forgiveness, absolute goodness. The Saviour

abolished the Law, therefore he abolished all the system of punishment for

sin, that the reign of free grace might prevail.

According to Ptolemy, therefore, retributive justice exercised by the

State was irreconcilable with the nature of the Supreme God, and the

State, accordingly, was under the dominion of the Demiurge.

To the revelation of the old Law belonged ordinances of ceremonial and of

seasons. These also are done away by Christ, who leads from the bondage of

ceremonial to spiritual religion.

Another Valentinian of note was Heracleon, who wrote a Commentary on the

Gospel of St. John, of which considerable fragments have been preserved by

Origen; and perhaps, also, a Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Of the

latter, only a single fragment, the exposition of Luke xii. 8, has been

preserved by Clement of Alexandria.(475)

Heracleon was a man of deep spiritual piety, and with a clear

understanding. He held Scripture in profound reverence, and derived his

Valentinian doctrines from it. So true is the saying:

“Hic liber est in quo quærit sua dogmata quisque,

Invenit pariter dogmata quisque sua.”

His interpretation of the narrative of the interview of the Saviour with

the woman of Samaria will illustrate his method of dealing with the sacred

text.

Heracleon saw in the woman of Samaria a type of all spiritual natures

attracted by that which is heavenly, godlike; and the history represents

the dealings of the Supreme God through Christ with these spiritual

natures (πνευματικοί).

For him, therefore, the words of the woman have a double meaning: that

which lies on the surface of the sacred record, with the intent and

purpose which the woman herself gave to them; and that which lay beneath

the letter, and which was mystically signified. “The water which our

Saviour gives,” says he, “is his spirit and power. His gifts and grace are

what can never be taken away, never exhausted, can never fail to those who

have received them. They who have received what has been richly bestowed

on them from above, communicate again of the overflowing fulness which

they enjoy to the life of others.”

But the woman asks, “Give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come

hither to draw”—hither—that is, to Jacob’s well, the Mosaic Law from which

hitherto she had drunk, and which could not quench her thirst, satisfy her

aspirations. “She left her water‐pot behind her” when she went to announce

to others that she had found the well of eternal life. That is, she left

the vessel, the capacity for receiving the Law, for she had now a

spiritual vessel which could hold the spiritual water the Saviour gave.

It will be seen that Valentinianism, like Marcionism, was an exaggerated

Paulinism, infected with Gnosticism, clearly antinomian. Though the

Valentinians are not accused of licentiousness, their ethical system was

plainly immoral, for it completely emancipated the Christian from every

restraint, and the true Christian was he who lived by faith only. He had

passed by union with Christ from the dominion of the God of this World, a

dominion in which were punishments for wrong‐doing, into the realm of

Grace, of sublime indifference to right and wrong, to a region in which no

acts were sinful, no punishments were dealt out.

If Valentinianism did not degenerate into the frantic licentiousness of

the earlier Pauline heretics, it was because the doctrine of Valentine was

an intellectual, theosophical system, quite above the comprehension of

vulgar minds, and therefore only embraced by exalted mystics and cold

philosophers.

The Valentinians were not accused of mutilating the Scriptures, but of

evaporating their significance. “Marcion,” says Tertullian, “knife in

hand, has cut the Scriptures to pieces, to give support to his system;

Valentine has the appearance of sparing them, and of trying rather to

accommodate his errors to them, than of accommodating them to his errors.

Nevertheless, he has curtailed, interpolated more than did Marcion, by

taking from the words their force and natural value, to give them forced

significations.”(476)

The Pauline filiation of the sect can hardly be mistaken. The relation of

Valentine’s ideas to those of Marcion, and those of Marcion to the

doctrines of St. Paul, are fundamental. But, moreover, they claimed a

filiation more obvious than that of ideas—they asserted that they derived

their doctrines from Theodas, disciple of the Apostle of the

Gentiles.(477) The great importance they attributed to the Epistles of St.

Paul is another evidence of their belonging to the anti‐judaizing family

of heretics, if another proof be needed.

The Valentinians possessed a number of apocryphal works. “Their number is

infinite,” says Irenaeus.(478) But this probably applies not to the first

Valentinians, but to the Valentinian sects, among whom apocryphal works

did abound. Certain it is, that in all the extracts made from the writings

of Valentine, Ptolemy and Heracleon, by Origen, Epiphanius, Tertullian,

&c., though they abound in quotations from St. Paul’s Epistles and from

the Canonical Gospels, there are none from any other source.

Nevertheless, Irenaeus attributes to them possession of a “Gospel of

Truth” (Evangelium Veritatis). “This Scripture,” says he, “does not in any

point agree with our four Canonical Gospels.”(479) To this also, perhaps,

Tertullian refers, when he says that the Valentinians possessed “their own

Gospel in addition to ours.”(480)

Epiphanius, however, makes no mention of this Gospel; he knew the writings

of the Valentinians well, and has inserted extracts in his work on

heresies.

III. The Gospel Of Eve.

The immoral tendency of Valentinianism broke out in coarse, flagrant

licentiousness as soon as the doctrines of the sect had soaked down out of

the stratum of educated men to the ranks of the undisciplined and vulgar.

Valentinianism assumed two forms, broke into two sects,—the Marcosians and

the Ophites.

Mark, who lived in the latter half of the second century, came probably

from Palestine, as we may gather from his frequent use of forms from the

Aramaean liturgy. But he did not bring with him any of the Judaizing

spirit, none of the grave reverence for the moral law, and decency of the

Nazarene, Ebionite and kindred sects sprung from the ruined Church of the

Hebrews.

He was followed by trains of women whom he corrupted, and converted into

prophetesses. His custom was, in an assembly to extend a chalice to a

woman saying to her, “The grace of God, which excels all, and which the

mind cannot conceive or explain, fill all your inner man, and increase his

knowledge in you, dropping the grain of mustard‐seed into good

ground.”(481) A scene like a Methodist revival followed. The woman was

urged to speak in prophecy; she hesitated, declared her inability; warm,

passionate appeals followed closely one on another, couched in equivocal

language, exciting the religious and natural passions simultaneously. The

end was a convulsive fit of incoherent utterings, and the curtain fell on

the rapturous embraces of the prophet and his spiritual bride.

Mark possessed a Gospel, and “an infinite number of apocryphal

Scriptures,” says Irenaeus. The Gospel contained a falsified life of

Christ. One of the stories from it he quotes. When Jesus was a boy, he was

learning letters. The master said, “Say Alpha.” Jesus repeated after him,

“Alpha.” Then the master said, “Say Beta.” But Jesus answered, “Nay, I

will not say Beta till you have explained to me the meaning of

Alpha.”(482) The Marcosians made much of the hidden mysteries of the

letters of the alphabet, showing that Mark had brought with him from

Palestine something akin to the Cabbalism of the Jewish rabbis.

This story is found in the apocryphal Gospel of St. Thomas. It runs

somewhat differently in the different versions of that Gospel, and is

repeated twice in each with slight variations.

In the Syriac:

“Zacchaeus the teacher said to Joseph, I will teach the boy Jesus

whatever is proper for him to learn. And he made him go to school.

And he, going in, was silent. But Zacchaeus the scribe began to

tell him (the letters) from Alaph, and was repeating to him many

times the whole alphabet. And he says to him that he should answer

and say after him; but he was silent. Then the scribe became

angry, and struck him with his hand upon his head. And Jesus said,

A smith’s anvil, being beaten, can (not) learn, and it has no

feeling; but I am able to say those things, recited by you, with

knowledge and understanding (unbeaten).”(483)

In the Greek:

“Zacchaeus said to Joseph ... Give thy son to me, that he may

learn letters, and with his letters I will teach him some

knowledge, and chiefly this, to salute all the elders, and to

venerate them as grandfathers and fathers, and to love those of

his own age. And he told him all the letters from Alpha to Omega.

Then, looking at the teacher Zacchaeus, he said to him, Thou that

knowest not Alpha naturally, how canst thou teach Beta to others?

Thou hypocrite! if thou knowest, teach Alpha first, and then we

shall believe thee concerning Beta.”(484)

Or, according to another Greek version, after Jesus has been delivered

over by Joseph to Zacchaeus, the preceptor

“—wrote the alphabet in Hebrew, and said to him, Alpha. And the

child said, Alpha. And the teacher said again, Alpha. And the

child said the same. Then again a third time the teacher said,

Alpha. Then Jesus, looking at the instructor, said, Thou knowest

not Alpha; how wilt thou teach another the letter Beta? And the

child, beginning at Alpha, said of himself the twenty‐two letters.

Then he said again, Hearken, teacher, to the arrangement of the

first letter, and know how many accessories and lines it hath, and

marks which are common, transverse and connected. And when

Zacchaeus heard such accounts of one letter, he was amazed, and

could not answer him.”(485)

Another version of the same story is found in the Gospel of the pseudo‐

Matthew:

“Joseph and Mary coaxing Jesus, led him to the school, that he

might be taught his letters by the old man, Levi. When he entered

he was silent; and the master, Levi, told one letter to Jesus, and

beginning at the first, Aleph, said to him, Answer. But Jesus was

silent, and answered nothing. Wherefore, the preceptor Levi, being

angry, took a rod of a storax‐tree, and smote him on the head. And

Jesus said to the teacher Levi, Why dost thou smite me? Know in

truth that he who is smitten teacheth him that smiteth, rather

than is taught by him.... And Jesus added, and said to Levi, Every

letter from Aleph to Tau is known by its order; thou, therefore,

say first what is Tau, and I will tell thee what Aleph is. And he

added, They who know not Aleph, how can they say Tau, ye

hypocrites? First say what Aleph is, and I shall then believe you

when you say Beth. And Jesus began to ask the names of the

separate letters, and said, Let the teacher of the Law say what

the first letter is, or why it hath many triangles, scalene,

acute‐angled, equilinear, curvi‐linear,” &c.(486)

At the root of Mark’s teaching there seems to have been a sort of

Pantheism. He taught that all had sprung from a great World‐mother,

partook of her soul and nature; but over against this female principle

stood the Deity, the male element.

Man represents the Deity, woman the world element; and it is only through

the union of the divine and the material that the material can be

quickened into spiritual life. In accordance with this theory, they had a

ceremonial of what he called spiritual, but was eminently carnal,

marriage, which is best left undescribed.

Not widely removed from the Marcosians was the Valentinian sect of the

Ophites. Valentinianism mingled with the floating superstition, the

fragments of the wreck of Sabianism, which was to be found among the lower

classes.

The Ophites represented the Demiurge in the same way as did the

Valentinians. They called the God of this world and of the Jews by the

name of Jaldaboth. He was a limited being, imposing restraint on all his

creatures; he exercised his power by imposing law. As long as his

creatures obeyed law, they were subject to his dominion. But above

Jaldaboth in the sublime region without limit reigns the Supreme God. When

Adam broke the Law of the World‐God, he emancipated himself from his

bondage, he passed out of his realm, he placed himself in relation to the

Supreme God.

The world is made by Jaldaboth, but in the world is infused a spark of

soul, emanated from the highest God. This divine soul strives after

emancipation from the bonds imposed by connection with matter, created by

the God of this world. This world‐soul under the form of a serpent urged

Eve to emancipate herself from thraldom, and pass with Adam, by an act of

transgression, into the glorious liberty of the sons of the Supreme God.

The doctrine of the Ophites with respect to Christ was that of Valentine.

Christ came to break the last chains of Law by which man was bound, and to

translate him into the realm of grace where sin does not exist.

The Ophites possessed a Gospel, called the “Gospel of Eve.” It contained,

no doubt, an account of the Fall from their peculiar point of view. St.

Epiphanius has preserved two passages from it. They are so extraordinary,

and throw such a light on the doctrines of this Gospel, that I quote them.

The first is:

“I was planted on a lofty mountain, and lo! I beheld a man of

great stature, and another who was mutilated. And then I heard a

voice like unto thunder. And when I drew near, he spake with me

after this wise: I am thou, and thou art I. And wheresoever thou

art, there am I, and I am dispersed through all. And wheresoever

thou willest, there canst thou gather me; but in gathering me,

thou gatherest thyself.”(487)

The meaning of this passage is not doubtful. It expresses the doctrine of

absolute identity between Christ and the believer, the radiation of divine

virtue through all souls, destroying their individuality, that all may be

absorbed into Christ. Individualities emerge out of God, and through

Christ are drawn back into God.

The influence of St. Paul’s ideas is again noticeable. We are not told

that the perfect man who speaks with a voice of thunder, and who is placed

in contrast with the mutilated man, is Christ, and that the latter is the

Demiurge, but we can scarcely doubt it. It is greatly to be regretted that

we have so little of this curious book preserved.(488) The second passage,

with its signification, had better repose in a foot‐note, and in Greek. It

allows us to understand the expression of St. Ephraem, “They shamelessly

boast of their Gospel of Eve.”(489)

IV. The Gospel Of Perfection.

The Gospel of Perfection was another work regarded as sacred by the

Ophites. St. Epiphanius says: “Some of them (_i.e._ of the Gnostics) there

are who vaunt the possession of a certain fictitious, far‐fetched poem

which they call the Gospel of Perfection, whereas it is not a Gospel, but

the perfection of misery. For the bitterness of death is consummated in

that production of the devil. Others without shame boast their Gospel of

Eve.”

St. Epiphanius calls this Gospel of Perfection a poem, ποιήμα. But M.

Nicolas justly observes that the word ποιήμα is used here, not to describe

the work as a poetical composition, but as a fiction. In a passage of

Irenaeus,(490) of which only the Latin has been preserved, the Gospel of

Judas is called “confictio,” and it is probable that the Greek word

rendered by “confictio” was ποιήμα.(491)

Baur thinks that the Gospel of Perfection was the same as the Gospel of

Eve.(492) But this can hardly be. The words of St. Epiphanius plainly

distinguish them: “Some vaunt the Gospel of Perfection ... others boast

... the Gospel of Eve;” and elsewhere he speaks of their books in the

plural.(493)

V. The Gospel Of St. Philip.

This Gospel belonged to the same category as those of Perfection and of

Eve, and belonged, if not to the Ophites, to an analogous sect, perhaps

that of the Prodicians. St. Philip passed, in the early ages of

Christianity, as having been, like St. Paul, an apostle of the

Gentiles,(494) and perhaps as having agreed with his views on the Law and

evangelical liberty. But tradition had confounded together Philip the

apostle and Philip the deacon of Caesarea, who, after having been a member

of the Hellenist Church at Jerusalem, and having been driven thence after

the martyrdom of Stephen, was the first to carry the Gospel beyond the

family of Israel, and to convert the heathen to Christ.(495) His zeal and

success caused him to be called an Evangelist.(496) In the second century

it was supposed that an Evangelist meant one who had written a Gospel. And

as no Gospel bearing his name existed, one was composed for him and

attributed to him or to the apostle—they were not distinguished.

St. Epiphanius has preserved one passage from it:

“The Lord has revealed to me the words to be spoken by the soul

when it ascends into heaven, and how it has to answer each of the

celestial powers. The soul must say, I have known myself, and I

have gathered myself from all parts. I have not borne children to

Archon (the prince of this world); but I have plucked up his

roots, and I have gathered his dispersed members. I have learned

who thou art; for I am, saith the soul, of the number of the

celestial ones. But if it is proved that the soul has borne a son,

she must return downwards, till she has recovered her children,

and has absorbed them into herself.”(497)

It is not altogether easy to catch the meaning of this singular passage,

but it apparently has this signification. The soul trammelled with the

chains of matter, created by the Archon, the Creator of the world, has to

emancipate itself from all material concerns. Each thought, interest,

passion, excited by anything in the world, is a child borne by the soul to

Archon, to which the soul has contributed animation, the world, form. The

great work of life is the disengagement of the soul from all concern in

the affairs of the world, in the requirements of the body. When the soul

has reached the most exalted perfection, it is cold, passionless,

indifferent; then it comes before the Supreme God, passing through the

spheres guarded by attendant aeons or angels, and to each it protests its

disengagement. But should any thought or care for mundane matters be found

lurking in the recesses of the soul, it has to descend again, and remain

in exile till it has re‐absorbed all the life it gave, the interest it

felt, in such concerns, and then again make its essay to reach God.

The conception of Virtues guarding the concentric spheres surrounding the

Most High is found among the Jews. When Moses went into the presence of

God to receive the tables of stone, he met first the angel Kemuel, chief

of the angels of destruction, who would have slain him, but Moses

pronounced the incommunicable Name, and passed through. Then he came to

the sphere governed by the angel Hadarniel, and by virtue of the Name

passed through. Next he came to the sphere over which presided the angel

Sandalfon, and penetrated by means of the same Name. Next he traversed the

river of flame, called Riggon, and stood before the throne.(498)

St. Paul held the popular Rabbinic notion of the spheres surrounding the

throne of God, for he speaks of having been caught up into the third

heaven.(499) In the apocryphal Ascension of Isaiah there are seven heavens

that the prophet traverses.

The Rabbinic ideas on the spheres were taken probably from the Chaldees,

and from the same source, perhaps, sprang the conception of the soul

making her ascension through the angel‐guarded spheres, which we find in

the fragment of the Gospel of St. Philip.

Unfortunately, we have not sufficient of the early literature of the

Chaldees and Assyrians to be able to say for certain that it was so. But a

very curious sacred poem has been preserved on the terra‐cotta tablets of

the library of Assurbani‐Pal, which exhibits a similar belief as prevalent

anciently in Assyria.