DIALOGUES OF ADAMANTIUS
AGAINST THE MARCIONITES
( SECTION I )
Translated and Edited by Daniel Jon Mahar
Copyright Ó April 2000 by D.J.Mahar .
Along with Tertullian's Adversus Marcionem and Epiphanius' Panarion, the ancient work Dialogues of Adamantius has contributed to our knowledge of Marcionite ideas as they might have appeared in Marcion's lost work, Antithesis, as well as having provided possible readings from Marcion's New Testament, despite objections which have recently been made concerning Dialogues' problematic text ( i.e., J.Clabeaux, A Lost Edition of the Letters of Paul, Catholic Biblical Assoc., 1989; U. Schmid , Paul und sein Apostolos, Gruyter & Co., 1995). For whatever merits or weaknesses these recent studies might pose, no English translation to date had been done of Dialogues. It is hoped that this present endeavor, which presents excerpts of the first section, will serve to introduce English readers to this little known work. This translation may be best considered a "draft" and may be a bit clumsy in places, but it works.
The critical edition upon which this translation is based is Der Dialog des Adamantius ( PERI THS EIS THEON OROHS PISTEWS ) , edited by Dr.W.H.Van De Sande Bakhuyzen (Leipzig, 1901), which features the text in Greek, and the Latin text of Rufinius, the latter to which this translation adheres (with some of the Greek variants presented in brackets). Some chapters have been translated in full, while others are presented as excerpts. My main objective was to cover the Marcionite material, along with any scriptural citations that might pertain to his Bible, so as to provide readers a sense of the context in which these citations appear.
Brief Background Notes
The following are (very)short translated excerpts derived from the German introduction ("Einleitung") to Der Dialog des Adamantius by Dr.W.H.Van De Sande Bakhuyzen (pp.ix-xvi).
Contents: The author of the Dialogues intended this to combat two heresies, which had most shaken the Christian church in the early centuries: that of Marcion and Valentinus.
In the first section the disputation is between Adamantius, an adherent to orthodox teaching, and Megethius, a Marcionite, at an public gathering where an arbitrator is elected, the heathen Eutropius.
The topic of the disputation is the nature of God. Adamantius stated, that he believed in one God, the Creator, and that with him the Logos equal in nature, and with them a Holy Spirit.
Megethius taught, that there were three principals (archai), the Good God, the Demiurge and the evil god, respectively the God of the Christians, the god of the Jews, and the god of the heathen. Rather unmoved he passes over to a new topic and tries to establish, that only one Gospel was given and all others are false.
The place of Megethius is taken by another Marcionite, Markus (Section II)(p x.). Markus namely acknowledges no other scripture than the Evangelium and the Apostolikon of Marcion. At the close of this exposition follows that evidence disputed by Adamantius against Markus, that through Christ all have become new.
In the following sections of Dialogues (Section III, and IV, V) the doctrine of Valentinian is dealt with.
Author. As to who composed the Dialogues, is entirely uncertain. Already early on, the acceptance had circulated that the author was Origen.
(pXV.) That [the author] had a Marcionite Bible before him, I dare to question, although he repeatedly insured this (807,810,864). A rigid examination makes it most probable, that he never had such a Bible at hand, but may well have used older anti-marcionite writings. And it is this that makes the Dialogues for us so interesting. On the question pertaining to the sources however I cannot come close to entering here.
Date. (p [XVI].) Zahn sets the time of writing after 300 C.E. So it's possible that Dialogues was already composed before 300.
The persons of the Dialogues. The persons, that appear in the dialogues as orators, Megethius, Markus, Droserius, Marinus, Valens, are not historical personalities. A certain Droserius is referred to by Macarius Magnes, alone to us Droserius is, as Harnack remarked, only a literary figure. Both orators of the first sections are Marcionites.
Ad. = Adamantius (a.k.a. Origen), representing the "Catholic" position
Meg. =Megathius , representing the Marcionite position.
Eutr. = Eutropius, the (supposed) Pagan judge.
All words appearing within brackets [ ] indicate additions or variants from the Greek text.
A series of dots . . . indicate sentences or sections passed over.
Ad. Whatever friends there are of truth and of an honorable character, they study the entirety of all things, whom in this world dwell by the light of day, desiring to establish the institution of an upright life, not otherwise being able to keep that which is good and perfect, unless they are continually strong and steadfast in their faith in God, from thither I hesitate not to contend moreover against those who are excessively curious, heeding a deceitful, fickle opinion to the proper faith, nay, rather with a profound folly they have corrupted, being more so an offense by the same which they are being professed, than the civilized veneration they offer to a God. Whence by myself is seen no small danger, if our faith, which is of God, to some degree incurs error. Inasmuch as the foundation and entire base of loyalty is from the Divine first, it is worthy, of seeing or believing. And if only on account of you this is being seen, O Megethius, it takes place at the beginning of this debate.
Meg. Preventing brother Adamantius, he has deceitfully depicted my opinion. Indeed you confess like ourselves concerning the faith and virtue of God, of the opinion of exhibiting all good things, if another one is good in a civilized matter. And therefore it is most beneficial that you, Eutropius, most excellent Judge, are seated in the midst of us, whom I commend as capable of setting forth our proper and true faith.(and whom I esteem as fittingly wise for this, and a highly educated man). For I may demonstrate that you, Adamantius, blaspheme more than you believe in God, when the true God, who is only good, you are unwilling to recognize, but rather another, certain one you submit in place of the good God, although the Lord Jesus Christ himself declared, "No one is good, except one, God the Father".
Eutr. Am I required to judge both parties?
Eutr. Will you so honor my sentence?
Meg. I shall honor and esteem your sentence.
Ad. Noble and educated men are they all, such as we discern in attendance at this audience. If therefore on account of them your proper judgement and sentence are seen , I shall also heed in accordance to which line of truth you should decide.
Meg. First, are you willing to let me set forth according to the scriptures?
Ad. Define first, Megathius, how (the Marcionite ) believes, even at length the actual propositions, or bring forth from the completeness of the volumes of holy scriptures.
Meg. Define first, Adamantius ( the Catholic), since you already furnished the introduction to this debate.
Eutr. It is reasonable that he who was at the start should pronounce their faith, who also offered the disputations at the beginning.
Ad. There is One God, Creator and Architect of everything, in whom I believe, and his Word, his essence, is even co-eternal. Whose Word in due season assumed human nature from the virgin Mary, was born a man, was crucified, and was also resurrected from the dead. Likewise moreover I believe in the Holy Spirit, who is everlasting Father and Son.
This is mine faith. Now it is your turn.
Meg. I declare there are three principles: One God, the Father of Christ, the Good - and another the Creator, and [another] the third, Evil. And indeed the Good God is neither the Creator or the Evil one, nor the dispensator, nor here is the founder of this world. An Alien in fact is he from all wickedness and all the creation. And thus I will show what he does hold.
Ad. You say there are three principles, and it is now necessary that you explain what you have promised. Inasmuch as the stated principle is to be shown to me concerning him who is in subjection to another principle and power, even as if it was the Lord who declares himself in place of another lord. So which among the three exercising principles is the principle which you speak of? Respond.
Meg. The Good [Principle] is over those which the God of Christ rules, and the second is the Creator of whom the Jews speak, but the third, is over those who are evil and wicked, the gentiles.
Ad. The three principles that you affirm - are they harmonious and unanimous among themselves, or is nothing shared mutually by them of what they possess?
Meg. There is nothing in common among them.
Ad. Did all three together, in one agreement, mold or fashion humanity ? Or does one from the others create mankind, to which the principle pertains ?
Meg. The three together did not create mankind, but only one.
Ad. Which one out of the three?
Meg. The Principle of the Jews.
Ad. If the God of the Jews created humanity, how - or rather for what cause does the Good God, or that other, evil one, hold power over humanity? For out of either of the two, the Creator is revealed to be good to a greater degree. Indeed if he concedes (his) will, to the power they hold among those which the Creator God himself made, he is shown to be the Good God which bestows his own property to the alien and extraneous Lord. If indeed they extort not unwillingly by force, the Good God such as you refer will be founded upon evil since it is he who is actually evil, instead of him whose property the Alien takes possession of violently.
Eutr. ( If ) the Father of Christ is said to be the Good God, and again the same Creator God who established the actual work, and it is mankind that he himself created, which is said to have been taken away from him, then the alien who seizes cannot be called good.
Meg. He did not commit robbery, but taking pity he sent the Son who being good, out of goodness also liberated us.
Ad. This other one felt pity, was moved by his own compassion to affection. So if compassion is that which moves those of his own to the Good God, can it be towards an Stranger?
Meg. Towards the Stranger.
Ad. As goodness is compassionate, can it be just as evil?
Meg. Just as sinful.
Ad. Before mankind sinned, goodness was created by the Creator, so can it be evil? And if the Good God longed just as much for goodness, can it be just as evil? And inasmuch the same way as the evil also desired, the Good God shall be desirous of the evil. And in what manner shall the Good who desires be evil? If it is just as true that if the Good is lacking, the Creator God should be the author of goodness.
Meg. Neither to good, nor to evil does he purpose, but only by reason of compassion was he moved.
Eutr. This is what he purposes, Megethius has asserted, that is neither day nor night, but it is somewhat in the middle. Clearly explain what you say. If you say that mankind was neither created by good nor evil, what is this other medium between evil and good?
Meg. These are philosophical arguments. For I show from the scriptures that there are three principals.
Ad. These three principals which you speak of : do you assert that they are equal, or do they differ from one another?
Meg. God forbid! They are not equal.
Ad. So which of them is superior?
Meg. The supreme Good God is by far the most eminent.
Ad. So the Supreme has subjected those beneath him, or not?
Meg. He has subjected them.
Ad. So the Will of the Supreme, concerning those who are beneath him, is to control those who control others?
Meg. It is not according to his Will that the evil ones devise. In fact, Christ came and conquered the devil, and he emptied the Creator's law in decrees and dogmas.
Ad. So do these have their being in accordance to the purpose of the Good God?
Ad. (If they are actually contrary to his purpose, why does he not prevail to do away with them altogether?) Or is he himself ignorant of who they are ?
Meg. He is not ignorant.
Eutr. You assert that the Good God is powerful. [But] you also claim that they are not in accordance to his purpose. So what is gained consequentially? For if he himself is powerful and everything is not according to his will, they are in any event, according to your assertion, or he is willing the same even by which reason things are, or he cannot purpose to even do away with them, or it is because he is ignorant.
Meg. ( These things are inferred out of tricky arguments. But I prefer to prove what I say from the scriptures of the Gospel) But first I will show that the gospels, that you read, are false.
Ad. From whence can this be proven?
Meg. I shall prove from out of these very gospels that they are false.
Ad. Then will you also permit me to prove from these same gospels that they are not false?
Meg. I shall permit it, if it can be exhibited by you. Still earlier it was proclaimed, of who composed the gospels.
Ad. The disciples of Christ are those who had written them, which are John, Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Meg. Christ never had Mark and Luke for disciples, and out of this itself they are proven to be false. For who were the disciples, which names are written in the Gospel,- were the gospels composed of these, but by others, who were unknown, who were not made disciples? Who is Luke, or who is Mark? Thus even upon these very names are your gospels clearly convicted of the verdict of falsehood.
Eutr. If Christ had disciples, it is certain that more of them should have composed gospels to some he had granted authority, to others of them who were not disciples. This to me does not seem sound. For it is proper that he should grant to his disciples the authority to have gathered for posterity.
Ad. And these are disciples of Christ.
Meg. Who are reckoned chosen of the Gospel and contrive such names among the disciples of Christ who have not written (a thing).
Eutr. Chosen of the gospel.
Ad. Only twelve disciples who were chosen are named, not indeed seventy-two.
Eutr. How many disciples did Christ have?
Ad. First, twelve, and afterwards, seventy-two, those sent to preach the Gospel. Mark and Luke were from among the seventy-two, who along with the apostle Paul preached the gospel.
Meg. It is impossible. Nobody esteemed that which they have seen of Paul.
Ad. Paul himself provides offered testimony on Mark and Luke.
Meg. Your deceitful codice is not trustworthy.
Ad. Bring forth your apostle's codice; let it be permitted from all sides, let them introduce concerning Mark and Luke , who were associates and supporters of Paul.
Meg. Let it be shown.
Ad. I choose the last part of the epistle of Paul to the Colossians (Col. 4:10,11):
"Salutes you", it says, "Aristarchus, my fellow-prisoner, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom ye received orders that he comes to you. Receive with him. And Jesus called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only to me are fellow-workers unto the kingdom of God, who were to me a consolation". And the rest. And again (Col.4:14): "Salute you Luke and Demas".Out of this scripture it is made clear that the apostle Paul himself offers this testimony.
Eutr. From this commendation it is made evident.
Meg. I show there to be a false gospel. For the apostle says there is one Gospel, but you say there are four.
Ad. There are four gospels, but it is one gospel...
Meg. (5) The Apostle doesn't say, "according to my gospels", but "according to my gospel". You see how he speaks of one. And a second time he says "if anyone should proclaim to you a different gospel, let him be accursed" (Gal.1:9?). How is it that you speak of four?
Ad. The Gospel which we speak is one, but there are four evangelists.
Meg. Neither are there four evangelists, for the Apostle says (Gal.1:7) : "which is not another [ according to my gospel , Gk.], but there are some that trouble you and would divert (you) unto a different gospel of Christ."
Ad. Paul speaks of there being a plurality of evangelists, how is it that you say there is only one?
Meg. He does not speak of many evangelists.
Ad. There had to be many apostles, and I show that he himself says so in the epistle to the Galatians (1:6):
"But even if we", it says, "or an angel from heaven a gospel evangelizes to you contrary to what we evangelized to you, let him be anathema". For if it says "to what I preached to you", of himself only he should designate. Yet now he says: "to what we evangelized", which indicates a plurality of evangelists ( and the apostle says, 1Cor.9:14): "In this too the Lord ordained those who announce the Gospel". And again (1Tim.4:5) , "do the work of an evangelist"
Eutr. Now it is entirely evident that there were many evangelists and not one.
Meg. But he does not speak of these, but concerning Silvanus and Timothy.
Eutr. First he says Paul was only one evangelist, but now he confesses there were others....
Meg. The Gospel differs and it speaks of those becoming turned away, from which even a false <one> they are believing.
Ad. A different -even a different Christ they announce on which account they speak to disagree?
Meg. No, but they speak contrary, one against the other.
Ad. They define what they wish. He speaks of the spiritual as the sense of the scriptures - can it be plain, even historical, or to another extent intrinsically essential? He wishes only one to stand, to thus finally pose the series of questions that are proceeding.
Meg. Plainly I speak and that of what is only written you have nor anything other.
Ad. What then does it say of Christ who is the son of man? If he is the son of man, according to you he will not be your son of God.
Meg. He is God's son.
Ad. But explain the scriptures in such a way as to be intelligible, as the scriptures are. In what way is he the son of God, who declared himself the son of man?
Meg. He made use of a parable, in saying that he was the son of man.
Eutr. It was to be understood as a spiritual parable, -can that be historical?
Eutr. In what way does he say that - is the scripture not spiritual? Thus it is spiritual, and not plain and historical.
Meg. A certain thing he intends as spiritual, while he may speak simply in another.
Eutr. This opinion seems inconsistent to me.
Meg. In places there are scriptures that are parables, those that are spiritual, others that are certainly historical.
Ad. Show then from the scriptures where the son of man is a "parable"? ...
Meg. I shall show that there is one gospel.
Ad. From whom can you appeal from scripture itself that confirms there is only one Gospel?
Ad. Did Christ himself write of his crucifixion and resurrection from the dead after three days?
Meg. The Apostle Paul imparted this.
Ad. Do you mean to say that Paul was in attendance at the crucifixion of Christ?
Meg. He himself wrote the Gospel.
Ad. If so I shall demonstrate that not only was he not present let alone believing, even following his persecuting, that there existed Christians?
Meg. There were no Christians?
Ad. How did Christians exist, who, not even holding the name of Christ, manage to become worthy? If indeed I speak of no Christians, but of the Marcionites.
Meg. And you have spoken of the Catholics. Thus not being Christian.
Ad. If a man enjoys his vocabulary, speak well; if truly on behalf of him by whom all the world exists, on whose account the Catholic speaks, whom in accordance to your appellation is to be seen fault? Show to me if you may any man judged by name; but I show that not only bishops are bestowed the appellation of a surname, not in the least disciples, indeed, not in the least apostles. Which great one do you dwell in the house of - Marcion or Paul?
Ad. Listen then, if you are able to see, what Paul, who was most excellent to Marcion , anticipated (1 Cor.1:11-13): "It's been indeed announced to me, about you by those who are of Chloe that there are contentions among you , for the one to you is saying: I am of Paul, but I of Apollos, but I of Cephas. Has Christ been divided? [+ Gk, Was Paul crucified for you? or to the name of Paul were you baptized?] ".
Meg. I am being spoken a Christian; but if you cast at me the name of a man, I can of you say that you are of Socrates.
Ad. I the name of Socrates refuse and deny.
Eutr. If you strike against the power of a name, necessary it is of either of yours that call on these names, which you set before, to refuse.
Ad. I am ignorant of who Socrates is; but I confess not such of Marcion.
Meg. Marcion was my bishop (episcopus ).
Ad. Out of whom, Marcion having died, <proceeded> a great many bishops, or rather, false-bishops have they been among you. Why doesn't any of them make use of a name, but only Marcion's, who even brought about a schism in the one church?
. . .
Meg. If it may be allowed me to speak, readily I shall show that there are three principles, and that the one is the God of the law, and the other is the Good <One>. Furthermore it can be shown from your scriptures so that one may consider.
Eutr. Earlier it was pointed out that there are three principles, that there are three natures, and then apparently every single diversity and work.
Ad. He will show that there are three principles, and then I will speak what I wish.
Meg. I show that one is the Creator who gave the law, and the other is Christ who is antithetical to it.
Ad. Consequently I am suspicious of him due to the diversity of the law,- for this reason should I now suppose another or a different God?
Meg. Absolutely! For no one at any time is contrary to himself, in such manner as the Gospel and the Law are contrary.
Ad. The Creator God, who called the Jews, is only One - can there be many others?
Meg. This is one, who handed down the Law,- the God of the Jews. [Gk, "One, who (is) of the Jews"].
Ad. I think (it is) absurd that you do not consider whether to also make use of certain similetudes, that makes these things which were spoken clearly intelligent.... (25) ....the Apostle Paul... at one time also promulgated the law to man, when he said (1 Cor.3:1,2) : "Milk I gave you to drink, not meat, for not yet are ye able, for still ye are carnal" . . . .
Eutr. (18)...Megethius: the same is the God who [gave the law], who is immutable...Or are there two? ...
Meg. The God of the Jews is one, [the demiurge], but the Other is not his son.
Ad. How has it been proven that Christ is not the son of the Creator?
Meg. That the Christ destroyed the law of the Creator, and showed that [it was destroyed].
Ad. Showed that it was destroyed.
Meg. The God who had spoken beforehand in Genesis which instructed Moses to escape from Egypt, says (Exodus 12:11; 3:22; 11:2; 12:35): "Make ready to eat! with your loins girded and feet shod, and rod in hand",(3:22) and bags on their back and much gold (and) much silver of all the Egyptians that they can bear to carry.
But our Lord, whose nature is good [or, "who is the Good One", Gk ] sent his disciples to the surrounding territories, saying (Matt.10:9; Lk.9:3, 10:4): "Neither use shoes for your feet, nor bag, nor rod, neither having two tunics, nor money in your girdle".Consider how clearly it is made, of whom is the Good, those who observe [his] decrees...
Eutr. The same to me I observe even in the former: they perished and did not perish, and they offered sacrifice and did not offer, and accepted money and purse and did not accept. This therefore I ask, when the Creator instructed Abraham to slay his son, if another is in the law which prohibits murder, and another which instructed Abraham to slit the throat of his son. What do you say, Megethius? Is there one or two?
Meg. (15) Here at least it is one (god), but Christ is not his son.
. . . . .
Meg. The prophets of their god, who reported the Law, elected as arms of their people, ascended to the summit of the mountain, and stretched forth their hands toward the god by whom many enemies were cast to the ground in war.
But our Lord, who is good, stretched forth his hands, not to destroy men, but to save. Which therefore is a simile - the one who extended his hands to destroy - or the one to save?
. . . .
Meg. The god of the law says (?) : "Love him who loves you and hold hatred of your enemies".
But our Good Lord says (Matt.5:44): "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you".
. . . .
Meg. The Prophets of their god, who report in the Law, go before him, that they may slay many in war, brings about comfort not in the least to meet with death, always to those who slaughter their enemies.
But our Lord, who is good, says (Eph.4:26 ) "Let not the sun go down on your wrath".
. . . .
Meg. (6) It is not written in the Law to not let the sun set upon one's wrath.
. . .
Meg. In the law it is written (Ex.21:24; Lev.24:19; Deut.19:21): "An eye for an eye, [and] a tooth for a tooth".
But the Lord, who is good, says in the Gospel (Mt.5:39;Lk.6:29): "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, offer to him also the other".
. . .
Meg. The prophet of the [god of the] Law of old commanded a bear to go forth from the woods
and gnaw the children whom he opposed.
But the good Lord says ( Mt.10:33) : "Permit the children to come to me; for such is the kingdom of heaven".
. . . .
Meg. (24) Which here is a simile? The prophets murder, but Christ saves. Nothing is altogether a simile.
. . . .
Meg. The creator god was ignorant of where Adam was. He said (Gen.3:9), "Adam, where art thou?"
But the Christ even knows the thoughts of men.
Ad. In which manner also Christ said to Lazarus (Jn.11:34): "Where have they laid him?"
Unless even here he was ignorant of where he was placed.
Meg. Such is not written in our Gospel, and you understand that it was promised that from our gospel you would speak to prove.
Ad. In such a manner you would not wish, in the case where Jesus interrogates the demon,"What is your name"? And he responded, "Legion". Which according to you he was ignorant and interrogated for this reason.
Meg. It is not a simile.
. . . .
Meg. In such manner is it written in the law to steal garment after garment, but the good Lord says (Lk.6:29; Mt.5:40): "[even] if anyone takes away your tunic, (would you) offer him even the cloak?"
. . .
Meg. [The prophets of] the creator god say ( Isa.5:28;Deut.32:23): "My bow is stretched back and my arrows (are ready) to consume them", [but] the Apostle indeed says (Eph.6:11,13,16): "Put on you the panoply of God, that [or, "for" ] you may be able to extinguish the burning darts of the wicked one".
Ad. Good is not contrary to good, neither evil to evil, just as neither is the law to light (nor darkness to darkness), neither white to white, but white is contrary to black. How unmixed theref ore is he who is contrary to that spoken by the prophets and the apostle? Or are you ignorant that the bow and sword and shield and arrows and all the armaments are instruments of warfare?
Eutr. The prophets - which are they, just or evil?
Ad. How then can the apostle malignantly speak of justice, (when) he says to extinguish the burning darts of the wicked one?
Eutr. It is all the same thing.
Meg. The god of the Law, with blind Isaac, did not restore his sight.
But our Lord, who is good, opened the eyes of many who did not see.
Ad. You are ignorant of the dispensations of God.
. . . .
Meg. Even by reason of him there are always persecutions, being apparent to us who are destined to the other God, being contrary to the one who created the world and who hates us while we are in his world. Thus in short it is written, that "the king's heart is in the hand of God" (Prov.21:1), this in fact showing who is in charge over the king, even holding in his hand the heart of the king and inclining him to persecute us.
Ad. That indeed, if ( of this one time) you can make comment, they might perhaps be seen to hold to some extent an appearance of truth, granted that such are yet easily absolved. But now vastly dissimilar is the head to which you bring forth objection ( according to which rationale you speak of all kings, naturally whose heart is in the hand of their god, who is adversary to the Good God's family and favors those who belong to him, who entirely dedicates everything to persecuting Christians, nor at any time the other that came later, to whom you give thanks, is able to deliver the latter of the former. But now we see in respect to one hating those who existed before, and another loving those who exist now. For instance even Cyrus built the temple of God in Jerusalem, which another king, nonetheless, destroyed). How can this be? That it was one god with the former, and a different one with the latter? This is stupid! But not only we suffer persecution. Even the prophets themselves suffered, and many martyrs were brought forth from them, even three lads endured martyrdom, though God's power miraculously liberated them... But even the prophets [ as also Paul ] say ( Ps.43:22; Rom.8:36): "On account of you death afflicts us the whole day". But likewise even Christ's disciples, who followed the pattern of the prophets, endured the fierceness of persecution. We are one and the same, consequently, with the prophets, for being the cause of persecution.
Eutr. In what way does the apostle even make use of the words of the prophets? If indeed he speaks what the prophets have spoken before, certainly this is not in vain, but as it were, the same was used for what was good and lawful.
Meg. Absolutely no one from among the ancients used Paul's words.
Ad. I will show in many cases where the Ap ostle speaks and uses the scriptures of old. He says in the first epistle to the Corinthians (1Cor.1:29-31): "To no glory is all flesh in the presence of him. From him are ye in Christ Jesus, who is made unto us wisdom by God and justice and sanctification and redemption. That, as it has been written, He that glories, in the Lord let him glory". And again I show from the same epistle, where he says (1Cor.9:7-10): "Who grazes the herd and of the milk does not eat? Now according to man do I speak, or does not also the law say these things? In the law of Moses it has been written: You shall not bridle the mouth of the ox which treads the corn. Now concerning the oxen is there care with God? Or on account of us is this said? On account of us namely was it written because he who plows ought to in hope plow."
Meg. You know that he speaks of the law of Moses and not of God.
Eutr. But consider that, when he speaks, he immediately confirms the law from which consequently, he says, "Now concerning the oxen is there care with God? Or on account of us is this said? On account of us namely was it written" Consider thus that he confirms the God whose words and prophets he uses. For no one uses a law that is rejected.
Meg. From the scriptures I show that one is the Father of Christ, but another is the creator, who spoke with Adam even as with the rest of those who reported the scriptures, which is even made obvious. But the Father of Christ no one recognized, as Christ himself announced, when he said ( Mt.11:27; Lk.10:22): "No one knows the Father except only the Son, neither the Son anyone knows except the Father"
. . .
Meg. (8) Thus how could Ezekiel say ( Ez. 20:5): "And I made myself known to the fathers in the desert" ?
Ad. (14). . . But have you considered the magnificence of the figure of speech? The Lord himself who saves even speaks of those that sin (Mt.7:23) "Depart from me, those who work iniquity, because I never knew you". Now he, who knows every heart, was he ignorant of them?
. . .
Meg. I hold a most valid proposition, that proves that Christ is not the son of the just god , the creator, whose own Christ has not yet come. For if he had come, without (any) doubt that he was the one to fulfil that [spoken] by David (Ps.2:1,2), "Why do the nations rage and the people think vain things? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers convene into one against the Lord and against his Christ".And again (Ps.2:8,9) , "Ask of me and I shall give to you the nations for your inheritance and you shall rule (over) them with a rod of iron". Thus, from this he approves here his own Christ, who comes, which is another , because neither does he rule, nor do rulers rise up against him, nor does he rule the nations with a rod of iron.
. . .
Meg. Daniel declared (Dan.2:34,35): "You have seen, even beheld a stone that is cut from a mountain without hands, and striking an image and its feet were as dust, which is blown in the wind" . But the stone shall be the kingdom of a glorious God, and the image indicates the kingdom [upon] the earth. From whence I show that it is the Christ announced by the law and the prophets, who has not yet come. For if he has arrived, by no means is there a different kingdom upon the earth, as Daniel indicated. But from him shall every kingdom of his enjoy safety, enduring but not fading - the kingdom of that Christ - who by the law and prophets was announced should come.
Ad. Which rightly in the holy scriptures is spoken, yet by no willingness rightly understood.
For the law and the prophets do not speak of the coming of two Christs, but declare one Christ with two advents, one in humiliation, the first, and the other in glory, the second.
Even of the first advent spoke Isaiah (53:2,3 ): "We shall see him, and there is no beauty nor splendor, but his splendor is despised and rejected above the sons of men"
. . . [ Adamantius argues with further OT citations , Isa.52:14; Isa. 42:1-3; Zech.9:9 ] . . .
(23) Yet it is made apparent by that spoken by the prophets that his advents shall also be in glory and in humiliation. But even Paul the Apostle makes this evident, when he speaks of the second advent in glory ( 1 Thess.4:16,17): "At God's command, at the archangel's voice, at the last trumpet he [ Gk., "the lord"] shall descend from heaven, and the dead shall be resurrected first. Then we who are alive, who are remaining in his advent, together with them we shall be raptured in clouds to meeting Christ in the air [ Gk., Then also we who remain unto his parousia together with them shall be caught away in clouds unto his gathering.]", even as before this Daniel said (Dan.7:13): "I beheld one like the son of man who came in the clouds". But even in the Gospel it is written (Mt.24:27; Lk.17:24) : "as the lightning exits from the east and appears even to the west, so shall be also the advent of the son of man".
. . .
Meg. On the one hand, you exhibit examples which concern the Christ who was declared by the law and the prophets. Yet on the other hand, John (the Baptist) did not recognize him, being utterly impossible that a prophet of the law would be ignorant of his own Christ. (Mt.11:3): "When he had heard in prison the works of Christ, he sent to of his disciples to ask him: Are you the one that should come, or do we expect another?"
. . .
Meg. To such a degree was Christ an alien, to those whom he appeared, and again, Christ to the creator god, that Paul s aid (Gal.3:13): "Christ purchased us". It is obvious that he was an alien, for nobody at any time purchases what is their own. But it says that those who were purchased by the alien, he desired to have as his own.
Ad. Your delivery to me seems utterly inconsequential. For if that which you suppose can be proven, rightly it should be brought forth; but if you have actually seized words for which you are unable to give account, then you do not deliver wisely. For if you assert that Christ is a purchaser, then tell us: Who is your seller? Or does he not sell to you the old proverb that "The seller and the purchaser are brothers"? If the wicked devil sold to the good Christ, then he is not wicked, but good, even he who from the beginning was jealous of man, (but) now, as you would say, he ceases to be jealous, if he handed over his rightful possession to the good Christ; from which was settled now his justice and goodness, whose possession the evil transferred to the good Lord ( if in fact you deny that the devil is the seller, but the Creator God, yet which one do you declare as just, moreover which one in the midst of those shall justice be tested, if one becomes torn apart from the other? For if the good is someone that should be divided apart, justice should become slave to the good, the price received, acquired by the alien; if indeed the evil divides, likewise should injustice be (slave) to the evil, the price received, acquired by the evil alien. )
. . .
Ad. (27) The Lord himself echos the prophets, asserting what they say (Jn.8:34): "Every one who commits sin is a slave to sin".
Meg. From sin itself Christ purchased us.
Ad. Well then sin captivates you justly in our Lord.
Meg. I did not say that sin is our lord.
Eutr. This is absurd. For just as he says that no one purchases what is his own, so likewise does no one sell what is his own. Like that which was spoken, "Every one who commits sin is a slave to sin", it is shown clearly that sin is lord.
Ad. And further this is found apparent in the other Apostle who says (Rom.6:20):
"But when ye were slaves of sin, ye were free from justice" - and besides clearly he says (Rom.6:14): "Sin in us [ Gk, "you"] shall no longer dominate").
Meg. Christ clearly said that (Mt.6:24) "No one can serve two lords". What other one from another do you speak?
Ad. How many lords do you believe he asserts?
Meg. Just as the Gospel declares (Mt.7:18; Lk.6:43): "No evil tree can produce good fruit, neither (can) a good tree produce evil fruit". Behold how two lords become apparent.
Observe how there are two natures and two lords.
Ad. By which means it does not even pursue this association, but from this you assume to supposing that it will gain to you support? But I declare what the scripture says: "No one can", it says, "serve two lords; for either the one he will hold hate and love the other, or he will hold to the one, and hate the other. You cannot serve God and mammon".
Eutr. What is this "mammon" mentioned?
Ad. It refers to "money" in the gentile language. Even as it was commonly spoken, that (2 Pe.2:19) "whoever is slave to it is in bondage to it". And for that reason Christ warned not to strive for money, nor to become a slave for mammon, but to God only should he rely. "For all", it says, "who commit sin are servants to sin".
Eutr. If mammon is a particular nature, Megethius, and holds a particular principle, it is money, no longer should it be two or three principles, but many. For how much easier can you speak of even the sun having its own nature, and the moon and the stars and the winds and the waters. Thus do you speak of money having its own principle and its own nature?
Meg. I do not say that, but Christ said that "An evil tree cannot produce good fruit, nor a good tree produces evil fruit".
Ad. Of that which you refer even a pea brain would not discern natures, but it would be related of men. For if it should speak of nature, by no means would it have named fruit, because a ripened nature is impossible. And he shows from the Gospel concerning the children of men that judgement is that spoken and not of nat ure or principles. For he says (Mt.7:15): "They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves; from their fruits you shall recognize them". And again (Lk.6:45; Mt.15:19): "A good man from (his) good treasure brings forth good, and an evil man from (his) evil treasure brings forth evil. For from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. For from the heart proceeds evil reasonings". You see that the Lord said that from the one nature of men proc eeds good and evil.
Meg. The Lord did not say this.
Eutr. And what other evidence should we require?
Ad. You say that nature is unchangeable; but in the Gospel it is written (Mt.3:9) that he is able to raise from stones sons of Abraham. Thereupon, tell me also this: formerly what kind of tree was the apostle Paul, good or evil? Respond.
Meg. This is not inquired from Paul.
Ad. He was formerly a persecutor, afterwards he was made an apostle. Thus how could an evil tree be made into that which is good? And as contrary as Judas, alongside is the apostle, if without doubt he is a good tree. Therefore how, was he made to bring forth, evil-bearing fruit?
And at this, along with the shouting from all (the audience), defeated Megethius, amidst the commotion, withdraws in accordance to the (allotted) time.
The End of the First Disputation.