Search
Mark 1:9Berean Standard BibleIn those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.Matthew 14:10King James VersionAnd he sent, and beheaded John in the prison.Mark 1:9King James VersionAnd it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.Luke 3:20King James VersionAdded yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.Acts 11:16King James VersionThen remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.Matthew 14:10American Standard Versionand he sent and beheaded John in the prison.Mark 1:9American Standard VersionAnd it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.Luke 3:20American Standard Versionadded this also to them all, that he shut up John in prison.Luke 9:9American Standard VersionAnd Herod said, John I beheaded: but who is this, about whom I hear such things? And he sought to see him.John 10:41American Standard VersionAnd many came unto him; and they said, John indeed did no sign: but all things whatsoever John spake of this man were true.Acts 1:5American Standard Versionfor John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence.Acts 11:16American Standard VersionAnd I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit.Matthew 14:10Young's Literal Translationand having sent, he beheaded John in the prison,Luke 1:63Young's Literal Translationand having asked for a tablet, he wrote, saying, `John is his name;' and they did all wonder;Luke 3:20Young's Literal Translationadded also this to all, that he shut up John in the prison.Luke 9:9Young's Literal Translationand Herod said, `John I did behead, but who is this concerning whom I hear such things?' and he was seeking to see him.Acts 11:16Young's Literal Translationand I remembered the saying of the Lord, how he said, John indeed did baptize with water, and ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit;Matthew 14:10Darby TranslationAnd he sent and beheaded John in the prison;Mark 1:29Darby TranslationAnd straightway going out of the synagogue, they came with James and John into the house of Simon and Andrew.Luke 1:63Darby TranslationAnd having asked for a writing-table, he wrote saying, John is his name. And they all wondered.Luke 3:20Darby Translationadded this also to all [the rest], that he shut up John in prison.Luke 9:9Darby TranslationAnd Herod said, John I have beheaded, but who is this of whom I hear such things? and he sought to see him.Acts 1:5Darby TranslationFor John indeed baptised with water, but ye shall be baptised with the Holy Spirit after now not many days.Acts 19:4Darby TranslationAnd Paul said, John indeed baptised [with] the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on him that was coming after him, that is, on Jesus.Matthew 14:10Webster BibleAnd he sent, and beheaded John in the prison.Mark 1:9Webster BibleAnd it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth to Galilee, and was baptized by John in Jordan.Luke 3:20Webster BibleAdded yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.Luke 7:18Webster BibleAnd the disciples of John informed him of all these things.Acts 11:16Webster BibleThen I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.Matthew 14:10Rotherham Emphasized Bibleand sent and beheaded John in the prison.Luke 3:20Rotherham Emphasized Bibleadded this also unto all,—he locked up John in prison.Mark 1:9Bible in Basic EnglishAnd it came about in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was given baptism by John in the Jordan.Acts 4:19Bible in Basic EnglishBut Peter and John in answer said to them, It is for you to say if it is right in the eyes of God to give attention to you more than to God:Matthew 14:10New Heart English Bibleand he sent and beheaded John in the prison.Mark 1:9New Heart English BibleIt happened in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.Luke 3:20New Heart English Bibleadded this also to them all, that he shut up John in prison.Luke 9:9New Heart English BibleHerod said, "John I beheaded, but who is this, about whom I hear such things?" He sought to see him.John 10:41New Heart English BibleMany came to him. They said, "John indeed did no sign, but everything that John said about this man is true."Acts 1:5New Heart English BibleFor John indeed baptized in water, but you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days from now."Acts 11:16New Heart English BibleI remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 'John indeed baptized in water, but you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit.'Acts 19:4New Heart English BiblePaul said, "John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe in the one who would come after him, that is, in Jesus."Matthew 11:14Open English Bibleand — if you are ready to accept it — John is himself the Elijah who was destined to come.Matthew 14:10Open English BibleHe sent and beheaded John in the prison;Mark 1:9Open English BibleNow about that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan.Mark 6:27Open English BibleHe immediately dispatched one of his bodyguard, with orders to bring John’s head. The man went and beheaded John in the prison,Luke 9:9Open English BibleBut Herod himself said: “John I beheaded; but who is this of whom I hear such things?” And he endeavored to see him.I Maccabees 16:21Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner)Now one running before, told John in Gazara, that his father and his brethren were slain, and that he hath sent men to kill thee also.Matthew 14:10Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner)And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison.Mark 1:9Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner)And it came to pass, in those days, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in Jordan.Luke 1:63Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner)And demanding a writing table, he wrote, saying: John is his name. And they all wondered.Luke 3:20Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner)He added this also above all and shut up John in prison.Luke 9:9Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner)And Herod said: John I have beheaded. But who is this of whom I hear such things? And he sought to see him.John 10:41Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner)And many resorted to him: and they said: John indeed did no sign.Acts 1:5Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner)For John indeed baptized with water: but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence.Acts 11:16Douay-Rheims Bible (Challoner)And I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said: John indeed baptized with water but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.I Maccabees 16:21Catholic Public Domain VersionNow a certain one, running ahead, reported to John in Gazara, that his father and his brothers perished, and that “he sent to kill you also.”Matthew 14:10Catholic Public Domain VersionAnd he sent and beheaded John in prison.Mark 1:9Catholic Public Domain VersionAnd it happened that, in those days, Jesus arrived from Nazareth of Galilee. And he was baptized by John in the Jordan.Luke 3:15Catholic Public Domain VersionNow all were thinking about John in their hearts, and the people were supposing that perhaps he might be the Christ.Acts 13:5Catholic Public Domain VersionAnd when they had arrived at Salamis, they were preaching the Word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they also had John in the ministry.Book 3 34:6The Imitation of Christ(1) 1 John ii. 15. (2) Psalm lxviii. 30.Book 4 17:8The Imitation of Christ(1) Luke i. 38. (2) John iii. 29.Section XIII 1:107Pascal's PenséesJohn ix: _Non est hic homo a Deo, quia sabbatum non custodit. Alii: Quomodo potest homo peccator hæc signa facere?_Section XIV 1:461Pascal's Pensées[258] P. 192, l. 30. _Veri adoratores._--John iv, 23.Section XIV 1:462Pascal's Pensées[259] P. 192, l. 30. _Ecce agnus_, etc.--John i, 29.Section XIV 1:515Pascal's Pensées[312] P. 232, l. 2. _Lambs took not_, etc.--See John i, 29.Section XIV 1:523Pascal's Pensées[320] P. 239, l. 12. _Scimus_, etc.--John iii, 2.Section XIV 1:533Pascal's Pensées[330] P. 246, l. 15. _Tu quid dicis_? etc.--John ix, 17, 33.Section XIV 1:541Pascal's Pensées[338] P. 249, l. 7. _Nemo potest_, etc.--John iii, 2.Section XIV 1:544Pascal's Pensées[341] P. 249, l. 16. _Nisi videritis, non creditis._--John iv, 8, 48.Section XIV 1:547Pascal's Pensées[344] P. 250, l. 7. _We have Moses_, etc.--John ix, 29.Section XIV 1:575Pascal's Pensées[372] P. 266, l. 12. _Sui eum non_, etc.--John i, 11, 12.Book XI 7:1Antiquities of the JewsWhen Eliashib the high priest was dead, his son Judas succeeded in the high priesthood; and when he was dead, his son John took that dignity; on whose account it was also that Bagoses, the general of another Artaxerxes's army, 22 polluted the temple, and imposed tributes on the Jews, that out of the public stock, before they offered the daily sacrifices, they should pay for every lamb fifty shekels. Now Jesus was the brother of John, and was a friend of Bagoses, who had promised to procure him the high priesthood. In confidence of whose support, Jesus quarreled with John in the temple, and so provoked his brother, that in his anger his brother slew him. Now it was a horrible thing for John, when he was high priest, to perpetrate so great a crime, and so much the more horrible, that there never was so cruel and impious a thing done, neither by the Greeks nor Barbarians. However, God did not neglect its punishment, but the people were on that very account enslaved, and the temple was polluted by the Persians. Now when Bagoses, the general of Artaxerxes's army, knew that John, the high priest of the Jews, had slain his own brother Jesus in the temple, he came upon the Jews immediately, and began in anger to say to them, "Have you had the impudence to perpetrate a murder in your temple?" And as he was aiming to go into the temple, they forbade him so to do; but he said to them, "Am not I purer than he that was slain in the temple?" And when he had said these words, he went into the temple. Accordingly, Bagoses made use of this pretense, and punished the Jews seven years for the murder of Jesus.Book II 21:3The Wars of the JewsNow at the same time that certain young men of the village Dabaritta, who kept guard in the Great Plain laid snares for Ptolemy, who was Agrippa's and Bernice's steward, and took from him all that he had with him; among which things there were a great many costly garments, and no small number of silver cups, and six hundred pieces of gold; yet were they not able to conceal what they had stolen, but brought it all to Josephus, to Taricheae. Hereupon he blamed them for the violence they had offered to the king and queen, and deposited what they brought to him with Eneas, the most potent man of Taricheae, with an intention of sending the things back to the owners at a proper time; which act of Josephus brought him into the greatest danger; for those that had stolen the things had an indignation at him, both because they gained no share of it for themselves, and because they perceived beforehand what was Josephus's intention, and that he would freely deliver up what had cost them so much pains to the king and queen. These ran away by night to their several villages, and declared to all men that Josephus was going to betray them: they also raised great disorders in all the neighboring cities, insomuch that in the morning a hundred thousand armed men came running together; which multitude was crowded together in the hippodrome at Taricheae, and made a very peevish clamor against him; while some cried out, that they should depose the traitor; and others, that they should burn him. Now John irritated a great many, as did also one Jesus, the son of Sapphias, who was then governor of Tiberias. Then it was that Josephus's friends, and the guards of his body, were so affrighted at this violent assault of the multitude, that they all fled away but four; and as he was asleep, they awaked him, as the people were going to set fire to the house. And although those four that remained with him persuaded him to run away, he was neither surprised at his being himself deserted, nor at the great multitude that came against him, but leaped out to them with his clothes rent, and ashes sprinkled on his head, with his hands behind him, and his sword hanging at his neck. At this sight his friends, especially those of Taricheae, commiserated his condition; but those that came out of the country, and those in their neighborhood, to whom his government seemed burdensome, reproached him, and bid him produce the money which belonged to them all immediately, and to confess the agreement he had made to betray them; for they imagined, from the habit in which he appeared, that he would deny nothing of what they suspected concerning him, and that it was in order to obtain pardon that he had put himself entirely into so pitiable a posture. But this humble appearance was only designed as preparatory to a stratagem of his, who thereby contrived to set those that were so angry at him at variance one with another about the things they were angry at. However, he promised he would confess all: hereupon he was permitted to speak, when he said, "I did neither intend to send this money back to Agrippa, nor to gain it myself; for I did never esteem one that was your enemy to be my friend, nor did I look upon what would tend to your disadvantage to be my advantage. But, O you people of Tarieheae, I saw that your city stood in more need than others of fortifications for your security, and that it wanted money in order for the building it a wall. I was also afraid lest the people of Tiberias and other cities should lay a plot to seize upon these spoils, and therefore it was that I intended to retain this money privately, that I might encompass you with a wall. But if this does not please you, I will produce what was brought me, and leave it to you to plunder it; but if I have conducted myself so well as to please you, you may if you please punish your benefactor."Book V 1:4The Wars of the JewsAnd now there were three treacherous factions in the city, the one parted from the other. Eleazar and his party, that kept the sacred first-fruits, came against John in their cups. Those that were with John plundered the populace, and went out with zeal against Simon. This Simon had his supply of provisions from the city, in opposition to the seditious. When, therefore, John was assaulted on both sides, he made his men turn about, throwing his darts upon those citizens that came up against him, from the cloisters he had in his possession, while he opposed those that attacked him from the temple by his engines of war. And if at any time he was freed from those that were above him, which happened frequently, from their being drunk and tired, he sallied out with a great number upon Simon and his party; and this he did always in such parts of the city as he could come at, till he set on fire those houses that were full of corn, and of all other provisions. 4 The same thing was done by Simon, when, upon the other's retreat, he attacked the city also; as if they had, on purpose, done it to serve the Romans, by destroying what the city had laid up against the siege, and by thus cutting off the nerves of their own power. Accordingly, it so came to pass, that all the places that were about the temple were burnt down, and were become an intermediate desert space, ready for fighting on both sides of it; and that almost all that corn was burnt, which would have been sufficient for a siege of many years. So they were taken by the means of the famine, which it was impossible they should have been, unless they had thus prepared the way for it by this procedure.Clementine Recognitions · Book 1 61:2Clement of Rome"And, behold, one of the disciples of John asserted that John was the Christ, and not Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus Himself declared that John was greater than all men and all prophets. `If, then, 'said he, `he be greater than all, he must be held to be greater than Moses, and than Jesus himself. But if he be the greatest of all, then must he be the Christ.' To this Simon the Canaanite, answering, asserted that John was indeed greater than all the prophets, and all who are born of women, yet that he is not greater than the Son of man. Accordingly Jesus is also the Christ, whereas John is only a prophet: and there is as much difference between him and Jesus, as between the forerunner and Him whose forerunner he is; or as between Him who gives the law, and him who keeps the law. Having made these and similar statements, the Canaanite also was silent. After him Barnabas, who also is called Matthias, who was substituted as an apostle in the place of Judas, began to exhort the people that they should not regard Jesus with hatred, nor speak evil of Him. For it were far more proper, even for one who might be in ignorance or in doubt concerning Jesus, to love than to hate Him. For God has affixed a reward to love, a penalty to hatred. `For the very fact, 'said he, `that He assumed a Jewish body, and was born among the Jews, how has not this incited us all to love Him? 'When he had spoken this, and more to the same effect, he stopped."Fragments of Papias - PIE 3:16Papias of Hierapolis1 Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was a disciple of John the Divine, and a companion of Polycarp, wrote five books of Oracles of the Lord, wherein, when giving a list of the Apostles, after Peter and John, Philip and Thomas and Matthew he included among the disciples of the Lord Aristion and a second John, whom also he called `The Elder.' [He says] that some think that this John is the author of the two short and catholic Epistles, which are published in the name of John; and he gives as the reason that the primitive (fathers) only accept the first epistle. Some too have wrongly considered the Apocalypse also to be his (i.e. the Elder John's) work. Papias too is in error about the Millennium, and from him Irenaeus also.Fragments of Papias - Schmidt 2:1Papias of Hierapolis5. It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him. The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.Fragments of Papias - Schmidt 3:4Papias of HierapolisPapias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was a disciple of John the Divine, and a companion of Polycarp, wrote five books of Oracles of the Lord, wherein, when giving a list of the Apostles, after Peter and John, Philip and Thomas and Matthew he included among the disciples of the Lord Aristion and a second John, whom also he called `The Elder.' So some think that this John is the author of the two short and catholic Epistles, which are published in the name of John; and he gives as the reason that the primitive (fathers) only accept the first epistle. Some too have wrongly considered the Apocalypse also to be his (i.e. the Elder John's) work. Papias too is in error about the Millennium, and from him Irenaeus also.Fragments of Papias - Schmidt 6:2Papias of HierapolisEcclesiastical History 2.46.18-37 PG 145 But indeed of the three [epistles] of John, except the first, the following two [epistles] are disputed as far as many [are concerned]. And opinion has it that there was another elder John, who lived with John in Ephesus as Papias the Heirapolitan says, recording that there are two tombs in Ephesus of the same name, John. And he says one is called "Elder" and [one is called] the Disciple [ὁμιλητὴν] himself. For cataloging the Elders of the apostles he also makes mention of these two, asserting in this way, "If one who followed the Elders should come, I inquired about the words of the Elders, what Andrew or Peter said, or Phillip or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord [said]. And what Aristion and the Elder John [said]. For I did not think I ought [to receive] so much from books but from a living voice.” Indeed the second and third epistle [of John] and also the Apocalypse some imagine that they belong to this Elder who lived in EphesusDialogue with Trypho 50:1Justin MartyrChapter L.-It is Proved from Isaiah that John is the Precursor of Christ.Diatessaron 5:5Tatian the Assyrian23 195 And Herod the governor, because he used to be rebuked by John because of Herodias the wife of Philip his brother, and for all the sins which he was committing, added to all that also this, 24 196 that he shut up John in prison.Diatessaron 17:2Tatian the Assyrian1 171 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, and all the things which came to pass at his hand; and he marvelled, for he had obtained excellent information concerning him. 2 173 And some men said that John the Baptist was risen from among the dead; 3 174 and others said that Elijah had appeared; and others, Jeremiah; and others, that a prophet of the old prophets was risen; 4 176 and others said that he was a prophet like one of the prophets. 5 177 Herod said to his servants, This is John the Baptist, he whom I beheaded; he is risen from among the dead: therefore mighty works result from him. 6 178 For Herod him self had sent and taken John, and cast him into prison, for the sake of Herodias his brother Philip's wife, whom he had taken. 7 179 And John said to Herod, Thou hast no authority to take the wife of thy brother. 8 180 And Herodias avoided him and wished to kill him; and she could not. 9 181 But Herod feared John, for he knew that he was a righteous man and a holy; and he guarded him, and heard him much, and did, and obeyed him with gladness. 10 182 And he wished to kill him; but he feared the people, for they adhered to him as the prophet. 11 183 And there was a celebrated day, and Herod had made a feast for his great men on the day of his anniversary, and for the officers and for the chief men of Galilee. 12 185 And the daughter of Herodias came in and danced in the midst of the company, and pleased Herod and those that sat with him. And the king said to the damsel, Ask of me what thou wilt, and I will give it thee. 13 186 And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask, I will give it thee, to the half of my kingdom. 14 187 And she went out, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask him? She said unto her, The head of John the Baptist. 15 189 And immediately she came in hastily to the king, and said unto him, I desire in this hour that thou give me on a dish the head of John the Baptist. 16 190 And the king was exceeding sorry; but because of the oath and the guests he did not wish to refuse her. 17 191 But immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded that he should bring the head of John: and he went and cut off the head of John in the prison, 18 192 and brought it on a dish, and delivered it to the damsel; and the damsel gave it to her mother. 19 193 And his disciples heard, and came and took his body, and buffed it. And they came and told Jesus what had happened. 20 195 And for this cause Herod said, I beheaded John: who is this, of whom I hear these things. And he desired to see him. 21 196 And Jesus, when he heard, removed thence in a boat to a waste place alone, to the other side of the sea of the Galilee of Tiberias.Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 1 2:6Irenaeus5. They show, further, that that Horos of theirs, whom they call by a variety of names, has two faculties,-the one of supporting, and the other of separating; and in so far as he supports and sustains, he is Stauros, while in so far as he divides and separates, he is Horos. They then represent the Saviour as having indicated this twofold faculty: first, the sustaining power, when He said, "Whosoever doth not bear his cross (Stauros), and follow after me, cannot be my disciple; " and again, "Taking up the cross follow me; " but the separating power when He said, "I came not to send peace, but a word." They also maintain that John indicated the same thing when he said, "The fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly purge the floor, and will gather the wheat into His garner; but the chaff He will burn with fire unquenchable." By this declaration He set forth the faculty of Horos. For that fan they explain to be the cross (Stauros), which consumes, no doubt, all material objects, as fire does chaff, but it purifies all them that are saved, as a fan does wheat. Moreover, they affirm that the Apostle Paul himself made mention of this cross in the following words: "The doctrine of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God." And again: "God forbid that I should glory in anything save in the cross of Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world."Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 3 9:5Irenaeus4. And that we may not have to ask, Of what God was the Word made flesh? he does himself previously teach us, saying, "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came as a witness, that he might bear witness of that Light. He was not that Light, but [came] that he might testify of the Light." By what God, then, was John, the forerunner, who testifies of the Light, sent [into the world]? Truly it was by Him, of whom Gabriel is the angel, who also announced the glad tidings of his birth: [that God] who also had promised by the prophets that He would send His messenger before the face of His Son, who should prepare His way, that is, that he should bear witness of that Light in the spirit and power of Elias. But, again, of what God was Elias the servant and the prophet? Of Him who made heaven and earth, as he does himself confess. John, therefore, having been sent by the founder and maker of this world, how could he testify of that Light, which came down from things unspeakable and invisible? For all the heretics have decided that the Demiurge was ignorant of that Power above him, whose witness and herald John is found to be. Wherefore the Lord said that He deemed him "more than a prophet." For all the other prophets preached the advent of the paternal Light, and desired to be worthy of seeing Him whom they preached; but John did both announce [the advent] beforehand, in a like manner as did the others, and actually saw Him when He came, and pointed Him out, and persuaded many to believe on Him, so that he did himself hold the place of both prophet and apostle. For this is to be more than a prophet, because, "first apostles, secondarily prophets; " but all things from one and the same God Himself.The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching · THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE APOSTOLIC PREACHING 8:22Irenaeus90. John i. 14.The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching · THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE APOSTOLIC PREACHING 10:7Irenaeus125. John i. 1 ff.The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching · THE DEMONSTRATION OF THE APOSTOLIC PREACHING 15:14Irenaeus257. John i. 14.Exhortation to the Heathen 1:15Clement of AlexandriaDoes not John also invite to salvation, and is he not entirely a voice of exhortation? Let us then ask him, "Who of men art thou, and whence? "He will not say Elias. He will deny that he is Christ, but will profess himself to be "a voice crying in the wilderness." Who, then, is John? In a word, we may say, "The beseeching voice of the Word crying in the wilderness." What criest thou, O voice? Tell us also. "Make straight the paths of the Lord." John is the forerunner, and that voice the precursor of the Word; an inviting voice, preparing for salvation,-a voice urging men on to the inheritance of the heavens, and through which the barren and the desolate is childless no more. This fecundity the angel's voice foretold; and this voice was also the precursor of the Lord preaching glad tidings to the barren woman, as John did to the wilderness. By reason of this voice of the Word, therefore, the barren woman bears children, and the desert becomes fruitful. The two voices which heralded the Lord's-that of the angel and that of John-intimate, as I think, the salvation in store for us to be, that on the appearance of this Word we should reap, as the fruit of this productiveness, eternal life. The Scripture makes this all clear, by referring both the voices to the same thing: "Let her hear who has not brought forth, and let her who has not had the pangs of childbirth utter her voice: for more are the children of the desolate, than of her who hath an husband."A Treatise on the Soul 55:2TertullianBy ourselves the lower regions (of Hades) are not supposed to be a bare cavity, nor some subterranean sewer of the world, but a vast deep space in the interior of the earth, and a concealed recess in its very bowels; inasmuch as we read that Christ in His death spent three days in the heart of the earth, that is, in the secret inner recess which is hidden in the earth, and enclosed by the earth, and superimposed on the abysmal depths which lie still lower down. Now although Christ is God, yet, being also man, "He died according to the Scriptures," and "according to the same Scriptures was buried." With the same law of His being He fully complied, by remaining in Hades in the form and condition of a dead man; nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself. (This being the case), you must suppose Hades to be a subterranean region, and keep at arm's length those who are too proud to believe that the souls of the faithful deserve a place in the lower regions. These persons, who are "servants above their Lord, and disciples above their Master," would no doubt spurn to receive the comfort of the resurrection, if they must expect it in Abraham's bosom. But it was for this purpose, say they, that Christ descended into hell, that we might not ourselves have to descend thither. Well, then, what difference is there between heathens and Christians, if the same prison awaits them all when dead? How, indeed, shall the soul mount up to heaven, where Christ is already sitting at the Father's right hand, when as yet the archangel's trumpet has not been heard by the command of God, -when as yet those whom the coming of the Lord is to find on the earth, have not been caught up into the air to meet Him at His coming, in company with the dead in Christ, who shall be the first to arise? To no one is heaven opened; the earth is still safe for him, I would not say it is shut against him. When the world, indeed, shall pass away, then the kingdom of heaven shall be opened. Shall we then have to sleep high up in ether, with the boy-loving worthies of Plato; or in the air with Arius; or around the moon with the Endymions of the Stoics? No, but in Paradise, you tell me, whither already the patriarchs and prophets have removed from Hades in the retinue of the Lord's resurrection. How is it, then, that the region of Paradise, which as revealed to John in the Spirit lay under the altar, displays no other souls as in it besides the souls of the martyrs? How is it that the most heroic martyr Perpetua on the day of her passion saw only her fellow-martyrs there, in the revelation which she received of Paradise, if it were not that the sword which guarded the entrance permitted none to go in thereat, except those who had died in Christ and not in Adam? A new death for God, even the extraordinary one for Christ, is admitted into the reception-room of mortality, specially altered and adapted to receive the new-comer. Observe, then, the difference between a heathen and a Christian in their death: if you have to lay down your life for God, as the Comforter counsels, it is not in gentle fevers and on soft beds, but in the sharp pains of martyrdom: you must take up the cross and bear it after your Master, as He has Himself instructed you. The sole key to unlock Paradise is your own life's blood. You have a treatise by us, (on Paradise), in which we have established the position that every soul is detained in safe keeping in Hades until the day of the Lord.An Answer to the Jews 9:6Tertullian"But if the Christ," say they, "who is believed to be coming is not called Jesus, why is he who is come called Jesus Christ? "Well, each name will meet in the Christ of God, in whom is found likewise the appellation Jesus. Learn the habitual character of your error. In the course of the appointing of a successor to Moses, Oshea the son of Nun is certainly transferred from his pristine name, and begins to be called Jesus. Certainly, you say. This we first assert to have been a figure of the future. For, because Jesus Christ was to introduce the second people (which is composed of us nations, lingering deserted in the world aforetime) into the land of promise, "flowing with milk and honey" (that is, into the possession of eternal life, than which nought is sweeter); and this had to come about, not through Moses (that is, not through the Law's discipline), but through Joshua (that is, through the new law's grace), after our circumcision with "a knife of rock" (that is, with Christ's precepts, for Christ is in many ways and figures predicted as a rock ); therefore the man who was being prepared to act as images of this sacrament was inaugurated under the figure of the Lord's name, even so as to be named Jesus. For He who ever spake to Moses was the Son of God Himself; who, too, was always seen . For God the Father none ever saw, and lived. And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"-that is, the people's-"face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped thy notice, since my name is upon him." For Joshua was to introduce the people into the land of promise, not Moses. Now He called him an "angel," on account of the magnitude of the mighty deeds which he was to achieve (which mighty deeds Joshua the son of Nun did, and you yourselves read), and on account of his office of prophet announcing (to wit) the divine will; just as withal the Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a future "angel," through the prophet: "Behold, I send mine angel before Thy"-that is, Christ's-"face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee." Nor is it a novel practice to the Holy Spirit to call those "angels" whom God has appointed as ministers of His power. For the same John is called not merely an "angel" of Christ, but withal a "lamp" shining before Christ: for David predicts, "I have prepared the lamp for my Christ; " and him Christ Himself, coming "to fulfil the prophets," called so to the Jews. "He was," He says, "the burning and shining lamp; " as being he who not merely "prepared His ways in the desert," but withal, by pointing out "the Lamb of God," illumined the minds of men by his heralding, so that they understood Him to be that Lamb whom Moses was wont to announce as destined to suffer. Thus, too, (was the son of Nun called) Joshua, on account of the future mystery of his name: for that name (He who spake with Moses) confirmed as His own which Himself had conferred on him, because He had bidden him thenceforth be called, not "angel" nor "Oshea," but "Joshua." Thus, therefore, each name is appropriate to the Christ of God-that He should be called Jesus as well (as Christ).On the Resurrection of the Flesh 20:2TertullianWe have also in the Scriptures robes mentioned as allegorizing the hope of the flesh. Thus in the Revelation of John it is said: "These are they which have not defiled their clothes with women," -indicating, of course, virgins, and such as have become "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake." Therefore they shall be "clothed in white raiment," that is, in the bright beauty of the unwedded flesh. In the gospel even, "the wedding garment" may be regarded as the sanctity of the flesh. And so, when Isaiah tells us what sort of "fast the Lord hath chosen," and subjoins a statement about the reward of good works, he says: "Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy garments, shall speedily arise; " where he has no thought of cloaks or stuff gowns, but means the rising of the flesh, which he declared the resurrection of, after its fall in death. Thus we are furnished even with an allegorical defence of the resurrection of the body. When, then, we read, "Go, my people, enter into your closets for a little season, until my anger pass away," we have in the closets graves, in which they will have to rest for a little while, who shall have at the end of the world departed this life in the last furious onset of the power of Antichrist. Why else did He use the expression closets , in preference to some other receptacle, if it were not that the flesh is kept in these closets or cellars salted and reserved for use, to be drawn out thence on a suitable occasion? It is on a like principle that embalmed corpses are set aside for burial in mausoleums and sepulchres, in order that they may be removed therefrom when the Master shall order it. Since, therefore, there is consistency in thus understanding the passage (for what refuge of little closets could possibly shelter us from the wrath of God? ), it appears that by the very phrase which he uses, "Until His anger pass away," which shall extinguish Antichrist, he in fact shows that after that indignation the flesh will come forth from the sepulchre, in which it had been deposited previous to the bursting out of the anger. Now out of the closets nothing else is brought than that which had been put into them, and after the extirpation of Antichrist shall be busily transacted the great process of the resurrection.The Five Books Against Marcion · Book 3 14:3TertullianFor besides the generally known fact, that the riches of the East, that is to say, its strength and resources, usually consist of gold and spices, it is certainly true of the Creator, that He makes gold the riches of the other nations also. Thus He says by Zechariah: "And Judah shall also fight at Jerusalem and shall gather together all the wealth of the nations round about, gold and silver." Moreover, respecting that gift of gold, David also says: "And there shall be given to Him of the gold of Arabia; " and again: "The kings of Arabia and Saba shall offer to Him gifts." For the East generally regarded the magi as kings; and Damascus was anciently deemed to belong to Arabia, before it was transferred to Syrophoenicia on the division of the Syrias (by Rome). Its riches Christ then received, when He received the tokens thereof in the gold and spices; while the spoils of Samaria were the magi themselves. These having discovered Him and honoured Him with their gifts, and on beaded knee adored Him as their God and King, through the witness of the star which led their way and guided them, became the spoils of Samaria, that is to say, of idolatry, because, as it is easy enough to see, they believed in Christ. He designated idolatry under the name of Samaria, as that city was shameful for its idolatry, through which it had then revolted from God from the days of king Jeroboam. Nor is this an unusual manner for the Creator, (in His Scriptures ) figuratively to employ names of places as a metaphor derived from the analogy of their sins. Thus He calls the Chief men of the Jews "rulers of Sodom," and the nation itself "people of Gomorrah." And in another passage He also says: "Thy father was an Amorite, and thy mother an Hittite," by reason of their kindred iniquity; although He had actually called them His sons: "I have nourished and brought up children ." So likewise by Egypt is sometimes understood, in His sense, the whole world as being marked out by superstition and a curse By a similar usage Babylon also in our (St.) John is a figure of the city of Rome, as being like (Babylon) great and proud in royal power, and warring down the saints of God. Now it was in accordance with this style that He called the magi by the name of Samaritans, because (as we have said) they had practised idolatry as did the Samaritans. Moreover, by the phrase "before or against the king of Assyria," understand "against Herod; "against whom the magi then opposed themselves, when they refrained from carrying him back word concerning Christ, whom he was seeking to destroy.The Five Books Against Marcion · Book 4 3:2TertullianThe publican who was chosen by the Lord, he adduces for a proof that he was chosen as a stranger to the law and uninitiated in Judaism, by one who was an adversary to the law. The case of Peter escaped his memory, who, although he was a man of the law, was not only chosen by the Lord, but also obtained the testimony of possessing knowledge which was given to him by the Father. He had nowhere read of Christ's being foretold as the light, and hope, and expectation of the Gentiles! He , however, rather spoke of the Jews in a favourable light, when he said, "The whole needed not a physician, but they that are sick." For since by "those that are sick" he meant that the heathens and publicans should be understood, whom he was choosing, he affirmed of the Jews that they were "whole" for whom he said that a physician was not necessary. This being the case, he makes a mistake in coming down to destroy the law, as if for the remedy of a diseased condition. because they who were living under it were "whole," and "not in want of a physician." How, moreover, does it happen that he proposed the similitude of a physician , if he did not verify it? For, just as nobody uses a physician for healthy persons, so will no one do so for strangers, in so far as he is one of Marcion's god-made men, having to himself both a creator and preserver, and a specially good physician, in his Christ. This much the comparison predetermines, that a physician is more usually furnished by him to whom the sick people belong. Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John! After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system. They have their own special and plenary course in the Creator's dispensation. Of John, however, what else I have to say will be found in another passage. To the several points which now come before us an answer must be given. This, then, I will take care to do -demonstrate that, reciprocally, John is suitable to Christ, and Christ to Joan, the latter, of course, as a prophet of the Creator, just as the former is the Creator's Christ; and so the heretic may blush at frustrating, to his own frustration, the mission of John the Baptist . For if there had been no ministry of John at all-"the voice," as Isaiah calls him, "of one crying in the wilderness," and the preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of repentance; if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself along with others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate and drank, to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying; because, if there existed any diversity between Christ and John, and their followers respectively, no exact comparison would be possible, nor would there be a single point where it could be challenged. For nobody would feel surprise, and nobody would be perplexed, although there should arise rival predictions of a diverse deity, which should also mutually differ about modes of conduct, having a prior difference about the authorities upon which they were based. Therefore Christ belonged to John, and John to Christ; while both belonged to the Creator, and both were of the law and the prophets, preachers and masters. Else Christ would have rejected the discipline of John, as of the rival god, and would also have defended the disciples, as very properly pursuing a different walk, because consecrated to the service of another and contrary deity. But as it is, while modestly giving a reason why "the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," but promising that "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them," He neither defended the disciples, (but rather excused them, as if they had not been blamed without some reason), nor rejected the discipline of John, but rather allowed it, referring it to the time of John, although destining it for His own time. Otherwise His purpose would have been to reject it, and to defend its opponents, if He had not Himself already belonged to it as then in force. I hold also that it is my Christ who is meant by the bridegroom, of whom the psalm says: "He is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and His return is back to the end of it again." By the mouth of Isaiah He also says exultingly of the Father: "Let my soul rejoice in the Lord; for He hath clothed me with the garment of salvation and with the tunic of joy, as a bridegroom. He hath put a mitre round about my head, as a bride." To Himself likewise He appropriates the church, concerning which the same Spirit says to Him: "Thou shall clothe Thee with them all, as with a bridal ornament." This spouse Christ invites home to Himself also by Solomon from the call of the Gentiles, because you read: "Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse." He elegantly makes mention of Lebanon (the mountain, of course) because it stands for the name of frankincense with the Greeks; for it was from idolatry that He betrothed Himself the church. Deny now, Marcion, your utter madness, (if you can)! Behold, you impugn even the law of your god. He unites not in the nuptial bond, nor, when contracted, does he allow it; no one does he baptize but a cµlebs or a eunuch; until death or divorce does he reserve baptism. Wherefore, then, do you make his Christ a bridegroom? This is the designation of Him who united man and woman, not of him who separated them. You have erred also in that declaration of Christ, wherein He seems to make a difference between things new and old. You are inflated about the old bottles, and brain-muddled with the new wine; and therefore to the old (that is to say, to the prior) gospel you have sewed on the patch of your new-fangled heresy. I should like to know in what respect the Creator is inconsistent with Himself. When by Jeremiah He gave this precept, "Break up for yourselves new pastures," does He not turn away from the old state of things? And when by Isaiah He proclaims how "old things were passed away; and, behold, all things, which I am making, are new," does He not advert to a new state of things? We have generally been of opinion that the destination of the former state of things was rather promised by the Creator, and exhibited in reality by Christ, only under the authority of one and the same God, to whom appertain both the old things and the new. For new wine is not put into old bottles, except by one who has the old bottles; nor does anybody put a new piece to an old garment, unless the old garment be forthcoming to him. That person only does not do a thing when it is not to be done, who has the materials wherewithal to do it if it were to be done. And therefore, since His object in making the comparison was to show that He was separating the new condition of the gospel from the old state of the law, He proved that that from which He was separating His own ought not to have been branded as a separation of things which were alien to each other; for nobody ever unites his own things with things that are alien to them, in order that he may afterwards be able to separate them from the alien things. A separation is possible by help of the conjunction through which it is made. Accordingly, the things which He separated He also proved to have been once one; as they would have remained, were it not for His separation. But still we make this concession, that there is a separation, by reformation, by amplification, by progress; just as the fruit is separated from the seed, although the fruit comes from the seed. So likewise the gospel is separated from the law, whilst it advances from the law-a different thing from it, but not an alien one; diverse, but not contrary. Nor in Christ do we even find any novel form of discourse. Whether He proposes similitudes or refute questions, it comes from the seventy-seventh Psalm. "I will open," says He, "my mouth in a parable" (that is, in a similitude); "I will utter dark problems" (that is, I will set forth questions). If you should wish to prove that a man belonged to another race, no doubt you would fetch your proof from the idiom of his language.The Five Books Against Marcion · Book 4 4:8TertullianLikewise, when extolling the centurion's faith, how incredible a thing it is, that He should confess that He had "found so great a faith not even in Israel." to whom Israel's faith was in no way interesting! But not from the fact (here stated by Christ) could it have been of any interest to Him to approve and compare what was hitherto crude, nay, I might say, hitherto naught. Why, however, might He not have used the example of faith in another god? Because, if He had done so, He would have said that no such faith had ever had existence in Israel; but as the case stands, He intimates that He ought to have found so great a faith in Israel, inasmuch as He had indeed come for the purpose of finding it, being in truth the God and Christ of Israel, and had now stigmatized it, only as one who would enforce and Uphold it. If, indeed, He had been its antagonist, He would have preferred finding it to be such faith, having come to weaken and destroy it rather than to approve of it. He raised also the widow's son from death. This was not a strange miracle. The Creator's prophets had wrought such; then why not His Son much rather? Now, so evidently had the Lord Christ introduced no other god for the working of so momentous a miracle as this, that all who were present gave glory to the Creator, saying: "A great prophet is risen up among us, and God hath visited His people." What God? He, of course, whose people they were, and from whom had come their prophets. But if they glorified the Creator, and Christ (on hearing them, and knowing their meaning) refrained from correcting them even in their very act of invoking the Creator in that vast manifestation of His glory in this raising of the dead, undoubtedly He either announced no other God but Him, whom He thus permitted to be honoured in His own beneficent acts and miracles, or else how happens it that He quietly permitted these persons to remain so long in their error, especially as He came for the very purpose to cure them of their error? But John is offended when he hears of the miracles of Christ, as of an alien god. Well, I on my side will first explain the reason of his offence, that I may the more easily explode the scandal of our heretic. Now, that the very Lord Himself of all might, the Word and Spirit of the Father, was operating and preaching on earth, it was necessary that the portion of the Holy Spirit which, in the form of the prophetic gift, had been through John preparing the ways of the Lord, should now depart from John, and return back again of course to the Lord, as to its all-embracing original. Therefore John, being now an ordinary person, and only one of the many, was offended indeed as a man, but not because he expected or thought of another Christ as teaching or doing nothing new, for he was not even expecting such a one. Nobody will entertain doubts about any one whom (since he knows him not to exist) he has no expectation or thought of. Now John was quite sure that there was no other God but the Creator, even as a Jew, especially as a prophet. Whatever doubt he felt was evidently rather entertained about Him whom he knew indeed to exist but knew not whether He were the very Christ . With this fear, therefore, even John asks the question, "Art thou He that should come, or look we for another? " -simply inquiring whether He was come as He whom he was looking for. "Art thou He that should come? " i.e. Art thou the coming One? "or look we for another? " i.e. Is He whom we are expecting some other than Thou, if Thou art not He whom we expect to come? For he was supposing, as all men then thought, from the similarity of the miraculous evidences, that a prophet might possibly have been meanwhile sent, from whom the Lord Himself, whose coming was then expected, was different, and to whom He was superior. And there lay John's difficulty. He was in doubt whether He was actually come whom all men were looking for; whom, moreover, they ought to have recognised by His predicted works, even as the Lord sent word to John, that it was by means of these very works that He was to be recognised. Now, inasmuch as these predictions evidently related to the Creator's Christ-as we have proved in the examination of each of them-it was perverse enough, if he gave himself out to be not the Christ of the Creator, and rested the proof of his statement on those very evidences whereby he was urging his claims to be received as the Creator's Christ. Far greater still is his perverseness when, not being the Christ of John, he yet bestows on John his testimony, affirming him to be a prophet, nay more, his messenger, applying to him the Scripture, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." He graciously adduced the prophecy in the superior sense of the alternative mentioned by the perplexed John, in order that, by affirming that His own precursor was already come in the person of John, He might quench the doubt which lurked in his question: "Art thou He that, should come, or look we for another? "Now that the forerunner had fulfilled his mission, and the way of the Lord was prepared, He ought now to be acknowledged as that (Christ) for whom the forerunner had made ready the way. That forerunner was indeed "greater than all of women born; " but for all that, He who was least in the kingdom of God was not subject to him; as if the kingdom in which the least person was greater than John belonged to one God, while John, who was greater than all of women born, belonged himself to another God. For whether He speaks of any "least person" by reason of his humble position, or of Himself, as being thought to be less than John-since all were running into the wilderness after John rather than after Christ ("What went ye out into the wilderness to see? " )-the Creator has equal right to claim as His own both John, greater than any born of women, and Christ, or every "least person in the kingdom of heaven ," who was destined to be greater than John in that kingdom, although equally pertaining to the Creator, and who would be so much greater than the prophet, because he would not have been offended at Christ, an infirmity which then lessened the greatness of John.We have already spoken of the forgiveness of sins. The behaviour of "the woman which was a sinner," when she covered the Lord's feet with her kisses, bathed them with her tears, wiped them with the hairs of her head, anointed them with ointment, produced an evidence that what she handled was not an empty phantom, but a really solid body, and that her repentance as a sinner deserved forgiveness according to the mind of the Creator, who is accustomed to prefer mercy to sacrifice. But even if the stimulus of her repentance proceeded from her faith, she heard her justification by faith through her repentance pronounced in the words, "Thy faith hath saved thee," by Him who had declared by Habakkuk, "The just shall live by his faith."The Five Books Against Marcion · Book 4 6:4TertullianWhat the two masters are who, He says, cannot be served, on the ground that while one is pleased the other must needs be displeased, He Himself makes clear, when He mentions God and mammon. Then, if you have no interpreter by you, you may learn again from Himself what He would have understood by mammon . For when advising us to provide for ourselves the help of friends in worldly affairs, after the example of that steward who, when removed from his office, relieves his lord's debtors by lessening their debts with a view to their recompensing him with their help, He said, "And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness," that is to say, of money, even as the steward had done. Now we are all of us aware that money is the instigator of unrighteousness, and the lord of the whole world. Therefore, when he saw the covetousness of the Pharisees doing servile worship to it, He hurled this sentence against them, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Then the Pharisees, who were covetous of riches, derided Him, when they understood that by mammon He meant money. Let no one think that under the word mammon the Creator was meant, and that Christ called them off from the service of the Creator. What folly ! Rather learn therefrom that one God was pointed out by Christ. For they were two masters whom He named, God and mammon-the Creator and money. You cannot indeed serve God-Him, of course whom they seemed to serve-and mammon to whom they preferred to devote themselves. If, however, he was giving himself out as another god , it would not be two masters, but three, that he had pointed out. For the Creator was a master, and much more of a master, to be sure, than mammon, and more to be adored, as being more truly our Master. Now, how was it likely that He who had called mammon a master, and had associated him with God, should say nothing of Him who was really the Master of even these, that is, the Creator? Or else, by this silence respecting Him did He concede that service might be rendered to Him , since it was to Himself alone and to mammon that He said service could not be (simultaneously) rendered? When, therefore, He lays down the position that God is one, since He would have been sure to mention the Creator if He were Himself a rival to Him, He did (virtually) name the Creator, when He refrained from insisting" that He was Master alone, without a rival god. Accordingly, this will throw light upon the sense in which it was said, "If ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? " "In the unrighteous mammon," that is to say, in unrighteous riches, not in the Creator; for even Marcion allows Him to be righteous: "And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who will give to you that which is mine? " For whatever is unrighteous ought to be foreign to the servants of God. But in what way was the Creator foreign to the Pharisees, seeing that He was the proper God of the Jewish nation? Forasmuch then as the words, "Who will entrust to you the truer riches? "and, "Who will give you that which is mine? "are only suitable to the Creator and not to mammon, He could not have uttered them as alien to the Creator, and in the interest of the rival god. He could only seem to have spoken them in this sense, if, when remarking their unfaithfulness to the Creator and not to mammon, He had drawn some distinctions between the Creator (in his manner of mentioning Him) and the rival god-how that the latter would not commit his own truth to those who were unfaithful to the Creator. How then can he possibly seem to belong to another god, if He be not set forth, with the express intention of being separated from the very thing which is in question. But when the Pharisees "justified themselves before men," and placed their hope of reward in man, He censured them in the sense in which the prophet Jeremiah said, "Cursed is the man that trust-eth in man." Since the prophet went on to say, "But the Lord knoweth your hearts," he magnified the power of that God who declared Himself to be as a lamp, "searching the reins and the heart." When He strikes at pride in the words: "That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God," He recalls Isaiah: "For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is arrogant and lifted up, and they shall be brought low." I can now make out why Marcion's god was for so long an age concealed. He was, I suppose, waiting until he had learnt all these things from the Creator. He continued his pupillage up to the time of John, and then proceeded forthwith to announce the kingdom of God, saying: "The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is proclaimed." Just as if we also did not recognise in John a certain limit placed between the old dispensation and the new, at which Judaism ceased and Christianity began-without, however, supposing that it was by the power of another god that there came about a cessation of the law and the prophets and the commencement of that gospel in which is the kingdom of God, Christ Himself. For although, as we have shown, the Creator foretold that the old state of things would pass away and a new state would succeed, yet, inasmuch as John is shown to be both the forerunner and the pre-pater of the ways of that Lord who was to introduce the gospel and publish the kingdom of God, it follows from the very fact that John has come, that Christ must be that very Being who was to follow His harbinger John. So that, if the old course has ceased and the new has begun, with John intervening between them, there will be nothing wonderful in it, because it happens according to the purpose of the Creator; so that you may get a better proof for the kingdom of God from any quarter, however anomalous, than from the conceit that the law and the prophets ended in John, and a new state of things began after him. "More easily, therefore, may heaven and earth pass away-as also the law and the prophets-than that one tittle of the Lord's words should fail." "For," as says Isaiah: "the word of our God shall stand for ever." Since even then by Isaiah it was Christ, the Word and Spirit of the Creator, who prophetically described John as "the voice of one crying in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord," and as about to come for the purpose of terminating thenceforth the course of the law and the prophets; by their fulfilment and not their extinction, and in order that the kingdom of God might be announced by Christ, He therefore purposely added the assurance that the elements would more easily pass away than His words fail; affirming, as He did, the further fact, that what He had said concerning John had not fallen to the ground.Fragments - Dogmatical and Historical 5:1Hippolytus of Rome15. But some one will say to me, You adduce a thing strange to me, when you call the Son the Word. For John indeed speaks of the Word, but it is by a figure of speech. Nay, it is by no figure of speech . For while thus presenting this Word that was from the beginning, and has now been sent forth, he said below in the Apocalypse, "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and He that sat upon him (was) Faithful and True; and in righteousness He doth judge and make war. And His eyes (were) as flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns; and He had a name written that no man knew but He Himself. And He (was) clothed in a vesture dipped in blood: and His name is called the Word of God." See then, brethren, how the vesture sprinkled with blood denoted in symbol the flesh, through which the impassible Word of God came under suffering, as also the prophets testify to me. For thus speaks the blessed Micah: "The house of Jacob provoked the Spirit of the Lord to anger. These are their pursuits. Are not His words good with them, and do they walk rightly? And they have risen up in enmity against His countenance of peace, and they have stripped off His glory." That means His suffering in the flesh. And in like manner also the blessed Paul says, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be shown in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." What Son of His own, then, did God send through the flesh but the Word, whom He addressed as Son because He was to become such (or be begotten) in the future? And He takes the common name for tender affection among men in being called the Son. For neither was the Word, prior to incarnation and when by Himself, yet perfect Son, although He was perfect Word, only-begotten. Nor could the flesh subsist by itself apart from the Word, because it has its subsistence in the Word. Thus, then, one perfect Son of God was manifested.Quotes on Revelation recorded by Dionysius Syrus 6:18Hippolytus of RomeHippolytus of Rome states that a man named Gaius had appeared, who said that neither the Gospel nor yet the Revelation was John's; but that they were the work of Cerinthus the heretic. And the blessed Hippolytus opposed this Gaius, and showed that the teaching of John in the Gospel and Revelation was different from that of Cerinthus. "This Cerinthus was one who taught circumcision, and was angry with Paul when he did not circumcise Titus, and the Apostle calls him and his disciples in one of his letters 'sham apostles, crafty workers.' Again he teaches that the world was created by angels, and that our Lord was not born of a virgin. He also teaches carnal eating and drinking, and many other blasphemies. The Gospel and Revelation of John, however, are like the teaching which the Scriptures contain; and so they are liars who say that the Revelation is not by the Apostle John." And we agree with Hippolytus that the Revelation is the Evangelist John's. This is attested by S. Cyril and Mar Severus, and all the teachers who bring evidence from it. Also the Theologian, in his 'Address to the Nation,' testifies that there is no proof from the conclusion, and says, 'as John taught me by his Revelation; He made a way for thy people, and these stones'----where he calls the heretics and their teaching stones."Quotes on Revelation recorded by Dionysius Syrus 9:10Hippolytus of RomeThis, at last, appeared to establish that Gaius had also opposed the Fourth Gospel—though doubts were still possible for the sceptic, for Loftus's translation of the name of Gaius was evidently based on a Syriac text which included it only as 'added in the margin by a later hand'![24] Another Syriac copy of the text discovered later ( British Museum Add. 12,143) in fact did not include the name of the heretic.[25] The objection is followed in the commentary, however, by a reply from Hippolytus, as in the extracts from the Commentary on Revelation . In any case, Harris's discovery was corroborated when T. H. Robinson in 1906 discovered and published a manuscript of bar Salibi's Commentary on Revelation which contained its prologue (missing in the manuscript used by Gwynn), in which bar Salibi explicitly named Gaius as one who attributed both Johannine works to Cerinthus.[26] 'Hippolytus of Rome states that a man named Gaius had appeared, who said that neither the Gospel nor yet the Revelation was John's; but that they were the work of Cerinthus the heretic. And the blessed Hippolytus opposed this Gaius, and showed that the teaching of John in the Gospel and Revelation was different from that of Cerinthus.'[27]Quotes on Revelation recorded by Dionysius Syrus 9:24Hippolytus of RomeIn this he states his intention to publish the Latin translation of the Commentary , but in fact he never did so. However his manuscript was intended for a publisher, so is quite readable. I could only transcribe a small portion, which took around an hour (John is contained in folios 105-193); this is from f.124, where his commentary on chapter 2 of John starts. From the top of the page (underlinings by Loftus):