p. 321 Book III.
Following the track of my original treatise, the loss of which we are steadily proceeding 3092 to restore, we come now, in the order of our subject, to treat of Christ, although this be a work of supererogation, 3093 after the proof which we have gone through that there is but one only God. For no doubt it has been already ruled with sufficient clearness, that Christ must be regarded as pertaining to 3094 no other God than the Creator, when it has been determined that no other God but the Creator should be the object of our faith. Him did Christ so expressly preach, whilst the apostles one after the other also so clearly affirmed that Christ belonged to 3095 no other God than Him whom He Himself preached—that is, the Creator—that no mention of a second God (nor, accordingly, of a second Christ) was ever agitated previous to Marcions scandal. This is most easily proved by an examination 3096 of both the apostolic and the heretical churches, 3097 from which we are forced to declare that there is undoubtedly a subversion of the rule (of faith), where any opinion is found of later date, 3098 —a point which I have inserted in my first book. 3099 A discussion of it would unquestionably be of value even now, when we are about to make a separate examination into (the subject of) Christ; because, whilst proving Christ to be the Creators Son, we are effectually shutting out the God of Marcion. Truth should employ all her available resources, and in no limping way. 3100 In our compendious rules of faith, however, she has it all her own way. 3101 But I have resolved, like an earnest man, 3102 to meet my adversary every way and everywhere in the madness of his heresy, which is so great, that he has found it easier to assume that that Christ has come who was never heard of, than He who has always been predicted.
Ubi posteritas invenitur. Compare De Præscript. Hæret. 34, where Tertullian refers to “that definite rule, before laid down, touching the later date (illo fine supra dicto posteritatis), whereby they (i.e., certain novel opinions) would at once be condemned on the ground of their age alone.” In 31 of the same work he contrasts “posteritatem mendacitatis” with “principalitatem veritatis”—“the latter date of falsehood” with “the primary date of truth.” [pp. 258, 260, supra.]321:3099 321:3100 321:3101 321:3102
©st-takla.org : Saint Takla Haymanout Website: General Portal for the Coptic Orthodox Church Faith, Egypt / Contact us at:
Bible | Daily Readings | Agbeya | Books | Lyrics | Gallery | Media | Links | Contact us