Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians but rather of those who "killed the Lord of glory."[87] Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians For if the Lord were a mere man, possessed of a soul and body only, why dost thou mutilate and explain away His being born with the common nature of humanity? Why dost thou call the passion a mere appearance, as if it were any strange thing happening to a [mere] man? And why dost thou reckon the death of a mortal to be simply an imaginary death? But if, [on the other hand, ] He is both God and man, then why dost thou call it unlawful to style Him "the Lord of glory,"[31] Him who nourisheth all that require food. And thou temptedst the very "Lord of glory,"[44] Tertullian Against Marcion Book V But because (the apostle) subjoins, on the subject of our glory, that "none of the princes of this world knew it for had they known it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory,"[248] According to Marcion, however, the apostle in the passage under consideration[258] Tertullian On Modesty who, after wandering far from his Father, squanders, by living heathenishly, the "substance" received from God his Father,-(the substance), of course, of baptism-(the substance), of course, of the Holy Spirit, and (in consequence) of eternal hope; if, stripped of his mental "goods," he has even handed his service over to the prince of the world[103] Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments As John says these things to the multitude, and as the people watch in eager expectation of seeing some strange spectacle with their bodily eyes, and the devil[391]