Five Books Against Marcion - Book IV - Tertullian
|
Advanced Information
Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall, Late Scholar of Christ's
College, Cantab.
Text edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson and
first published by T&T Clark in Edinburgh in 1867. Additional
introductionary material and notes provided for the American
edition by A. Cleveland Coxe, 1886.
Which Tertullian pursues his argument. Jesus is the Christ of the creator.
He derives his proofs from St. Luke's gospel; that being the only historical
portion of the New Testament partially accepted by Marcion. This book may
also be regarded as a commentary on St. Luke. It gives remarkable proof of
Tertullian's grasp of scripture, and proves that "The old testament is not
contrary to the new." It also abounds in striking expositions of scriptural
passages, embracing profound views of revelation, in connection with the
nature of man.
Chapter I. Examination of the Antitheses of Marcion, Bringing Them to the
Test of Marcion's Own Gospel. Certain True Antitheses in the Dispensations
of the Old and the New Testaments.these Variations Quite Compatible with One
and the Same God, Who Ordered Them.
Every opinion and the whole scheme [3465] of the impious and sacrilegious
Marcion we now bring to the test [3466] of that very Gospel which, by his
process of interpolation, he has made his own. To encourage a belief of this
Gospel he has actually [3467] devised for it a sort of dower, [3468] in a
work composed of contrary statements set in opposition, thence entitled
Antitheses, and compiled with a view to such a severance of the law from the
gospel as should divide the Deity into two, nay, diverse, gods'one for each
Instrument, or Testament [3469] as it is more usual to call it; that by such
means he might also patronize [3470] belief in "the Gospel according to the
Antitheses." These, however, I would have attacked in special combat, hand
to hand; that is to say, I would have encountered singly the several devices
Of the Pontic heretic, if it were not much more convenient to refute them in
and with that very gospel to which they contribute their support. Although
it is so easy to meet them at once with a peremptory demurrer, [3471] yet,
in order that I may both make them admissible in argument, and account them
valid expressions of opinion, and even contend that they make for our side,
that so there may be all the redder shame for the blindness of their author,
we have now drawn out some antitheses of our own in opposition to
Marcion.And indeed [3472] I do allow that one order did run its course in
the old dispensation under the Creator, [3473] and that another is on its
way in the new under Christ. I do not deny that there is a difference in the
language of their documents, in their precepts of virtue, and in their
teachings of the law; but yet all this diversity is consistent with one and
the same God, even Him by whom it was arranged and also foretold. Long ago
[3474] did Isaiah declare that "out of Sion should go forth the law, and the
word of the Lord from Jerusalem" [3475] 'some other law, that is, and
another word. In short, says he, "He shall judge among the nations, and
shall rebuke many people; " [3476] meaning not those of the Jewish people
only, but of the nations which are judged by the new law of the gospel and
the new word of the apostles, and are amongst themselves rebuked of their
old error as soon as they have believed. And as the result of this, "they
beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears (which are a kind of
hunting instruments) into pruning-hooks; " [3477] that is to say, minds,
which once were fierce and cruel, are changed by them into good dispositions
productive of good fruit. And again: "Hearken unto me, hearken unto me, my
people, and ye kings, give ear unto me; for a law shall proceed from me, and
my judgment for a light to the nations; " [3478] wherefore He had
determined and decreed that the nations also were to be enlightened by the
law and the word of the gospel. This will be that law which (according to
David also) is unblameable, because "perfect, converting the soul" [3479]
from idols unto God. This likewise will be the word concerning which the
same Isaiah says, "For the Lord will make a decisive word in the land."
[3480] Because the New Testament is compendiously short, [3481] and freed
from the minute and perplexing [3482] burdens of the law. But why enlarge,
when the Creator by the same prophet foretells the renovation more
manifestly and clearly than the light itself? "Remember not the former
things, neither consider the things of old" (the old things have passed
away, and new things are arising). "Behold, I will do new things, which
shall now spring forth." [3483] So by Jeremiah: "Break up for yourselves
new pastures, [3484] and sow not among thorns, and circumcise yourselves
in the foreskin of your heart." [3485] And in another passage: "Behold,
the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the
house of Jacob, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant
that I made with their fathers in the day when I arrested their
dispensation, in order to bring them out of the land of Egypt." [3486] He
thus shows that the ancient covenant is temporary only, when He indicates
its change; also when He promises that it shall be followed by an eternal
one. For by Isaiah He says: "Hear me, and ye shall live; and I will make an
everlasting covenant with you," adding "the sure mercies of David," [3487]
in order that He might show that that covenant was to run its course in
Christ. That He was of the family of David, according to the genealogy of
Mary, [3488] He declared in a figurative way even by the rod which was to
proceed out of the stem of Jesse. [3489] Forasmuch then as he said, that
from the Creator there would come other laws, and other words, and new
dispensations of covenants, indicating also that the very sacrifices were to
receive higher offices, and that amongst all nations, by Malachi when he
says: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord, neither will I accept your
sacrifices at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, even unto the
going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in
every place a sacrifice is offered unto my name, even a pure offering"
[3490] 'meaning simple prayer from a pure conscience,'it is of necessity
that every change which comes as the result of innovation, introduces a
diversity in those things of which the change is made, from which diversity
arises also a contrariety. For as there is nothing, after it has undergone a
change, which does not become different, so there is nothing different which
is not contrary. [3491] Of that very thing, therefore, there will be
predicated a contrariety in consequence of its diversity, to which there
accrued a change of condition after an innovation. He who brought about the
change, the same instituted the diversity also; He who foretold the
innovation, the same announced beforehand the contrariety likewise. Why, in
your interpretation, do you impute a difference in the state of things to a
difference of powers? Why do you wrest to the Creator's prejudice those
examples from which you draw your antitheses, when you may recognise them
all in His sensations and affections? "I will wound," He says, "and I will
heal;" "I will kill," He says again, "and I will make alive" [3492] 'even
the same "who createth evil and maketh peace; " [3493] from which you are
used even to censure Him with the imputation of fickleness and inconstancy,
as if He forbade what He commanded, and commanded what He forbade. Why,
then, have you not reckoned up the Antitheses also which occur in the
natural works of the Creator, who is for ever contrary to Himself? You have
not been able, unless I am misinformed, to recognise the fact, [3494] that
the world, at all events, [3495] even amongst your people of Pontus, is
made up of a diversity of elements which are hostile to one another.
[3496] It was therefore your bounden duty first to have determined that the
god of the light was one being, and the god of darkness was another, in such
wise that you might have been able to have distinctly asserted one of them
to be the god of the law and the other the god of the gospel. It is,
however, the settled conviction already [3497] of my mind from manifest
proofs, that, as His works and plans [3498] exist in the way of
Antitheses, so also by the same rule exist the mysteries of His religion.
[3499]
|
|
Chapter II. St. Luke's Gospel, Selected by Marcion as His Authority, and
Mutilated by Him. The Other Gospels Equally Authoritative. Marcion's Terms
of Discussion, However, Accepted, and Grappled with on the Footing of St.
Luke's Gospel Alone.
You have now our answer to the Antitheses compendiously indicated by us.
[3500] I pass on to give a proof of the Gospel [3501] 'not, to be sure, of
Jewry, but of Pontus'having become meanwhile [3502] adulterated; and this
shall indicate [3503] the order by which we proceed. We lay it down as our
first position, that the evangelical Testament [3504] has apostles for its
authors, [3505] to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of
publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic [3506] men
also, [3507] they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after
apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion
of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it [3508] the
authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, [3509] for it was
that which made the apostles their masters. Of the apostles, therefore, John
and Matthew first instil [3510] faith into us; whilst of apostolic men,
Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. [3511] These all start with the same
principles of the faith, [3512] so far as relates to the one only God the
Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to
fulfil [3513] the law and the prophets. Never mind [3514] if there does
occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there
be agreement in the essential matter [3515] of the faith, in which there
is disagreement with Marcion. Marcion, on the other hand, you must know,
[3516] ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him
to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to
subvert [3517] the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and
contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head
erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility
from the fulness of its title and the just profession of its author. But we
prefer to join issue [3518] on every point; nor shall we leave unnoticed
[3519] what may fairly be understood to be on our side. [3520] Now, of the
authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke [3521] for
his mutilating process. [3522] Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only
an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a
master'at least as far subsequent to [3523] him as the apostle whom he
followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul [3524] ) was subsequent to the
others; so that, had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St.
Paul himself, the single authority of the document, [3525] destitute of
all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for
our faith. There would be still wanted that Gospel which St. Paul found in
existence, to which he yielded his belief, and with which he so earnestly
wished his own to agree, that he actually on that account went up to
Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles, "lest he should run, or had been
running in vain; " [3526] in other words, that the faith which he had
learned, and the gospel which he was preaching, might be in accordance with
theirs. Then, at last, having conferred with the (primitive) authors, and
having agreed with them touching the rule of faith, they joined their hands
in fellowship, and divided their labours thenceforth in the office of
preaching the gospel, so that they were to go to the Jews, and St. Paul to
the Jews and the Gentiles. Inasmuch, therefore, as the enlightener of St.
Luke himself desired the authority of his predecessors for both his own
faith and preaching, how much more may not I require for Luke's Gospel that
which was necessary for the Gospel of his master. [3527]
Chapter III. [3528] 'Marcion Insinuated the Untrustworthiness of Certain
Apostles Whom St. Paul Rebuked. The Rebuke Shows that It Cannot Be Regarded
as Derogating from Their Authority. The Apostolic Gospels Perfectly
Authentic.
In the scheme of Marcion, on the contrary, [3529] the mystery [3530] of
the Christian religion begins from the discipleship of Luke. Since, however,
it was on its course previous to that point, it must have had [3531] its
own authentic materials, [3532] by means of which it found its own way
down to St. Luke; and by the assistance of the testimony which it bore, Luke
himself becomes admissible. Well, but [3533] Marcion, finding the Epistle
of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles [3534] ) for
"not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel," [3535] as
well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ),
labours very hard to destroy the character [3536] of those Gospels which
are published as genuine [3537] and under the name of apostles, in order,
forsooth, to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from
them. But then, even if he censures Peter and John and James, who were
thought to be pillars, it is for a manifest reason. They seemed to be
changing their company [3538] from respect of persons. And yet as Paul
himself "became all things to all men," [3539] that he might gain all, it
was possible that Peter also might have betaken himself to the same plan of
practising somewhat different from what he taught. And, in like manner, if
false apostles also crept in, their character too showed itself in their
insisting upon circumcision and the Jewish ceremonies. So that it was not on
account of their preaching, but of their conversation, that they were marked
by St. Paul, who would with equal impartiality have marked them with
censure, if they had erred at all with respect to God the Creator or His
Christ. Each several case will therefore have to be distinguished. When
Marcion complains that apostles are suspected (for their prevarication and
dissimulation) of having even depraved the gospel, he thereby accuses
Christ, by accusing those whom Christ chose. If, then, the apostles, who are
censured simply for inconsistency of walk, composed the Gospel in a pure
form, [3540] but false apostles interpolated their true record; and if our
own copies have been made from these, [3541] where will that genuine
text [3542] of the apostle's writings be found which has not suffered
adulteration? Which was it that enlightened Paul, and through him Luke? It
is either completely blotted out, as if by some deluge'being obliterated by
the inundation of falsifiers'in which case even Marcion does not possess the
true Gospel; or else, is that very edition which Marcion alone possesses the
true one, that is, of the apostles? How, then, does that agree with ours,
which is said not to be (the work) of apostles, but of Luke? Or else, again,
if that which Marcion uses is not to be attributed to Luke simply because it
does agree with ours (which, of course, [3543] is, also adulterated in its
title), then it is the work of apostles. Our Gospel, therefore, which is in
agreement with it, is equally the work of apostles, but also adulterated in
its title. [3544]
Chapter IV. Each Side Claims to Possess the True Gospel. Antiquity the
Criterion of Truth in Such a Matter. Marcion's Pretensions as an Amender of
the Gospel.
We must follow, then, the clue [3545] of our discussion, meeting every
effort of our opponents with reciprocal vigor. I say that my Gospel is the
true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is
adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us,
except it be that principle [3546] of time, which rules that the authority
lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an
elemental truth, [3547] that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side
which shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin. [3548]
For, inasmuch as error [3549] is falsification of truth, it must needs be
that truth therefore precede error. A thing must exist prior to its
suffering any casualty; [3550] and an object [3551] must precede all
rivalry to itself. Else how absurd it would be, that, when we have proved
our position to be the older one, and Marcion's the later, ours should yet
appear to be the false one, before it had even received from truth its
objective existence; [3552] and Marcion's should also be supposed to have
experienced rivalry at our hands, even before its publication; and, in fine,
that that should be thought to be the truer position which is the later
one'a century [3553] later than the publication of all the many and great
facts and records of the Christian religion, which certainly could not have
been published without, that is to say, before, the truth of the gospel.
With regard, then, to the pending [3554] question, of Luke's Gospel (so
far as its being the common property [3555] of ourselves and Marcion
enables it to be decisive of the truth, [3556] ) that portion of it which
we alone receive [3557] is so much older than Marcion, that Marcion,
himself once believed it, when in the first warmth of faith he contributed
money to the Catholic church, which along with himself was afterwards
rejected, [3558] when he fell away from our truth into his own heresy.
What if the Marcionites have denied that he held the primitive faith amongst
ourselves, in the face even of his own letter? What, if they do not
acknowledge the letter? They, at any rate, receive his Antitheses; and more
than that, they make ostentatious use [3559] of them. Proof out of these
is enough for me. For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current
amongst us [3560] (we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion),
is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated
by the defenders of Judaism, for the purpose of such a conglomeration with
it of the law and the prophets as should enable them out of it to fashion
their Christ, surely he could not have so argued about it, unless he had
found it (in such a form). No one censures things before they exist,
[3561] when he knows not whether they will come to pass. Emendation never
precedes the fault. To be sure, [3562] an amender of that Gospel, which
had been all topsy-turvy [3563] from the days of Tiberius to those of
Antoninus, first presented himself in Marcion alone'so long looked for by
Christ, who was all along regretting that he had been in so great a hurry to
send out his apostles without the support of Marcion! But for all that,
[3564] heresy, which is for ever mending the Gospels, and corrupting them in
the act, is an affair of man's audacity, not of God's authority; and if
Marcion be even a disciple, he is yet not "above his master; " [3565] if
Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, "Whether it be I or they, so we
preach; " [3566] if Marcion be a prophet, even "the spirits of the
prophets will be subject to the prophets," [3567] for they are not the
authors of confusion, but of peace; or if Marcion be actually an angel, he
must rather be designated "as anathema than as a preacher of the gospel,"
[3568] because it is a strange gospel which he has preached. So that, whilst
he amends, he only confirms both positions: both that our Gospel is the
prior one, for he amends that which he has previously fallen in with; and
that that is the later one, which, by putting it together out of the
emendations of ours, he has made his own Gospel, and a novel one too.
Chapter V. By the Rule of Antiquity, the Catholic Gospels are Found to Be
True, Including the Real St. Luke's. Marcion's Only a Mutilated Edition. The
Heretic's Weakness and Inconsistency in Ignoring the Other Gospels.
[3569]
On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that
is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning
which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as
evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a
sacred deposit [3570] in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what
milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians
were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the
Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near
[3571] (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly [3572]
bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. We have also St.
John's foster churches. [3573] For although Marcion rejects his
Apocalypse, the order [3574] of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to
their origin, will yet rest on John as their author. In the same manner is
recognised the excellent source [3575] of the other churches. I say,
therefore, that in them (and not simply such of them as were rounded by
apostles, but in all those which are united with them in the fellowship of
the mystery of the gospel of Christ [3576] ) that Gospel of Luke which we
are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first
publication; whereas Marcion's Gospel is not known to most people, and to
none whatever is it known without being at the same time [3577]
condemned. It too, of course, [3578] has its churches, but specially its
own'as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their
original, [3579] you will more easily discover apostasy in it than
apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or some one of
Marcion's swarm. [3580] Even wasps make combs; [3581] so also these
Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic churches will
afford evidence [3582] to the other Gospels also, which we possess
equally through their means, [3583] and according to their usage'I mean
the Gospels of John and Matthew'whilst that which Mark published may be
affirmed to be Peter's [3584] whose interpreter Mark was. For even
Luke's form [3585] of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. [3586]
And it may well seem [3587] that the works which disciples publish belong
to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict
account [3588] concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted
them, and insisted in preference [3589] on Luke; as if they, too, had not
had free course in the churches, as well as Luke's Gospel, from the
beginning. Nay, it is even more credible that they [3590] existed from
the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they were prior, and
coeval in origin with [3591] the churches themselves. But how comes it to
pass, if the apostles published nothing, that their disciples were more
forward in such a work; for they could not have been disciples, without any
instruction from their masters? If, then, it be evident that these (Gospels)
also were current in the churches, why did not Marcion touch them'either to
amend them if they were adulterated, or to acknowledge them if they were
uncorrupt? For it is but natural [3592] that they who were perverting the
gospel, should be more solicitous about the perversion of those things whose
authority they knew to be more generally received. Even the false apostles
(were so called) on this very account, because they imitated the apostles by
means of their falsification. In as far, then, as he might have amended what
there was to amend, if found corrupt, in so far did he firmly imply
[3593] that all was free from corruption which he did not think required
amendment. In short, [3594] he simply amended what he thought was
corrupt; though, indeed, not even this justly, because it was not really
corrupt. For if the (Gospels) of the apostles [3595] have come down to us
in their integrity, whilst Luke's, which is received amongst us, [3596]
so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of
reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke's Gospel also has
come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of
Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and
hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. I will therefore advise his
followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so,
into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement
with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as
daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master,
who stands self-condemned [3597] either way'when once [3598] he hands
on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again [3599] subverts
it by shameless tampering. Such are the summary arguments which we use, when
we take up arms [3600] against heretics for the faith [3601] of the
gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date
is the mark of forgers, [3602] and that authority of churches [3603]
which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must
needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has
been handed on.
Chapter VI. Marcion's Object in Adulterating the Gospel. No Difference
Between the Christ of the Creator and the Christ of the Gospel. No Rival
Christ Admissible. The Connection of the True Christ with the Dispensation
of the Old Testament Asserted.
But we now advance a step further on, and challenge (as we promised to do)
the very Gospel of Marcion, with the intention of thus proving that it has
been adulterated. For it is certain [3604] that the whole aim at which he
has strenuously laboured even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres
in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New
Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as
belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the prophets. It
is certain, also, that with this view [3605] he has erased everything
that was contrary to his own opinion and made for the Creator, as if it had
been interpolated by His advocates, whilst everything which agreed with his
own opinion he has retained. The latter statements we shall strictly
examine; [3606] and if they shall turn out rather for our side, and
shatter the assumption of Marcion, we shall embrace them. It will then
become evident, that in retaining them he has shown no less of the defect of
blindness, which characterizes heresy, than he displayed when he erased all
the former class of subjects. Such, then, is to be [3607] the drift and
form of my little treatise; subject, of course, to whatever condition may
have become requisite on both sides of the question. [3608] Marcion has
laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a
previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a
different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the
restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come. Between these he
interposes the separation of [3609] a great and absolute difference'as
great as lies between what is just and what is good; [3610] as great as
lies between the law and the gospel; as great, (in short, ) as is the
difference between Judaism and Christianity. Hence will arise also our
rule, [3611] by which we determine [3612] that there ought to be
nothing in common between the Christ of the rival god and the Creator; but
that (Christ) must be pronounced to belong to the Creator, [3613] if He
has administered His dispensations, fulfilled His prophecies, promoted
[3614] His laws, given reality to [3615] His promises, revived His mighty
power, [3616] remoulded His determinations [3617] expressed His
attributes, His properties. This law and this rule I earnestly request the
reader to have ever in his mind, and so let him begin to investigate whether
Christ be Marcion's or the Creator's.
Chapter VII. Marcion Rejected the Preceding Portion of St. Luke's Gospel.
Therefore This Review Opens with an Examination of the Case of the Evil
Spirit in the Synagogue of Capernaum. He Whom the Demon Acknowledged Was the
Creator's Christ.
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius [3618] (for such is
Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum," of
course meaning from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously
descended from his own. What then had been his Course, [3619] for him to
be described as first descending from his own heaven to the Creator's? For
why should I abstain from censuring those parts of the statement which do
not satisfy the requirement of an ordinary narrative, but always end in a
falsehood? To be sure, our censure has been once for all expressed in the
question, which we have already [3620] suggested: Whether, when
descending through the Creator's domain, and indeed in hostility to him, he
could possibly have been admitted by him, and by him been transmitted to the
earth, which was equally his territory? Now, however, I want also to know
the remainder of his course down, assuming that he came down. For we must
not be too nice in inquiring [3621] whether it is supposed that he was
seen in any place. To come into view [3622] indicates [3623] a sudden
unexpected glance, which for a moment fixed [3624] the eye upon the
object that passed before the view, without staying. But when it happens
that a descent has been effected, it is apparent, and comes under the notice
of the eyes. [3625] Moreover, it takes account of fact, and thus obliges
one to examine in what condition with what preparation, [3626] with how
much violence or moderation, and further, at what time of the day or night,
the descent was made; who, again, saw the descent, who reported it, who
seriously avouched the fact, which certainly was not easy to be believed,
even after the asseveration. It is, in short, too bad [3627] that Romulus
should have had in Proculus an avoucher of his ascent to heaven, when the
Christ of (this) god could not find any one to announce his descent from
heaven; just as if the ascent of the one and the descent of the other were
not effected on one and the same ladder of falsehood! Then, what had he to
do with Galilee, if he did not belong to the Creator by whom [3628] that
region was destined (for His Christ) when about to enter on His ministry?
[3629] As Isaiah says: "Drink in this first, and be prompt, O region of
Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, and ye others who (inhabit) the sea-coast,
and that of Jordan, Galilee of the nations, ye people who sit in darkness,
behold a great light; upon you, who inhabit (that) land, sitting in the
shadow of death, the light hath arisen." [3630] It is, however, well that
Marcion's god does claim to be the enlightener of the nations, that so he
might have the better reason for coming down from heaven; only, if it must
needs be, [3631] he should rather have made Pontus his place of descent
than Galilee. But since both the place and the work of illumination
according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern
[3632] that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very
outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but
rather to fulfil them; [3633] for Marcion has erased the passage as an
interpolation. [3634] It will, however, be vain for him to deny that
Christ uttered in word what He forthwith did partially indeed. For the
prophecy about place He at once fulfilled. From heaven straight to the
synagogue. As the adage runs: "The business on which we are come, do at
once." Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto
the lost sheep of the house of Isreal; " [3635] and, "It is not meet to
take the children'sbread, and to cast it to dogs," [3636] 'in order,
forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Isrealite. But facts will
satisfy me instead of words. Withdraw all the sayings of my Christ, His acts
shall speak. Lo, He enters the synagogue; surely (this is going) to the lost
sheep of the house of Isreal. Behold, it is to Isrealites first that He
offers the "bread" of His doctrine; surely it is because they are
"children" that He shows them this priority. [3637] Observe, He does not
yet impart it to others; surely He passes them by as "dogs." For to whom
else could He better have imparted it, than to such as were strangers to the
Creator, if He especially belonged not to the Creator? And yet how could He
have been admitted into the synagogue'one so abruptly appearing, [3638]
so unknown; one, of whom no one had as yet been apprised of His tribe, His
nation, His family, and lastly, His enrolment in the census of Augustus'that
most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of Rome?
They certainly would have remembered, if they did not know Him to be
circumcised, that He must not be admitted into their most holy places. And
even if He had the general right of entering [3639] the synagogue (like
other Jews), yet the function of giving instruction was allowed only to a
man who was extremely well known, and examined and tried, and for some time
invested with the privilege after experience duly attested elsewhere. But
"they were all astonished at His doctrine." Of course they were; "for, says
(St. Luke), "His word was with power [3640] 'not because He taught in
opposition to the law and the prophets. No doubt, His divine discourse
[3641] gave forth both power and grace, building up rather than pulling down
the substance of the law and the prophets. Otherwise, instead of
"astonishment, they would feel horror. It would not be admiration, but
aversion, prompt and sure, which they would bestow on one who was the
destroyer of law and prophets, and the especial propounder as a natural
consequence of a rival god; for he would have been unable to teach anything
to the disparagement of the law and the prophets, and so far of the Creator
also, without premising the doctrine of a different and rival divinity,
Inasmuch, then, as the Scripture makes no other statement on the matter than
that the simple force and power of His word produced astonishment, it more
naturally [3642] shows that His teaching was in accordance with the
Creator by not denying (that it was so), than that it was in opposition to
the Creator, by not asserting (such a fact). And thus He will either have to
be acknowledged as belonging to Him, [3643] in accordance with whom He
taught; or else will have to be adjudged a deceiver since He taught in
accordance with One whom He had come to oppose. In the same passage, "the
spirit of an unclean devil" exclaims: "What have we to do with Thee, Thou
Jesus? Art Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One
of God." [3644] I do not here raise the question whether this appellation
was suitable to one who ought not to be called Christ, unless he were sent
by the Creator. [3645] Elsewhere [3646] there has been already given a
full consideration of His titles.
My present discussion is, how the evil spirit could have known that He was
called by such a name, when there had never at any time been uttered about
Him a single prophecy by a god who was unknown, and up to that time silent,
of whom it was not possible for Him to be attested as "the Holy One," as (of
a god) unknown even to his own Creator. What similar event could he then
have published [3647] of a new deity, whereby he might betoken for "the
holy one" of the rival god? Simply that he went into the synagogue, and did
nothing even in word against the Creator? As therefore he could not by any
means acknowledge him, whom he was ignorant of, to be Jesus and the Holy One
of God; so did he acknowledge Him whom he knew (to be both). For he
remembered how that the prophet had prophesied [3648] of "the Holy One"
of God, and how that God's name of "Jesus" was in the son of Nun. [3649]
These facts he had also received [3650] from the angel, according to our
Gospel: "Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Holy
One, the Son of God; " [3651] and, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus."
[3652] Thus he actually had (although only an evil spirit) some idea of the
Lord's dispensation, rather than Of any strange and heretofore imperfectly
understood one. Because he also premised this question: "What have we to do
with Thee? "'not as if referring to a strange Jesus, to whom pertain the
evil spirits of the Creator. Nor did he say, What hast Thou to do with us?
but, "What have we to do with Thee? "as if deploring himself, and
deprecating his own calamity; at the prospect of which he adds: "Art Thou
come to destroy us? "So completely did he acknowledge in Jesus the Son of
that God who was judicial and avenging, and (so to speak) severe, [3653]
and not of him who was simply good, [3654] and knew not how to destroy or
how to punish! Now for what purpose have we adduced his passage first?
[3655] In order to show that Jesus was neither acknowledged by the evil
spirit, nor affirmed by Himself, to be any other than the Creator's. Well,
but Jesus rebuked him, you say. To be sure he did, as being an envious
(spirit), and in his very confession only petulant, and evil in
adulation'just as if it had been Christ's highest glory to have come for the
destruction of demons, and not for the salvation of mankind; whereas His
wish really was that His disciples should not glory in the subjection of
evil spirits but in the fair beauty of salvation. [3656] Why else
[3657] did He rebuke him? If it was because he was entirely wrong (in his
invocation), then He was neither Jesus nor the Holy One of God; if it was
because he was partially wrong'for having supposed him to be, rightly
enough, [3658] Jesus and the Holy One of God, but also as belonging to
the Creator'most unjustly would He have rebuked him for thinking what he
knew he ought to think (about Him), and for not supposing that of Him which
he knew not that he ought to suppose'that he was another Jesus, and the holy
one of the other god. If, however, the rebuke has not a more probable
meaning [3659] than that which we ascribe to it, follows that the evil
spirit made no mistake, and was not rebuked for lying; for it was Jesus
Himself, besides whom it was impossible for the evil spirit to have
acknowledged any other, whilst Jesus affirmed that He was He whom the evil
spirit had acknowledged, by not rebuking him for uttering a lie.
Chapter VIII. Other Proofs from the Same Chapter, that Jesus, Who Preached
at Nazareth, and Was Acknowledged by Certain Demons as Christ the Son of
God, Was the Creator's Christ. As Occasion Offers, the Docetic Errors of
Marcion are Exposed.
The Christ of the Creator had [3660] to be called a Nazarene according to
prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account, [3661]
Nazerenes [3662] after Him. For we are they of whom it is written, "Her
Nazarites were whiter than snow; " [3663] even they who were once defiled
with the stains of sin, and darkened with the clouds of ignorance. But to
Christ the title Nazarene was destined to become a suitable one, from the
hiding-place of His infancy, for which He went down and dwelt at
Nazareth, [3664] to escape from Archelaus the son of Herod. This fact I
have not refrained from mentioning on this account, because it behoved
Marcion's Christ to have forborne all connection whatever with the domestic
localities of the Creator's Christ, when he had so many towns in Judæa which
had not been by the prophets thus assigned [3665] to the Creator's
Christ. But Christ will be (the Christ) of the prophets, wheresoever He is
found in accordance with the prophets. And yet even at Nazareth He is not
remarked as having preached anything new, [3666] whilst in another verse
He is said to have been rejected [3667] by reason of a simple proverb.
[3668] Here at once, when I observe that they laid their hands on Him, I
cannot help drawing a conclusion respecting His bodily substance, which
cannot be believed to have been a phantom, [3669] since it was capable of
being touched and even violently handled, when He was seized and taken and
led to the very brink of a precipice. For although He escaped through the
midst of them, He had already experienced their rough treatment, and
afterwards went His way, no doubt [3670] because the crowd (as usually
happens) gave way, or was even broken through; but not because it was eluded
as by an impalpable disguise, [3671] which, if there had been such, would
not at all have submitted to any touch.
"Tangere enim et tangi, nisi corpus, nulla potest res,"
[3672] is even a sentence worthy of a place in the world's wisdom. In
short, He did himself touch others, upon whom He laid His hands, which were
capable of being felt, and conferred the blessings of healing, [3673]
which were not less true, not less unimaginary, than were the hands
wherewith He bestowed them. He was therefore the very Christ of Isaiah, the
healer of our sicknesses. [3674] "Surely," says he, "He hath borne our
griefs and carried our sorrows." Now the Greeks are accustomed to use for
carry a word which also signifies to take away. A general promise Is enough
for me in passing. [3675] Whatever were the cures which Jesus effected,
He is mine. We will come, however, to the kinds of cures. To liberate men,
then, from evil spirits, is a cure of sickness. Accordingly, wicked spirits
(just in the manner of our former example) used to go forth with a
testimony, exclaiming, "Thou art the Son of God," [3676] 'of what God, is
clear enough from the case itself. But they were rebuked, and ordered not to
speak; precisely because [3677] Christ willed Himself to be proclaimed by
men, not by unclean spirits, as the Son of God'even that Christ alone to
whom this was befitting, because He had sent beforehand men through whom He
might become known, and who were assuredly worthier preachers. It was
natural to Him [3678] to refuse the proclamation of an unclean spirit, at
whose command there was an abundance of saints. He, however, [3679] who
had never been foretold (if, indeed, he wished to be acknowledged; for if he
did not wish so much, his coming was in vain), would not have spurned the
testimony of an alien or any sort of substance, who did not happen to have a
substance of his own, [3680] but had descended in an alien one. And now,
too, as the destroyer also of the Creator, he would have desired nothing
better than to be acknowledged by His spirits, and to be divulged for the
sake of being feared: [3681] only that Marcion says [3682] that his
god is not feared; maintaining that a good being Is not an object of fear,
but only a judicial being, in whom reside the grounds [3683] of
fear'anger, severity, judgments, vengeance, condemnation. But it was from
fear, undoubtedly, that the evil spirits were cowed. [3684] Therefore
they confessed that (Christ) was the Son of a God who was to be feared,
because they would have an occasion of not submitting if there were none for
fearing. Besides, He showed that He was to be feared, because He drave them
out, not by persuasion like a good being, but by command and reproof. Or
else did he [3685] reprove them, because they were making him an object
of fear, when all the while he did not want to be feared? And in what manner
did he wish them to go forth, when they could not do so except with fear? So
that he fell into the dilemma [3686] of having to conduct himself
contrary to his nature, whereas he might in his simple goodness have at once
treated them with leniency. He fell, too, into another false position
[3687] 'of prevarication, when he permitted himself to be feared by the
demons as the Son of the Creator, that he might drive them out, not indeed
by his own power, but by the authority of the Creator. "He departed, and
went into a desert place." [3688] This was, indeed, the Creator's
customary region. It was proper that the Word [3689] should there appear
in body, where He had aforetime, wrought in a cloud. To the gospel also was
suitable that condition of place [3690] which had once been determined on
for the law. [3691] "Let the wilderness and the solitary place,
therefore, be glad and rejoice; "so had Isaiah promised. [3692] When
"stayed" by the crowds, He said," I must preach the kingdom of God to other
cities also." [3693] Had He displayed His God anywhere yet? I suppose as
yet nowhere. But was He speaking of those who knew of another god also? I do
not believe so. If, therefore, neither He had preached, nor they had known,
any other God but the Creator, He was announcing the kingdom of that God
whom He knew to be the only God known to those who were listening to Him.
Chapter IX. Out of St. Luke's Fifth Chapter are Found Proofs of Christ's
Belonging to the Creator, E.g. In the Call of Fishermen to the Apostolic
Office, and in the Cleansing of the Leper. Christ Compared with the Prophet
Elisha.
Out of so many kinds of occupations, why indeed had He such respect for that
of fishermen, as to select from it for apostles Simon and the sons of
Zebedee (for it cannot seem to be the mere fact itself for which the
narrative was meant to be drawn out [3694] ), saying to Peter, when he
trembled at the very large draught of the fishes, "Fear not; from henceforth
thou shalt catch men? " [3695] By saying this, He suggested to them the
meaning of the fulfilled prophecy, that it was even He who by Jeremiah had
foretold, "Behold, I will send many fishers; and they shall fish them,"
[3696] that is, men. Then at last they left their boats, and followed Him,
understanding that it was He who had begun to accomplish what He had
declared. It is quite another case, when he affected to choose from the
college of shipmasters, intending one day to appoint the shipmaster Marcion
his apostle. We have indeed already laid it down, in opposition to his
Antitheses, that the position of Marcion derives no advantage from the
diversity which he supposes to exist between the Law and the Gospel,
inasmuch as even this was ordained by the Creator, and indeed predicted in
the promise of the new Law, and the new Word, and the new Testament. Since,
however, he quotes with especial care, [3697] as a proof in his
domain, [3698] a certain companion in misery , and
associate in hatred , with himself, for the cure of
leprosy, [3699] I shall not be sorry to meet him, and before anything
else to point out to him the force of the law figuratively interpreted,
which, in this example of a leper (who was not to be touched, but was rather
to be removed from all intercourse with others), prohibited any
communication with a person who was defiled with sins, with whom the apostle
also forbids us even to eat food, [3700] forasmuch as the taint of sins
would be communicated as if contagious: wherever a man should mix himself
with the sinner. The Lord, therefore, wishing that the law should be more
profoundly understood as signifying spiritual truths by carnal facts
[3701] 'and thus [3702] not destroying, but rather building up, that law
which He wanted to have more earnestly acknowledged-touched the leper, by
whom (even although as man He might have been defiled) He could not be
defiled as God, being of course incorruptible. The prescription, therefore,
could not be meant for Him, that He was bound to observe the law and not
touch the unclean person, seeing that contact with the unclean would not
cause defilement to Him. I thus teach that this (immunity) is consistent in
my Christ, the rather when I show that it is not consistent in yours. Now,
if it was as an enemy [3703] of the law that He touched the
leper'disregarding the precept of the law by a contempt of the
defilement'how could he be defiled, when he possessed not a body [3704]
which could be defiled? For a phantom is not susceptible of defilement. He
therefore, who could not be defiled, as being a phantom, will not have an
immunity from pollution by any divine power, but owing to his fantastic
vacuity; nor can he be regarded as having despised pollution, who had not in
fact any material capacity [3705] for it; nor, in like manner, as having
destroyed the law, who had escaped defilement from the occasion of his
phantom nature, not from any display of virtue. If, however, the Creator's
prophet Elisha cleansed Naaman the Syrian alone, [3706] to the exclusion
of [3707] so many lepers in Isreal, [3708] this fact contributes
nothing to the distinction of Christ, as if he were in this way the better
one for cleansing this Isrealite leper, although a stranger to him, whom his
own Lord had been unable to cleanse. The cleansing of the Syrian rather
[3709] was significant throughout the nations of the world [3710] of
their own cleansing in Christ their light, [3711] steeped as they were in
the stains of the seven deadly sins: [3712] idolatry, blasphemy, murder,
adultery, fornication, false-witness, and fraud. [3713] Seven times,
therefore, as if once for each, [3714] did he wash in Jordan; both in
order that he might celebrate the expiation of a perfect hebdomad; [3715]
and because the virtue and fulness of the one baptism was thus solemnly
imputed [3716] to Christ, alone, who was one day to establish on earth
not only a revelation, but also a baptism, endued with compendious
efficacy. [3717] Even Marcion finds here an antithesis: [3718] how
that Elisha indeed required a material resource, applied water, and that
seven times; whereas Christ, by the employment of a word only, and that but
once for all, instantly effected [3719] the cure. And surely I might
venture [3720] to claim [3721] the Very Word also as of the Creator's
substance. There is nothing of which He who was the primitive Author is not
also the more powerful one. Forsooth, [3722] it is incredible that that
power of the Creator should have, by a word, produced a remedy for a single
malady, which once by a word brought into being so vast a fabric as the
world! From what can the Christ of the Creator be better discerned, than
from the power of His word? But Christ is on this account another (Christ),
because He acted differently from Elisha'because, in fact, the master is
more powerful than his servant! Why, Marcion, do you lay down the rule, that
things are done by servants just as they are by their very masters? Are you
not afraid that it will turn to your discredit, if you deny that Christ
belongs to the Creator, on the ground that He was once more powerful than a
servant of the Creator'since, in comparison with the weakness of Elisha, He
is acknowledged to be the greater, if indeed greater! [3723] For the cure
is the same, although there is a difference in the working of it. What has
your Christ performed more than my Elisha? Nay, what great thing has the
word of your Christ performed, when it has simply done that which a river of
the Creator effected? On the same principle occurs all the rest. So far as
renouncing all human glory went, He forbade the man to publish abroad the
cure; but so far as the honour of the law was concerned, He requested that
the usual course should be followed: "Go, show thyself to the priest, and
present the offering which Moses commanded." [3724] For the figurative
signs of the law in its types He still would have observed, because of their
prophetic import. [3725] These types signified that a man, once a sinner,
but afterwards purified [3726] from the stains thereof by the word of
God, was bound to offer unto God in the temple a gift, even prayer and
thanksgiving in the church through Christ Jesus, who is the Catholic Priest
of the Father. [3727] Accordingly He added: "that it may be for a
testimony unto you"'one, no doubt, whereby He would testify that He was not
destroying the law, but fulfilling it; whereby, too, He would testify that
it was He Himself who was foretold as about to undertake [3728] their
sicknesses and infirmities. This very consistent and becoming explanation of
"the testimony," that adulator of his own Christ, Marcion seeks to exclude
under the cover of mercy and gentleness. For, being both good (such are his
words), and knowing, besides, that every man who had been freed from leprosy
would be sure to perform the solemnities of the law, therefore He gave this
precept. Well, what then? Has He continued in his goodness (that is to say,
in his permission of the law) or not? For if he has persevered in his
goodness, he will never become a destroyer of the law; nor will he ever be
accounted as belonging to another god, because there would not exist that
destruction of the law which would constitute his claim to belong to the
other god. If, however, he has not continued good, by a subsequent
destruction of the law, it is a false testimony which he has since imposed
upon them in his cure of the leper; because he has forsaken his goodness, in
destroying the law. If, therefore, he was good whilst upholding the law,
[3729] he has now become evil as a destroyer of the law. However, by the
support which he gave to the law, he affirmed that the law was good. For no
one permits himself in the support of an evil thing. Therefore he is not
only bad if he has permitted obedience to a bad law; but even worse still,
if he has appeared [3730] as the destroyer of a good law. So that if he
commanded the offering of the gift because he knew that every cured leper
would be sure to bring one; he possibly abstained from commanding what he
knew would be spontaneously done. In vain, therefore, was his coming down,
as if with the intention of destroying the law, when he makes concessions to
the keepers of the law. And yet, [3731] because he knew their
disposition, [3732] he ought the more earnestly to have prevented their
neglect of the law, [3733] since he had come for this purpose. Why then
did he not keep silent, that man might of his own simple will obey the law?
For then might he have seemed to some extent [3734] to have persisted in
his patience. But he adds also his own authority increased by the weight of
this "testimony." Of what testimony, I ask, [3735] if not that of the
assertion of the law? Surely it matters not in what way he asserted the
law'whether as good, or as supererogatory, [3736] or as patient, or as
inconstant-provided, Marcion, I drive you from your position. [3737]
Observe, [3738] he commanded that the law should be fulfilled. In
whatever way he commanded it, in the same way might he also have first
uttered that sentiment: [3739] "I came not to destroy the law, but to
fulfil it." [3740] What business, therefore, had you to erase out of the
Gospel that which was quite consistent in it? [3741] For you have
confessed that, in his goodness, he did in act what you deny that he did in
word. [3742] We have therefore good proof that He uttered the word, in
the fact that He did the deed; and that you have rather expunged the Lord's
word, than that our (evangelists) [3743] have inserted it.
Chapter X. Further Proofs of the Same Truth in the Same Chapter, from the
Healing of the Paralytic, and from the Designation Son of Man Which Jesus
Gives Himself. Tertullian Sustains His Argument by Several Quotations from
the Prophets.
The sick of the palsy is healed, [3744] and that in public, in the sight
of the people. For, says Isaiah, "they shall see the glory of the Lord, and
the excellency of our God." [3745] What glory, and what excellency? "Be
strong, ye weak hands, and ye feeble knees: " [3746] this refers to the
palsy. "Be strong; fear not." [3747] Be strong is not vainly repeated,
nor is fear not vainly added; because with the renewal of the limbs there
was to be, according to the promise, a restoration also of bodily energies:
"Arise, and take up thy couch; "and likewise moral courage [3748] not to
be afraid of those who should say, "Who can forgive sins, but God alone? "So
that you have here not only the fulfilment of the prophecy which promised a
particular kind of healing, but also of the symptoms which followed the
cure. In like manner, you should also recognise Christ in the same prophet
as the forgiver of sins. "For," he says, "He shall remit to many their sins,
and shall Himself take away our sins." [3749] For in an earlier passage,
speaking in the person of the Lord himself, he had said: "Even though your
sins be as scarlet, I will make them as white as snow; even though they be
like crimson, I will whiten them as wool." [3750] In the scarlet colour
He indicates the blood of the prophets; in the crimson, that of the Lord, as
the brighter. Concerning the forgiveness of sins, Micah also says: "Who is a
God like unto Thee? pardoning iniquity, and passing by the transgressions of
the remnant of Thine heritage. He retaineth not His anger as a testimony
against them, because He delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, and will
have compassion upon us; He wipeth away our iniquities, and casteth our sins
into the depths of the sea." [3751] Now, if nothing of this sort had been
predicted of Christ, I should find in the Creator examples of such a
benignity as would hold out to me the promise of similar affections also in
the Son of whom He is the Father. I see how the Ninevites obtained
forgiveness of their sins from the Creator [3752] 'not to say from
Christ, even then, because from the beginning He acted in the Father's name.
I read, too, how that, when David acknowledged his sin against Uriah, the
prophet Nathan said unto him, "The Lord hath cancelled [3753] thy sin,
and thou shalt not die; " [3754] how king Ahab in like manner, the
husband of Jezebel, guilty of idolatry and of the blood of Naboth, obtained
pardon because of his repentance; [3755] and how Jonathan the son of Saul
blotted out by his deprecation the guilt of a violated fast. [3756] Why
should I recount the frequent restoration of the nation itself after the
forgiveness of their sins?'by that God, indeed, who will have mercy rather
than sacrifice, and a sinner's repentance rather than his death. [3757]
You will first have to deny that the Creator ever forgave sins; then you
must in reason show [3758] that He never ordained any such prerogative
for His Christ; and so you will prove how novel is that boasted [3759]
benevolence of the, of course, novel Christ when you shall have proved that
it is neither compatible with [3760] the Creator nor predicted by the
Creator. But whether to remit sins can appertain to one who is said to be
unable to retain them, and whether to absolve can belong to him who is
incompetent even to condemn, and whether to forgive is suitable to him
against whom no offence can be committed, are questions which we have
encountered elsewhere, [3761] when we preferred to drop suggestions
[3762] rather than treat them anew. [3763] Concerning the Son of man our
rule [3764] is a twofold one: that Christ cannot lie, so as to declare
Himself the Son of man, if He be not truly so; nor can He be constituted the
Son of man, unless He be born of a human parent, either father or mother.
And then the discussion will turn on the point, of which human parent He
ought to be accounted the son'of the father or the mother? Since He is
(begotten) of God the Father, He is not, of course, (the son) of a human
father. If He is not of a human father, it follows that He must be (the son)
of a human mother. If of a human mother, it is evident that she must be a
virgin. For to whom a human father is not ascribed, to his mother a husband
will not be reckoned; and then to what mother a husband is not reckoned, the
condition of virginity belongs. [3765] But if His mother be not a virgin,
two fathers will have to be reckoned to Him'a divine and a human one. For
she must have a husband, not to be a virgin; and by having a husband, she
would cause two fathers'one divine, the other human'to accrue to Him, who
would thus be Son both of God and of a man. Such a nativity (if one may call
it so) [3766] the mythic stories assign to Castor or to Hercules. Now, if
this distinction be observed, that is to say, if He be Son of man as born of
His mother, because not begotten of a father, and His mother be a virgin,
because His father is not human'He will be that Christ whom Isaiah foretold
that a virgin should conceive, [3767] On what principle you, Marcion, can
admit Him Son of man, I cannot possibly see. If through a human father, then
you deny him to be Son of God; if through a divine one also, [3768] then
you make Christ the Hercules of fable; if through a human mother only, then
you concede my point; if not through a human father also, [3769] then He
is not the son of any man, [3770] and He must have been guilty of a lie
for having declared Himself to be what He was not. One thing alone can help
you in your difficulty: boldness on your part either to surname your God as
actually the human father of Christ, as Valentinus did [3771] with his
Æon; or else to deny that the Virgin was human, which even Valentinus did
not do. What now, if Christ be described [3772] in Daniel by this very
title of "Son of man? "Is not this enough to prove that He is the Christ of
prophecy? For if He gives Himself that appellation which was provided in the
prophecy for the Christ of the Creator, He undoubtedly offers Himself to be
understood as Him to whom (the appellation) was assigned by the prophet. But
perhaps [3773] it can be regarded as a simple identity of names;
[3774] and yet we have maintained [3775] that neither Christ nor Jesus
ought to have been called by these names, if they possessed any condition of
diversity. But as regards the appellation "Son of man," in as far as it
Occurs by accident, [3776] in so far there is a difficulty in its
occurrence along with [3777] a casual identity of names. For it is of
pure [3778] accident, especially when the same cause does not appear
[3779] whereby the identity may be occasioned. And therefore, if Marcion's
Christ be also said to be born of man, then he too would receive an
identical appellation, and there would be two Sons of man, as also two
Christs and two Jesuses. Therefore, since the appellation is the sole right
of Him in whom it has a suitable reason, [3780] if it be claimed for
another in whom there is an identity of name, but not of appellation,
[3781] then the identity of name even looks suspicious in him for whom is
claimed without reason the identity of appellation. And it follows that He
must be believed to be One and the Same, who is found to be the more fit to
receive both the name and the appellation; while the other is excluded, who
has no right to the appellation, because he has no reason to show for it.
Nor will any other be better entitled to both than He who is the earlier,
and has had allotted to Him the name of Christ and the appellation of Son of
man, even the Jesus of the Creator. It was He who was seen by the king of
Babylon in the furnace with His martyrs: "the fourth, who was like the Son
of man." [3782] He also was revealed to Daniel himself expressly as "the
Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven" as a Judge, as also the
Scripture shows. [3783] What I have advanced might have been sufficient
concerning the designation in prophecy of the Son of man. But the Scripture
offers me further information, even in the interpretation of the Lord
Himself. For when the Jews, who looked at Him as merely man, and were not
yet sure that He was God also, as being likewise the Son of God, rightly
enough said that a man could not forgive sins, but God alone, why did He
not, following up their point [3784] about man, answer them, that He
[3785] had power to remit sins; inasmuch as, when He mentioned the Son of
man, He also named a human being? except it were because He wanted, by help
of the very designation "Son of man" from the book of Daniel, so to induce
them to reflect [3786] as to show them that He who remitted sins was God
and man'that only Son of man, indeed, in the prophecy of Daniel, who had
obtained the power of judging, and thereby, of course, of forgiving sins
likewise (for He who judges also absolves); so that, when once that
objection of theirs [3787] was shattered to pieces by their recollection
of Scripture, they might the more easily acknowledge Him to be the Son of
man Himself by His own actual forgiveness of sins. I make one more
observation, [3788] how that He has nowhere as yet professed Himself to
be the Son of God'but for the first time in this passage, in which for the
first time He has remitted sins; that is, in which for the first time He has
used His function of judgment, by the absolution. All that the opposite side
has to allege in argument against these things, (I beg you) carefully
weigh [3789] what it amounts to. For it must needs strain itself to such
a pitch of infatuation as, on the one hand, to maintain that (their Christ)
is also Son of man, in order to save Him from the charge of falsehood; and,
on the other hand, to deny that He was born of woman, lest they grant that
He was the Virgin's son. Since, however, the divine authority and the nature
of the case, and common sense, do not admit this insane position of the
heretics, we have here the opportunity of putting in a veto [3790] in the
briefest possible terms, on the substance of Christ's body, against
Marcion's phantoms. Since He is born of man, being the Son of man. He is
body derived from body. [3791] You may, I assure you, [3792] more
easily find a man born without a heart or without brains, like Marcion
himself, than without a body, like Marcion's Christ. And let this be the
limit to your examination of the heart, or, at any rate, the brains of the
heretic of Pontus. [3793]
Chapter XI. The Call of Levi the Publican. Christ in Relation to the
Baptist. Christ as the Bridegroom. The Parable of the Old Wine and the New.
Arguments Connecting Christ with the Creator.
The publican who was chosen by the Lord, [3794] he adduces for a proof
that he was chosen as a stranger to the law and uninitiated in [3795]
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. [3796] 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." [3797] 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 [3798] 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,
[3799] 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! [3800] After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's
system. They have their own special and plenary course [3801] in the
Creator's dispensation. Of John, however, what else I have to say will be
found in another passage. [3802] To the several points which now come
before us an answer must be given. This, then, I will take care to do
[3803] '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 [3804] 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 [3805] 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, [3806] having a prior difference about the
authorities [3807] 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 [3808] 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," [3809] 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 [3810] it,
referring it to the time of John, although destining it for His own time.
Otherwise His purpose would have been to reject it, [3811] 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." [3812] 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." [3813] To Himself likewise
He appropriates [3814] the church, concerning which the same [3815]
Spirit says to Him: "Thou shall clothe Thee with them all, as with a bridal
ornament." [3816] 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." [3817] He elegantly makes mention of Lebanon (the
mountain, of course) because it stands for the name of frankincense with the
Greeks; [3818] 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 cælebs or a
eunuch; until death or divorce does he reserve baptism. [3819] 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. [3820] When by Jeremiah He gave this precept, "Break up for
yourselves new pastures," [3821] 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," [3822] does He not
advert to a new state of things? We have generally been of opinion [3823]
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 [3824] 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 [3825] of the gospel from
the old state [3826] of the law, He proved that that [3827] from which
He was separating His own ought not to have been branded [3828] as a
separation [3829] of things which were alien to each other; for nobody
ever unites his own things with things that are alien to them, [3830] 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, [3831] 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 [3832] from the law'a
different thing [3833] 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). [3834] 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.
Chapter XII. Christ's Authority Over the Sabbath. As Its Lord He Recalled It
from Pharisaic Neglect to the Original Purpose of Its Institution by the
Creator the Case of the Disciples Who Plucked the Ears of Corn on the
Sabbath. The Withered Hand Healed on the Sabbath.
Concerning the Sabbath also I have this to premise, that this question could
not have arisen, if Christ did not publicly proclaim [3835] the Lord of
the Sabbath. Nor could there be any discussion about His annulling [3836]
the Sabbath, if He had a right [3837] to annul it. Moreover, He would
have the right, if He belonged to the rival god; nor would it cause surprise
to any one that He did what it was right for Him to do. Men's astonishment
therefore arose from their opinion that it was improper for Him to proclaim
the Creator to be God and yet to impugn His Sabbath. Now, that we may decide
these several points first, lest we should be renewing them at every turn to
meet each argument of our adversary which rests on some novel institution
[3838] of Christ, let this stand as a settled point, that discussion
concerning the novel character of each institution ensued on this account,
because as nothing was as yet advanced by Christ touching any new deity, so
discussion thereon was inadmissible; nor could it be retorted, that from the
very novelty of each several institution another deity was clearly enough
demonstrated by Christ, inasmuch as it was plain that novelty was not in
itself a characteristic to be wondered at in Christ, because it had been
foretold by the Creator. And it would have been, of course, but right that a
new [3839] god should first be expounded, and his discipline be
introduced afterwards; because it Would be the god that would impart
authority to the discipline, and not the discipline to the god; except that
(to be sure) it has happened that Marcion acquired his very perverse
opinions not from a master, but his master from his opinion! All other
points respecting the Sabbath I thus rule. If Christ interfered with
[3840] the Sabbath, He simply acted after the Creator's example; inasmuch as
in the siege of the city of Jericho the carrying around the walls of the ark
of the covenant for eight days running, and therefore on a Sabbath-day,
actually [3841] annulled the Sabbath, by the Creator's command'according
to the opinion of those who think this of Christ in this passage of St.
Luke, in their ignorance that neither Christ nor the Creator violated the
Sabbath, as we shall by and by show. And yet the Sabbath was actually then
broken [3842] by Joshua, [3843] so that the present charge might be
alleged also against Christ. But even if, as being not the Christ of the
Jews, He displayed a hatred against the Jews' most solemn day, He was only
professedly following [3844] the Creator, as being His Christ, in this
very hatred of the Sabbath; for He exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah: "Your
new moons and your Sabbaths my soul hateth." [3845] Now, in whatever
sense these words were spoken, we know that an abrupt defence must, in a
subject of this sort, be used in answer to an abrupt challenge. I shall now
transfer the discussion to the very matter in which the teaching of Christ
seemed to annul the Sabbath. The disciples had been hungry; on that the
Sabbath day they had plucked some ears and rubbed them in their hands; by
thus preparing their food, they had violated the holy day. Christ excuses
them, and became their accomplice in breaking the Sabbath. The Pharisees
bring the charge against Him. Marcion sophistically interprets the stages of
the controversy (if I may call in the aid of the truth of my Lord to
ridicule his arts), both in the scriptural record and in Christ's
purpose. [3846] For from the Creator's Scripture, and from the purpose of
Christ, there is derived a colourable precedent [3847] 'as from the
example of David, when he went into the temple on the Sabbath, and provided
food by boldly breaking up the shew-bread. [3848] Even he remembered that
this privilege (I mean the dispensation from fasting) was allowed to the
Sabbath from the very beginning, when the Sabbath-day itself was instituted.
For although the Creator had forbidden that the manna should be gathered for
two days, He yet permitted it on the one occasion only of the day before the
Sabbath, in order that the yesterday's provision of food might free from
fasting the feast of the following Sabbath-day. Good reason, therefore, had
the Lord for pursuing the same principle in the annulling of the Sabbath
(since that is the word which men will use); good reason, too, for
expressing the Creator's will, [3849] when He bestowed the privilege of
not fasting on the Sabbath-day. In short, He would have then and there
[3850] put an end to the Sabbath, nay, to the Creator Himself, if He had
commanded His disciples to fast on the Sabbath-day, contrary to the
intention [3851] of the Scripture and of the Creator's will. But because
He did not directly defend [3852] His disciples, but excuses them;
because He interposes human want, as if deprecating censure; because He
maintains the honour of the Sabbath as a day which is to be free from gloom
rather than from work; [3853] because he puts David and his companions on
a level with His own disciples in their fault and their extenuation; because
He is pleased to endorse [3854] the Creator's indulgence: [3855]
because He is Himself good according to His example'is He therefore alien
from the Creator? Then the Pharisees watch whether He would heal on the
Sabbath-day, [3856] that they might accuse Him'surely as a violator of
the Sabbath, not as the propounder of a new god; for perhaps I might be
content with insisting on all occasions on this one point, that another
Christ [3857] is nowhere proclaimed. The Pharisees, however, were in
utter error concerning the law of the Sabbath, not observing that its terms
were conditional, when it enjoined rest from labour, making certain
distinctions of labour. For when it says of the Sabbath-day, "In it thou
shalt not do any work of thine," [3858] by the word thine [3859] it
restricts the prohibition to human work'which every one performs in his own
employment or business'and not to divine work. Now the work of healing or
preserving is not proper to man, but to God. So again, in the law it says,
"Thou shalt not do any manner of work in it," [3860] except what is to be
done for any soul, [3861] that is to say, in the matter of delivering the
soul; [3862] because what is God's work may be done by human agency for
the salvation of the soul. By God, however, would that be done which the man
Christ was to do, for He was likewise God. [3863] Wishing, therefore, to
initiate them into this meaning of the law by the restoration of the
withered hand, He requires, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath-days to do good, or
not? to save life, or to destroy it? " [3864] In order that He might,
whilst allowing that amount of work which He was about to perform for a
soul, [3865] remind them what works the law of the Sabbath forbade'even
human works; and what it enjoined'even divine works, which might be done for
the benefit of any soul, [3866] He was called "Lord of the Sabbath,"
[3867] because He maintained [3868] the Sabbath as His own institution.
Now, even if He had annulled the Sabbath, He would have had the right to do
so, [3869] as being its Lord, (and) still more as He who instituted it.
But He did not utterly destroy it, although its Lord, in order that it might
henceforth be plain that the Sabbath was not broken [3870] by the
Creator, even at the time when the ark was carried around Jericho. For that
was really [3871] God's work, which He commanded Himself, and which He
had ordered for the sake of the lives of His servants when exposed to the
perils of war. Now, although He has in a certain place expressed an aversion
of Sabbaths, by calling them your Sabbaths, [3872] reckoning them as
men's Sabbaths, not His own, because they were celebrated without the fear
of God by a people full of iniquities, and loving God "with the lip, not the
heart," [3873] He has yet put His own Sabbaths (those, that is, which
were kept according to His prescription) in a different position; for by the
same prophet, in a later passage, [3874] He declared them to be "true,
and delightful, and inviolable." Thus Christ did not at all rescind the
Sabbath: He kept the law thereof, and both in the former case did a work
which was beneficial to the life of His disciples, for He indulged them with
the relief of food when they were hungry, and in the present instance cured
the withered hand; in each case intimating by facts, "I came not to destroy,
the law, but to fulfil it," [3875] although Marcion has gagged [3876]
His mouth by this word. [3877] For even in the case before us He
fulfilled the law, while interpreting its condition; moreover, He exhibits
in a dear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the law
excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath [3878] and while imparting to
the Sabbath-day itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the
benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by His own beneficent
action. For He furnished to this day divine safeguards, [3879] 'a course
which [3880] His adversary would have pursued for some other days, to
avoid honouring the Creator's Sabbath, and restoring to the Sabbath the
works which were proper for it. Since, in like manner, the prophet Elisha on
this day restored to life the dead son of the Shunammite woman, [3881]
you see, O Pharisee, and you too, O Marcion, how that it was proper
employment for the Creator's Sabbaths of old [3882] to do good, to save
life, not to destroy it; how that Christ introduced nothing new, which was
not after the example, [3883] the gentleness, the mercy, and the
prediction also of the Creator. For in this very example He fulfils
[3884] the prophetic announcement of a specific healing: "The weak hands are
strengthened," as were also "the feeble knees" [3885] in the sick of the
palsy.
Chapter XIII. Christ's Connection with the Creator Shown. Many Quotations
Out of the Old Testament Prophetically Bear on Certain Events of the Life of
Jesus'Such as His Ascent to Praying on the Mountain; His Selection of Twelve
Apostles; His Changing Simon's Name to Peter, and Gentiles from Tyre and
Sidon Resorting to Him.
Surely to Sion He brings good tidings, and to Jerusalem peace and all
blessings; He goes up into a mountain, and there spends a night in
prayer, [3886] and He is indeed heard by the Father. Accordingly turn
over the prophets, and learn therefrom His entire course. [3887] "Into
the high mountain," says Isaiah, "get Thee up, who bringest good tidings to
Sion; lift up Thy voice with strength, who bringest good tidings to
Jerusalem." [3888] "They were mightily [3889] astonished at His
doctrine; for He was teaching as one who had power." [3890] And again:
"Therefore, my people shall know my name in that day." What name does the
prophet mean, but Christ's? "That I am He that doth speak'even I." [3891]
For it was He who used to speak in the prophets'the Word, the Creator's Son.
"I am present, while it is the hour, upon the mountains, as one that
bringeth glad tidings of peace, as one that publisheth good tidings of
good." [3892] So one of the twelve (minor prophets), Nahum: "For behold
upon the mountain the swift feet of Him that bringeth glad tidings of
peace." [3893] Moreover, concerning the voice of His prayer to the Father
by night, the psalm manifestly says: "O my God, I will cry in the day-time,
and Thou shalt hear; and in the night season, and it shall not be in vain to
me." [3894] in another passage touching the same voice and place, the
psalm says: "I cried unto the Lord with my voice, and He heard me out of His
holy mountain." [3895] You have a representation of the name; you have
the action of the Evangelizer; you have a mountain for the site; and the
night as the time; and the sound of a voice; and the audience of the Father:
you have, (in short, ) the Christ of the prophets. But why was it that He
chose twelve apostles, [3896] and not some other number? In truth,
[3897] I might from this very point conclude [3898] of my Christ, that He
was foretold not only by the words of prophets, but by the indications of
facts. For of this number I find figurative hints up and down the Creator's
dispensation [3899] in the twelve springs of Elfin; [3900] in the
twelve gems of Aaron's priestly vestment; [3901] and in the twelve stones
appointed by Joshua to be taken out of the Jordan, and set up for the ark of
the covenant. Now, the same number of apostles was thus portended, as if
they were to be fountains and rivers which should water the Gentile world,
which was formerly dry and destitute of knowledge (as He says by Isaiah: "I
will put streams in the unwatered ground" [3902] ); as if they were to be
gems to shed lustre upon the church's sacred robe, which Christ, the High
Priest of the Father, puts on; as if, also, they were to be stones massive
in their faith, which the true Joshua took out of the layer of the Jordan,
and placed in the sanctuary of His covenant. What equally good defence of
such a number has Marcion's Christ to show? It is impossible that anything
can be shown to have been done by him unconnectedly, [3903] which cannot
be shown to have been done by my Christ in connection (with preceding
types). [3904] To him will appertain the event [3905] in whom is
discovered the preparation for the same. [3906] Again, He changes the
name of Simon to peter, [3907] inasmuch as the Creator also altered the
names of Abram, and Sarai, and Oshea, by calling the latter Joshua, and
adding a syllable to each of the former. But why Peter? If it was because of
the vigour of his faith, there were many solid materials which might lend a
name from their strength. Was it because Christ was both a rock and a stone?
For we read of His being placed "for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of
offence." [3908] I omit the rest of the passage. [3909] Therefore He
would fain [3910] impart to the dearest of His disciples a name which was
suggested by one of His own especial designations in figure; because it was,
I suppose, more peculiarly fit than a name which might have been derived
from no figurative description of Himself. [3911] There come to Him from
Tyre, and from other districts even, a transmarine multitude. This fact the
psalm had in view: "And behold tribes of foreign people, and Tyre, and the
people of the Ethiopians; they were there. Sion is my mother, shall a man
say; and in her was born a man" (forasmuch as the God-man was born), and He
built her by the Father's will; that you may know how Gentiles then flocked
to Him, because He was born the God-man who was to build the church
according to the Father's will'even of other races also. [3912] So says
Isaiah too: "Behold, these come from far; and these from the north and from
the west; [3913] and these from the land of the Persians." [3914]
Concerning whom He says again: "Lift up thine eyes round about, and behold,
all these have gathered themselves together." [3915] And yet again: "Thou
seest these unknown and strange ones; and thou wilt say in thine heart, Who
hath begotten me these? But who hath brought me up these? And these, where
have they been? " [3916] Will such a Christ not be (the Christ) of the
prophets? And what will be the Christ of the Marcionites? Since perversion
of truth is their pleasure, he could not be (the Christ) of the prophets.
Chapter XIV. Christ's Sermon on the Mount. In Manner and Contents It So
Resembles the Creator's Dispensational Words and Deeds. It Suggests
Therefore the Conclusion that Jesus is the Creator's Christ. The Beatitudes.
I now come to those ordinary precepts of His, by means of which He adapts
the peculiarity [3917] of His doctrine to what I may call His official
proclamation as the Christ. [3918] "Blessed are the needy" (for no less
than this is required for interpreting the word in the Greek, [3919]
"because theirs is the kingdom of heaven." [3920] Now this very fact,
that He begins with beatitudes, is characteristic of the Creator, who used
no other voice than that of blessing either in the first fiat or the final
dedication of the universe: for "my heart," says He, "hath indited a very
good word." [3921] This will be that "very good word" of blessing which
is admitted to be the initiating principle of the New Testament, after the
example of the Old. What is there, then, to wonder at, if He entered on His
ministry with the very attributes [3922] of the Creator, who ever in
language of the same sort loved, consoled, protected, and avenged the
beggar, and the poor, and the humble, and the widow, and the orphan? So that
you may believe this private bounty as it were of Christ to be a rivulet
streaming from the springs of salvation. Indeed, I hardly know which way to
turn amidst so vast a wealth of good words like these; as if I were in a
forest, or a meadow, or an orchard of apples. I must therefore look out for
such matter as chance may present to me. [3923]
In the psalm he exclaims: "Defend the fatherless and the needy; do justice
to the humble and the poor; deliver the poor, and rid the needy out of the
hand of the wicked." [3924] Similarly in the seventy-first Psalm: "In
righteousness shall He judge the needy amongst the people, and shall save
the children of the poor." [3925] And in the following words he says of
Christ: "All nations shall serve Him." [3926] Now David only reigned over
the Jewish nation, so that nobody can suppose that this was spoken of David;
whereas He had taken upon Himself the condition of the poor, and such as
were oppressed with want, "Because He should deliver the needy out of the
hand of the mighty man; He shall spare the needy and the poor, and shall
deliver the souls of the poor. From usury and injustice shall He redeem
their souls, and in His sight shall their name be honoured." [3927]
Again: "The wicked shall be turned into hell, even all the nations that
forget God; because the needy shall not alway be forgotten; the endurance of
the poor shall not perish for ever." [3928] Again: "Who is like unto the
Lord our God, who dwelleth on high, and yet looketh on the humble things
that are in heaven and on earth!'who raiseth up the needy from off the
ground, and out of the dunghill exalteth the poor; that He may set him with
the princes of His people," [3929] that is, in His own kingdom. And
likewise earlier, in the book of Kings, [3930] Hannah the mother of
Samuel gives glory to God in these words: "He raiseth the poor man from the
ground, and the beggar, that He may set him amongst the princes of His
people (that is, in His own kingdom), and on thrones of glory" (even royal
ones). [3931] And by Isaiah how He inveighs against the oppressors of the
needy "What mean ye that ye set fire to my vineyard, and that the spoil of
the poor is in your houses? Wherefore do ye beat my people to pieces, and
grind the face of the needy? " [3932] And again: "Woe unto them that
decree unrighteous decrees; for in their decrees they decree wickedness,
turning aside the needy from judgment, and taking away their rights from the
poor of my people." [3933] These righteous judgments He requires for the
fatherless also, and the widows, as well as for consolation [3934] to the
very needy themselves. "Do justice to the fatherless, and deal justly with
the widow; and come, let us be reconciled, [3935] saith the Lord."
[3936] To him, for whom in every stage of lowliness there is provided so
much of the Creator's compassionate regard, shall be given that kingdom also
which is promised by Christ, to whose merciful compassion belong, and for a
great while have belonged, [3937] those to whom the promise is made. For
even if you suppose that the promises of the Creator were earthly, but that
Christ's are heavenly, it is quite clear that heaven has been as yet the
property of no other God whatever, than Him who owns the earth also; quite
clear that the Creator has given even the lesser promises (of earthly
blessing), in order that I may more readily believe Him concerning His
greater promises (of heavenly blessings) also, than (Marcion's god), who has
never given proof of his liberality by any preceding bestowal of minor
blessings. "Blessed are they that hunger, for they shall be filled."
[3938] I might connect this clause with the former one, because none but the
poor and needy suffer hunger, if the Creator had not specially designed that
the promise of a similar blessing should serve as a preparation for the
gospel, that so men might know it to be His. [3939] For thus does He say,
by Isaiah, concerning those whom He was about to call from the ends of the
earth'that is, the Gentiles: "Behold, they shall come swiftly with speed:
" [3940] swiftly, because hastening towards the fulness of the times;
with speed, because unclogged by the weights of the ancient law. They shall
neither hunger nor thirst. Therefore they shall be filled,'a promise which
is made to none but those who hunger and thirst. And again He says: "Behold,
my servants shall be filled, but ye shall be hungry; behold, my servants
shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty." [3941] As for these oppositions,
we shall see whether they are not premonitors of Christ. [3942] Meanwhile
the promise of fulness to the hungry is a provision of God the Creator.
"Blessed are they that weep, for they shall laugh." [3943] Turn again to
the passage of Isaiah: "Behold, my servants shall exult with joy, but ye
shall be ashamed; behold, my servants shall be glad, but ye shall cry for
sorrow of heart." [3944] And recognise these oppositions also in the
dispensation of Christ. Surely gladness and joyous exultation is promised to
those who are in an opposite condition'to the sorrowful, and sad, and
anxious. Just as it is said in the 125th Psalm: "They who sow in tears shall
reap in joy." [3945] Moreover, laughter is as much an accessory to the
exulting and glad, as weeping is to the sorrowful and grieving. Therefore
the Creator, in foretelling matters for laughter and tears, was the first
who said that those who mourned should laugh. Accordingly, He who began (His
course) with consolation for the poor, and the humble, and the hungry, and
the weeping, was at once eager [3946] to represent Himself as Him whom He
had pointed out by the mouth of Isaiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because He hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the poor." [3947]
"Blessed are the needy, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven." [3948]
"He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted." [3949] "Blessed are they
that hunger, for they shall be filled." [3950] "To comfort all that
mourn." [3951] "Blessed are they that weep, for they shall laugh."
[3952] "To give unto them that mourn in Sion, beauty (or glory) for ashes,
and the oil of joy for mourning, and the garment of praise for the spirit of
heaviness." [3953] Now since Christ, as soon as He entered on His
course, [3954] fulfilled such a ministration as this, He is either,
Himself, He who predicted His own coming to do all this; or else if he is
not yet come who predicted this, the charge to Marcion's Christ must be a
ridiculous one (although I should perhaps add a necessary [3955] one),
which bade him say, "Blessed shall ye be, when men shall bate you, and shall
reproach you, and shall cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's
sake." [3956] In this declaration there is, no doubt, an exhortation to
patience. Well, what did the Creator say otherwise by Isaiah? "Fear ye not
the reproach of men, nor be diminished by their contempt." [3957] What
reproach? what contempt? That which was to be incurred for the sake of the
Son of man. What Son of man? He who (is come) according to the Creator's
will. Whence shall we get our proof? From the very cutting off, which was
predicted against Him; as when He says by Isaiah to the Jews, who were the
instigators of hatred against Him: "Because of you, my name is blasphemed
amongst the Gentiles; " [3958] and in another passage: "Lay the penalty
on [3959] Him who surrenders [3960] His own life, who is held in
contempt by the Gentiles, whether servants or magistrates." [3961] Now,
since hatred was predicted against that Son of man who has His mission from
the Creator, whilst the Gospel testifies that the name of Christians, as
derived from Christ, was to be hated for the Son of man's sake, because He
is Christ, it determines the point that that was the Son of man in the
matter of hatred who came according to the Creator's purpose, and against
whom the hatred was predicted. And even if He had not yet come, the hatred
of His name which exists at the present day could not in any case have
possibly preceded Him who was to bear the name. [3962] But He has both
suffered the penalty [3963] in out presence, and surrendered His life,
laying it down for our sakes, and is held in contempt by the Gentiles. And
He who was born (into the world) will be that very Son of man on whose
account our name also is rejected.
Chapter XV. Sermon on the Mount Continued. Its Woes in Strict Agreement with
the Creator's Disposition. Many Quotations Out of the Old Testament in Proof
of This.
"In the like manner," says He, [3964] "did their fathers unto the
prophets." What a turncoat [3965] is Marcion's Christ! Now the destroyer,
now the advocate of the prophets! He destroyed them as their rival, by
converting their disciples; he took up their cause as their friend, by
stigmatizing [3966] their persecutors. But, [3967] in as far as the
defence of the prophets could not be consistent in the Christ of Marcion,
who came to destroy them; in so far is it becoming to the Creator's Christ
that He should stigmatize those who persecuted the prophets, for He in all
things accomplished their predictions. Again, it is more characteristic of
the Creator to upbraid sons with their fathers' sins, than it is of that god
who chastizes no man for even his own misdeeds. But you will say, He cannot
be regarded as defending the prophets simply because He wished to affirm the
iniquity of the Jews for their impious dealings with their own prophets.
Well, then, in this case, [3968] no sin ought to have been charged
against the Jews: they were rather deserving of praise and approbation when
they maltreated [3969] those whom the absolutely good god of Marcion,
after so long a time, bestirred himself [3970] to destroy. I suppose,
however, that by this time he bad ceased to be the absolutely good god;
[3971] he had now sojourned a considerable while even with the Creator, and
was no longer (like) the god of Epicurus [3972] purely and simply. For
see how he condescends [3973] to curse, and proves himself capable of
taking offence and feeling anger! He actually pronounces a woe! But a doubt
is raised against us as to the import of this word, as if it carried with it
less the sense of a curse than of an admonition. Where, however, is the
difference, since even an admonition is not given without the sting of a
threat, especially when it is embittered with a woe? Moreover, both
admonition and threatening will be the resources of him [3974] who knows
how to feel angry, For no one will forbid the doing of a thing with an
admonition or a threat, except him who will inflict punishment for the doing
of it. No one would inflict punishment, except him who was susceptible of
anger. Others, again, admit that the word implies a curse; but they will
have it that Christ pronounced the woe, not as if it were His own genuine
feeling, but because the woe is from the Creator, and He wanted to set forth
to them the severity of the Creator in order that He might the more commend
His own long-suffering [3975] in His beatitudes Just as if it were not
competent to the Creator, in the pre-eminence of both His attributes as the
good God and Judge, that, as He had made clemency [3976] the preamble of
His benediction so He should place severity in the sequel of His curses;
thus fully developing His discipline in both directions, both in following
out the blessing and in providing against the curse. [3977] He had
already said of old, "Behold, I have set before you blessing and
cursing." [3978] Which statement was really a presage of [3979] this
temper of the gospel. Besides, what sort of being is that who, to insinuate
a belief in his own goodness, invidiously contrasted [3980] with it the
Creator's severity? Of little worth is the recommendation which has for its
prop the defamation of another. And yet by thus setting forth the severity
of the Creator, he, in fact, affirmed Him to be an object of fear. [3981]
Now if He be an object of fear, He is of course more worthy of being obeyed
than slighted; and thus Marcion's Christ begins to teach favourably to the
Creator's interests. [3982] Then, on the admission above mentioned, since
the woe which has regard to the rich is the Creator's, it follows that it is
not Christ, but the Creator, who is angry with the rich; while Christ
approves of [3983] the incentives of the rich [3984] 'I mean, their
pride, their pomp, [3985] their love of the world, and their contempt of
God, owing to which they deserve the woe of the Creator. But how happens it
that the reprobation of the rich does not proceed from the same God who had
just before expressed approbation of the poor? There is nobody but
reprobates the opposite of that which he has approved. If, therefore, there
be imputed to the Creator the woe pronounced against the rich, there must be
claimed for Him also the promise of the blessing upon the poor; and thus the
entire work of the Creator devolves on Christ.'If to Marcion's god there be
ascribed the blessing of the poor, he must also have imputed to him the
malediction of the rich; and thus will he become the Creator's equal,
[3986] both good and judicial; nor will there be left any room for that
distinction whereby two gods are made; and when this distinction is removed,
there will remain the verity which pronounces the Creator to be the one only
God. Since, therefore, "woe" is a word indicative of malediction, or of some
unusually austere [3987] exclamation; and since it is by Christ uttered
against the rich, I shall have to show that the Creator is also a
despiser [3988] of the rich, as I have shown Him to be the defender
[3989] of the poor, in order that I may prove Christ to be on the Creator's
side in this matter, even when He enriched Solomon. [3990] But with
respect to this man, since, when a choice was left to him, he preferred
asking for what he knew to be well-pleasing to God'even wisdom'he further
merited the attainment of the riches, which he did not prefer. The endowing
of a man indeed with riches, is not an incongruity to God, for by the help
of riches even rich men are comforted and assisted; moreover, by them many a
work of justice and charity is carried out. But yet there are serious
faults [3991] which accompany riches; and it is because of these that
woes are denounced on the rich, even in the Gospel. "Ye have received," says
He, "your consolation; " [3992] that is, of course, from their riches, in
the pomps and vanities of the world which these purchase for them.
Accordingly, in Deuteronomy, Moses says: "Lest, when thou hast eaten and art
full, and hast built goodly houses, and when thy herds and thy flocks
multiply, as well as thy silver and thy gold, thine heart be then lifted up,
and thou forget the Lord thy God." [3993] in similar terms, when king
Hezekiah became proud of his treasures, and gloried in them rather than in
God before those who had come on an embassy from Babylon, [3994] (the
Creator) breaks forth [3995] against him by the mouth of Isaiah: "Behold,
the days come when all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers
have laid up in store, shall be carried to Babylon." [3996] So by
Jeremiah likewise did He say: "Let not the rich man glory in his riches but
let him that glorieth even glory in the Lord." [3997] Similarly against
the daughters of Sion does He inveigh by Isaiah, when they were haughty
through their pomp and the abundance of their riches, [3998] just as in
another passage He utters His threats against the proud and noble: "Hell
hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth, and down to it shall descend
the illustrious, and the great, and the rich (this shall be Christ's 'woe to
the rich'); and man [3999] shall be humbled," even he that exalts himself
with riches; "and the mighty man [4000] shall be dishonoured," even he
who is mighty from his wealth. [4001] Concerning whom He says again:
"Behold, the Lord of hosts shall confound the pompous together with their
strength: those that are lifted up shall be hewn down, and such as are lofty
shall fall by the sword." [4002] And who are these but the rich? Because
they have indeed received their consolation, glory, and honour and a lofty
position from their wealth. In Psalms 48 He also turns off our care from
these and says: "Be not thou afraid when one is made rich, and when his
glory is increased: for when he shall die, he shall carry nothing away; nor
shall his glory descend along with him." [4003] So also in Psalms 61: "Do
not desire riches; and if they do yield you their lustre, [4004] do not
set your heart upon them." [4005] Lastly, this very same woe is
pronounced of old by Amos against the rich, who also abounded in delights.
"Woe unto them," says he, "who sleep upon beds of ivory, and deliciously
stretch themselves upon their couches; who eat the kids from the flocks of
the goats, and sucking calves from the flocks of the heifers, while they
chant to the sound of the viol; as if they thought they should continue
long, and were not fleeting; who drink their refined wines, and anoint
themselves with the costliest ointments." [4006] Therefore, even if I
could do nothing else than show that the Creator dissuades men from riches,
without at the same time first condemning the rich, in the very same terms
in which Christ also did, no one could doubt that, from the same authority,
there was added a commination against the rich in that woe of Christ, from
whom also had first proceeded the dissuasion against the material sin of
these persons, that is, their riches. For such commination is the necessary
sequel to such a dissuasive. He inflicts a woe also on "the full, because
they shall hunger; on those too which laugh now, because they shall
mourn." [4007] To these will correspond these opposites which occur, as
we have seen above, in the benedictions of the Creator: "Behold, my servants
shall be full, but ye shall be hungry "'even because ye have been filled;
"behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed" [4008] 'even
ye who shall mourn, who now are laughing. For as it is written in the psalm,
"They who sow in tears shall reap in joy," [4009] so does it run in the
Gospel: They who sow in laughter, that is, in joy, shall reap in tears.
These principles did the Creator lay down of old; and Christ has renewed
them, by simply bringing them into prominent view, [4010] not by making
any change in them. "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for
so did their fathers to the false prophets." [4011] With equal stress
does the Creator, by His prophet Isaiah, censure those who seek after human
flattery and praise: "O my people, they who call you happy mislead you, and
disturb the paths of your feet." [4012] In another passage He forbids all
implicit trust in man, and likewise in the applause of man; as by the
prophet Jeremiah: "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man." [4013]
Whereas in Psalms 117 it is said: "It is better to trust in the Lord than to
put confidence in man; it is better to trust in the Lord than to place hope
in princes." [4014] Thus everything which is caught at by men is adjured
by the Creator, down to their good words. [4015] It is as much His
property to condemn the praise and flattering words bestowed on the false
prophets by their fathers, as to condemn their vexatious and persecuting
treatment of the (true) prophets. As the injuries suffered by the prophets
could not be imputed [4016] to their own God, so the applause bestowed on
the false prophets could not have been displeasing to any other god but the
God of the true prophets.
Chapter XVI. The Precept of Loving One's Enemies. It is as Much Taught in
the Creator's Scriptures of the Old Testament as in Christ's Sermon. The Lex
Talionis of Moses Admirably Explained in Consistency with the Kindness and
Love Which Jesus Christ Came to Proclaim and Enforce in Behalf of the
Creator. Sundry Precepts of Charity Explained.
"But I say unto you which hear" (displaying here that old injunction, of the
Creator: "Speak to the ears of those who lend them to you" [4017] ),
"Love your enemies, and bless [4018] those which hate you, and pray for
them which calumniate you." [4019] These commands the Creator included in
one precept by His prophet Isaiah: "Say, Ye are our brethren, to those who
hate you." [4020] For if they who are our enemies, and hate us, and speak
evil of us, and calumniate us, are to be called our brethren, surely He did
in effect bid us bless them that hate us, and pray for them who calumniate
us, when He instructed us to reckon them as brethren. Well, but Christ
plainly teaches a new kind of patience, [4021] when He actually prohibits
the reprisals which the Creator permitted in requiring "an eye for an
eye, [4022] and a tooth for a tooth," [4023] and bids us, on the
contrary, "to him who smiteth us on the one cheek, to offer the other also,
and to give up our coat to him that taketh away our cloak." [4024] No
doubt these are supplementary additions by Christ, but they are quite in
keeping with the teaching of the Creator. And therefore this question must
at once be determined, [4025] Whether the discipline of patience be
enjoined by [4026] the Creator? When by Zechariah He commanded, "Let none
of you imagine evil against his brother," [4027] He did not expressly
include his neighbour; but then in another passage He says, "Let none of you
imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour." [4028] He who
counselled that an injury should be forgotten, was still more likely to
counsel the patient endurance of it. But then, when He said, "Vengeance is
mine, and I will repay," [4029] He thereby teaches that patience calmly
waits for the infliction of vengeance. Therefore, inasmuch as it is
incredible [4030] that the same (God) should seem to require "a tooth for
a tooth and an eye for an eye," in return for an injury, who forbids not
only all reprisals, but even a revengeful thought or recollection of an
injury, in so far does it become plain to us in what sense He required "an
eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,"'not, indeed, for the purpose of
permitting the repetition of the injury by retaliating it, which it
virtually prohibited when it forbade vengeance; but for the purpose of
restraining the injury in the first instance, which it had forbidden on pain
of retaliation or reciprocity; [4031] so that every man, in view of the
permission to inflict a second (or retaliatory) injury, might abstain from
the commission of the first (or provocative) wrong. For He knows how much
more easy it is to repress violence by the prospect of retaliation, than by
the promise of (indefinite) vengeance. Both results, however, it was
necessary to provide, in consideration of the nature and the faith of men,
that the man who believed in God might expect vengeance from God, while he
who had no faith (to restrain him) might fear the laws which prescribed
retaliation. [4032] This purpose [4033] of the law, which it was
difficult to understand, Christ, as the Lord of the Sabbath and of the law,
and of all the dispensations of the Father, both revealed and made
intelligible, [4034] when He commanded that "the other cheek should be
offered (to the smiter)," in order that He might the more effectually
extinguish all reprisals of an injury, which the law had wished to prevent
by the method of retaliation, (and) which most certainly revelation
[4035] had manifestly restricted, both by prohibiting the memory of the
wrong, and referring the vengeance thereof to God. Thus, whatever (new
provision) Christ introduced, He did it not in opposition to the law, but
rather in furtherance of it, without at all impairing the prescription
[4036] of the Creator. If, therefore, [4037] one looks carefully
[4038] into the very grounds for which patience is enjoined (and that to
such a full and complete extent), one finds that it cannot stand if it is
not the precept of the Creator, who promises vengeance, who presents Himself
as the judge (in the case). If it were not so, [4039] 'if so vast a
weight of patience'which is to refrain from giving blow for blow; which is
to offer the other cheek; which is not only not to return railing for
railing, but contrariwise blessing; and which, so far from keeping the coat,
is to give up the cloak also'is laid upon me by one who means not to help
me,'(then all I can say is, ) he has taught me patience to no purpose,
[4040] because he shows me no reward to his precept'I mean no fruit of such
patience. There is revenge which he ought to have permitted me to take, if
he meant not to inflict it himself; if he did not give me that permission,
then he should himself have inflicted it; [4041] since it is for the
interest of discipline itself that an injury should be avenged. For by the
fear of vengeance all iniquity is curbed. But if licence is allowed to it
without discrimination, [4042] it will get the mastery'it will put out (a
man's) both eyes; it will knock out [4043] every tooth in the safety of
its impunity. This, however, is (the principle) of your good and simply
beneficent god'to do a wrong to patience, to open the door to violence, to
leave the righteous undefended, and the wicked unrestrained! "Give to every
one that asketh of thee" [4044] 'to the indigent of course, or rather to
the indigent more especially, although to the affluent likewise. But in
order that no man may be indigent, you have in Deuteronomy a provision
commanded by the Creator to the creditor. [4045] "There shall not be in
thine hand an indigent man; so that the Lord thy God shall bless thee with
blessings," [4046] 'thee meaning the creditor to whom it was owing that
the man was not indigent. But more than this. To one who does not ask, He
bids a gift to be given. "Let there be, not," He says, "a poor man in thine
hand; "in other words, see that there be not, so far as thy will can
prevent; [4047] by which command, too, He all the more strongly by
inference requires [4048] men to give to him that asks, as in the
following words also: "If there be among you a poor man of thy brethren,
thou shalt not turn away thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor
brother. But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend
him as much as he wanteth," [4049] Loans are not usually given, except to
such as ask for them. On this subject of lending, [4050] however, more
hereafter. [4051] Now, should any one wish to argue that the Creator's
precepts extended only to a man's brethren, but Christ's to all that ask, so
as to make the latter a new and different precept, (I have to reply) that
one rule only can be made out of those principles, which show the law of the
Creator to be repeated in Christ. [4052] For that is not a different
thing which Christ enjoined to be done towards all men, from that which the
Creator prescribed in favour of a man's brethren. For although that is a
greater charity, which is shown to strangers, it is yet not preferable to
that [4053] which was previously due to one's neighbours. For what man
will be able to bestow the love (which proceeds from knowledge of
character, [4054] upon strangers? Since, however, the second step
[4055] in charity is towards strangers, while the first is towards one's
neighbours, the second step will belong to him to whom the first also
belongs, more fitly than the second will belong to him who owned no
first. [4056] Accordingly, the Creator, when following the course of
nature, taught in the first instance kindness to neighbours, [4057]
intending afterwards to enjoin it towards strangers; and when following the
method of His dispensation, He limited charity first to the Jews, but
afterwards extended it to the whole race of mankind. So long, therefore, as
the mystery of His government [4058] was confined to Isreal, He properly
commanded that pity should be shown only to a man's brethren; but when
Christ had given to Him "the Gentiles for His heritage, and the ends of the
earth for His possession," then began to be accomplished what was said by
Hosea: "Ye are not my people, who were my people; ye have not obtained
mercy, who once obtained mercy" [4059] 'that is, the (Jewish) nation.
Thenceforth Christ extended to all men the law of His Father's compassion,
excepting none from His mercy, as He omitted none in His invitation. So
that, whatever was the ampler scope of His teaching, He received it all in
His heritage of the nations. "And as ye would that men should do to you, do
ye also to them likewise." [4060] In this command is no doubt implied its
counterpart: "And as ye would not that men should do to you, so should ye
also not do to them likewise." Now, if this were the teaching of the new and
previously unknown and not yet fully proclaimed deity, who had favoured me
with no instruction beforehand, whereby I might first learn what I ought to
choose or to refuse for myself, and to do to others what I would wish done
to myself, not doing to them what I should be unwilling to have done to
myself, it would certainly be nothing else than the chance-medley of my own
sentiments [4061] which he would have left to me, binding me to no proper
rule of wish or action, in order that I might do to others what I would like
for myself, or refrain from doing to others what I should dislike to have
done to myself. For he has not, in fact, defined what I ought to wish or not
to wish for myself as well as for others, so that I shape my conduct
[4062] according to the law of my own will, and have it in my power
[4063] not to render [4064] to another what I would like to have rendered
to myself'love, obedience, consolation, protection, and such like blessings;
and in like manner to do to another what I should be unwilling to have done
to myself'violence, wrong, insult, deceit, and evils of like sort. Indeed,
the heathen who have not been instructed by God act on this incongruous
liberty of the will and the conduct. [4065] For although good and evil
are severally known by nature, yet life is not thereby spent [4066] under
the discipline of God, which alone at last teaches men the proper liberty of
their will and action in faith, asin the fear of God. The god of Marcion,
therefore, although specially revealed, was, in spite of his revelation,
unable to publish any summary of the precept in question, which had hitherto
been so confined, [4067] and obscure, and dark, and admitting of no ready
interpretation, except according to my own arbitrary thought, [4068]
because he had provided no previous discrimination in the matter of such a
precept. This, however, was not the case with my God [4069] for He always
and everywhere enjoined that the poor, and the orphan, and the widow should
be protected, assisted, refreshed; thus by Isaiah He says: "Deal thy bread
to the hungry, and them that are houseless bring into thine house; when thou
seest the naked, cover him." [4070] By Ezekiel also He thus describes the
just man: "His bread will he give to the hungry, and the naked will he cover
with a garment." [4071] That teaching was even then a sufficient
inducement to me to do to others what I would that they should do unto me.
Accordingly, when He uttered such denunciations as, "Thou shalt do no
murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not
bear false witness," He taught me to refrain from doing to others what I
should be unwilling to have done to myself; and therefore the precept
developed in the Gospel will belong to Him alone, who anciently drew it up,
and gave it distinctive point, and arranged it after the decision of His own
teaching, and has now reduced it, suitably to its importance, [4072] to a
compendious formula, because (as it was predicted in another passage) the
Lord'that is, Christ" was to make (or utter) a concise word on earth."
[4073]
Chapter XVII. Concerning Loans. Prohibition of Usury and the Usurious
Spirit. The Law Preparatory to the Gospel in Its Provisions; So in the
Present Instance. On Reprisals. Christ's Teaching Throughout Proves Him to
Be Sent by the Creator.
And now, on the subject of a loan, when He asks, "And if ye lend to them of
whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? " [4074] compare with this
the following words of Ezekiel, in which He says of the before-mentioned
just man, "He hath not given his money upon usury, nor will he take any
increase" [4075] 'meaning the redundance of interest, [4076] which is
usury. The first step was to eradicate the fruit of the money lent,
[4077] the more easily to accustom a man to the loss, should it happen, of
the money itself, the interest of which he had learnt to lose. Now this, we
affirm, was the function of the law as preparatory to the gospel. It was
engaged in forming the faith of such as would learn, [4078] by gradual
stages, for the perfect light of the Christian discipline, through the best
precepts of which it was capable, [4079] inculcating a benevolence which
as yet expressed itself but falteringly. [4080] For in the passage of
Ezekiel quoted above He says, "And thou shalt restore the pledge of the loan
" [4081] 'to him, certainly, who is incapable of repayment, because, as a
matter of course, He would not anyhow prescribe the restoration of a pledge
to one who was solvent. Much more clearly is it enjoined in Deuteronomy:
"Thou shalt not sleep upon his pledge; thou shalt be sure to return to him
his garment about sunset, and he shall sleep in his own garment." [4082]
Clearer still is a former passage: "Thou shalt remit every debt which thy
neighbour oweth thee; and of thy brother thou shalt not require it, because
it is called the release of the Lord thy God." [4083] Now, when He
commands that a debt be remitted to a man who shall be unable to pay it (for
it is a still stronger argument when He forbids its being asked for from a
man who is even able to repay it), what else does He teach than that we
should lend to those of whom we cannot receive again, inasmuch as He has
imposed so great a loss on lending? "And ye shall be the children of
God." [4084] What can be more shameless, than for him to be making us his
children, who has not permitted us to make children for ourselves by
forbidding marriage? [4085] How does he propose to invest his followers
with a name which he has already erased? I cannot be the son of a eunuch
Especially when I have for my Father the same great Being whom the universe
claims for its! For is not the Founder of the universe as much a Father,
even of all men, as (Marcion's) castrated deity, [4086] who is the maker
of no existing thing? Even if the Creator had not united male and female,
and if He had not allowed any living creature whatever to have children, I
yet had this relation to Him [4087] before Paradise, before the fall,
before the expulsion, before the two became one. [4088] I became His son
a second time, [4089] as soon as He fashioned me [4090] with His
hands, and gave me motion with His inbreathing. Now again He names me His
son, not begetting me into natural life, but into spiritual life. [4091]
"Because," says He, "He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."
[4092] Well done, [4093] Marcion! how cleverly have you withdrawn from
Him the showers and the sunshine, that He might not seem to be a Creator!
But who is this kind being [4094] which hitherto has not been even known?
How can he be kind who had previously shown no evidences of such a kindness
as this, which consists of the loan to us of sunshine and rain?'who is not
destined to receive from the human race (the homage due to that)
Creator,'who, up to this very moment, in return for His vast liberality in
the gift of the elements, bears with men while they offer to idols, more
readily than Himself, the due returns of His graciousness. But God is truly
kind even in spiritual blessings. "The utterances [4095] of the Lord are
sweeter than honey and honeycombs." [4096] He then has taunted [4097]
men as ungrateful who deserved to have their gratitude'even He, whose
sunshine and rain even you, O Marcion, have enjoyed, but without gratitude!
Your god, however, had no right to complain of man's ingratitude, because he
had used no means to make them grateful. Compassion also does He teach: "Be
ye merciful," says He, "as your Father also that had mercy upon you."
[4098] This injunction will be of a piece with, "Deal thy bread to the
hungry; and if he be houseless, bring him into thine house; and if thou
seest the naked, cover him; " [4099] also with, "Judge the fatherless,
plead with the widow." [4100] I recognise here that ancient doctrine of
Him who "prefers mercy to sacrifice." [4101] If, however, it be now some
other being which teaches mercy, on the ground of his own mercifulness, how
happens it that he has been wanting in mercy to me for so vast an age?
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be
condemned; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; give, and it shall be given
unto you: good measure, pressed down, and running over, shall men give into
your bosom. For with the same measure that ye measure withal, it shall be
measured to you again." [4102] As it seems to me, this passage announces
a retribution proportioned to the merits. But from whom shall come the
retribution? If only from men, in that case he teaches a merely human
discipline and recompense; and in everything we shall have to obey man: if
from the Creator, as the Judge and the Recompenser of merits, then He
compels our submission to Him, in whose hands [4103] He has placed a
retribution which will be acceptable or terrible according as every man
shall have judged or condemned, acquitted or dealt with, [4104] his
neighbour; if from (Marcion's god) himself, he will then exercise a judicial
function which Marcion denies. Let the Marcionites therefore make their
choice: Will it not be just the same inconsistency to desert the
prescription of their master, as to have Christ teaching in the interest of
men or of the Creator? But "a blind man will lead a blind man into the
ditch." [4105] Some persons believe Marcion. But "the disciple is not
above his master." [4106] Apelles ought to have remembered this'a
corrector of Marcion, although his disciple. [4107] The heretic ought to
take the beam out of his own eye, and then he may convict [4108] the
Christian, should he suspect a mote to be in his eye. Just as a good tree
cannot produce evil fruit, so neither can truth generate heresy; and as a
corrupt tree cannot yield good fruit, so heresy will not produce truth.
Thus, Marcion brought nothing good out of Cerdon's evil treasure; nor
Apelles out of Marcion's. [4109] For in applying to these heretics the
figurative words which Christ used of men in general, we shall make a much
more suitable interpretation of them than if we were to deduce out of them
two gods, according to Marcion's grievous exposition. [4110] I think that
I have the best reason possible for insisting still upon the position which
I have all along occupied, that in no passage to be anywhere found has
another God been revealed by Christ. I wonder that in this place alone
Marcion's hands should have felt benumbed in their adulterating labour.
[4111] But even robbers have their qualms now and then. There is no
wrong-doing without fear, because there is none without a guilty conscience.
So long, then, were the Jews cognisant of no other god but Him, beside whom
they knew none else; nor did they call upon any other than Him whom alone
they knew. This being the case, who will He clearly be [4112] that said,
"Why callest thou me Lord, Lord? " [4113] Will it be he who had as yet
never been called on, because never yet revealed; [4114] or He who was
ever regarded as the Lord, because known from the beginning'even the God of
the Jews? Who, again, could possibly have added, "and do not the things
which I say? "Could it have been he who was only then doing his best
[4115] to teach them? Or He who from the beginning had addressed to them His
messages [4116] both by the law and the prophets? He could then upbraid
them with disobedience, even if He had no ground at any time else for His
reproof. The fact is, that He who was then imputing to them their ancient
obstinacy was none other than He who, before the coming of Christ, had
addressed to them these words, "This people honoureth me with their lips,
but their heart standeth far off from me." [4117] Otherwise, how absurd
it were that a new god, a new Christ, the revealer of a new and so grand a
religion should denounce as obstinate and disobedient those whom he had
never had it in his power to make trial of!
Chapter XVIII. Concerning the Centurion's Faith. The Raising of the Widow's
Son. John Baptist, and His Message to Christ; And the Woman Who Was a
Sinner. Proofs Extracted from All of the Relation of Christ to the Creator.
Likewise, 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
Isreal." [4118] to whom Isreal's faith was in no way interesting!
[4119] But not from the fact (here stated by Christ) [4120] 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 [4121] god? Because, if He had done so, He
would have said that no such faith had ever had existence in Isreal; but as
the case stands, [4122] He intimates that He ought to have found so great
a faith in Isreal, inasmuch as He had indeed come for the purpose of finding
it, being in truth the God and Christ of Isreal, and had now stigmatized
[4123] it, only as one who would enforce and Uphold it. If, indeed, He had
been its antagonist, [4124] He would have preferred finding it to be such
faith, [4125] having come to weaken and destroy it rather than to approve
of it. He raised also the widow's son from death. [4126] This was not a
strange miracle. [4127] 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." [4128] 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 [4129] 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 [4130] when he hears of
the miracles of Christ, as of an alien god. [4131] Well, I on my side
[4132] will first explain the reason of his offence, that I may the more
easily explode the scandal [4133] of our heretic. Now, that the very Lord
Himself of all might, the Word and Spirit of the Father, [4134] was
operating and preaching on earth, it was necessary that the portion of the
Holy Spirit which, in the form of the prophetic gift, [4135] had been
through John preparing the ways of the Lord, should now depart from John,
[4136] and return back again of course to the Lord, as to its all-embracing
original. [4137] Therefore John, being now an ordinary person, and only
one of the many, [4138] 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. [4139] 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. [4140] Whatever doubt he
felt was evidently rather [4141] entertained about Him [4142] 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? " [4143] '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, [4144] as all men then thought, from the similarity of the
miraculous evidences, [4145] 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. [4146] And there lay John's
difficulty. [4147] 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. [4148] 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, [4149] he yet bestows on John his
testimony, affirming him to be a prophet, nay more, his messenger, [4150]
applying to him the Scripture, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
which shall prepare thy way before thee." [4151] He graciously [4152]
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 [4153]
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; " [4154] but for all that, He who was
least in the kingdom of God [4155] was not subject to him; [4156] 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? " [4157]
)'the Creator has equal right [4158] 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, [4159] 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 [4160] 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, [4161] produced an evidence
that what she handled was not an empty phantom, [4162] 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.
[4163] 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." [4164]
Chapter XIX. The Rich Women of Piety Who Followed Jesus Christ's Teaching by
Parables. The Marcionite Cavil Derived from Christ's Remark, When Told of
His Mother and His Brethren. Explanation of Christ's Apparent Rejection
Them.
The fact that certain rich women clave to Christ, "which ministered unto Him
of their substance," amongst whom was the wife of the king's steward, is a
subject of prophecy. By Isaiah the Lord called these wealthy ladies'"Rise
up, ye women that are at ease, and hear my voice" [4165] 'that He might
prove [4166] them first as disciples, and then as assistants and helpers:
"Daughters, hear my words in hope; this day of the year cherish the memory
of, in labour with hope." For it was "in labour" that they followed Him, and
"with hope" did they minister to Him. On the subject of parables, let it
suffice that it has been once for all shown that this kind of language
[4167] was with equal distinctness promised by the Creator. But there is
that direct mode of His speaking [4168] to the people"Ye shall hear with
the ear, but ye shall not understand" [4169] 'which now claims notice as
having furnished to Christ that frequent form of His earnest instruction:
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." [4170] Not as if Christ,
actuated with a diverse spirit, permitted a hearing which the Creator had
refused; but because the exhortation followed the threatening. First came,
"Ye shall hear with the ear, but shall not understand; "then followed, "He
that hath ears to hear, let him hear." For they wilfully refused to hear,
although they had ears. He, however, was teaching them that it was the ears
of the heart which were necessary; and with these the Creator had said that
they would not hear. Therefore it is that He adds by His Christ, "Take heed
how ye hear," [4171] and hear not,'meaning, of course, with the hearing
of the heart, not of the ear. If you only attach a proper, sense to the
Creator's admonition [4172] suitable to the meaning of Him who was
rousing the people to hear by the words, "Take heed how ye hear," it
amounted to a menace to such as would not hear. In fact, [4173] that most
merciful god of yours, who judges not, neither is angry, is minatory. This
is proved even by the sentence which immediately follows: "Whosoever hath,
to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even
that which he seemeth to have." [4174] What shall be given? The increase
of faith, or understanding, or even salvation. What shall be taken away?
That, of course, which shall be, given. By whom shall the gift and the
deprivation be made? If by the Creator it be taken away, by Him also shall
it be given. If by Marcion's god it be given, by Marcion's god also will it
be taken away. Now, for whatever reason He threatens the "deprivation," it
will not be the work of a god who knows not how to threaten, because
incapable of anger. I am, moreover, astonished when he says that "a candle
is not usually hidden," [4175] who had hidden himself'a greater and more
needful light'during so long a time; and when he promises that "everything
shall be brought out of its secrecy and made manifest," [4176] who
hitherto has kept his god in obscurity, waiting (I suppose) until Marcion be
born. We now come to the most strenuously-plied argument of all those who
call in question the Lord's nativity. They say that He testifies Himself to
His not having been born, when He asks, "Who is my mother, and who are my
brethren? " [4177] In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple
words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently
resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense
and are incapable of a simple solution, [4178] as in this passage. We,
for our part, say in reply, first, that it could not possibly have been told
Him that His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to see Him, if
He had had no mother and no brethren. They must have been known to him who
announced them, either some time previously, or then at that very time, when
they desired to see Him, or sent Him their message. To this our first
position this answer is usually given by the other side. But suppose they
sent Him the message for the purpose of tempting Him? Well, but the
Scripture does not say so; and inasmuch as it is usual for it to indicate
what is done in the way of temptation ("Behold, a certain lawyer stood up,
and tempted Him; " [4179] again, when inquiring about tribute, the
Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him [4180] ), so, when it makes no
mention of temptation, it does not admit the interpretation of temptation.
However, although I do not allow this sense, I may as well ask, by way of a
superfluous refutation, for the reasons of the alleged temptation, To what
purpose could they have tempted Him by naming His mother and His brethren?
If it was to ascertain whether He had been born or not'when was a question
raised on this point, which they must resolve by tempting Him in this way?
Who could doubt His having been born, when they [4181] saw Him before
them a veritable man?'whom they had heard call Himself "Son of man? "'of
whom they doubted whether He were God or Son of God, from seeing Him, as
they did, in the perfect garb of human quality?'supposing Him rather to be a
prophet, a great one indeed, [4182] but still one who had been born as
man? Even if it had been necessary that He should thus be tried in the
investigation of His birth, surely any other proof would have better
answered the trial than that to be obtained from mentioning those relatives
which it was quite possible for Him, in spite of His true nativity, not at
that moment to have had. For tell me now, does a mother live on
contemporaneously [4183] with her sons in every case? Have all sons
brothers born for them? [4184] May a man rather not have fathers and
sisters (living), or even no relatives at all? But there is historical
proof [4185] that at this very time [4186] a census had been taken in
Judæa by Sentius Saturninus, [4187] which might have satisfied their
inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of
testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it and they "who
were standing without" were really "His mother and His brethren." It remains
for us to examine His meaning when He resorts to non-literal [4188]
words, saying "Who is my mother or my brethren? "It seems as if His language
amounted to a denial of His family and His birth; but it arose actually from
the absolute nature of the case, and the conditional sense in which His
words were to be explained. [4189] He was justly indignant, that persons
so very near to Him" stood without," while strangers were within hanging on
His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work
He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow [4190] them. And
therefore, when to the previous question, "Who is my mother, and who are my
brethren? [4191] He added the answer "None but they who hear my words and
do them," He transferred the names of blood-relationship to others, whom He
judged to be more closely related to Him by reason of their faith. Now no
one transfers a thing except from him who possesses that which is
transferred. If, therefore, He made them "His mother and His brethren" who
were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them?
Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of
His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, [4192] that
"whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was
not a disciple worthy of Him." [4193] Besides, [4194] His admission of
His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His
unwillingness to acknowledge them. That He adopted others only confirmed
those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offence,
and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but
worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred
(that) faith which it [4195] did not possess. [4196]
Chapter XX. Comparison of Christ's Power Over Winds and Waves with Moses'
Command of the Waters of the Red Sea and the Jordan. Christ's Power Over
Unclean Spirits. The Case of the Legion. The Cure of the Issue of Blood. The
Mosaic Uncleanness on This Point Explained.
But "what manner of man is this? for He commandeth even the winds and
water!" [4197] Of course He is the new master and proprietor of the
elements, now that the Creator is deposed, and excluded from their
possession! Nothing of the kind. But the elements own [4198] their own
Maker, just as they had been accustomed to obey His servants also. Examine
well the Exodus, Marcion; look at the rod of Moses, as it waves His command
to the Red Sea, ampler than all the lakes of Judæa. How the sea yawns from
its very depths, then fixes itself in two solidified masses, and so, out of
the interval between them, [4199] makes a way for the people to pass
dry-shod across; again does the same rod vibrate, the sea returns in its
strength, and in the concourse of its waters the chivalry of Egypt is
engulphed! To that consummation the very winds subserved! Read, too, how
that the Jordan was as a sword, to hinder the emigrant nation in their
passage across its stream; how that its waters from above stood still, and
its current below wholly ceased to run at the bidding of Joshua, [4200]
when his priests began to pass over! [4201] What will you say to this? If
it be your Christ that is meant above, he will not be more potent than the
servants of the Creator. But I should have been content with the examples I
have adduced without addition, [4202] if a prediction of His present
passage on the sea had not preceded Christ's coming. As psalm is, in fact,
accomplished by this [4203] crossing over the lake. "The Lord," says the
psalmist, "is upon many waters." [4204] When He disperses its waves,
Habakkuk's words are fulfilled, where he says, "Scattering the waters in His
passage." [4205] When at His rebuke the sea is calmed, Nahum is also
verified: He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry," [4206] including the
winds indeed, whereby it was disquieted. With what evidence would you have
my Christ vindicated? Shall it come from the examples, or from the
prophecies, of the Creator? You suppose that He is predicted as a military
and armed warrior, [4207] instead of one who in a figurative and
allegorical sense was to wage a spiritual warfare against spiritual enemies,
in spiritual campaigns, and with spiritual weapons: come now, when in one
man alone you discover a multitude of demons calling itself Legion,
[4208] of course comprised of spirits, you should learn that Christ also
must be understood to be an exterminator of spiritual foes, who wields
spiritual arms and fights in spiritual strife; and that it was none other
than He, [4209] who now had to contend with even a legion of demons.
Therefore it is of such a war as this that the Psalm may evidently have
spoken: "The Lord is strong, The Lord is mighty in battle." [4210] For
with the last enemy death did He fight, and through the trophy of the cross
He triumphed. Now of what God did the Legion testify that Jesus was the
Son? [4211] No doubt, of that God whose torments and abyss they knew and
dreaded. It seems impossible for them to have remained up to this time in
ignorance of what the power of the recent and unknown god was working in the
world, because it is very unlikely that the Creator was ignorant thereof.
For if He had been at any time ignorant that there was another god above
Himself, He had by this time at all events discovered that there was one at
work [4212] below His heaven. Now, what their Lord had discovered had by
this time become notorious to His entire family within the same world and
the same circuit of heaven, in which the strange deity dwelt and acted.
[4213] As therefore both the Creator and His creatures [4214] must have
had knowledge of him, if he had been in existence, so, inasmuch as he had no
existence, the demons really knew none other than the Christ of their own
God. They do not ask of the strange god, what they recollected they must beg
of the Creator'not to be plunged into the Creator's abyss. They at last had
their request granted. On what ground? Because they had lied? Because they
had proclaimed Him to be the Son of a ruthless God? And what sort of god
will that be who helped the lying, and upheld his detractors? However, no
need of this thought, for, [4215] inasmuch as they had not lied, inasmuch
as they had acknowledged that the God of the abyss was also their God, so
did He actually Himself affirm that He was the same whom these demons
acknowledged'Jesus, the Judge and Son of the avenging God. Now, behold an
inkling [4216] of the Creator's failings [4217] and infirmities in
Christ; for I on my side [4218] mean to impute to Him ignorance. Allow me
some indulgence in my effort against the heretic. Jesus is touched by the
woman who had an issue of blood, [4219] He knew not by whom. "Who touched
me? "He asks, when His disciples alleged an excuse. He even persists in His
assertion of ignorance: "Somebody hath touched me," He says, and advances
some proof: "For I perceive that virtue is gone out of me." What says our
heretic? Could Christ have known the person? And why did He speak as if He
were ignorant? Why? Surely it was to challenge her faith, and to try her
fear. Precisely as He had once questioned Adam, as if in ignorance: Adam,
where art thou? " [4220] Thus you have both the Creator excused in the
same way as Christ, and Christ acting similarly to [4221] the Creator.
But in this case He acted as an adversary of the law; and therefore, as the
law forbids contact with a woman with an issue, [4222] He desired not
only that this woman should touch Him, but that He should heal her.
[4223] Here, then, is a God who is not merciful by nature, but in hostility!
Yet, if we find that such was the merit of this woman's faith, that He said
unto her, Thy faith hath saved thee." [4224] what are you, that you
should detect an hostility to the law in that act, which the Lord Himself
shows us to have been done as a reward of faith? But will you have it that
this faith of the woman consisted in the contempt which she had acquired for
the law? Who can suppose, that a woman who had been. hitherto unconscious of
any God, uninitiated as yet in any new law, should violently infringe that
law by which she was up to this time bound? On what faith, indeed, was such
an infringement hazarded? In what God believing? Whom despising? The
Creator? Her touch at least was an act of faith. And if of faith in the
Creator, how could she have violated His law, [4225] when she was
ignorant of any other God? Whatever her infringement of the law amounted to,
it proceeded from and was proportionate to her faith in the Creator. But how
can these two things be compatible? That she violated the law, and violated
it in faith, which ought to have restrained her from such violation? I will
tell you how her faith was this above all: [4226] it made her believe
that her God preferred mercy even to sacrifice; she was certain that her God
was working in Christ; she touched Him, therefore, nor as a holy man simply,
nor as a prophet, whom she knew to be capable of contamination by reason of
his human nature, but as very God, whom she assumed to be beyond all
possibility of pollution by any uncleanness. [4227] She therefore, not
without reason, [4228] interpreted for herself the law, as meaning that
such things as are susceptible of defilement become defiled, but not so God,
whom she knew for certain to be in Christ. But she recollected this also,
that what came under the prohibition of the law [4229] was that ordinary
and usual issue of blood which proceeds from natural functions every month,
and in childbirth, not that which was the result of disordered health. Her
case, however, was one of long abounding [4230] ill health, for which she
knew that the succour of God's mercy was needed, and not the natural relief
of time. And thus she may: evidently be regarded as having discerned
[4231] the law, instead of breaking it. This will prove to be the faith
which was to confer intelligence likewise. "If ye will not believe," says
(the prophet), "ye shall not understand." [4232] When Christ approved of
the faith of this woman, which simply rested in the Creator, He declared by
His answer to her, [4233] that He was Himself the divine object of the
faith of which He approved. Nor can I overlook the fact that His garment, by
being touched, demonstrated also the truth of His body; for of course"
[4234] it was a body, and not a phantom, which the garment clothed.
[4235] This indeed is not our point now; but the remark has a natural
bearing on the question we are discussing. For if it were not a veritable
body, but only a fantastic one, it could not for certain have received
contamination, as being an unsubstantial thing. [4236] He therefore, who,
by reason of this vacuity of his substance, was incapable of contamination,
how could he possibly have desired this touch? [4237] As an adversary of
the law, his conduct was deceitful, for he was not susceptible of a real
pollution.
Chapter XXI. Christ's Connection with the Creator Shown from Several
Incidents in the Old Testament, Compared with St. Luke's Narrative of the
Mission of the Disciples. The Feeding of the Multitude. The Confession of
St. Peter. Being Ashamed of Christ. This Shame is Only Possible of the True
Christ. Marcionite Pretensions Absurd.
He sends forth His disciples to preach the kingdom of God. [4238] Does He
here say of what God? He forbids their taking anything for their journey, by
way of either food or raiment. Who would have given such a commandment as
this, but He who feeds the ravens and clothes [4239] the flowers of the
field? Who anciently enjoined for the treading ox an unmuzzled mouth,
[4240] that he might be at liberty to gather his fodder from his labour, on
the principle that the worker is worthy of his hire? [4241] Marcion may
expunge such precepts, but no matter, provided the sense of them survives.
But when He charges them to shake off the dust of their feet against such as
should refuse to receive them, He also bids that this be done as a witness.
Now no one bears witness except in a case which is decided by judicial
process; and whoever orders inhuman conduct to be submitted to the trial by
testimony, [4242] does really threaten as a judge. Again, that it was no
new god which recommended [4243] by Christ, was dearly attested by the
opinion of all men, because some maintained to Herod that Jesus was the
Christ; others, that He was John; some, that He was Elias; and others, that
He was one of the old prophetess. [4244] Now, whosoever of all these He
might have been, He certainly was not raised up for the purpose of
announcing another god after His resurrection. He feeds the multitude in the
desert place; [4245] this, you must know [4246] was after the manner
of the Old Testament. [4247] Or else, [4248] if there was not the same
grandeur, it follows that He is now inferior to the Creator. For He, not for
one day, but during forty years, not on the inferior aliment of bread and
fish, but with the manna of heaven, supported the lives [4249] of not
five thousand, but of six hundred thousand human beings. However, such was
the greatness of His miracle, that He willed the slender supply of food, not
only to be enough, but even to prove superabundant; [4250] and herein He
followed the ancient precedent. For in like manner, during the famine in
Elijah's time, the scanty and final meal of the widow of Sarepta was
multiplied [4251] by the blessing of the prophet throughout the period of
the famine. You have the third book of the Kings. [4252] If you also turn
to the fourth book, you will discover all this conduct [4253] of Christ
pursued by that man of God, who ordered ten [4254] barley loaves which
had been given him to be distributed among the people; and when his
servitor, after contrasting the large number of the persons with the small
supply of the food, answered, "What, shall I set this before a hundred men?
"he said again, "Give them, and they shall eat: for thus saith the Lord,
They shall eat, and shall leave thereof, according to the word of the
Lord." [4255] O Christ, even in Thy novelties Thou art old! Accordingly,
when Peter, who had been an eye-witness of the miracle, and had compared it
with the ancient precedents, and had discovered in them prophetic
intimations of what should one day come to pass, answered (as the mouthpiece
of them all) the Lord's inquiry, "Whom say ye that I am? " [4256] in the
words, "Thou art the Christ," he could not but have perceived that He was
that Christ, beside whom he knew of none else in the Scriptures, and whom he
was now surveying [4257] in His wonderful deeds. This conclusion He even
Himself confirms by thus far bearing with it, nay, even enjoining silence
respecting it. [4258] For if Peter was unable to acknowledge Him to be
any other than the Creator's Christ, while He commanded them "to tell no man
that saying," surely [4259] He was unwilling to have the conclusion
promulged which Peter had drawn. No doubt of that, [4260] you say; but as
Peter's conclusion was a wrong one, therefore He was unwilling to have a lie
disseminated. It was, however, a different reason which He assigned for the
silence, even because "the Son of man must suffer many things, and be
rejected of the elders, and scribes, and priests, and be slain, and be
raised again the third day." [4261] Now, inasmuch as these sufferings
were actually foretold for the Creator's Christ (as we shall fully show in
the proper place [4262] ), so by this application of them to His own
case [4263] does He prove that it is He Himself of whom they were
predicted. At all events, even if they had not been predicted, the reason
which He alleged for imposing silence (on the disciples) was such as made it
clear enough that Peter had made no mistake, that reason being the necessity
of His undergoing these sufferings. "Whosoever," says He, "will save his
life, shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same
shall save it." [4264] Surely [4265] it is the Son of man [4266]
who uttered this sentence. Look carefully, then, along with the king of
Babylon, into his burning fiery furnace, and there you will discover one
"like the Son of man" (for He was not yet really Son of man, because not yet
born of man), even as early as then [4267] appointing issues such as
these. He saved the lives of the three brethren, [4268] who had agreed to
lose them for God's sake; but He destroyed those of the Chaldæans, when they
had preferred to save them by the means of their idolatry. Where is that
novelty, which you pretend [4269] in a doctrine which possesses these
ancient proofs? But all the predictions have been fulfilled [4270]
concerning martyrdoms which were to happen, and were to receive the
recompenses of their reward from God. "See," says Isaiah, "how the righteous
perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart; and just men are taken away, and
no man considereth." [4271] When does this more frequently happen than in
the persecution of His saints? This, indeed, is no ordinary matter,
[4272] no common casualty of the law of nature; but it is that illustrious
devotion, that fighting for the faith, wherein whosoever loses his life for
God saves it, so that you may here again recognize the Judge who recompenses
the evil gain of life with its destruction, and the good loss thereof with
its salvation. It is, however, a jealous God whom He here presents to me one
who returns evil for evil. "For whosoever," says He, "shall be ashamed of
me, of him will I also be ashamed." [4273] Now to none but my Christ can
be assigned the occasion [4274] of such a shame as this. His whole
course [4275] was so exposed to shame as to open a way for even the
taunts of heretics, declaiming [4276] with all the bitterness in their
power against the utter disgrace [4277] of His birth and bringing-up, and
the unworthiness of His very flesh. [4278] But how can that Christ of
yours be liable to a shame, which it is impossible for him to experience?
Since he was never condensed [4279] into human flesh in the womb of a
woman, although a virgin; never grew from human seed, although only after
the law of corporeal substance, from the fluids [4280] of a woman; was
never deemed flesh before shaped in the womb; never called fætus [4281]
after such shaping; was never delivered from a ten months' writhing in the
womb; [4282] was never shed forth upon the ground, amidst the sudden
pains of parturition, with the unclean issue which flows at such a time
through the sewerage of the body, forthwith to inaugurate the light
[4283] of life with tears, and with that primal wound which severs the child
from her who bears him; [4284] never received the copious ablution, nor
the meditation of salt and honey; [4285] nor did he initiate a shroud
with swaddling clothes; [4286] nor afterwards did he ever wallow
[4287] in his own uncleanness, in his mother's lap; nibbling at her breast;
long an infant; gradually [4288] a boy; by slow degrees [4289] a
man. [4290] But he was revealed [4291] from heaven, full-grown at
once, at once complete; immediately Christ; simply spirit, and power, and
god. But as withal he was not true, because not visible; therefore he was no
object to be ashamed of from the curse of the cross, the real endurance
[4292] of which he escaped, because wanting in bodily substance. Never,
therefore, could he have said, "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me." But as
for our Christ, He could do no otherwise than make such a declaration;
[4293] "made" by the Father "a little lower than the angels," [4294] "a
worm and no man, a reproach of men, and despised of the people; " [4295]
seeing that it was His will that "with His stripes we should be healed,"
[4296] that by His humiliation our salvation should be established. And
justly did He humble Himself [4297] for His own creature man, for the
image and likeness of Himself, and not of another, in order that man, since
he had not felt ashamed when bowing down to a stone or a stock, might with
similar courage give satisfaction to God for the shamelessness of his
idolatry, by displaying an equal degree of shamelessness in his faith, in
not being ashamed of Christ. Now, Marcion, which of these courses is better
suited to your Christ, in respect of a meritorious shame? [4298] Plainly,
you ought yourself to blush with shame for having given him a fictitious
existence. [4299]
Chapter XXII. The Same Conclusion Supported by the Transfiguration. Marcion
Inconsistent in Associating with Christ in Glory Two Such Eminent Servants
of the Creator as Moses and Elijah. St. Peter's Ignorance Accounted for on
Montanist Principle.
You ought to be very much ashamed of yourself on this account too, for
permitting him to appear on the retired mountain in the company of Moses and
Elias, [4300] whom he had come to destroy. This, to be sure, [4301]
was what he wished to be understood as the meaning of that voice from
heaven: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him" [4302] 'Him, that is, not
Moses or Elias any longer. The voice alone, therefore, was enough, without
the display of Moses and Elias; for, by expressly mentioning whom they were
to hear, he must have forbidden all [4303] others from being heard. Or
else, did he mean that Isaiah and Jeremiah and the others whom he did not
exhibit were to be heard, since he prohibited those whom he did display?
Now, even if their presence was necessary, they surely should not be
represented as conversing together, which is a sign of familiarity; nor as
associated in glory with him, for this indicates respect and graciousness;
but they should be shown in some slough [4304] as a sure token of their
ruin, or even in that darkness of the Creator which Christ was sent to
disperse, far removed from the glory of Him who was about to sever their
words and writings from His gospel. This, then, is the way [4305] how he
demonstrates them to be aliens, [4306] even by keeping them in his own
company! This is how he shows they ought to be relinquished: he associates
them with himself instead! This is how he destroys them: he irradiates them
with his glory! How would their own Christ act? I suppose He would have
imitated the frowardness (of heresy), [4307] and revealed them just as
Marcion's Christ was bound to do, or at least as having with Him any others
rather than His own prophets! But what could so well befit the Creator's
Christ, as to manifest Him in the company of His own foreannouncers?
[4308] 'to let Him be seen with those to whom He had appeared in
revelations?'to let Him be speaking with those who had spoken of Him?'to
share His glory with those by whom He used to be called the Lord of glory;
even with those chief servants of His, one of whom was once the moulder
[4309] of His people, the other afterwards the reformer [4310] thereof;
one the initiator of the Old Testament, the other the consummator [4311]
of the New? Well therefore does Peter, when recognizing the companions of
his Christ in their indissoluble connection with Him, suggest an expedient:
"It is good for us to be here" (good: that evidently means to be where Moses
and Elias are); "and let us make three tabernacles, one for Thee, and one
for Moses, and one for Elias. But he knew not what he said." [4312] How
knew not? Was his ignorance the result of simple error? Or was it on the
principle which we maintain [4313] in the cause of the new prophecy,
[4314] that to grace ecstasy or rapture [4315] is incident. For when a
man is rapt in the Spirit, especially when he beholds the glory of God, or
when God speaks through him, he necessarily loses his sensation, [4316]
because he is overshadowed with the power of God,'a point concerning which
there is a question between us and the carnally-minded. [4317] Now, it is
no difficult matter to prove the rapture [4318] of Peter. For how could
he have known Moses and Elias, except (by being) in the Spirit? People could
not have had their images, or statues, or likenesses; for that the law
forbade. How, if it were not that he had seen them in the Spirit? And
therefore, because it was in the Spirit that he had now spoken, and not in
his natural senses, he could not know what he had said. But if, on the other
hand, [4319] he was thus ignorant, because he erroneously supposed that
(Jesus) was their Christ, it is then evident that Peter, when previously
asked by Christ, "Whom they thought Him to be," meant the Creator's Christ,
when he answered, "Thou art the Christ; "because if he had been then aware
that He belonged to the rival god, he would not have made a mistake here.
But if he was in error here because of his previous erroneous opinion,
[4320] then you may be sure that up to that very day no new divinity had
been revealed by Christ, and that Peter had so far made no mistake, because
hitherto Christ had revealed nothing of the kind; and that Christ
accordingly was not to be regarded as belonging to any other than the
Creator, whose entire dispensation [4321] he, in fact, here described. He
selects from His disciples three witnesses of the impending vision and
voice. And this is just the way of the Creator. "In the mouth of three
witnesses," says He, "shall every word be established." [4322] He
withdraws to a mountain. In the nature of the place I see much meaning. For
the Creator had originally formed His ancient people on a mountain both with
visible glory and His voice. It was only tight that the New Testament should
be attested [4323] on such an elevated spot [4324] as that whereon the
Old Testament had been composed; [4325] under a like covering of cloud
also, which nobody will doubt, was condensed out of the Creator's air.
Unless, indeed, he [4326] had brought down his own clouds thither,
because he had himself forced his way through the Creator's heaven;
[4327] or else it was only a precarious cloud, [4328] as it were, of the
Creator which he used. On the present (as also on the former) [4329]
occasion, therefore, the cloud was not silent; but there was the accustomed
voice from heaven, and the Father's testimony to the Son; precisely as in
the first Psalm He had said, "Thou art my Son, today have I begotten
thee." [4330] By the mouth of Isaiah also He had asked concerning Him,
"Who is there among you that feareth God? Let him hear the voice of His
Son." [4331] When therefore He here presents Him with the words, "This is
my (beloved) Son," this clause is of course understood, "whom I have
promised." For if He once promised, and then afterwards says, "This is
He," it is suitable conduct for one who accomplishes His purpose [4332]
that He should utter His voice in proof of the promise which He had formerly
made; but unsuitable in one who is amenable to the retort, Can you, indeed,
have a right to say, "This is my son," concerning whom you have given us no
previous information, [4333] any more than you have favoured us with a
revelation about your own prior existence? "Hear ye Him," therefore, whom
from the beginning (the Creator) had declared entitled to be heard in the
name of a prophet, since it was as a prophet that He had to be regarded by
the people. "A prophet," says Moses, "shall the Lord your God raise up unto
you, of your sons" (that is, of course, after a carnal descent [4334] );
"unto Him shall ye hearken, as unto me." [4335] "Every one who will not
hearken unto Him, his soul [4336] shall be cut off from amongst his
people." [4337] , So also Isaiah: "Who is there among you that feareth
God? Let him hear the voice of His Son." [4338] This voice the Father was
going Himself to recommend. For, says he, [4339] He establishes the words
of His Son, when He says, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him." Therefore,
even if there be made a transfer of the obedient "heating" from Moses and
Elias to [4340] Christ, it is still not from [4341] another God, or to
another Christ; but from" the Creator to His Christ, in consequence of the
departure of the old covenant and the supervening of the new. "Not an
ambassador, nor an angel, but He Himself," says Isaiah, "shall save them;
" [4342] for it is He Himself who is now declaring and fulfilling the law
and the prophets. The Father gave to the Son new disciples, [4343] after
that Moses and Elias had been exhibited along with Him in the honour of His
glory, and had then been dismissed as having fully discharged their duty and
office, for the express purpose of affirming for Marcion's information the
fact that Moses and Elias had a share in even the glory of Christ. But we
have the entire structure [4344] of this same vision in Habakkuk also,
where the Spirit in the person of some [4345] of the apostles says, "O
Lord, I have heard Thy speech, and was afraid." What speech was this, other
than the words of the voice from heaven, This is my beloved Son, hear ye,
Him? "I considered thy works, and was astonished." When could this have
better happened than when Peter, on seeing His glory, knew not what he was
saying? "In the midst of the two Thou shalt be known"'even Moses and
Elias. [4346] These likewise did Zechariah see under the figure of the
two olive trees and olive branches. [4347] For these are they of whom he
says, "They are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole
earth." And again Habakkuk says, "His glory covered the heavens" (that is,
with that cloud), "and His splendour shall be like the light'even the light,
wherewith His very raiment glistened." And if we would make mention of
[4348] the promise to Moses, we shall find it accomplished here. For when
Moses desired to see the Lord, saying, "If therefore I have found grace in
Thy sight, manifest Thyself to me, that I may see Thee distinctly,"
[4349] the sight which he desired to have was of that condition which he was
to assume as man, and which as a prophet he knew was to occur. Respecting
the face of God, however, he had already heard, "No man shall see me, and
live." "This thing," said He, "which thou hast spoken, will I do unto
thee." Then Moses said, "Show me Thy glory." And the Lord, with like
reference to the future, replied, "I will pass before thee in my glory,"
etc. Then at the last He says, "And then thou shall see my back." [4350]
Not loins, or calves of the legs, did he want to behold, but the glory which
was to be revealed in the latter days. [4351] He had promised that He
would make Himself thus face to face visible to him, when He said to Aaron,
"If there shall be a prophet among you, I will make myself known to him by
vision, and by vision will I speak with him; but not so is my manner to
Moses; with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently" (that is to
say, in the form of man which He was to assume), "and not in dark
speeches." [4352] Now, although Marcion has denied [4353] that he is
here represented as speaking with the Lord, but only as standing, yet,
inasmuch as he stood "mouth to mouth," he must also have stood "face to
face" with him, to use his words, [4354] not far from him, in His very
glory'not to say, [4355] in His presence. And with this glory he went
away enlightened from Christ, just as he used to do from the Creator; as
then to dazzle the eyes of the children of Isreal, so now to smite those of
the blinded Marcion, who has failed to see how this argument also makes
against him.
Chapter XXIII. Impossible that Marcion's Christ Should Reprove the Faithless
Generation. Such Loving Consideration for Infants as the True Christ Was Apt
to Shew, Also Impossible for the Other. On the Three Different Characters
Confronted and Instructed by Christ Samaria.
I take on myself the character [4356] of Isreal. Let Marcion's Christ
stand forth, and exclaim, "O faithless generation! [4357] how long shall
I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? " [4358] He will immediately
have to submit to this remonstrance from me: "Whoever you are, O
stranger, [4359] first tell us who you are, from whom you come, and what
right you have over us. Thus far, all you possess [4360] belongs to the
Creator. Of course, if you come from Him, and are acting for Him, we will
bear your reproof. But if you come from some other god, I should wish you to
tell us what you have ever committed to us belonging to yourself, [4361]
which it was our duty to believe, seeing that you are upbraiding us with
'faithlessness, 'who have never yet revealed to us your own self. How long
ago [4362] did you begin to treat with us, that you should be complaining
of the delay? On what points have you borne with us, that you should
adduce [4363] your patience? Like Æsop's ass, you are just come from the
well, [4364] and are filling every place with your braying." I assume,
besides, [4365] the person of the disciple, against whom he has
inveighed: [4366] "O perverse nation! how long shall I be with you? how
long shall I suffer you? "This outburst of his I might, of course, retort
upon him most justly in such words as these: "Whoever you are, O stranger,
first tell us who you are, from whom you come, what right you have over us.
Thus far, I suppose, you belong to the Creator, and so we have followed you,
recognising in you all things which are His. Now, if you come from Him, we
will bear your reproof. If, however, you are acting for another, pry thee
tell us what you have ever conferred upon us that is simply your own, which
it had become our duty to believe, seeing that you reproach us with
'faithlessness, 'although up to this moment you show us no credentials. How
long since did you begin to plead with us, that you are charging us with
delay? Wherein have you borne with us, that you should even boast of your
patience? The ass has only just arrived from Æsop's well, and he is already
braying." Now who would not thus have rebutted the unfairness of the rebuke,
if he had supposed its author to belong to him who had had no right as yet
to complain? Except that not even He [4367] would have inveighed against
them, if He had not dwelt among them of old in the law and by the prophets,
and with mighty deeds and many mercies, and had always experienced them to
be "faithless." But, behold, Christ takes [4368] infants, and teaches how
all ought to be like them, if they ever wish to be greater. [4369] The
Creator, on the contrary, [4370] let loose bears against children, in
order to avenge His prophet Elisha, who had been mocked by them. [4371]
This antithesis is impudent enough, since it throws together [4372]
things so different as infants [4373] and children, [4374] 'an age
still innocent, and one already capable of discretion'able to mock, if not
to blaspheme. As therefore God is a just God, He spared not impious
children, exacting as He does honour for every time of life, and especially,
of course, from youth. And as God is good, He so loves infants as to have
blessed the midwives in Egypt, when they protected the infants of the
Hebrews [4375] which were in peril from Pharaoh's command. [4376]
Christ therefore shares this kindness with the Creator. As indeed for
Marcion's god, who is an enemy to marriage, how can he possibly seem to be a
lover of little children, which are simply the issue of marriage? He who
hates the seed must needs also detest the fruit. Yea, he ought to be deemed
more ruthless than the king of Egypt. [4377] For whereas Pharaoh forbade
infants to be brought up, he will not allow them even to be born, depriving
them of their ten months' existence in the womb. And how much more credible
it is, that kindness to little children should be attributed to Him who
blessed matrimony for the procreation of mankind, and in such benediction
included also the promise of connubial fruit itself, the first of which is
that of infancy! [4378] The Creator, at the request of Elias, inflicts
the blow [4379] of fire from heaven in the case of that false prophet (of
Baalzebub). [4380] I recognise herein the severity of the Judge. And I,
on the contrary, the severe rebuke [4381] of Christ on His disciples,
when they were for inflicting [4382] a like visitation on that obscure
village of the Samaritans. [4383] The heretic, too, may discover that
this gentleness of Christ was promised by the selfsame severest Judge. "He
shall not contend," says He, "nor shall His voice be heard in the street; a
bruised reed shall He not crush, and smoking flax shall He not quench."
[4384] Being of such a character, He was of course much the less disposed to
burn men. For even at that time the Lord said to Elias, [4385] "He was
not in the fire, but in the still small voice." [4386] Well, but why does
this most humane and merciful God reject the man who offers himself to Him
as an inseparable companion? [4387] If it were from pride or from
hypocrisy that he had said, "I will follow Thee whithersoever Thou goest,
' then, by judicially reproving an act of either pride or hypocrisy as
worthy of rejection, He performed the office of a Judge. And, of course, him
whom He rejected He condemned to the loss of not following the Saviour.
[4388] For as He calls to salvation him whom He does not reject, or him whom
He voluntarily invites, so does He consign to perdition him whom He rejects.
When, however, He answers the man, who alleged as an excuse his father's
burial, "Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of
God," [4389] He gave a clear confirmation to those two laws of the
Creator'that in Leviticus, which concerns the sacerdotal office, and forbids
the priests to be present at the funerals even of their parents. "The
priest," says He, "shall not enter where there is any dead person; [4390]
and for his father he shall not be defiled" [4391] ; as well as that in
Numbers, which relates to the (Nazarite) vow of separation; for there he who
devotes himself to God, among other things, is bidden "not to come at any
dead body," not even of his father, or his mother, or his brother. [4392]
Now it was, I suppose, for the Nazarite and the priestly office that He
intended this man whom He had been inspiring [4393] to preach the kingdom
of God. Or else, if it be not so, he must be pronounced impious enough who,
without the intervention of any precept of the law, commanded that burials
of parents should be neglected by their sons. When, indeed, in the third
case before us, (Christ) forbids the man "to look back" who wanted first "to
bid his family farewell," He only follows out the rule [4394] of the
Creator. For this (retrospection) He had been against their making, whom He
had rescued out of Sodom. [4395]
Chapter XXIV. On the Mission of the Seventy Disciples, and Christ's Charge
to Them. Precedents Drawn from the Old Testament. Absurdity of Supposing
that Marcion's Christ Could Have Given the Power of Treading on Serpents and
Scorpions.
He chose also seventy other missionaries [4396] besides the twelve. Now
why, if the twelve followed the number of the twelve fountains of Elim,
[4397] should not the seventy correspond to the like number of the palms of
that place? [4398] Whatever be the Antitheses of the comparison, it is a
diversity in the causes, not in the powers, which has mainly produced them.
But if one does not keep in view the diversity of the causes, [4399] he
is very apt to infer a difference of powers. [4400] When the children of
Isreal went out of Egypt, the Creator brought them forth laden with their
spoils of gold and silver vessels, and with loads besides of raiment and
unleavened dough; [4401] whereas Christ commanded His disciples not to
carry even a staff [4402] for their journey. The former were thrust forth
into a desert, but the latter were sent into cities. Consider the difference
presented in the occasions, [4403] and you will understand how it was one
and the same power which arranged the mission [4404] of His people
according to their poverty in the one case, and their plenty in the other.
He cut down [4405] their supplies when they could be replenished through
the cities, just as He had accumulated [4406] them when exposed to the
scantiness of the desert. Even shoes He forbade them to carry. For it was He
under whose very protection the people wore not out a shoe, [4407] even
in the wilderness for the space of so many years. "No one," says He, "shall
ye salute by the way." [4408] What a destroyer of the prophets, forsooth,
is Christ, seeing it is from them that He received his precept also! When
Elisha sent on his servant Gehazi before him to raise the Shunammite's son
from death, I rather think he gave him these instructions: [4409] "Gird
up thy loins, and take my staff in thine hand, and go thy way: if thou meet
any man, salute him not; [4410] and if any salute thee, answer him not
again." [4411] For what is a wayside blessing but a mutual salutation as
men meet? So also the Lord commands: "Into whatsoever house they enter, let
them say, Peace be to it." [4412] Herein He follows the very same
example. For Elisha enjoined upon his servant the same salutation when he
met the Shunammite; he was to say to her: "Peace to thine husband, peace to
thy child." [4413] Such will be rather our Antitheses; they compare
Christ with, instead of sundering Him from, the Creator. "The labourer is
worthy of his hire." [4414] Who could better pronounce such a sentence
than the Judge? For to decide that the workman deserves his wages, is in
itself a judicial act. There is no award which consists not in a process of
judgment. The law of the Creator on this point also presents us with a
corroboration, for He judges that labouring oxen are as labourers worthy of
their hire: "Thou shall not muzzle," says He. "the ox when he treadeth out
the corn." [4415] Now, who is so good to man [4416] as He who is also
merciful to cattle? Now, when Christ pronounced labourers to be worthy of
their hire, He, in fact, exonerated from blame that precept of the Creator
about depriving the Egyptians of their gold and silver vessels. [4417]
For they who had built for the Egyptians their houses and cities, were
surely workmen worthy of their hire, and were not instructed in a fraudulent
act, but only set to claim compensation for their hire, which they were
unable in any other way to exact from their masters. [4418] That the
kingdom of God was neither new nor unheard of, He in this way affirmed,
whilst at the same time He bids them announce that it was near at hand.
[4419] Now it is that which was once far off, which can be properly said to
have become near. If, however, a thing had never existed previous to its
becoming near, it could never have been said to have approached, because it
had never existed at a distance. Everything which is new and unknown is also
sudden. [4420] Everything which is sudden, then, first receives the
accident of time [4421] when it is announced, for it then first puts on
appearance of form. [4422] Besides it will be impossible for a thing
either to have been tardy [4423] all the while it remained
unannounced, [4424] or to have approached [4425] from the time it
shall begin to be announced.
He likewise adds, that they should say to such as would not receive them:
"Notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh
unto you." [4426] If He does not enjoin this by way of a commination, the
injunction is a most useless one. For what mattered it to them that the
kingdom was at hand, unless its approach was accompanied with judgment?'even
for the salvation of such as received the announcement thereof. How, if
there can be a threat without its accomplishment, can you have in a
threatening god, one that executes also, and in both, one that is a judicial
being? [4427] So, again, He commands that the dust be shaken off against
them, as a testimony,'the very particles of their ground which might
cleave [4428] to the sandal, not to mention [4429] any other sort of
communication with them. [4430] But if their churlishness [4431] and
inhospitality were to receive no vengeance from Him, for what purpose does
He premise a testimony, which surely forbodes some threats? Furthermore,
when the Creator also, in the book of Deuteronomy, forbids the reception of
the Ammonites and the Moabites into the church, [4432] because, when His
people came from Egypt, they fraudulently withheld provisions from them with
inhumanity and inhospitality, [4433] it will be manifest that the
prohibition of intercourse descended to Christ from Him. The form of it
which He uses'"He that despiseth you, despiseth me" [4434] 'the Creator
had also addressed to Moses: "Not against thee have they murmured, but
against me." [4435] Moses, indeed, was as much an apostle as the apostles
were prophets. The authority of both offices will have to be equally
divided, as it proceeds from one and the same Lord, (the God) of apostles
and prophets. Who is He that shall bestow "the power of treading on serpents
and scorpions? " [4436] Shall it be He who is the Lord of all living
creatures or he who is not god over a single lizard? Happily the Creator has
promised by Isaiah to give this power even to little children, of putting
their hand in the cockatrice den and on the hole of the young asps without
at all receiving hurt. [4437] And, indeed, we are aware (without doing
violence to the literal sense of the passage, since even these noxious
animals have actually been unable to do hurt where there has been faith)
that under the figure of scorpions and serpents are portended evil spirits,
whose very prince is described [4438] by the name of serpent, dragon, and
every other most conspicuous beast in the power of the Creator. [4439]
This power the Creator conferred first of all upon His Christ, even as the
ninetieth Psalm says to Him: "Upon the asp and the basilisk shall Thou
tread; the lion and the dragon shall Thou trample under foot." [4440] So
also Isaiah: "In that day the Lord God shall draw His sacred, great, and
strong sword" (even His Christ) "against that dragon, that great and
tortuous serpent; and He shall slay him in that day." [4441] But when the
same prophet says, "The way shall be called a clean and holy way; over it
the unclean thing shall not pass, nor shall be there any unclean way; but
the dispersed shall pass over it, and they shall not err therein; no lion
shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon; it shall not be
found there," [4442] he points out the way of faith, by which we shall
reach to God; and then to this way of faith he promises this utter
crippling [4443] and subjugation of all noxious animals. Lastly, you may
discover the suitable times of the promise, if you read what precedes the
passage: "Be strong, ye weak hands and ye feeble knees: then the eyes of the
blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then shall the
lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be
articulate." [4444] When, therefore, He proclaimed the benefits of His
cures, then also did He put the scorpions and the serpents under the feet of
His saints'even He who had first received this power from the Father, in
order to bestow it upon others and then manifested it forth conformably to
the order of prophecy. [4445]
Chapter XXV. Christ Thanks the Father for Revealing to Babes What He Had
Concealed from the Wise. This Concealment Judiciously Effected by the
Creator. Other Points in St. Luke's Chap. X. Shown to Be Only Possible to
the Creator's Christ.
Who shall be invoked as the Lord of heaven, that does not first show
Himself [4446] to have been the maker thereof? For He says, "I thank
thee, (O Father), and own Thee, Lord of heaven, because those things which
had been hidden from the wise and prudent, Thou has revealed unto babes."
[4447] What things are these? And whose? And by whom hidden? And by whom
revealed? If it was by Marcion's god that they were hidden and revealed, it
was an extremely iniquitous proceeding; [4448] for nothing at all had he
ever produced [4449] in which anything could have been hidden'no
prophecies, no parables, no visions, no evidences [4450] of things, or
words, or names, obscured by allegories and figures, or cloudy enigmas, but
he had concealed the greatness even of himself, which he was with all his
might revealing by his Christ. Now in what respect had the wise and prudent
done wrong, [4451] that God should be hidden from them, when their wisdom
and prudence had been insufficient to come to the knowledge of Him? No way
had been provided by himself, [4452] by any declaration of his works, or
any vestiges whereby they might become [4453] wise and prudent. However,
if they had even failed in any duty towards a god whom they knew not,
suppose him now at last to be known still they ought not to have found a
jealous god in him who is introduced as unlike the Creator. Therefore, since
he had neither provided any materials in which he could have hidden
anything, nor had any offenders from whom he could have hidden himself:
since, again, even if he had had any, he ought not to have hidden himself
from them, he will not now be himself the revealer, who was not previously
the concealer; so neither will any be the Lord of heaven nor the Father of
Christ but He in whom all these attributes consistently meet. [4454] For
He conceals by His preparatory apparatus of prophetic obscurity, the
understanding of which is open to faith (for "if ye will not believe, ye
shall not understand" [4455] ); and He had offenders in those wise and
prudent ones who would not seek after God, although He was to be discovered
in His so many and mighty works, [4456] or who rashly philosophized about
Him, and thereby furnished to heretics their arts; [4457] and lastly, He
is a jealous God. Accordingly, [4458] that which Christ thanks God for
doing, He long ago [4459] announced by Isaiah: "I will destroy the wisdom
of the wise, and the understanding of the prudent will I hide." [4460] So
in another passage He intimates both that He has concealed, and that He will
also reveal: "I will give unto them treasures that have been hidden, and
secret ones will I discover to them." [4461] And again: "Who else shall
scatter the tokens of ventriloquists, [4462] and the devices of those who
divine out of their own heart; turning wise men backward, and making their
counsels foolish? " [4463] Now, if He has designated His Christ as an
enlightener of the Gentiles, saying, "I have set thee for a light of the
Gentiles; " [4464] and if we understand these to be meant in the word
babes [4465] 'as having been once dwarfs in knowledge and infants in
prudence, and even now also babes in their lowliness of faith'we shall of
course more easily understand how He who had once hidden "these things," and
promised a revelation of them through Christ, was the same God as He who had
now revealed them unto babes. Else, if it was Marcion's god who revealed the
things which had been formerly hidden by the Creator, it follows [4466]
that he did the Creator's work by setting forth His deeds. [4467] But he
did it, say you, for His destruction, that he might refute them. [4468]
Therefore he ought to have refuted them to those from whom the Creator had
hidden them, even the wise and prudent. For if he had a kind intention in
what he did, the gift of knowledge was due to those from whom the Creator
had detained it, instead of the babes, to whom the Creator had grudged no
gift. But after all, it is, I presume, the edification [4469] rather
than the demolition [4470] of the law and the prophets which we have
thus far found effected in Christ. "All things," He says, "are delivered
unto me of my Father." [4471] You may believe Him, if He is the Christ
of the Creator to whom all things belong; because the Creator has not
delivered to a Son who is less than Himself all things, which He created
by [4472] Him, that is to say, by His Word. If, on the contrary, he is
the notorious stranger, [4473] what are the" all things" which have been
delivered to him by the Father? Are they the Creator's? Then the things
which the Father delivered to the Son are good. and the Creator is therefore
good, since all His "things" are good; whereas he [4474] is no longer
good who has invaded another's good (domains) to deliver it to his son, thus
teaching robbery [4475] of another's goods. Surely he must be a most
mendacious being, who had no other means of enriching his son than by
helping himself to another's property! Or else, [4476] if nothing of the
Creator's has been delivered to him by the Father, by what right [4477]
does he claim for himself (authority over) man? Or again, if man has been
delivered to him, and man alone, then man is not "all things." But Scripture
clearly says that a transfer of all things has been made to the Son. If,
however, you should interpret this "all" of the whole human race, that is,
all nations, then the delivery of even these to the Son is within the
purpose of the Creator: [4478] "I will give Thee the heathen for Thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession."
[4479] If, indeed, he has some things of his own, the whole of which he
might give to his son, along with the man of the Creator, then show some one
thing of them all, as a sample, that I may believe; lest I should have as
much reason not to believe that all things belong to him, of whom I see
nothing, as I have ground for believing that even the things which I see not
are His, to whom belongs the universe, which I see. But "no man knoweth who
the Father is, but the Son; and who the Son is, but the Father, and he to
whom the Son will reveal Him." [4480] And so it was an unknown god that
Christ preached! And other heretics, too, prop themselves up by this
passage; alleging in opposition to it that the Creator was known to all,
both to lsræl by familiar intercourse, and to the Gentiles by nature. Well,
how is it He Himself testifies that He was not known to lsræl? "But Isreal
doth not know me, and my people doth not consider me; " [4481] nor to
the Gentiles: "For, behold," says He, "of the nations I have no man."
[4482] Therefore He reckoned them "as the drop of a bucket," [4483]
while "Sion He left as a look-out [4484] in a vineyard." [4485] See,
then, whether there be not here a confirmation of the prophet's word, when
he rebukes that ignorance of man toward God which continued to the days of
the Son of man. For it was on this account that he inserted the clause that
the Father is known by him to whom the Son has revealed Him, because it was
even He who was announced as set by the Father to be a light to the
Gentiles, who of course required to be enlightened concerning God, as well
as to Isreal, even by imparting to it a fuller knowledge of God. Arguments,
therefore, will be of no use for belief in the rival god which may be
suitable [4486] for the Creator, because it is only such as are unfit
for the Creator which will be able to advance belief in His rival. If you
look also into the next words, "Blessed are the eyes which see the things
which ye see, for I tell you that prophets have not seen the things which ye
see," [4487] you will find that they follow from the sense above, that
no man indeed had come to the knowledge of God as he ought to have done,
[4488] since even the prophets had not seen the things which were being seen
under Christ. Now if He had not been my Christ, He would not have made any
mention of the prophets in this passage. For what was there to wonder at, if
they had not seen the things of a god who had been unknown to them, and was
only revealed a long time after them? What blessedness, however, could
theirs have been, who were then seeing what others were naturally [4489]
unable to see, since it was of things which they had never predicted that
they had not obtained the sight; [4490] if it were not because they
might justly [4491] have seen the things pertaining to their God, which
they had even predicted, but which they at the same time [4492] had not
seen? This, however, will be the blessedness of others, even of such as were
seeing the things which others had only foretold. We shall by and by show,
nay, we have already shown, that in Christ those things were seen which had
been foretold, but yet had been hidden from the very prophets who foretold
them, in order that they might be hidden also from the wise and the prudent.
In the true Gospel, a certain doctor of the law comes to the Lord and asks,
"What shall I do to inherit eternal life? "In the heretical gospel life only
is mentioned, without the attribute eternal; so that the lawyer seems to
have consulted Christ simply about the life which the Creator in the law
promises to prolong, [4493] and the Lord to have therefore answered him
according to the law, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength," [4494] since the
question was concerning the conditions of mere life. But the lawyer of
course knew very well in what way the life which the law meant [4495]
was to be obtained, so that his question could have had no relation to the
life whose rules he was himself in the habit of teaching. But seeing that
even the dead were now raised by Christ, and being himself excited to the
hope of an eternal life by these examples of a restored [4496] one, he
would lose no more time in merely looking on (at the wonderful things which
had made him) so high in hope. [4497] He therefore consulted him about
the attainment of eternal life. Accordingly, the Lord, being Himself the
same, [4498] and introducing no new precept other than that which
relates above all others [4499] to (man's) entire salvation, even
including the present and the future life, [4500] places before him
[4501] the very essence [4502] of the law'that he should in every
possible way love the Lord his God. If, indeed, it were only about a
lengthened life, such as is at the Creator's disposal, that he inquired and
Christ answered, and not about the eternal life, which is at the disposal of
Marcion's god, how is he to obtain the eternal one? Surely not in the same
manner as the prolonged life. For in proportion to the difference of the
reward must be supposed to be also the diversity of the services. Therefore
your disciple, Marcion, [4503] will not obtain his eternal life in
consequence of loving your God, in the same way as the man who loves the
Creator will secure the lengthened life. But how happens it that, if He is
to be loved who promises the prolonged I life, He is not much more to be
loved who offers the eternal life? Therefore both one and the other life
will be at the disposal of one and the same Lord; because one and the same
discipline is to be followed [4504] for one and the other life. What the
Creator teaches to be loved, that must He necessarily maintain [4505]
also by Christ, [4506] for that rule holds good here, which prescribes
that greater things ought to be believed of Him who has first lesser proofs
to show, than of him for whom no preceding smaller presumptions have secured
a claim to be believed in things of higher import. It matters not [4507]
then, whether the word eternal has been interpolated by us. [4508] It is
enough for me, that the Christ who invited men to the eternal'not the
lengthened'life, when consuited about the temporal life which he was
destroying, did not choose to exhort the man rather to that eternal life
which he was introducing. Pray, what would the Creator's Christ have done.
if He who had made man for loving the Creator did not belong to the Creator?
I suppose He would have said that the Creator was not to be loved!
Chapter XXVI. From St. Luke's Eleventh Chapter Other Evidence that Christ
Comes from the Creator. The Lord's Prayer and Other Words of Christ. The
Dumb Spirit and Christ's Discourse on Occasion of the Expulsion. The
Exclamation of the Woman in the Crowd.
When in a certain place he had been praying to that Father above, [4509]
looking up with insolent and audacious eyes to the heaven of the Creator, by
whom in His rough and cruel nature he might have been crushed with hail and
lightning'just as it was by Him contrived that he was (afterwards) attached
to a cross [4510] at Jerusalem'one of his disciples came to him and
said, "Master, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples." This he
said, forsooth, because he thought that different prayers were required for
different gods! Now, he who had advanced such a conjecture as this should
first show that another god had been proclaimed by Christ. For nobody would
have wanted to know how to pray, before he had learned whom he was to pray
to. If, however, he had already learned this, prove it. If you find nowhere
any proof, let me tell you [4511] that it was to the Creator that he
asked for instruction in prayer, to whom John's disciples also used to pray.
But, inasmuch as John had introduced some new order of prayer, this disciple
had not improperly presumed to think that he ought also to ask of Christ
whether they too must not (according to some special rule of their Master)
pray, not indeed to another god, but in another manner. Christ
accordingly [4512] would not have taught His disciple prayer before He
had given him the knowledge of God Himself. Therefore what He actually
taught was prayer to Him whom the disciple had already known. In short, you
may discover in the import [4513] of the prayer what God is addressed
therein. To whom can I say, "Father? " [4514] To him who had nothing to
do with making me, from whom I do not derive my origin? Or to Him, who, by
making and fashioning me, became my parent? [4515] Of whom can I ask for
His Holy Spirit? Of him who gives not even the mundane spirit; [4516] or
of Him "who maketh His angels spirits," and whose Spirit it was which in the
beginning hovered upon the waters. [4517] Whose kingdom shall I wish to
come'his, of whom I never heard as the king of glory; or His, in whose hand
are even the hearts of kings? Who shall give me my daily [4518] bread?
Shall it be he who produces for me not a grain of millet-seed; [4519] or
He who even from heaven gave to His people day by day the bread of
angels? [4520] Who shall forgive me my trespasses? [4521] He who, by
refusing to judge them, does not retain them; or He who, unless He forgives
them, will retain them, even to His judgment? Who shall suffer us not to be
led into temptation? He before whom the tempter will never be able to
tremble; or He who from the beginning has beforehand condemned [4522]
the angel tempter? If any one, with such a form, [4523] invokes another
god and not the Creator, he does not pray; he only blasphemes. [4524] In
like manner, from whom must I ask that I may receive? Of whom seek, that I
may find? To whom knock, that it may be opened to me? [4525] Who has to
give to him that asks, but He to whom all things belong, and whose am I also
that am the asker? What, however, have I lost before that other god, that I
should seek of him and find it. If it be wisdom and prudence, it is the
Creator who has hidden them. Shall I resort to him, then, in quest of them?
If it be health [4526] and life, they are at the disposal of the
Creator. Nor must anything be sought and found anywhere else than there,
where it is kept in secret that it may come to light. So, again, at no other
door will I knock than at that out of which my privilege has reached me.
[4527] In fine, if to receive, and to find, and to be admitted, is the fruit
of labour and earnestness to him who has asked, and sought, and knocked,
understand that these duties have been enjoined, and results promised, by
the Creator. As for that most excellent god of yours, coming as he professes
gratuitously to help man, who was not his (creature), [4528] he could
not have imposed upon him any labour, or (endowed him with) any earnestness.
For he would by this time cease to be the most excellent god, were he not
spontaneously to give to every one who does not ask, and permit every one
who seeks not to find, and open to every one who does not knock. The
Creator, on the contrary, [4529] was able to proclaim these duties and
rewards by Christ, in order that man, who by sinning had offended his God,
might toil on (in his probation), and by his perseverance in asking might
receive, and in seeking might find, and in knocking might enter.
Accordingly, the preceding similitude [4530] represents the man who went
at night and begged for the loaves, in the light of a friend and not a
stranger, and makes him knock at a friend's house and not at a stranger's.
But even if he has offended, man is more of a friend with the Creator than
with the god of Marcion. At His door, therefore, does he knock to whom he
had the right of access; whose gate he had found; whom he knew to possess
bread; in bed now with His children, whom He had willed to be born.
[4531] Even though the knocking is late in the day, it is yet the Creator's
time. To Him belongs the latest hour who owns an entire age [4532] and
the end thereof. As for the new god, however, no one could have knocked at
his door late, for he has hardly yet [4533] seen the light of morning.
It is the Creator, who once shut the door to the Gentiles, which was then
knocked at by the Jews, that both rises and gives, if not now to man as a
friend, yet not as a stranger, but, as He says, "because of his
importunity." [4534] Importunate, however, the recent god could not have
permitted any one to be in the short time (since his appearance). [4535]
Him, therefore, whom you call the Creator recognise also as "Father." It is
even He who knows what His children require. For when they asked for bread,
He gave them manna from heaven; and when they wanted flesh, He sent them
abundance of quails'not a serpent for a fish, nor for an egg a scorpion.
[4536] It will, however, appertain to Him not to give evil instead of good,
who has both one and the other in His power. Marcion's god, on the contrary,
not having a scorpion, was unable to refuse to give what he did not possess;
only He (could do so), who, having a scorpion, yet gives it not. In like
manner, it is He who will give the Holy Spirit, at whose command [4537]
is also the unholy spirit. When He cast out the "demon which was dumb"
[4538] (and by a cure of this sort verified Isaiah), [4539] and having
been charged with casting out demons by Beelzebub, He said, "If I by
Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? " [4540]
By such a question what does He otherwise mean, than that He ejects the
spirits by the same power by which their sons also did'that is, by the power
of the Creator? For if you suppose the meaning to be, "If I by Beelzebub,
etc., by whom your sons? "'as if He would reproach them with having the
power of Beelzebub,'you are met at once by the preceding sentence, that
"Satan cannot be divided against himself." [4541] So that it was not by
Beelzebub that even they were casting out demons, but (as we have said) by
the power of the Creator; and that He might make this understood, He adds:
"But if I with the finger of God cast out demons, is not the kingdom of God
come near unto you? " [4542] For the magicians who stood before Pharaoh
and resisted Moses called the power of the Creator"the finger of God."
[4543] It was the finger of God, because it was a sign [4544] that even
a thing of weakness was yet abundant in strength. This Christ also showed,
when, recalling to notice (and not obliterating) those ancient wonders which
were really His own, [4545] He said that the power of God must be
understood to be the finger of none other God than Him, under [4546]
whom it had received this appellation. His kingdom, therefore, was come near
to them, whose power was called His "finger." Well, therefore, did He
connect [4547] with the parable of "the strong man armed," whom "a
stronger man still overcame," [4548] the prince of the demons, whom He
had already called Beelzebub and Satan; signifying that it was he who was
overcome by the finger of God, and not that the Creator had been subdued by
another god. Besides, [4549] how could His kingdom be still standing,
with its boundaries, and laws, and functions, whom, even if the whole world
were left entire to Him, Marcion's god could possibly seem to have overcome
as "the stronger than He," if it were not in consequence of His law that
even Marcionites were constantly dying, by returning in their
dissolution [4550] to the ground, and were so often admonished by even a
scorpion, that the Creator had by no means been overcome? [4551] "A
(certain) mother of the company exclaims, 'Blessed is the womb that bare
Thee, and the paps which Thou hast sucked; 'but the Lord said, 'Yea, rather,
blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.'" [4552] Now He
had in precisely similar terms rejected His mother or His brethren, whilst
preferring those who heard and obeyed God. [4553] His mother, however,
was not here present with Him. On that former occasion, therefore, He had
not denied that He was her son by birth. [4554] On hearing this
(salutation) the second time, He the second time transferred, as He had done
before, [4555] the "blessedness" to His disciples from the womb and the
paps of His mother, from whom, however, unless He had in her (a real mother)
He could not have transferred it.
Chapter XXVII. Christ's Reprehension of the Pharisees Seeking a Sign. His
Censure of Their Love of Outward Show Rather Than Inward Holiness. Scripture
Abounds with Admonitions of a Similar Purport. Proofs of His Mission from
the Creator.
I prefer elsewhere refuting [4556] the faults which the Marcionites find
in the Creator. It is here enough that they are also found in Christ.
[4557] Behold how unequal, inconsistent, and capricious he is! Teaching one
thing and doing another, he enjoins "giving to every one that seeks; "and
yet he himself refuses to give to those "who seek a sign." [4558] For a
vast age he hides his own light from men, and yet says that a candle must
not be hidden, but affirms that it ought to be set upon a candlestick, that
it may give light to all. [4559] He forbids cursing again, and cursing
much more of course; and yet he heaps his woe upon the Pharisees and doctors
of the law. [4560] Who so closely resembles my God as: His own Christ?
We have often already laid it down for certain, [4561] that He could not
have been branded [4562] as the destroyer of the law if He had promulged
another god. Therefore even the Pharisee, who invited Him to dinner in the
passage before us, [4563] expressed some surprise [4564] in His
presence that He had not washed before He sat down to meat, in accordance
with the law, since it was the God of the law that He was proclaiming.
[4565] Jesus also interpreted the law to him when He told him that they
"made clean the outside of the cup and the platter, whereas their inward
part was full of ravening and wickedness." This He said, to signify that by
the cleansing of vessels was to be understood before God the purification of
men, inasmuch as it was about a man, and not about an unwashed vessel, that
even this Pharisee had been treating in His presence. He therefore said:
"You wash the outside of the cup," that is, the flesh, "but you do not
cleanse your inside part," [4566] that is, the soul; adding: "Did not He
that made the outside," that is, the flesh, "also make the inward part,"
that is to say, the soul?'by which assertion He expressly declared that to
the same God belongs the cleansing of a man's external and internal nature,
both alike being in the power of Him who prefers mercy not only to man's
washing, [4567] but even to sacrifice. [4568] For He subjoins the
command: "Give what ye possess as alms, and all things shall be clean unto
you." [4569] Even if another god could have enjoined mercy, he could not
have done so previous to his becoming known. Furthermore, it is in this
passage evident that they [4570] were not reproved concerning their God,
but concerning a point of His instruction to them, when He prescribed to
them figuratively the cleansing of their vessels, but really the works of
merciful dispositions. In like manner, He upbraids them for tithing paltry
herbs, [4571] but at the same time "passing over hospitality [4572]
and the love of God. [4573] The vocation and the love of what God, but
Him by whose law of tithes they used to offer their rue and mint? For the
whole point of the rebuke lay in this, that they cared about small matters
in His service of course, to whom they failed to exhibit their weightier
duties when He commanded them: "Thou shalt love with all thine heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, the Lord thy God, who hath
called thee out of Egypt." [4574] Besides, time enough had not yet
passed to admit of Christ's requiring so premature'nay, as yet so
distasteful [4575] 'a love towards a new and recent, not to say a hardly
i yet developed, [4576] deity. When, again, He upbraids those who caught
at the uppermost places and the honour of public salutations, He only
follows out the Creator's course, [4577] who calls ambitious persons of
this character "rulers of Sodom" [4578] who forbids us "to put
confidence even in princes," [4579] and pronounces him to be altogether
wretched who places his confidence in man. But whoever [4580] aims at
high position, because he would glory in the officious attentions [4581]
of other people, (in every such case, ) inasmuch as He forbade such
attentions (in the shape) of placing hope and confidence in man, He at the
same time [4582] censured all who were ambitious of high positions. He
also inveighs against the doctors of the law themselves, because they were
"lading men with burdens grievous to be borne, which they did not venture to
touch with even a finger of their own; " [4583] but not as if He made a
mock of [4584] the burdens of the law with any feeling of detestation
towards it. For how could He have felt aversion to the law, who used with so
much earnestness to upbraid them for passing over its weightier matters,
alms'giving, hospitality, [4585] and the love of God? Nor, indeed, was
it only these great things (which He recognized), but even [4586] the
tithes of rue and the cleansing of cups. But, in truth, He would rather have
deemed them excusable for being unable to carry burdens which could not be
borne. What, then, are the burdens which He censures? [4587] None but
those which they were accumulating of their own accord, when they taught for
commandments the doctrines of men; for the sake of private advantage joining
house to house, so as to deprive their neighbour of his own; cajoling
[4588] the people, loving gifts, pursuing rewards, robbing the poor of the
rights of judgment, that they might have the widow for a prey and the
fatherless for a spoil. [4589] Of these Isaiah also says, "Woe unto them
that are strong in Jerusalem!" [4590] and again, "They that demand you
shall rule over you." [4591] And who did this more than the lawyers?
[4592] Now, if these offended Christ, it was as belonging to Him that they
offended Him. He would have aimed no blow at the teachers of an alien law.
But why is a "woe" pronounced against them for "building the sepulchres of
the prophets whom their fathers had killed? " [4593] They rather
deserved praise, because by such an act of piety they seemed to show that
they did not allow the deeds of their fathers. Was it not because (Christ)
was jealous [4594] of such a disposition as the Marcionites denounce,
visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the fourth
generation? What "key," indeed, was it which these lawyers had, [4595]
but the interpretation of the law? Into the perception of this they neither
entered themselves, even because they did not believe (for "unless ye
believe, ye shall not understand"); nor did they permit others to enter,
because they preferred to teach them for commandments even the doctrines of
men. When, therefore, He reproached those who did not themselves enter in,
and also shut the door against others, must He be regarded as a disparager
of the law, or as a supporter of it? If a disparager, those who were
hindering the law ought to have been pleased; if a supporter, He is no
longer an enemy of the law. [4596] But all these imprecations He uttered
in order to tarnish the Creator as a cruel Being, [4597] against whom
such as offended were destined to have a "woe." And who would not rather
have feared to provoke a cruel Being, [4598] by withdrawing
allegiance [4599] from Him? Therefore the more He represented the
Creator to be an object of fear, the more earnestly would He teach that He
ought to be served. Thus would it behove the Creator's Christ to act.
Chapter XXVIII. Examples from the Old Testament, Balaam, Moses, and
Hezekiah, to Show How Completely the Instruction and Conduct of Christ
[4600] Are in Keeping with the Will and Purpose of the Creator.
Justly, therefore, was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees displeasing to Him,
loving God as they did with their lips, but not with their heart.
"Beware," He says to the disciples, "of the leaven of the Pharisees, which
is hypocrisy," not the proclamation of the Creator. The Son hates those who
refused obedience [4601] to the Father; nor does He wish His disciples
to show such a disposition towards Him'not (let it be observed) towards
another god, against whom such hypocrisy indeed might have been admissible,
as that which He wished to guard His disciples against. It is the example of
the Pharisees which He forbids. It was in respect of Him against whom the
Pharisees were sinning that (Christ) now forbade His disciples to offend.
Since, then, He had censured their hypocrisy, which covered the secrets of
the heart, and obscured with superficial offices the mysteries of unbelief,
because (while holding the key of knowledge) it would neither enter in
itself, nor permit others to enter in, He therefore adds, "There is nothing
covered that shall not be revealed; neither hid, which shall not be
known," [4602] in order that no one should suppose that He was
attempting the revelation and the recognition of an hitherto unknown and
hidden god. When He remarks also on their murmurs and taunts, in saying of
Him, "This man casteth out devils only through Beelzebub," He means that all
these imputations would come forth to the light of day, and be in the mouths
of men in consequence of the promulgation of the Gospel. He then turns to
His disciples with these words, "I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid
of them which can only kill the body, and after that have no more power over
you." [4603] They will, however, find Isaiah had already said, "See how
the just man is taken away, and no man layeth it to heart." [4604] "But
I will show you whom ye shall fear: fear Him who, after He hath killed, hath
power to cast into hell" (meaning, of course, the Creator); "yea, I say unto
you, fear Him." [4605] Now, it would here be enough for my purpose that
He forbids offence being given to Him whom He orders to be feared; and that
He orders Him to be respected [4606] whom He forbids to be offended; and
that He who gives these commands belongs to that very God for whom He
procures this fear, this absence of offence, and this respect. But this
conclusion I can draw also from the following words: "For I say unto you,
Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before
God." [4607] Now they who shall confess Christ will have to be slain
[4608] before men, but they will have nothing more to suffer after they have
been put to death by them. These therefore will be they whom He forewarns
above not to be afraid of being only killed; and this forewarning He offers,
in order that He might subjoin a clause on the necessity of confessing Him:
"Every one that denieth me before men shall be denied before God" [4609]
'by Him, of course, who would have confessed him, if he had only confessed
God. Now, He who will confess the confessor is the very same God who will
also deny the denier of Himself. Again, if it is the confessor who will have
nothing to fear after his violent death, [4610] it is the denier to whom
everything will become fearful after his natural death. Since, therefore,
that which will have to be feared after death, even the punishment of hell,
belongs to the Creator, the denier, too, belongs to the Creator. As with the
denier, however, so with the confessor: if he should deny God, he will
plainly have to suffer from God, although from men he had nothing more to
suffer after they had put him to death. And so Christ is the Creator's,
because He shows that all those who deny Him ought to fear the Creator's
hell. After deterring His disciples from denial of Himself, He adds an
admonition to fear blasphemy: "Whosoever shall speak against the Son of man,
it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost,
it shall not be forgiven him." [4611] Now, if both the remission and the
retention of sin savour of a judicial God, the Holy Ghost, who is not to be
blasphemed, will belong to Him, who will not forgive the, blasphemy; just as
He who, in the preceding passage, was not to be denied, belonged to, Him who
would, after He had killed, also cast into hell. Now, since it is Christ who
averts blasphemy from the Creator, I am at a loss to know in what manner His
adversary. [4612] could have come. Else, if by these sayings He throws a
black cloud of censure [4613] over the severity of Him who will not
forgive blasphemy and will kill even to hell, it follows that the very
spirit of that rival god may be blasphemed with impunity, and his Christ
denied; and that there is no difference, in fact, between worshipping and
despising him; but that, as there is no punishment for the contempt, so
there is no reward for the worship, which men need expect. When "brought
before magistrates," and examined, He forbids them "to take thought how they
shall answer;" "for," says He, "the Holy Ghost shall teach you in that very
hour what ye ought to say." [4614] If such an injunction [4615] as
this comes from the Creator, the precept will only be His by whom an example
was previously given. The prophet Balaam, in Numbers, when sent forth by
king Balak to curse lsræl, with whom he was commencing war, was at the same
moment [4616] filled with the Spirit. Instead of the curse which he was
come to pronounce, he uttered the blessing which the Spirit at that very
hour inspired him with; having previously declared to the king's messengers,
and then to the king himself, that he could only speak forth that which God
should put into his mouth. [4617] The novel doctrines of the new Christ
are such as the Creator's servants initiated long before! But see how clear
a difference there is between the example of Moses and of Christ. [4618]
Moses voluntarily interferes with brothers [4619] who were quarrelling,
and chides the offender: "Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? "He is,
however, rejected by him: "Who made thee a prince or a judge over us? "
[4620] Christ, on the contrary, when requested by a certain man to compose a
strife between him and his brother about dividing an inheritance, refused
His assistance, although in so honest a cause. Well, then, my Moses is
better than your Christ, aiming as he did at the peace of brethren, and
obviating their wrong. But of course the case must be different with Christ,
for he is the Christ of the simply good and non-judicial god. "Who," says
he, "made me a judge over you? " [4621] No other word of excuse was he
able to find, without using [4622] that with which the wicked, man and
impious brother had rejected [4623] the defender of probity and piety!
In short, he approved of the excuse, although a bad one, by his use of it;
and of the act, although a bad one, by his refusal to make peace between
brothers. Or rather, would He not show His resentment [4624] at the
rejection of Moses with such a word? And therefore did He not wish in a
similar case of contentious brothers, to confound them with the recollection
of so harsh a word? Clearly so. For He had Himself been present in Moses,
who heard such a rejection'even He, the Spirit of the Creator. [4625] I
think that we have already, in another passage, [4626] sufficiently
shown that the glory of riches is condemned by our God, "who putteth down
the mighty from their throne, and exalts the poor from the dunghill."
[4627] From Him, therefore, will proceed the parable of the rich man, who
flattered himself about the increase of his fields, and to Whom God said:
"Thou fool, this night shall they require thy soul of thee; then whose shall
those things be which thou hast provided? " [4628] It was just in the
like manner that the king Hezekiah heard from Isaiah the sad doom of his
kingdom, when he gloried, before the envoys of Babylon, [4629] in his
treasures and the deposits of his precious things. [4630]
Chapter XXIX. Parallels from the Prophets to Illustrate Christ's Teaching in
the Rest of This Chapter of St. Luke. The Sterner Attributes of Christ, in
His Judicial Capacity, Show Him to Have Come from the Creator. Incidental
Rebukes of Marcion's Doctrine of Celibacy, and of His Altering of the Text
of the Gospel.
Who would be unwilling that we should distress ourselves [4631] about
sustenance for our life, or clothing for our body, [4632] but He who has
provided these things already for man; and who, therefore, while
distributing them to us, prohibits all anxiety respecting them as an
outrage [4633] against his liberality?'who has adapted the nature of
"life" itself to a condition "better than meat," and has fashioned the
material of "the body," so as to make it "more than raiment; "whose "ravens,
too, neither sow nor reap, nor gather into storehouses, and are yet fed" by
Himself; whose "lilies and grass also toil not, nor spin, and yet are
clothed" by Him; whose "Solomon, moreover, was transcendent in glory, and
yet was not arrayed like" the humble flower. [4634] Besides, nothing can
be more abrupt than that one God should be distributing His bounty, while
the other should bid us take no thought about (so kindly a) distribution'and
that, too, with the intention of derogating (from his liberality). Whether,
indeed, it is as depreciating the Creator that he does not wish such trifles
to be thought of, concerning which neither the crows nor the lilies labour,
because, forsooth, they come spontaneously to hand [4635] by reason of
their very worthlessness, [4636] will appear a little further on.
Meanwhile, how is it that He chides them as being "of little faith? "
[4637] What faith? Does He mean that faith which they were as yet unable to
manifest perfectly in a god who has hardly yet revealed, [4638] and whom
they were in process of learning as well as they could; or that faith which
they for this express reason owed to the Creator, because they believed that
He was of His own will supplying these wants of the human race, and
therefore took no thought about them? Now, when He adds, "For all these
things do the nations of the world seek after," [4639] even by their not
believing in God as the Creator and Giver of all things, since He was
unwilling that they should be like these nations, He therefore upbraided
them as being defective of faith in the same God, in whom He remarked that
the Gentiles were quite wanting in faith. When He further adds, "But your
Father knoweth that ye have need of these things," [4640] I would first
ask, what Father Christ would have to be here understood? If He points to
their own Creator, He also affirms Him to be good, who knows what His
children have need of; but if He refers to that other god, how does he know
that food and raiment are necessary to man, seeing that he has made no such
provision for him? For if he had known the want, he would have made the
provision. If, however, he knows what things man has need of, and yet has
failed to supply them, he is in the failure guilty of either malignity or
weakness. But when he confessed that these things are necessary to man, he
really affirmed that they are good. For nothing that is evil is necessary.
So that he will not be any longer a depreciator of the works and the
indulgences of the Creator, that I may here complete the answer [4641]
which I deferred giving above. Again, if it is another god who has foreseen
man's wants, and is supplying them, how is it that Marcion's Christ himself
promises them? [4642] Is he liberal with another's property? [4643]
"Seek ye," says he, "the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added
unto you"'by himself, of course. But if by himself, what sort of being is
he, who shall bestow the things of another? If by the Creator, whose all
things are, then who [4644] is he that promises what belongs to another?
If these things are "additions" to the kingdom, they must be placed in the
second rank; [4645] and the second rank belongs to Him to whom the first
also does; His are the food and raiment, whose is the kingdom. Thus to the
Creator belongs the entire promise, the full reality [4646] of its
parables, the perfect equalization [4647] of its similitudes; for these
have respect to none other than Him to whom they have a parity of relation
in every point. [4648] We are servants because we have a Lord in our
God. We ought "to have our loins girded: " [4649] in other words, we are
to be free from the embarrassments of a perplexed and much occupied life;
"to have our lights burning," [4650] that is, our minds kindled by
faith, and resplendent with the works of truth. And thus "to wait for our
Lord," [4651] that is, Christ. Whence "returning? "If "from the
wedding," He is the Christ of the Creator, for the wedding is His. If He is
not the Creator's, not even Marcion himself would have gone to the wedding,
although invited, for in his god he discovers one who hates the nuptial bed.
The parable would therefore have failed in the person of the Lord, if He
were not a Being to whom a wedding is consistent. In the next parable also
he makes a flagrant mistake, when he assigns to the person of the Creator
that "thief, whose hour, if the father of the family had only known, he
would not have suffered his house to be broken through." [4652] How can
the Creator wear in any way the aspect of a thief, Lord as He is of all
mankind? No one pilfers or plunders his own property, but he [4653]
rather acts the part of one who swoops down on the things of another, and
alienates man from his Lord. [4654] Again, when He indicates to us that
the devil is "the thief," whose hour at the very beginning of the world, if
man had known, he would never have been broken in upon [4655] by him, He
warns us "to be ready," for this reason, because "we know not the hour when
the Son of man shall come" [4656] 'not as if He were Himself the thief,
but rather as being the judge of those who prepared not themselves, and used
no precaution against the thief. Since, then, He is the Son of man, I hold
Him to be the Judge, and in the Judge I claim [4657] the Creator. If
then in this passage he displays the Creator's Christ under the title "Son
of man," that he may give us some presage [4658] of the thief, of the
period of whose coming we are ignorant, you still have it ruled above, that
no one is the thief of his own property; besides which, there is our
principle also unimpaired [4659] 'that in as far as He insists on the
Creator as an object of fear, in so far does He belong to the Creator, and
does the Creator's work. When, therefore, Peter asked whether He had spoken
the parable "unto them, or even to all," [4660] He sets forth for them,
and for all who should bear rule in the churches, the similitude of
stewards. [4661] That steward who should treat his fellow-servants well
in his Lord's absence, would on his return be set as ruler over all his
property; but he who should act otherwise should be severed, and have his
portion with the unbelievers, when his lord should return on the day when he
looked not for him, at the hour when he was not aware [4662] 'even that
Son of man, the Creator's Christ, not a thief, but a Judge. He accordingly,
in this passage, either presents to us the Lord as a Judge, and instructs us
in His character, [4663] or else as the simply good god; if the latter,
he now also affirms his judicial attribute, although the heretic refuses to
admit it. For an attempt is made to modify this sense when it is applied to
his god,'as if it were an act of serenity and mildness simply to sever the
man off, and to assign him a portion with the unbelievers, under the idea
that he was not summoned (before the judge), but only returned to his own
state! As if this very process did not imply a judicial act! What folly!
What will be the end of i the severed ones? Will it not be the forfeiture of
salvation, since their separation will be from those who shall attain
salvation? What, again, will be the condition of the unbelievers? Will it
not be damnation? Else, if these severed and unfaithful ones shall have
nothing to suffer, there will, on the other hand, be nothing for the
accepted and the believers to obtain. If, however, the accepted and the
believers shall attain salvation, it must needs be that the rejected and the
unbelieving should incur the opposite issue, even the loss of salvation. Now
here is a judgment, and He who holds it out before us belongs to the
Creator. Whom else than the God of retribution can I understand by Him who
shall "beat His servants with stripes," either "few or many," and shall
exact from them what He had committed to them? Whom is it suitable
[4664] for me to obey, but Him who remunerates? Your Christ proclaims, "I am
come to send fire on the earth." [4665] That [4666] most lenient
being, the lord who has no hell, not long before had restrained his
disciples from demanding fire on the churlish village. Whereas He [4667]
burnt up Sodom and Gomorrah with a tempest of fire. Of Him the psalmist
sang, "A fire shall go out before Him, and burn up His enemies round
about." [4668] By Hoses He uttered the threat, "I will send a fire upon
the cities of Judah; " [4669] and [4670] by Isaiah, "A fire has been
kindled in mine anger." He cannot lie. If it is not He who uttered His voice
out of even the burning bush, it can be of no importance [4671] what
fire you insist upon being understood. Even if it be but figurative fire,
yet, from the very fact that he takes from my element illustrations for His
own sense, He is mine, because He uses what is mine. The similitude of fire
must belong to Him who owns the reality thereof. But He will Himself best
explain the quality of that fire which He mentioned, when He goes on to say,
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but
rather division." [4672] It is written "a sword," [4673] but Marcion
makes an emendation [4674] of the word, just as if a division were not
the work of the sword. He, therefore, who refused to give peace, intended
also the fire of destruction. As is the combat, so is the burning. As is the
sword, so is the flame. Neither is suitable for its lord. He says at last,
"The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the
father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the
mother; the mother-in-law against the daughter-in-law, and the
daughter-in-law against the mother-in-law." [4675] Since this battle
among the relatives [4676] was sung by the prophet's trumpet in the very
words, I fear that Micah [4677] must have predicted it to Marcion's
Christ! On this account He pronounced them "hypocrites," because they could
"discern the face of the sky and the earth, but could not distinguish this
time," [4678] when of course He ought to have been recognised,
fulfilling (as he was) all things which had been predicted concerning them,
and teaching them so. But then who could know the times of him of whom he
had no evidence to prove his existence? Justly also does He upbraid them for
"not even of themselves judging what is right." [4679] Of old does He
command by Zechariah, "Execute the judgment of truth and peace; " [4680]
by Jeremiah, "Execute judgment and righteousness; " [4681] by Isaiah,
"Judge the fatherless, plead for the widow," [4682] charging it as a
fault upon the vine of Sorech, [4683] that when "He looked for
righteousness therefrom, there was only a cry" [4684] (of oppression).
The same God who had taught them to act as He commanded them, [4685] was
now requiring that they should act of their own accord. [4686] He who
had sown the precept, was now pressing to an abundant harvest from it. But
how absurd, that he should now be commanding them to judge righteously, who
was destroying God the righteous Judge! For the Judge, who commits to
prison, and allows no release Out of it without the payment of "the very
last mite," [4687] they treat of in the person of the Creator, with the
view of disparaging Him. Which cavil, however, I deem it necessary to meet
with the same answer. [4688] For as often as the Creator's severity is
paraded before us, so often is Christ (shown to be) His, to whom He urges
submission by the motive of fear.
Chapter XXX. Parables of the Mustard-Seed, and of the Leaven. Transition to
the Solemn Exclusion Which Will Ensue When the Master of the House Has Shut
the Door. This Judicial Exclusion Will Be Administered by Christ, Who is
Shown Thereby to Possess the Attribute of the Creator.
When the question was again raised concerning a cure performed on the
Sabbath-day, how did He discuss it: "Doth not each of you on the Sabbath
loose his ass or his ox from the stall, and lead him away to watering? "
[4689] When, therefore, He did a work according to the condition prescribed
by the law, He affirmed, instead of breaking, the law, which commanded that
no work should be done, except what might be done for any living being;
[4690] and if for any one, then how much more for a human life? In the case
of the parables, it is allowed that I [4691] everywhere require a
congruity. "The kingdom of God," says He, "is like a grain of mustard-seed
which a man took and cast into his garden." Who must be understood as meant
by the man? Surely Christ, because (although Marcion's) he was called "the
Son of man." He received from the Father the seed of the kingdom, that is,
the word of the gospel, and sowed it in his garden'in the world, of
course [4692] 'in man at the present day, for instance. [4693] Now,
whereas it is said, "in his garden," but neither the world nor man is his
property, but the Creator's, therefore He who sowed seed in His own ground
is shown to be the Creator. Else, if, to evade this snare, [4694] they
should choose to transfer the person of the man from Christ to any person
who receives the seed of the kingdom and sows it in the garden of his own
heart, not even this meaning [4695] would suit any other than the
Creator. For how happens it, if the kingdom belong to the most lenient god,
that it is closely followed up by a fervent judgment, the severity of which
brings weeping? [4696] With regard, indeed, to the following similitude,
I have my fears lest it should somehow [4697] presage the kingdom of the
rival god! For He compared it, not to the unleavened bread which the Creator
is more familiar with, but to leaven. [4698] Now this is a capital
conjecture for men who are begging for arguments. I must, however, on my
side, dispel one fond conceit by another," [4699] and contend with even
leaven is suitable for the kingdom of the Creator, because after it comes
the oven, or, if you please, [4700] the furnace of hell. How often has
He already displayed Himself as a Judge, and in the Judge the Creator? How
often, indeed, has He repelled, and in the repulse condemned? In the present
passage, for instance, He says, "When once the master of the house is risen
up; " [4701] but in what sense except that in which Isaiah said, "When
He ariseth to shake terribly the earth? " [4702] "And hath shut to the
door," thereby shutting out the wicked, of course; and when these knock, He
will answer, "I know you not whence ye are; "and when they recount how "they
have eaten and drunk in His presence," He will further say to them, "Depart
from me, all ye workers of iniquity; there shall be weeping and gnashing of
teeth." [4703] But where? Outside, no doubt, when they shall have been
excluded with the door shut on them by Him. There will therefore be
punishment inflicted by Him who excludes for punishment, when they shall
behold the righteous entering the kingdom of God, but themselves detained
without. By whom detained outside? If by the Creator, who shall be within
receiving the righteous into the kingdom? The good God. What, therefore, is
the Creator about, [4704] that He should detain outside for punishment
those whom His adversary shut out, when He ought rather to have kindly
received them, if they must come into His hands, [4705] for the greater
irritation of His rival? But when about to exclude the wicked, he must, of
course, either be aware that the Creator would detain them for punishment,
or not be aware. Consequently either the wicked will be detained by the
Creator against the will of the excluder, in which case he will be inferior
to the Creator, submitting to Him unwillingly; or else, if the process is
carried out with his will, then he himself has judicially determined its
execution; and then he who is the very originator of the Creator's infamy,
will not prove to be one whit better than the Creator. Now, if these ideas
be incompatible with reason'of one being supposed to punish, and the other
to liberate'then to one only power will appertain both the judgment and the
kingdom and while they both belong to one, He who executeth judgment can be
none else than the Christ of the Creator.
Chapter XXXI. Christ's Advice to Invite the Poor in Accordance with Isaiah.
The Parable of the Great Supper a Pictorial Sketch of the Creator's Own
Dispensations of Mercy and Grace. The Rejections of the Invitation
Paralleled by Quotations from the Old Testament. Marcion's Christ Could Not
Fulfil the Conditions Indicated in This Parable. The Absurdity of the
Marcionite Interpretation.
What kind of persons does He bid should be invited to a dinner or a
supper? [4706] Precisely such as he had pointed out by Isaiah: "Deal thy
bread to the hungry man; and the beggars'even such as have no home'bring in
to thine house," [4707] because, no doubt, they are "unable to
recompense" your act of humanity. Now, since Christ forbids the recompense
to be expected now, but promises it "at the resurrection," this is the very
plan [4708] of the Creator, who dislikes those who love gifts and follow
after reward. Consider also to which deity [4709] is better suited the
parable of him who issued invitations: "A certain man made a great supper,
and bade many." [4710] The preparation for the supper is no doubt a
figure of the abundant provision [4711] of eternal life. I first remark,
that strangers, and persons unconnected by ties of relationship, are not
usually invited to a supper; but that members of the household and family
are more frequently the favoured guests. To the Creator, then, it belonged
to give the invitation, to whom also appertained those who were to be
invited'whether considered as men, through their descent from Adam, or as
Jews, by reason of their fathers; not to him who possessed no claim to them
either by nature or prerogative. My next remark is, [4712] if He issues
the invitations who has prepared the supper, then, in this sense the supper
is the Creator's, who sent to warn the guests. These had been indeed
previously invited by the fathers, but were to be admonished by the
prophets. It certainly is not the feast of him who never sent a messenger to
warn'who never did a thing before towards issuing an invitation, but came
down himself on a sudden'only then [4713] beginning to be known, when
already [4714] giving his invitation; only then inviting, when already
compelling to his banquet; appointing one and the same hour both for the
supper and the invitation. But when invited, they excuse themselves.
[4715] And fairly enough, if the invitation came from the other god, because
it was so sudden; if, however, the excuse was not a fair one, then the
invitation was not a sudden one. Now, if the invitation was not a sudden
one, it must have been given by the Creator'even by Him of old time, whose
call they had at last refused. They first refused it when they said to
Aaron, "Make us gods, which shall go before us; " [4716] and again,
afterwards, when "they heard indeed with the ear, but did not
understand" [4717] their calling of God. In a manner most germane
[4718] to this parable, He said by Jeremiah: "Obey my voice, and I will be
your God, and ye shall be my people; and ye shall walk in all my ways, which
I have commanded you." [4719] This is the invitation of God. "But," says
He, "they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear." [4720] This is the
refusal of the people. "They departed, and walked every one in the
imagination of their evil heart." [4721] "I have bought a field'and I
have bought some oxen'and I have married a wife." [4722] And still He
urges them: "I have sent unto you all my servants the prophets, rising early
even before day-light." [4723] The Holy Spirit is here meant, the
admonisher of the guests. "Yet my people hearkened not unto me, nor inclined
their ear, but hardened their neck." [4724] This was reported to the
Master of the family. Then He was moved (He did well to be moved; for, as
Marcion denies emotion to his god, He must be therefore my God), and
commanded them to invite out of "the streets and lanes of the city."
[4725] Let us see whether this is not the same in purport as His words by
Jeremiah: "Have I been a wilderness to the house of Isreal, or a land left
uncultivated? " [4726] That is to say: "Then have I none whom I may call
to me; have I no place whence I may bring them?" "Since my people have said,
We will come no more unto thee." [4727] Therefore He sent out to call
others, but from the same city. [4728] My third remark is this,
[4729] that although the place abounded with people, He yet commanded that
they gather men from the highways and the hedges. In other words, we are now
gathered out of the Gentile strangers; with that jealous resentment, no
doubt, which He expressed in Deuteronomy: "I will hide my face from them,
and I will show them what shall happen in the last days [4730] (how that
others shall possess their place); for they are a froward generation,
children in whom is no faith. They have moved me to jealousy by that which
is no god, and they have provoked me to anger with. their idols; and I will
move them to jealousy with those which are not a people: I will provoke them
to anger with a foolish nation" [4731] 'even with us, whose hope the
Jews still entertain. [4732] But this hope the Lord says they should not
realize; [4733] "Sion being left as a cottages [4734] in a vineyard,
as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers," [4735] since the nation rejected
the latest invitation to Christ. (Now, I ask, ) after going through all this
course of the Creator's dispensation and prophecies, what there is in it
which can possibly be assigned to him who has done all his work at one hasty
stroke, [4736] and possesses neither the Creator's [4737] course nor
His dispensation in harmony with the parable? Or, again in what will consist
his first invitation, [4738] and what his admonition [4739] at the
second stage? Some at first would surely decline; others afterwards must
have accepted." [4740] But now he comes to invite both parties
promiscuously out of the city, [4741] out of the hedges, [4742]
contrary to the drift [4743] of the parable. It is impossible for him
now to condemn as scorners of his invitation [4744] those whom he has
never yet invited, and whom he is approaching with so much earnestness. If,
however, he condemns them beforehand as about to reject his call, then
beforehand he also predicts [4745] the election of the Gentiles in their
stead. Certainly [4746] he means to come the second time for the very
purpose of preaching to the heathen. But even if he does mean to come again,
I imagine it will not be with the intention of any longer inviting guests,
but of giving to them their places. Meanwhile, you who interpret the call to
this supper as an invitation to a heavenly banquet of spiritual satiety and
pleasure, must remember that the earthly promises also of wine and oil and
corn, and even of the city, are equally employed by the Creator as figures
of spiritual things.
Chapter XXXII. A Sort of Sorites, as the Logicians Call It, to Show that the
Parables of the Lost Sheep and the Lost Drachma Have No Suitable Application
to the Christ of Marcion
Who sought after the lost sheep and the lost piece of silver? [4747] Was
it not the loser? But who was the loser? Was it not he who once
possessed [4748] them? Who, then, was that? Was it not he to whom they
belonged? [4749] Since, then, man is the property of none other than the
Creator, He possessed Him who owned him; He lost him who once possessed him;
He sought him who lost him; He found him who sought him; He rejoiced who
found him. Therefore the purport [4750] of neither parable has anything
whatever to do with him [4751] to whom belongs neither the sheep nor the
piece of silver, that is to say, man. For he lost him not, because he
possessed him not; and he sought him not, because he lost him not; and he
found him not, because he sought him not; and he rejoiced not, because he
found him not. Therefore, to rejoice over the sinner's repentance'that is,
at the recovery of lost man'is the attribute of Him who long ago professed
that He would rather that the sinner should repent and not die.
Chapter XXXIII. The Marcionite Interpretation of God and Mammon Refuted. The
Prophets Justify Christ's Admonition Against Covetousness and Pride. John
Baptist the Link Between the Old and the New Dispensations of the Creator.
So Said Christ'But So Also Had Isaiah Said Long Before. One Only God, the
Creator, by His Own Will Changed the Dispensations. No New God Had a Hand in
the Change.
What the two masters are who, He says, cannot be served, [4752] on the
ground that while one is pleased [4753] the other must needs be
displeased, [4754] 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. [4755] 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,
[4756] 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 [4757] of unrighteousness, and the lord of the whole
world. Therefore, when he saw the covetousness of the Pharisees doing
servile worship [4758] to it, He hurled [4759] this sentence against
them, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon." [4760] 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. [4761] 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, [4762] 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 [4763] the
Creator if He were Himself a rival [4764] to Him, He did (virtually)
name the Creator, when He refrained from insisting" [4765] 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? "
[4766] "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? " [4767] 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 [4768] 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 [4769] from the very thing which is in question. But when the
Pharisees "justified themselves before men," [4770] 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." [4771] Since
the prophet went on to say, "But the Lord knoweth your hearts," [4772]
he magnified the power of that God who declared Himself to be as a lamp,
"searching the reins and the heart." [4773] When He strikes at pride in
the words: "That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the
sight of God," [4774] 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." [4775] 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." [4776] 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 [4777] 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, [4778] 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."
[4779] "For," as says Isaiah: "the word of our God shall stand for
ever." [4780] Since even then by Isaiah it was Christ, the Word and
Spirit [4781] of the Creator, who prophetically described John as "the
voice of one crying in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord,"
[4782] 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.
Chapter XXXIV. Moses, Allowing Divorce, and Christ Prohibiting It,
Explained. John Baptist and Herod. Marcion's Attempt to Discover an
Antithesis in the Parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Man in Hades
Confuted. The Creator's Appointment Manifested in Both States.
But Christ prohibits divorce, saying, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and
marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is
put away from her husband, also committeth adultery." [4783] In order to
forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman that has been put
away. Moses, however, permitted repudiation in Deuteronomy: "When a man hath
taken a wife, and hath lived with her, and it come to pass that she find no
favour in his eyes, because he hath found unchastity in her; then let him
write her a bill of divorcement and give it in her hand, and send her away
out of his house." [4784] You see, therefore, that there is a difference
between the law and the gospel- between Moses and Christ? [4785] To be
sure there is! [4786] But then you have rejected that other gospel which
witnesses to the same verity and the same Christ. [4787] There, while
prohibiting divorce, He has given us a solution of this special question
respecting it: "Moses," says He, "because of the hardness of your hearts,
suffered you to give a bill of divorcement; but from the beginning it was
not so" [4788] 'for this reason, indeed, because He who had "made them
male and female" had likewise said, "They twain shall become one flesh; what
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." [4789]
Now, by this answer of His (to the Pharisees), He both sanctioned the
provision of Moses, who was His own (servant), and restored to its primitive
purpose [4790] the institution of the Creator, whose Christ He was.
Since, however, you are to be refuted out of the Scriptures which you have
received, I will meet you on your own ground, as if your Christ were mine.
When, therefore, He prohibited divorce, and yet at the same time
represented [4791] the Father, even Him who united male and female, must
He not have rather exculpated [4792] than abolished the enactment of
Moses? But, observe, if this Christ be yours when he teaches contrary to
Moses and the Creator, on the same principle must He be mine if I can show
that His teaching is not contrary to them. I maintain, then, that there was
a condition in the prohibition which He now made of divorce; the case
supposed being, that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of
[4793] marrying another. His words are: "Whosoever putteth away his wife,
and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that
is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery," [4794] '"put
away," that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to be dismissed,
that another wife may be obtained. For he who marries a woman who is
unlawfully put away is as much of an adulterer as the man who marries one
who is un-divorced. Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly
dissolved; to marry, [4795] therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved,
is to commit adultery. Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a
conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not
absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions, [4796] when
there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. In very
deed [4797] His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He
partially [4798] defends, I will not [4799] say confirms. If,
however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it
that you on your side [4800] destroy marriage, not uniting man and
woman, nor admitting to the sacrament of baptism and of the eucharist those
who have been united in marriage anywhere else, [4801] unless they
should agree together to repudiate the fruit of their marriage, and so the
very Creator Himself? Well, then, what is a husband to do in your sect,
[4802] if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle,
you know, [4803] does not permit "the members of Christ to be joined to
a harlot." [4804] Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, [4805]
has even in Christ a defender. So that Moses for the future must be
considered as being confirmed by Him, since he prohibits divorce in the same
sense as Christ does, if any unchastity should occur in the wife. For in the
Gospel of Matthew he says, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for
the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery." [4806] He
also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by
her husband. The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not
put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another
passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should
thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife. [4807] Now,
if a compulsory marriage contracted after violence shall be permanent, how
much rather shall a voluntary one, the result of agreement! This has the
sanction of the prophet: "Thou shalt not forsake the wife of thy youth."
[4808] Thus you have Christ following spontaneously the tracks of the
Creator everywhere, both in permitting divorce and in for-bidding it. You
find Him also protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to escape.
He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable; He permits
divorce when the marriage is spotted with unfaithfulness. You should blush
when you refuse to unite those whom even your Christ has united; and repeat
the blush when you disunite them without the good reason why your Christ
would have them separated. I have [4809] now to show whence the Lord
derived this decision [4810] of His, and to what end He directed it. It
will thus become more fully evident that His object was not the abolition of
the Mosaic ordinance [4811] by any suddenly devised proposal of divorce;
because it was not suddenly proposed, but had its root in the previously
mentioned John. For John reproved Herod, because he had illegally married
the wife of his deceased brother, who had a daughter by her (a union which
the law permitted only on the one occasion of the brother dying
childless, [4812] when it even prescribed such a marriage, in order that
by his own brother, and from his own wife, [4813] seed might be reckoned
to the deceased husband), [4814] and was in consequence cast into
prison, and finally, by the same Herod, was even put to death. The Lord
having therefore made mention of John, and of course of the occurrence of
his death, hurled His censure [4815] against Herod in the form of
unlawful marriages and of adultery, pronouncing as an adulterer even the man
who married a woman that had been put away from her husband. This he said in
order the more severely to load Herod with guilt, who had taken his
brother's wife, after she had been loosed from her husband not less by death
than by divorce; who had been impelled thereto by his lust, not by the
prescription of the (Levirate) law'for, as his brother had left a daughter,
the marriage with the widow could not be lawful on that very account;
[4816] and who, when the prophet asserted against him the law, had therefore
put him to death. The remarks I have advanced on this case will be also of
use to me in illustrating the subsequent parable of the rich man [4817]
tormented in hell, and the poor man resting in Abraham's bosom. [4818]
For this passage, so far as its letter goes, comes before us abruptly; but
if we regard its sense and purport, it naturally [4819] fits in with the
mention of John wickedly slain, and of Herod, who had been condemned by him
for his impious marriage. [4820] It sets forth in bold outline
[4821] the end of both of them, the "torments" of Herod and the "comfort" of
John, that even now Herod might hear that warning: "They have there Moses
and the prophets, let them hear them." [4822] Marcion, however,
violently turns the passage to another end, and decides that both the
torment and the comfort are retributions of the Creator reserved in the next
life [4823] for those who have obeyed the law and the prophets; whilst
he defines the heavenly bosom and harbour to belong to Christ and his own
god. Our answer to this is, that the Scripture itself which dazzles
[4824] his sight expressly distinguishes between Abraham's bosom, where the
poor man dwells, and the infernal place of torment. "Hell" (I take it) means
one thing, and "Abraham's bosom" another. "A great gulf." is said to
separate those regions, and to hinder a passage from one to the other.
Besides, the rich man could not have "lifted up his eyes," [4825] and
from a distance too, except to a superior height, and from the said distance
all up through the vast immensity of height and depth. It must therefore be
evident to every man of intelligence who has ever heard of the Elysian
fields, that there is some determinate place called Abraham's bosom, and
that it is designed for the reception of the souls of Abraham's children,
even from among the Gentiles (since he is "the father of many nations,"
which must be classed amongst his family), and of the same faith as that
wherewithal he himself believed God, without the yoke of the law and the
sign of circumcision. This region, therefore, I call Abraham's bosom.
Although it is not in heaven, it is yet higher than hell, [4826] and is
appointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until
the consummation of all things shall complete the resurrection of all men
with the "full recompense of their reward." [4827] This consummation
will then be manifested in heavenly promises, which Marcion, however, claims
for his own god, just as if the Creator had never announced them. Amos,
however, tells us of "those stories towards heaven" [4828] which Christ
"builds"'of course for His people. There also is that everlasting abode of
which Isaiah asks, "Who shall declare unto you the eternal place, but He
(that is, of course, Christ) who walketh in righteousness, speaketh of the
straight path, hateth injustice and iniquity? " [4829] Now, although
this everlasting abode is promised, and the ascending stories (or steps) to
heaven are built by the Creator, who further promises that the seed of
Abraham shall be even as the stars of heaven, by virtue certainly of the
heavenly promise, why may it not be possible, [4830] without any injury
to that promise, that by Abraham's bosom is meant some temporary receptacle
of faithful souls, wherein is even now delineated an image of the future,
and where is given some foresight of the glory [4831] of both judgments?
If so, you have here, O heretics, during your present lifetime, a warning
that Moses and the prophets declare one only God, the Creator, and His only
Christ, and how that both awards of everlasting punishment and eternal
salvation rest with Him, the one only God, who kills and who makes alive.
Well, but the admonition, says Marcion, of our God from heaven has commanded
us not to hear Moses and the prophets, but Christ; Hear Him is the
command. [4832] This is true enough. For the apostles had by that time
sufficiently heard Moses and the prophets, for they had followed Christ,
being persuaded by Moses and the prophets. For even Peter would not have
been able [4833] to say, "Thou art the Christ," [4834] unless he had
beforehand heard and believed Moses and the prophets, by whom alone Christ
had been hitherto announced. Their faith, indeed, had deserved this
confirmation by such a voice from heaven as should bid them hear Him, whom
they had recognized as preaching peace, announcing glad tidings, promising
an everlasting abode, building for them steps upwards into heaven.
[4835] Down in hell, however, it was said concerning them: "They have Moses
and the prophets; let them hear them!"'event hose who did not believe them
or at least did not sincerely [4836] believe that after death there were
punishments for the arrogance of wealth and the glory of luxury, announced
indeed by Moses and the prophets, but decreed by that God, who deposes
princes from their thrones, and raiseth up the poor from dunghills.
[4837] Since, therefore, it is quite consistent in the Creator to pronounce
different sentences in the two directions of reward and punishment, we shall
have to conclude that there is here no diversity of gods, [4838] but
only a difference in the actual matters [4839] before us.
Chapter XXXV. The Judicial Severity of Christ and the Tenderness of the
Creator, Asserted in Contradiction to Marcion. The Cure of the Ten Lepers.
Old Testament Analogies. The Kingdom of God Within You; This Teaching
Similar to that of Moses. Christ, the Stone Rejected by the Builders.
Indications of Severity in the Coming of Christ. Proofs that He is Not the
Impassible Being Marcion Imagined.
Then, turning to His disciples, He says: "Woe unto him through whom offences
come! It were better for him if he had not been born, or if a millstone were
hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should
offend one of these little ones," [4840] that is, one of His disciples.
Judge, then, what the sort of punishment is which He so severely threatens.
For it is no stranger who is to avenge the offence done to His disciples.
Recognise also in Him the Judge, and one too, who expresses Himself on the
safety of His followers with the same tenderness as that which the Creator
long ago exhibited: "He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of my eye."
[4841] Such identity of care proceeds from one and the same Being. A
trespassing brother He will have rebuked. [4842] If one failed in this
duty of reproof, he in fact sinned, either because out of hatred he wished
his brother to continue in sin, or else spared him from mistaken
friendship, [4843] although possessing the injunction in Leviticus:
"Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; thy neighbor thou shalt
seriously rebuke, and on his account shalt not contract sin." [4844] Nor
is it to be wondered at, if He thus teaches who forbids your refusing to
bring back even your brother's cattle, if you find them astray in the road;
much more should you bring back your erring brother to himself. He commands
you to forgive your brother, should he trespass against you even "seven
times." [4845] But that surely, is a small matter; for with the Creator
there is a larger grace, when He sets no limits to forgiveness, indefinitely
charging you "not to bear any malice against your brother," [4846] and
to give not merely to him who asks, but even to him who does not ask. For
His will is, not that you should forgive [4847] an offence, but forget
it. The law about lepers had a profound meaning as respects [4848] the
forms of the disease itself, and of the inspection by the high priest.
[4849] The interpretation of this sense it will be our task to ascertain.
Marcion's labour, however, is to object to us the strictness [4850] of
the law, with the view of maintaining that here also Christ is its
enemy'forestalling [4851] its enactments even in His cure of the ten
lepers. These He simply commanded to show themselves to the priest; "and as
they went, He cleansed them" [4852] 'without a touch, and without a
word, by His silent power and simple will. Well, but what necessity was
there for Christ, who had been once for all announced as the healer of our
sicknesses and sins, and had proved Himself such by His acts, [4853] to
busy Himself with inquiries [4854] into the qualities and details of
cures; or for the Creator to be summoned to the scrutiny of the law in the
person of Christ? If any pan of this healing was effected by Him in a way
different from the law, He yet Himself did it to perfection; for surely the
Lord may by Himself, or by His Son, produce after one manner, and after
another manner by His servants the prophets, those proofs of His power and
might especially, which (as excelling in glory and strength, because they
are His own acts) rightly enough leave in the distance behind them the works
which are done by His servants. But enough has been already said on this
point in a former passage. [4855] Now, although He said in a preceding
Chapter, [4856] that "there were many lepers in lsræl in the days of
Eliseus the prophet, and none of them was cleansed saving Naaman the
Syrian," yet of course the mere number proves nothing towards a difference
in the gods, as tending to the abasement [4857] of the Creator in curing
only one, and the pre-eminence of Him who healed ten. For who can doubt that
many might have been cured by Him who cured one more easily than ten by him
who had never healed one before? But His main purpose in this declaration
was to strike at the unbelief or the pride of Isreal, in that (although
there were many lepers amongst them, and a prophet was not wanting to them)
not one had been moved even by so conspicuous an example to betake himself
to God who was working in His prophets. Forasmuch, then, as He was Himself
the veritable [4858] High Priest of God the Father, He inspected them
according to the hidden purport of the law, which signified that Christ was
the true distinguisher and extinguisher of the defilements of mankind.
However, what was obviously required by the law He commanded should be done:
"Go," said He, "show yourselves to the priests." [4859] Yet why this, if
He meant to cleanse them first? Was it as a despiser of the law, in order to
prove to them that, having been cured already on the road, the law was now
nothing to them, nor even the priests? Well, the matter must of course pass
as it best may, [4860] if anybody supposes that Christ had such views as
these! [4861] But there are certainly better interpretations to be found
of the passage, and more deserving of belief: how that they were cleansed on
this account, because [4862] they were obedient, and went as the law
required, when they were commanded to go to the priests; and it is not to be
believed that persons who observed the law could have found a cure from a
god that was destroying the law. Why, however, did He not give such a
command to the leper who first returned? [4863] Because Elisha did not
in the case of Naaman the Syrian, and yet was not on that account less the
Creator's agent? This is a sufficient answer.But the believer knows that
there is a profounder reason. Consider, therefore, the true motives.
[4864] The miracle was performed in the district of Samaria, to which
country also belonged one of the lepers. [4865] Samaria, however, had
revolted from Isreal, carrying with it the disaffected nine tribes,
[4866] which, having been alienated [4867] by the prophet Ahijah,
[4868] Jeroboam settled in Samaria. Besides, the Samaritans were always
pleased with the mountains and the wells of their ancestors. Thus, in the
Gospel of John, the woman of Samaria, when conversing with the Lord at the
well, says, "No doubt [4869] Thou art greater," etc.; and again, "Our
fathers worshipped in this mountain; but ye say, that in Jerusalem is the
place where men ought to worship." [4870] Accordingly, He who said, "Woe
unto them that trust in the mountain of Samaria," [4871] vouchsafing now
to restore that very region, purposely requests the men "to go and show
themselves to the priests," because these were to be found only there where
the temple was; submitting [4872] the Samaritan to the Jew, inasmuch as
"salvation was of the Jews," [4873] whether to the Isrealite or the
Samaritan. To the tribe of Judah, indeed, wholly appertained the promised
Christ, [4874] in order that men might know that at Jerusalem were both
the priests and the temple; that there also was the womb [4875] of
religion, and its living fountain, not its mere "well." [4876] Seeing,
therefore, that they recognised [4877] the truth that at Jerusalem the
law was to be fulfilled, He healed them. whose salvation was to come
[4878] of faith [4879] without the ceremony of the law. Whence also,
astonished that one only out of the ten was thankful for his release to the
divine grace, He does not command him to offer a gift according to the law,
because he had already paid his tribute of gratitude when "he glorified
God; [4880] for thus did the Lord will that the law's requirement should
be interpreted. And yet who was the God to whom the Samaritan gave thanks,
because thus far not even had an Isrealite heard of another god? Who else
but He by whom all had hitherto been healed through Christ? And therefore it
was said to him, "Thy faith hath made thee whole," [4881] because he had
discovered that it was his duty to render the true oblation to Almighty
God'even thanksgiving'in His true temple, and before His true High Priest
Jesus Christ. But it is impossible either that the Pharisees should seem to
have inquired of the Lord about the coming of the kingdom of the rival god,
when no other god has ever yet been announced by Christ; or that He should
have answered them concerning the kingdom of any other god than Him of whom
they were in the habit of asking Him. "The kingdom of God," He says, "cometh
not with observation; neither do they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for,
behold, the kingdom of God is within you." [4882] Now, who will not
interpret the words "within you" to mean in your hand, within your power, if
you hear, and do the commandment of God? If, however, the kingdom of God
lies in His commandment, set before your mind Moses on the other side,
according to our antitheses, and you will find the self-same view of the
case. [4883] "The commandment is not a lofty one, [4884] neither is
it far off from thee. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, 'Who
shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and
do it? 'nor is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, 'Who shall go
over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
'But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, and in
thy hands, to do it." [4885] This means, "Neither in this place nor that
place is the kingdom of God; for, behold, it is within you." [4886] And
if the heretics, in their audacity, should contend that the Lord did not
give an answer about His own kingdom, but only about the Creator's kingdom,
concerning which they had inquired, then the following words are against
them. For He tells them that "the Son of man must suffer many things, and be
rejected," before His coming, [4887] at which His kingdom will be
really [4888] revealed. In this statement He shows that it was His own
kingdom which His answer to them had contemplated, and which was now
awaiting His own sufferings and rejection. But having to be rejected and
afterwards to be acknowledged, and taken up [4889] and glorified, He
borrowed the very word "rejected" from the passage, where, under the figure
of a stone, His twofold manifestation was celebrated by David'the first in
rejection, the second in honour: "The stone," says He, "which the builders
rejected, is become the head-stone of the corner. This is the Lord's
doing." [4890] Now it would be idle, if we believed that God had
predicted the humiliation, or even the glory, of any Christ at all, that He
could have signed His prophecy for any but Him whom He had foretold under
the figure of a stone, and a rock, and a mountain. [4891] If, however,
He speaks of His own coming, why does He compare it with the days of Noe and
of Lot, [4892] which were dark and terrible'a mild and gentle God as He
is? Why does He bid us "remember Lot's wife," [4893] who despised the
Creator's command, and was punished for her contempt, if He does not come
with judgment to avenge the infraction of His precepts? If He really does
punish, like the Creator, [4894] if He is my Judge, He ought not to have
adduced examples for the purpose of instructing me from Him whom He yet
destroys, that He [4895] might not seem to be my instructor. But if He
does not even here speak of His own coming, but of the coming of the Hebrew
Christ, [4896] let us still wait in expectation that He will vouchsafe
to us some prophecy of His own advent; meanwhile we will continue to believe
that He is none other than He whom He reminds us of in every passage.
Chapter XXXVI. The Parables of the Importunate Widow, and of the Pharisee
and the Publican. Christ's Answer to the Rich Ruler, the Cure of the Blind
Man. His Salutation'Son of David. All Proofs of Christ's Relation to the
Creator, Marcion's Antithesis Between David and Christ Confuted.
When He recommends perseverance and earnestness in prayer, He sets before us
the parable of the judge who was compelled to listen to the widow, owing to
the earnestness and importunity of her requests. [4897] He show us that
it is God the judge whom we must importune with prayer, and not Himself, if
He is not Himself the judge. But He added, that "God would avenge His own
elect." [4898] Since, then, He who judges will also Himself be the
avenger, He proved that the Creator is on that account the specially good
God, [4899] whom He represented as the avenger of His own elect, who cry
day and night to Him, And yet, when He introduces to our view the Creator's
temple, and describes two men worshipping therein with diverse feelings'the
Pharisee in pride, the publican in humility'and shows us how they
accordingly went down to their homes, one rejected, [4900] the other
justified, [4901] He surely, by thus teaching us the proper discipline
of prayer, has determined that that God must be prayed to from whom men were
to receive this discipline of prayer'whether condemnatory of pride, or
justifying in humility. [4902] I do not find from Christ any temple, any
suppliants, any sentence (of approval or condemnation) belonging to any
other god than the Creator. Him does He enjoin us to worship in humility, as
the lifter-up of the humble, not in pride, because He brings down [4903]
the proud. What other god has He manifested to me to receive my
supplications? With what formula of worship, with what hope (shall I
approach him? ) I trow, none. For the prayer which He has taught us suits,
as we have proved, [4904] none but the Creator. It is, of course,
another matter if He does not wish to be prayed to, because He is the
supremely and spontaneously good God! But who is this good God? There is, He
says, "none but one." [4905] It is not as if He had shown us that one of
two gods was the supremely good; but He expressly asserts that there is one
only good God, who is the only good, because He is the only God. Now,
undoubtedly, [4906] He is the good God who "sendeth rain on the just and
on the unjust, and maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good; "
[4907] sustaining and nourishing and assisting even Marcionites themselves!
When afterwards "a certain man asked him, 'Good Master, what shall I do to
inherit eternal life? '" (Jesus) inquired whether he knew (that is, in other
words, whether he kept) the commandments of the Creator, in order to
testify [4908] that it was by the Creator's precepts that eternal life
is acquired. [4909] Then, when he affirmed that from his youth up he had
kept all the principal commandments, (Jesus) said to him: "One thing thou
yet lackest: sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt
have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." [4910] Well now, Marcion,
and all ye who are companions in misery, and associates in hatred [4911]
with that heretic, what will you dare say to this? Did Christ rescind the
forementioned commandments: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not
steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother? "Or did
He both keep them, and then add [4912] what was wanting to them? This
very precept, however, about giving to the poor, was very largely [4913]
diffused through the pages of the law and the prophets. This vainglorious
observer of the commandments was therefore convicted [4914] of holding
money in much higher estimation (than charity). This verity of the gospel
then stands unimpaired: "I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets,
but rather to fulfil them." [4915] He also dissipated other doubts, when
He declared that the name of God and of the Good belonged to one and the
same being, at whose disposal were also the everlasting life and the
treasure in heaven and Himself too'whose commandments He both maintained and
augmented with His own supplementary precepts. He may likewise be discovered
in the following passage of Micah, saying: "He hath showed thee, O man, what
is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to
love mercy, and to be ready to follow the Lord thy God? " [4916] Now
Christ is the man who tells us what is good, even the knowledge of the law.
"Thou knowest," says He, "the commandments." "To do justly"'"Sell all that
thou hast;" "to love mercy"'"Give to the poor:" "and to be ready to walk
with God"'"And come," says He, "follow me." [4917] The Jewish nation was
from its beginning so carefully divided into tribes and clans, and families
and houses, that no man could very well have been ignorant of his
descent'even from the recent assessments of Augustus, which were still
probably extant at this time. [4918] But the Jesus of Marcion (although
there could be no doubt of a person's having been born, who was seen to be a
man), as being unborn, could not, of course, have possessed any public
testimonial [4919] of his descent, but was to be regarded as one of that
obscure class of whom nothing was in any way known. Why then did the blind
man, on hearing that He was passing by, exclaim, "Jesus, Thou Son of David,
have mercy on me? " [4920] unless he was considered, in no uncertain
manner, [4921] to be the Son of David (in other words, to belong to
David's family) through his mother and his brethren, who at some time or
other had been made known to him by public notoriety? "Those, however, who
went before rebuked the blind man, that he should hold his peace."
[4922] And properly enough; because he was very noisy, not because he was
wrong about the son of David Else you must show me, that those who rebuked
him were aware that Jesus was not the Son of David, in order that they may
be supposed to have had this reason for imposing silence on the blind man.
But even if you could show me this, still (the blind man) would more readily
have presumed that they were ignorant, than that the Lord could possibly
have permitted an untrue exclamation about Himself. But the Lord "stood
patient." [4923] Yes; but not as confirming the error, for, on the
contrary, He rather displayed the Creator. Surely He could not have first
removed this man's blindness, in order that he might afterwards cease to
regard Him as the Son of David! However, [4924] that you may not
slander [4925] His patience, nor fasten on Him any charge of
dissimulation, nor deny Him to be the Son of David, He very pointedly
confirmed the exclamation of the blind man'both by the actual gift of
healing, and by bearing testimony to his faith: "Thy faith," say Christ,
"hath made thee whole." [4926] What would you have the blind man's faith
to have been? That Jesus was descended from that (alien) god (of Marcion),
to subvert the Creator and overthrow the law and the prophets? That He was
not the destined offshoot from the root of Jesse, and the fruit of David's
loins, the restorer [4927] also of the blind? But I apprehend there were
at that time no such stone-blind persons as Marcion, that an opinion like
this could have constituted the faith of the blind man, and have induced him
to confide in the mere name, [4928] of Jesus, the Son of David. He, who
knew all this of Himself, [4929] and wished others to know it also,
endowed the faith of this man'although it was already gifted with a better
sight, and although it was in possession of the true light'with the external
vision likewise, in order that we too might learn the rule of faith, and at
the same time find its recompense. Whosoever wishes to see Jesus the Son of
David must believe in Him; through the Virgin's birth. [4930] He who
will not believe this will not hear from Him the salutation, "Thy faith hath
saved thee." And so he will remain blind, falling into Antithesis after
Antithesis, which mutually destroy each other, [4931] just as "the blind
man leads the blind down into the ditch." [4932] For (here is one of
Marcion's Antitheses): whereas David in old time, in the capture of Sion,
was offended by the blind who opposed his admission (into the
stronghold) [4933] 'in which respect (I should rather say) that they
were a type of people equally blind, [4934] who in after-times would not
admit Christ to be the son of David'so, on the contrary, Christ succoured
the blind man, to show by this act that He was not David's son, and how
different in disposition He was, kind to the blind, while David ordered them
to be slain. [4935] If all this were so, why did Marcion allege that the
blind man's faith was of so worthless [4936] a stamp? The fact is,
[4937] the Son of David so acted, [4938] that the Antithesis must lose
its point by its own absurdity. [4939] Those persons who offended David
were blind, and the man who now presents himself as a suppliant to David's
son is afflicted with the same infirmity. [4940] Therefore the Son of
David was appeased with some sort of satisfaction by the blind man when He
restored him to sight, and added His approval of the faith which had led him
to believe the very truth, that he must win to his help [4941] the Son
of David by earnest entreaty. But, after all, I suspect that it was the
audacity (of the old Jebusites) which offended David, and not their malady.
Chapter XXXVII. Christ and ZacchÆus. The Salvation of the Body as Denied by
Marcion. The Parable of the Ten Servants Entrusted with Ten Pounds. Christ a
Judge, Who is to Administer the Will of the Austere Man, I.e. The Creator.
"Salvation comes to the house" of Zacchæus even. [4942] For what reason?
Was it because he also believed that Christ came by Marcion? But the blind
man's cry was still sounding in the ears of all: "Jesus, Thou Son of David,
have mercy on me." And "all the people gave praise unto God"'not Marcion's,
but David's. Now, although Zacchæus was probably a Gentile, [4943] he
yet from his intercourse with Jews had obtained a smattering [4944] of
their Scriptures, and, more than this, had, without knowing it, fulfilled
the precepts of Isaiah: "Deal thy bread," said the prophet, "to the hungry,
and bring the poor that are cast out into thine house." [4945] This he
did in the best possible way, by receiving the Lord, and entertaining Him in
his house. "When thou seest the naked cover him." [4946] This he
promised to do, in an equally satisfactory way, when he offered the half of
his goods for all works of mercy. [4947] So also "he loosened the bands
of wickedness. undid the heavy burdens, let the oppressed go free, and broke
every yoke," [4948] when he said, "If I have taken anything from any man
by false accusation, I restore him fourfold." [4949] Therefore the Lord
said, "This day is salvation come to this house." [4950] Thus did He
give His testimony, that the precepts of the Creator spoken by the prophet
tended to salvation. [4951] But when He adds, "For the Son of man is
come to seek and to save that which was lost," [4952] my present
contention is not whether He was come to save what was lost, to whom it had
once belonged, and from whom what He came to save had fallen away; but I
approach a different question. Man, there can be no doubt of it, is here the
subject of consideration. Now, since he consists of two parts, [4953]
body and soul, the point to be inquired into is, in which of these two man
would seem to have been lost? If in his body, then it is his body, not his
soul, which is lost. What, however, is lost, the Son of man saves. The
body, [4954] therefore, has the salvation. If, (on the other hand, ) it
is in his soul that man is lost, salvation is designed for the lost soul;
and the body which is not lost is safe. If, (to take the only other
supposition, ) man is wholly lost, in both his natures, then it necessarily
follows that salvation is appointed for the entire man; and then the opinion
of the heretics is shivered to pieces, [4955] who say that there is no
salvation of the flesh. And this affords a confirmation that Christ belongs
to the Creator, who followed the Creator in promising the salvation of the
whole man. The parable also of the (ten) servants, who received their
several recompenses according to the manner in which they had increased
their lord's money by trading [4956] proves Him to be a God of
judgment'even a God who, in strict account, [4957] not only bestows
honour, but also takes away what a man seems to have. [4958] Else, if it
is the Creator whom He has here delineated as the "austere man," who "takes
up what he laid not down, and reaps what he did not sow," [4959] my
instructor even here is He, (whoever He may be, ) to whom belongs the money
He teaches me fruitfully to expend. [4960]
Chapter XXXVIII. Christ's Refutations of the Pharisees. Rendering Dues to
CÆsar and to God. Next of the Sadducees, Respecting Marriage in the
Resurrection. These Prove Him Not to Be Marcion's But the Creator's Christ.
Marcion's Tamperings in Order to Make Room for His Second God, Exposed and
Confuted.
Christ knew "the baptism of John, whence it was." [4961] Then why did He
ask them, as if He knew not? He knew that the Pharisees would not give Him
an answer; then why did He ask in vain? Was it that He might judge them out
of their own mouth, or their own heart? Suppose you refer these points to an
excuse of the Creator, or to His comparison with Christ; then consider what
would have happened if the Pharisees had replied to His question. Suppose
their answer to have been, that John's baptism was "of men," they would have
been immediately stoned to death. [4962] Some Marcion, in rivalry to
Marcion, would have stood up [4963] and said: O most excellent God; how
different are his ways from the Creator's! Knowing that men would rush down
headlong over it, He placed them actually [4964] on the very precipice.
For thus do men treat of the Creator respecting His law of the tree.
[4965] But John's baptism was "from heaven." "Why, therefore," asks Christ,
"did ye not believe him? " [4966] He therefore who had wished men to
believe John, purposing to censure [4967] them because they had not
believed him, belonged to Him whose sacrament John was administering. But,
at any rate, [4968] when He actually met their refusal to say what they
thought, with such reprisals as, "Neither tell I you by what authority I do
these things," [4969] He returned evil for evil! "Render unto Cæsar the
things which be Cæsar's, and unto God the things which be God's." [4970]
What will be "the things which are God's? "Such things as are like Cæsar's
denarius'that is to say, His image and similitude. That, therefore, which he
commands to be "rendered unto God," the Creator, is man, who has been
stamped with His image, likeness, name, and substance. [4971] Let
Marcion's god look after his own mint. [4972] Christ bids the denarius
of man's imprint to be rendered to His Cæsar, (His Cæsar I say, ) not the
Cæsar of a strange god. [4973] The truth, however, must be confessed,
this god has not a denarius to call his own! In every question the just and
proper rule is, that the meaning of the answer ought to be adapted to the
proposed inquiry. But it is nothing short of madness to return an answer
altogether different from the question submitted to you. God forbid, then,
that we should expect from Christ [4974] conduct which would be unfit
even to an ordinary man! The Sadducees, who said there was no resurrection,
in a discussion on that subject, had proposed to the Lord a case of law
touching a certain woman, who, in accordance with the legal prescription,
had been married to seven brothers who had died one after the other. The
question therefore was, to which husband must she be reckoned to belong in
the resurrection? [4975] This, (observe, ) was the gist of the inquiry,
this was the sum and substance of the dispute. And to it Christ was obliged
to return a direct answer. He had nobody to fear; that it should seem
advisable [4976] for Him either to evade their questions, or to make
them the occasion of indirectly mooting [4977] a subject which He was
not in the habit of teaching publicly at any other time. He therefore gave
His answer, that "the children of this world marry." [4978] You see how
pertinent it was to the case in point. Because the question concerned the
next world, and He was going to declare that no one marries there, He opens
the way by laying down the principles that here, where there is death, there
is also marriage. "But they whom God shall account worthy of the possession
of that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are
given in marriage; forasmuch as they cannot die any more, since they become
equal to the angels, being made the children of God and of the
resurrection." [4979] If, then, the meaning of the answer must not turn
on any other point than on the proposed question, and since the question
proposed is fully understood from this sense of the answer, [4980] then
the Lord's reply admits of no other interpretation than that by which the
question is clearly understood. [4981] You have both the time in which
marriage is permitted, and the time in which it is said to be unsuitable,
laid before you, not on their own account, but in consequence of an inquiry
about the resurrection. You have likewise a confirmation of the resurrection
itself, and the whole question which the Sadducees mooted, who asked no
question about another god, nor inquired about the proper law of marriage.
Now, if you make Christ answer questions which were not submitted to Him,
you, in fact, represent Him as having been unable to solve the points on
which He was really consulted, and entrapped of course by the cunning of the
Sadducees. I shall now proceed, by way of supererogation, [4982] and
after the rule (I have laid down about questions and answers), [4983] to
deal with the arguments which have any consistency in them. [4984] They
procured then a copy of the Scripture, and made short work with its text, by
reading it thus: [4985] "Those whom the god of that world shall account
worthy." They add the phrase "of that world" to the word "god," whereby they
make another god"the god of that world; "whereas the passage ought to be
read thus: "Those whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that
world" (removing the distinguishing phrase "of this world" to the end of the
clause, [4986] in other words, "Those whom God shall account worthy of
obtaining and rising to that world." For the question submitted to Christ
had nothing to do with the god, but only with the state, of that world. It
was: "Whose wife should this woman be in that world after the resurrection?
" [4987] They thus subvert His answer respecting the essential question
of marriage, and apply His words, "The children of this world marry and are
given in marriage," as if they referred to the Creator's men, and His
permission to them to marry; whilst they themselves whom the god of that
world'that is, the rival god'accounted worthy of the resurrection, do not
marry even here, because they are not children of this world. But the fact
is, that, having been consulted about marriage in that world, not in this
present one, He had simply declared the non-existence of that to which the
question related. They, indeed, who had caught the very force of His voice,
and pronunciation, and expression, discovered no other sense than what had
reference to the matter of the question. Accordingly, the Scribes exclaimed,
"Master, Thou hast well said." [4988] For He had affirmed the
resurrection, by describing the form [4989] thereof in opposition to the
opinion of the Sadducees. Now, He did not reject the attestation of those
who had assumed His answer to bear this meaning. If, however, the Scribes
thought Christ was David's Son, whereas (David) himself calls Him Lord,
[4990] what relation has this to Christ? David did not literally confute
[4991] an error of the Scribes, yet David asserted the honour of Christ,
when he more prominently affirmed that He was his Lord than his Son,'an
attribute which was hardly suitable to the destroyer of the Creator. But how
consistent is the interpretation on our side of the question! For He, who
had been a little while ago invoked by the blind man as "the Son of
David," [4992] then made no remark on the subject, not having the
Scribes in His presence; whereas He now purposely moots the point before
them, and that of His own accord, [4993] in order that He might show
Himself whom the Mind man, following the doctrine of the Scribes, had simply
declared to be the Son of David, to be also his Lord. He thus honoured the
blind man's faith which had acknowledged His Sonship to David; but at the
same time He struck a blow at the tradition of the Scribes, which prevented
them from knowing that He was also (David's) Lord. Whatever had relation to
the glory of the Creator's Christ, no other would thus guard and
maintain [4994] but Himself the Creator's Christ.
Chapter XXXIX. Concerning Those Who Come in the Name of Christ. The Terrible
Signs of His Coming. He Whose Coming is So Grandly Described Both in the Old
Testament and the New Testament, is None Other Than the Christ of the
Creator. This Proof Enhanced by the Parable of the Fig-Tree and All the
Trees. Parallel Passages of Prophecy.
As touching the propriety of His names, it has already been seen [4995]
that both of them" [4996] are suitable to Him who was the first both to
announce His Christ to mankind, and to give Him the further name [4997]
of Jesus. The impudence, therefore, of Marcion's Christ will be evident,
when he says that many will come in his name, whereas this name does not at
all belong to him, since he is not the Christ and Jesus of the Creator, to
whom these names do properly appertain; and more especially when he
prohibits those to be received whose very equal in imposture he is, inasmuch
as he (equally with them [4998] ) comes in a name which belongs to
another'unless it was his business to warn off from a mendaciously assumed
name the disciples (of One) who, by reason of His name being properly given
to Him, possessed also the verity thereof. But when "they shall by and by
come and say, I am Christ," [4999] they will be received by you, who
have already received one altogether like them. [5000] Christ, however,
comes in His own name. What will you do, then, when He Himself comes who is
the very Proprietor of these names, the Creator's Christ and Jesus? Will you
reject Him? But how iniquitous, how unjust and disrespectful to the good
God, that you should not receive Him who comes in His own name, when you
have received another in His name! Now, let us see what are the signs which
He ascribes to the times. "Wars," I observe, "and kingdom against kingdom,
and nation against nation, and pestilence, and famines, and earthquakes, and
fearful sights, and great signs from heaven" [5001] 'all which things
are suitable for a severe and terrible God. Now, when He goes on to say that
"all these things must needs come to pass," [5002] what does He
represent Himself to be? The Destroyer, or the Defender of the Creator? For
He affirms thai these appointments of His must fully come to pass; but
surely as the good God, He would have frustrated rather than advanced events
so sad and terrible, if they had not been His own (decrees). "But before all
these," He foretells that persecutions and sufferings were to come upon
them, which indeed were "to turn for a testimony to them," and for their
salvation. [5003] Hear what is predicted in Zechariah: "The Lord of
hosts [5004] shall protect them; and they shall devour them, and subdue
them with sling-stones; and they shall drink their blood like wine, and they
shall fill the bowls as it were of the altar. And the Lord shall save them
in that day, even His people, like sheep; because as sacred stones they
roll," [5005] etc. And that you may not suppose that these predictions
refer to such sufferings as await them from so many wars with strangers,
[5006] consider the nature (of the sufferings). In a prophecy of wars which
were to be waged with legitimate arms, no one would think of enumerating
stones as weapons, which are better known in popular crowds and unarmed
tumults. Nobody measures the copious streams of blood which flow in war by
bowlfuls, nor limits it to what is shed upon a single altar. No one gives
the name of sheep to those who fall in battle with arms in hand, and while
repelling force with force, but only to those who are slain, yielding
themselves up in their own place of duty and with patience, rather than
fighting in self-defence. In short, as he says, "they roll as sacred
stones," and not like soldiers fight. Stones are they, even foundation
stones, upon which we are ourselves edified'"built," as St. Paul says, "upon
the foundation of the apostles," [5007] who, like "consecrated
stones," were rolled up and down exposed to the attack of all men. And
therefore in this passage He forbids men "to meditate before what they
answer" when brought before tribunals, [5008] even as once He suggested
to Balaam the message which he had not thought of, [5009] nay, contrary
to what he had thought; and promised "a mouth" to Moses, when he pleaded in
excuse the slowness of his speech, [5010] and that wisdom which, by
Isaiah, He showed to be irresistible: "One shall say, I am the Lord's, and
shall call himself by the name of Jacob, and another shall subscribe himself
by the name of lsræl." [5011] Now, what plea is wiser and more
irresistible than the simple and open" [5012] confession made in a
martyr's cause, who "prevails with God"'which is what "Isreal" means?
[5013] Now, one cannot wonder that He forbade "premeditation," who actually
Himself received from the Father the ability of uttering words in season:
"The Lord hath given to me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how
to speak a word in season (to him that is weary); " [5014] except that
Marcion introduces to us a Christ who is not subject to the Father. That
persecutions from one's nearest friends are predicted, and calumny out of
hatred to His name, [5015] I need not again refer to. But "by
patience," [5016] says He, "ye shall yourselves be saved." [5017] Of
this very patience the Psalm says, "The patient endurance of the just shall
not perish for ever; " [5018] because it is said in another Psalm,
"Precious (in the sight of the Lord) is the death of the just"'arising, no
doubt, out of their patient endurance, so that Zechariah declares: "A crown
shall be to them that endure." [5019] But that you may not boldly
contend that it was as announcers of another god that the apostles were
persecuted by the Jews, remember that even the prophets suffered the same
treatment of the Jews, and that they were not the heralds of any other god
than the Creator. Then, having shown what was to be the period of the
destruction, even "when Jerusalem should begin to be compassed with
armies," [5020] He described the signs of the end of all things:
"portents in the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and upon the earth
distress of nations in perplexity'like the sea roaring'by reason of their
expectation of the evils which are coming on the earth." [5021]
That "the very powers also of heaven have to be shaken," [5022] you may
find in Joel: "And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth'blood
and fire, and pillars of smoke; the sun shall be turned into darkness, and
the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord
come." [5023] In Habakkuk also you have this statement: "With rivers
shall the earth be cleaved; the nations shall see thee, and be in pangs.
Thou shalt disperse the waters with thy step; the deep uttered its voice;
the height of its fear was raised; [5024] the sun and the moon stood
still in their course; into light shall thy coruscations go; and thy shield
shall be (like) the glittering of the lightning's flash; in thine anger thou
shalt grind the earth, and shalt thresh the nations in thy wrath."
[5025] There is thus an agreement, I apprehend, between the sayings of the
Lord and of the prophets touching the shaking of the earth, and the
elements, and the nations thereof. But what does the Lord say afterwards?
"And then shall they see the Son of man coming from the heavens with very
great power. And when these things shall come to pass, ye shall look up, and
raise your heads; for your redemption hath come near," that is, at the time
of the kingdom, of which the parable itself treats. [5026] "So likewise
ye, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of
God is nigh at hand." [5027] This will be the great day of the Lord, and
of the glorious coming of the Son of man from heaven, of which Daniel wrote:
"Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven," [5028]
etc. "And there was given unto Him the kingly power," [5029] which (in
the parable) "He went away into a far country to receive for Himself,"
leaving money to His servants wherewithal to trade and get increase
[5030] 'even (that universal kingdom of) all nations, which in the Psalm the
Father had promised to give to Him: Ask of me, and I will give Thee the
heathen for Thine inheritance." [5031] "And all that glory shall serve
Him; His dominion shall be an everlasting one, which shall not be taker from
Him, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed," [5032] because
in it "men shall not die, neither shall they marry, but be like the
angels." [5033] It is about the same advent of the Son of man and the
benefits thereof that we read in Habakkuk: "Thou wentest forth for the
salvation of Thy people, even to save Thine anointed ones, [5034] 'in
other words, those who shall look up and lift their heads, being redeemed in
the time of His kingdom. Since, therefore, these descriptions of the
promises, on the one hand, agree together, as do also those of the great
catastrophes, on the other'both in the predictions of the prophets and the
declarations of the Lord, it will be impossible for you to interpose any
distinction between them, as if the catastrophes could be referred to the
Creator, as the terrible God, being such as the good god (of Marcion) ought
not to permit, much less expect'whilst the promises should be ascribed to
the good god, being such as the Creator, in His ignorance of the said god,
could not have predicted. If, however, He did predict these promises as His
own, since they differ in no respect from the promises of Christ, He will be
a match in the freeness of His gifts with the good god himself; and
evidently no more will have been promised by your Christ than by my Son of
man. (If you examine) the whole passage of this Gospel Scripture, from the
inquiry of the disciples [5035] down to the parable of the fig-tree
[5036] you will find the sense in its connection suit in every point the Son
of man, so that it consistently ascribes to Him both the sorrows and the
joys, and the catastrophes and the promises; nor can you separate them from
Him in either respect. For as much, then, as there is but one Son of man
whose advent is placed between the two issues of catastrophe and promise, it
must needs follow that to that one Son of man belong both the judgments upon
the nations, and the prayers of the saints. He who thus comes in midway so
as to be common to both issues, will terminate one of them by inflicting
judgment on the nations at His coming; and will at the same time commence
the other by fulfilling the prayers of His saints: so that if (on the one
hand) you grant that the coming of the Son of man is (the advent) of my
Christ, then, when you ascribe to Him the infliction of the judgments which
precede His appearance, you are compelled also to assign to Him the
blessings which issue from the same. If (on the other hand) you will have it
that it is the coming of your Christ, then, when you ascribe to him the
blessings which are to be the result of his advent, you are obliged to
impute to him likewise the infliction of the evils which precede his
appearance. For the evils which precede, and the blessings which immediately
follow, the coming of the Son of man, are both alike indissolubly connected
with that event. Consider, therefore, which of the two Christs you choose to
place in the person of the Son of man, to whom you may refer the execution
of the two dispensations. You make either the Creator a most beneficent God,
or else your own god terrible in his nature! Reflect, in short, on the
picture presented in the parable: "Behold the fig-tree, and all the trees;
when they produce their fruit, men know that summer is at hand. So likewise
ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God
is very near." [5037] Now, if the fructification of the common trees
[5038] be an antecedent sign of the approach of summer, so in like manner do
the great conflicts of the world indicate the arrival of that kingdom which
they precede. But every sign is His, to whom belong the thing of which it is
the sign; and to everything is appointed its sign by Him to whom the thing
belongs. If, therefore, these tribulations are the signs of the kingdom,
just as the maturity of the trees is of the summer, it follows that the
kingdom is the Creator's to whom are ascribed the tribulations which are the
signs of the kingdom. Since the beneficent Deity had premised that these
things must needs come to pass, although so terrible and dreadful, as they
had been predicted by the law and the prophets, therefore He did not destroy
the law and the prophets, when He affirmed that what had been foretold
therein must be certainly fulfilled. He further declares, "that heaven and
earth shall not pass away till all things be fulfilled." [5039] What
things, pray, are these? Are they the things which the Creator made? Then
the elements will tractably endure the accomplishment of their Maker's
dispensation. If, however, they emanate from your excellent god, I much
doubt whether [5040] the heaven and earth will peaceably allow the
completion of things which their Creator's enemy has determined! If the
Creator quietly submits to this, then He is no "jealous God." But let heaven
and earth pass away, since their Lord has so determined; only let His word
remain for evermore! And so Isaiah predicted that it should. [5041] Let
the disciples also be warned, "lest their hearts be overcharged with
surfeiting and drunkenness, and cares of this world; and so that day come
upon them unawares, like a snare " [5042] 'if indeed they should forget
God amidst the abundance and occupation of the world. Like this will be
found the admonition of Moses,'so that He who delivers from "the snare" of
that day is none other than He who so long before addressed to men the same
admonition [5043] Some places there were in Jerusalem where to teach;
other places outside Jerusalem whither to retire [5044] '"in the
day-time He was teaching in the temple; "just as He had foretold by Hosea:
"In my house did they find me, and there did I speak with them." [5045]
"But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives." For thus had Zechariah
pointed out: "And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of
Olives." [5046] Fit hours for an audience there also were. "Early in the
morning" [5047] must they resort to Him, who (having said by Isaiah,
"The Lord giveth me the tongue of the learned") added, "He hath appointed me
the morning, and hath also given me an ear to hear." [5048] Now if this
is to destroy the prophets, [5049] what will it be to fulfil them?
Chapter XL. How the Steps in the Passion of the Saviour Were Predetermined
in Prophecy. The Passover. The Treachery of Judas. The Institution of the
Lord's Supper. The Docetic Error of Marcion Confuted by the Body and the
Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.
In like manner does He also know the very time it behoved Him to suffer,
since the law prefigures His passion. Accordingly, of all the festal days of
the Jews He chose the passover. [5050] In this Moses had declared that
there was a sacred mystery: [5051] "It is the Lord's passover."
[5052] How earnestly, therefore, does He manifest the bent of His soul:
"With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I
suffer." [5053] What a destroyer of the law was this, who actually
longed to keep its passover! Could it be that He was so fond of Jewish
lamb? [5054] But was it not because He had to be "led like a lamb to the
slaughter; and because, as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so was He
not to open His mouth," [5055] that He so profoundly wished to
accomplish the symbol of His own redeeming blood? He might also have been
betrayed by any stranger, did I not find that even here too He fulfilled a
Psalm: "He who did eat bread with me hath lifted up [5056] his heel
against me." [5057] And without a price might He have been betrayed. For
what need of a traitor was there in the case of one who offered Himself to
the people openly, and might quite as easily have been captured by force as
taken by treachery? This might no doubt have been well enough for another
Christ, but would not have been suitable in One who was accomplishing
prophecies. For it was written, "The righteous one did they sell for
silver." [5058] The very amount and the destination [5059] of the
money, which on Judas' remorse was recalled from its first purpose of a
fee, [5060] and appropriated to the purchase of a potter's field, as
narrated in the Gospel of Matthew, were clearly foretold by Jeremiah:
[5061] "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was
valued [5062] and gave them for the potter's field." When He so
earnestly expressed His desire to eat the passover, He considered it His own
feast; for it would have been unworthy of God to desire to partake of what
was not His own. Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples,
He made it His own body, by saying, "This is my body," [5063] that is,
the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless
there were first a veritable body. [5064] An empty thing, or phantom, is
incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say, ) He pretended
the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it
follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well
to the support of Marcion's theory of a phantom body, [5065] that bread
should have been crucified!But why call His body bread, and not rather (some
other edible thing, say) a melon, [5066] which Marcion must have had in
lieu of a heart! He did not understand how ancient was this figure of the
body of Christ, who said Himself by Jeremiah: "I was like a lamb or an ox
that is brought to the slaughter, and I knew not that [5067] they
devised a device against me, saying, Let us cast the tree upon His
bread," [5068] which means, of course, the cross upon His body. And
thus, casting light, as He always did, upon the ancient prophecies,
[5069] He declared plainly enough what He meant by the bread, when He called
the bread His own body. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the
new testament to be sealed "in His blood," [5070] affirms the reality of
His body. For no blood can belong to a body which is not a body of flesh. If
any sort of body were presented to our view, which is not one of flesh, not
being fleshly, it would not possess blood. Thus, from the evidence of the
flesh, we get a proof of the body, and a proof of the flesh from the
evidence of the blood. In order, however, that you may discover how
anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, "Who
is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so
glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments
red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full
winepress? " [5071] The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He
were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as
He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh
under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading
and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend
reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly
still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of
Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even
then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, [5072] saying,
"He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes"
[5073] 'in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and
His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who
then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.
Chapter XLI. The Woe Pronounced on the Traitor a Judicial Act, Which
Disproves Christ to Be Such as Marcion Would Have Him to Be. Christ's
Conduct Before the Council Explained. Christ Even Then Directs the Minds of
His Judges to the Prophetic Evidences of His Own Mission. The Moral
Responsibility of These Men Asserted.
"Woe," says He, "to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed!" [5074]
Now it is certain that in this woe must be understood the imprecation and
threat of an angry and incensed Master, unless Judas was to escape with
impunity after so vast a sin. If he were meant to escape with impunity, the
"woe" was an idle word; if not, he was of course to be punished by Him
against whom he had committed the sin of treachery. Now, if He knowingly
permitted the man, whom He [5075] deliberately elected to be one of His
companions, to plunge into so great a crime, you must no longer use an
argument against the Creator in Adam's case, which may now recoil on your
own God: [5076] either that he was ignorant, and had no foresight to
hinder the future sinner; [5077] or that he was unable to hinder him,
even if he was ignorant; [5078] or else that he was unwilling, even if
he had the foreknowledge and the ability; and so deserved the stigma of
maliciousness, in having permitted the man of his own choice to perish in
his sin. I advise you therefore (willingly) to acknowledge the Creator in
that god of yours, rather than against your will to be assimilating your
excellent god to Him. For in the case of Peter, [5079] too, he gives you
proof that he is a jealous God, when he destined the apostle, after his
presumptuous protestations of zeal, to a flat denial of him, rather than
prevent his fall. [5080] The Christ of the prophets was destined,
moreover, to be betrayed with a kiss, [5081] for He was the Son indeed
of Him who was "honoured with the lips" by the people. [5082] When led
before the council, He is asked whether He is the Christ. [5083] Of what
Christ could the Jews have inquired [5084] but their own? Why,
therefore, did He not, even at that moment, declare to them the rival
(Christ)? You reply, In order that He might be able to suffer. In other
words, that this most excellent god might plunge men into crime, whom he was
still keeping in ignorance. But even if he had told them, he would yet have
to suffer. For he said, "If I tell you, ye will not believe." [5085] And
refusing to believe, they would have continued to insist on his death. And
would he not even more probably still have had to suffer, if had announced
himself as sent by the rival god, and as being, therefore, the enemy of the
Creator? It was not, then, in order that He might suffer, that He at that
critical moment refrained from proclaiming [5086] Himself the other
Christ, but because they wanted to extort a confession from His mouth, which
they did not mean to believe even if He had given it to them, whereas it was
their bounden duty to have acknowledged Him in consequence of His works,
which were fulfilling their Scriptures. It was thus plainly His course to
keep Himself at that moment unrevealed, [5087] because a spontaneous
recognition was due to Him. But yet for all this, He with a solemn
gesture [5088] says, "Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right
hand of the power of God." [5089] For it was on the authority of the
prophecy of Daniel that He intimated to them that He was "the Son of
man," [5090] and of David's Psalm, that He would "sit at the right hand
of God." [5091] Accordingly, after He had said this, and so suggested a
comparison of the Scripture, a ray of light did seem to show them whom He
would have them understand Him to be; for they say: "Art thou then the Son
of God? " [5092] Of what God, but of Him whom alone they knew? Of what
God but of Him whom they remembered in the Psalm as having said to His Son,
"Sit Thou on my right hand? "Then He answered, "Ye say that I am; "
[5093] as if He meant: It is ye who say this'not I. But at the same time He
allowed Himself to be all that they had said, in this their second
question. [5094] By what means, however, are you going to prove to us
that they pronounced the sentence "Ergo tu filius Dei es" interrogatively,
and not affirmatively? [5095] Just as, (on the one hand, ) because He
had shown them in an indirect manner, [5096] by passages of Scripture,
that they ought to regard Him as the Son of God, they therefore meant their
own words, "Thou art then the Son of God," to be taken in a like (indirect)
sense, [5097] as much as to say, "You do not wish to say this of
yourself plainly, [5098] so, (on the other hand, ) He likewise answered
them, "Ye say that I am," in a sense equally free from doubt, even
affirmatively; [5099] and so completely was His statement to this
effect, that they insisted on accepting that sense which His statement
indicated. [5100]
Chapter XLII. Other Incidents of the Passion Minutely Compared with
Prophecy. Pilate and Herod. Barabbas Preferred to Jesus. Details of the
Crucifixion. The Earthquake and the MID-Day Darkness. All Wonderfully
Foretold in the Scriptures of the Creator. Christ's Giving Up the Ghost No
Evidence of Marcion's Docetic Opinions. In His Sepulture There is a
Refutation Thereof.
For when He was brought before Pilate, they proceeded to urge Him with the
serious charge [5101] , of declaring Himself to be Christ the King;
[5102] that is, undoubtedly, as the Son of God, who was to sit at God's
right hand. They would, however, have burdened Him [5103] with some
other title, if they had been uncertain whether He had called Himself the
Son of God'if He had not pronounced the words, "Ye say that I am," so as (to
admit) that He was that which they said He was. Likewise, when Pirate asked
Him, "Art thou Christ (the King)? "He answered, as He had before (to the
Jewish council) [5104] "Thou sayest that I am" [5105] in order that
He might not seem to have been driven by a fear of his power to give him a
fuller answer. "And so the Lord i hath stood on His trial." [5106] And
he placed His people on their trial. The Lord Himself comes to a trial with
"the elders and rulers of the people," as Isaiah predicted. [5107] And
then He fulfilled all that had been written of His passion. At that time
"the heathen raged, and the people imagined vain things; the kings of the
earth set themselves, and the rulers gathered themselves together against
the Lord and against His Christ." [5108] The heathen were Pilate and the
Romans; the people were the tribes of Isreal; the kings were represented in
Herod, and the rulers in the chief priests. When, indeed, He was sent to
Herod gratuitously [5109] by Pilate, [5110] the words of Hosea were
accomplished, for he had prophesied of Christ: "And they shall carry Him
bound as a present to the king." [5111] Herod was "exceeding glad" when
he saw Jesus, but he heard not a word from Him. [5112] For, "as a lamb
before the shearer is dumb, so He opened not His mouth," [5113] because
"the Lord had given to Him a disciplined tongue, that he might know how and
when it behoved Him to speak" [5114] 'even that "tongue which clove to
His jaws," as the Psalm [5115] said it should, through His not speaking.
Then Barabbas, the most abandoned criminal, is released, as if he were the
innocent man; while the most righteous Christ is delivered to be put to
death, as if he were the murderer. [5116] Moreover two malefactors are
crucified around Him, in order that He might be reckoned amongst the
transgressors. [5117] Although His raiment was, without doubt, parted
among the soldiers, and partly distributed by lot, yet Marcion has erased it
all (from his Gospel), [5118] for he had his eye upon the Psalm: "They
parted my garments amongst them, and cast lots upon my vesture." [5119]
You may as well take away the cross itself! But even then the Psalm is not
silent concerning it: "They pierced my hands and my feet." [5120]
Indeed, the details of the whole event are therein read: "Dogs compassed me
about; the assembly of the wicked enclosed me around. All that looked upon
me laughed me to scorn; they did shoot out their lips and shake their heads,
(saying, ) He hoped in God, let Him deliver Him." [5121] Of what use now
is (your tampering with) the testimony of His garments? If you take it as a
booty for your false Christ, still all the Psalm (compensates) the vesture
of Christ. [5122] But, behold, the very elements are shaken. For their
Lord was suffering. If, however, it was their enemy to whom all this injury
was done, the heaven would have gleamed with light, the sun would have been
even more radiant, and the day would have prolonged its course [5123]
'gladly gazing at Marcion's Christ suspended on his gibbet! These proofs
[5124] would still have been suitable for me, even if they had not been the
subject of prophecy. Isaiah says: "I will clothe the heavens with
blackness." [5125] This will be the day, concerning which Amos also
writes: And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord, that the sun
shall go down at noon and the earth shall be dark in the clear day."
[5126] (At noon) [5127] the veil of. the temple was rent" [5128] by
the escape of the cherubim, [5129] which "left the daughter of Sion as a
cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers." [5130] With
what constancy has He also, in Psalms 30., laboured to present to us the
very Christ! He calls with a loud voice to the Father, "Into Thine hands I
commend my spirit," [5131] that even when dying He might expend His last
breath in fulfilling the prophets. Having said this, He gave up the
ghost." [5132] Who? Did the spirit [5133] give itself up; or the
flesh the spirit? But the spirit could not have breathed itself out. That
which breathes is one thing, that which is breathed is another. If the
spirit is breathed it must needs be breathed by another. If, however, there
had been nothing there but spirit, it would be said to have departed rather
than expired. [5134] What, however, breathes out spirit but the flesh,
which both breathes the spirit whilst it has it, and breathes it out when it
loses it? Indeed, if it was not flesh (upon the cross), but a phantom
[5135] of flesh (and [5136] a phantom is but spirit, and [5137] so
the spirit breathed its own self out, and departed as it did so), no doubt
the phantom departed, when the spirit which was the phantom departed: and so
the phantom and the spirit disappeared together, and were nowhere to be
seen. [5138] Nothing therefore remained upon the cross, nothing hung
there, after "the giving up of the ghost; " [5139] there was nothing to
beg of Pilate, nothing to take down from the cross, nothing to wrap in the
linen, nothing to lay in the new sepulchre. [5140] Still it was not
nothing [5141] that was there. What was there, then? If a phantom Christ
was yet there. If Christ had departed, He had taken away the phantom also.
The only shift left to the impudence of the heretics, is to admit that what
remained there was the phantom of a phantom! But what if Joseph knew that it
was a body which he treated with so much piety? [5142] That same Joseph
"who had not consented" with the Jews in their crime? [5143] The "happy
man who walked not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of
sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful." [5144]
Chapter XLIII. Conclusions. Jesus as the Christ of the Creator Proved from
the Events of the Last Chapter of St. Luke. The Pious Women at the
Sepulchre. The Angels at the Resurrection. The Manifold Appearances of
Christ After the Resurrection. His Mission of the Apostles Amongst All
Nations. All Shown to Be in Accordance with the Wisdom of the Almighty
Father, as Indicated in Prophecy. The Body of Christ After Death No Mere
Phantom. Marcion's Manipulation of the Gospel on This Point.
It was very meet that the man who buried the Lord should thus be noticed in
prophecy, and thenceforth be "blessed; " [5145] since prophecy does not
omit the (pious) office of the women who resorted before day-break to the
sepulchre with the spices which they had prepared. [5146] For of this
incident it is said by Hosea: "To seek my face they will watch till
day-light, saying unto me, Come, and let us return to the Lord: for He hath
taken away, and He will heal us; He hath smitten, and He will bind us up;
after two days will He revive us: in the third day He will raise us up."
[5147] For who can refuse to believe that these words often revolved
[5148] in the thought of those women between the sorrow of that desertion
with which at present they seemed to themselves to have been smitten by the
Lord, and the hope of the resurrection itself, by which they rightly
supposed that all would be restored to them? But when "they found not the
body (of the Lord Jesus)," [5149] "His sepulture was removed from the
midst of them," [5150] according to the prophecy of Isaiah. "Two angels
however, appeared there." [5151] For just so many honorary
companions [5152] were required by the word of God, which usually
prescribes "two witnesses." [5153] Moreover, the women, returning from
the sepulchre, and from this vision of the angels, were foreseen by Isaiah,
when he says, "Come, ye women, who return from the vision; " [5154] that
is, "come," to report the resurrection of the Lord. It was well, however,
that the unbelief of the disciples was so persistent, in order that to the
last we might consistently maintain that Jesus revealed Himself to the
disciples as none other than the Christ of the prophets. For as two of them
were taking a walk, and when the Lord had joined their company, without its
appearing that it was He, and whilst He dissembled His knowledge of what had
just taken place, [5155] they say: "But we trusted that it had been He
which should have redeemed Isreal," [5156] 'meaning their own, that is,
the Creator's Christ. So far had He been from declaring Himself to them as
another Christ! They could not, however, deem Him to be the Christ of the
Creator; nor, if He was so deemed by them, could He have tolerated this
opinion concerning Himself, unless He were really He whom He was supposed to
be. Otherwise He would actually be the author of error, and the prevaricator
of truth, contrary to the character of the good; God. But at no time even
after His resurrection did He reveal Himself to them as any other than what,
on their own showing, they had always thought Him to be. He pointedly
[5157] reproached them: "O fools, and slow of heart in not believing that
which He spake unto you." [5158] By saying this, He proves that He does
not belong to the rival god, but to the same God. For the same thing was
said by the angels to the women: "Remember how He spake unto you when He was
yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered up, and be
crucified, and on the third day rise again." [5159] "Must be delivered
up; "and why, except that it was so written by God the Creator? He therefore
upbraided them, because they were offended solely at His passion, and
because they doubted of the truth of the resurrection which had been
reported to them by the women, whereby (they showed that) they had not
believed Him to have been the very same as they had thought Him to be.
Wishing, therefore, to be believed by them in this wise, He declared Himself
to be just what they had deemed Him to be'the Creator's Christ, the Redeemer
of lsræl. But as touching the reality of His body, what can be plainer? When
they were doubting whether He were not a phantom'nay, were supposing that He
was one'He says to them, "Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in
your hearts? See [5160] my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; for a
spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have." [5161] Now Marcion was
unwilling to expunge from his Gospel some statements which even made against
him'I suspect, on purpose, to have it in his power from the passages which
he did not suppress, when he could have done so, either to deny that he had
expunged anything, or else to justify his suppressions, if he made any. But
he spares only such passages as he can subvert quite as well by explaining
them away as by expunging them from the text. Thus, in the passage before
us, he would have the words, "A spirit hath not bones, as ye see me have,"
so transposed, as to mean, "A spirit, such as ye see me to be, hath not
bones; "that is to say, it is not the nature of a spirit to have bones. But
what need of so tortuous a construction, when He might have simply said, "A
spirit hath not bones, even as you observe that I have not? "Why, moreover,
does He offer His hands and His feet for their examination'limbs which
consist of bones'if He had no bones? Why, too, does He add, "Know that it is
I myself," [5162] when they had before known Him to be corporeal? Else,
if He were altogether a phantom, why did He upbraid them for supposing Him
to be a phantom? But whilst they still believed not, He asked them for some
meat, [5163] for the express purpose of showing them that He had
teeth. [5164]
And now, as I would venture to believe, [5165] we have accomplished our
undertaking. We have set forth Jesus Christ as none other than the Christ of
the Creator. Our proofs we have drawn from His doctrines, maxims, [5166]
affections, feelings, miracles, sufferings, and even resurrection'as
foretold by the prophets. [5167] Even to the last He taught us (the same
truth of His mission), when He sent forth His apostles to preach His gospel
"among all nations; " [5168] for He thus fulfilled the psalm: "Their
sound is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the
world." [5169] Marcion, I pity you; your labour has been in vain. For
the Jesus Christ who appears in your Gospel is mine.
Dr. Holmes' Note
Dr. Holmes appends the following as a note to the Fourth Book. (See cap. vi.
p 351)
The following statement, abridged from Dr. Lardner (The History of Heretics,
chap. x. secs. 35-40), may be useful to the reader, in reference to the
subject of the preceding Book: 'Marcion received but eleven books of the New
Testament, and these strangely curtailed and altered. He divided them into
two parts, which he called (the Gospel) and (the Apostolicon).
1.The former contained nothing more than a mutilated, and sometimes
interpolated, edition of St. Luke; the name of that evangelist, however, he
expunged from the beginning of his copy. Chaps. i. and ii. he rejected
entirely, and began at iii. 1, reading the opening verse thus: "In the xv.
year of Tiberius Cæsar, God descended into Capernaum, a city of Galilee."
2.According to Irenæus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, he rejected the
genealogy and baptism of Christ; whilst from Tertullian's statement (chap.
vii.) it seems likely that he connected what part of chap. iii.'vers. 1,
2'he chose to retain, with chap. iv. 31, at a leap.
3.He further eliminated the history of the temptation. That part of chap.
iv. which narrates Christ's going into the synagogue at Nazareth and reading
out of Isaiah he also rejected, and all afterwards to the end of ver. 30.
4.Epiphanius mentions sundry slight alterations in capp. v. 14, 24, vi.
5, 17. In chap. viii. 19 he expunged From Tertullian's remarks (chap. xix.), it would seem at first as if
Marcion had added to his Gospel that answer of our Saviour which we find
related by St. Matthew, chap. xii. 48: "Who is my mother, and who are my
brethren? "For he represents Marcion (as in De carne Christi, vii., he
represents other heretics, who deny the nativity) as making use of these
words for his favourite argument. But, after all, Marcion might use these
words against those who allowed the authenticity of Matthew's Gospel,
without inserting them in his own Gospel; or else Tertullian might quote
from memory, and think that to be in Luke which was only in Matthew'as he
has done at least in three instances. (Lardner refers two of these instances
to passages in chap. vii. of this Book iv., where Tertullian mentions, as
erasures from Luke, what really are found in Matthew v. 17 and xv. 24. The
third instance referred to by Lardner probably occurs at the end of chap.
ix. of this same Book iv., where Tertullian again mistakes Matt. v. 17 for a
passage of Luke, and charges Marcion with expunging it; curiously enough,
the mistake recurs in chap. xii of the same Book.) In Luke x. 21 Marcion
omitted the first and the words , that he might not
allow Christ to call His Father the Lord of earth, or of this world. The
second in this verse, not open to any inconvenience, he retained. In
chap. xi. 29 he omitted the last words concerning the sign of the prophet
Jonah; he also omitted all the 30th, 31st, and 32d; in ver. 42 he read
, 'calling, 'instead of
'judgment.' He rejected verses 49, 50, 51, because the passage related to
the prophets. He entirely omitted chap. xii. 6; whilst in ver. 8 he read
He seems to have left out all the 28th verse, and expunged from
verses 30 and 32, reading only . In ver. 38, instead of the words he read . In chap. xiii. he omitted the first five verses,
whilst in the 28th verse of the same Chapter, where we read, "When ye shall
see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of
God, and ye yourselves thrust out," he read (by altering, adding, and
transposing), "When ye shall see all the just in the kingdom of God, and you
yourselves cast out, and bound without, there shall be weeping and gnashing
of teeth." He likewise excluded all the remaining verses of this Chapter.
All chap. xv. after the 10th verse, in which is contained the parable of the
prodigal son, he eliminated from his Gospel. In xvii. 10 he left out all the
words after . He made many alterations in the story of the ten
lepers; he left out part of ver. 12, all of ver. 13, and altered ver. 14,
reading thus: "There met Him ten lepers; and He sent them away, saying, Show
yourselves to the priest; "after which he inserted a clause from chap. iv.
27: "There were many lepers in the days of Eliseus the prophet, but none of
them were cleansed, but Naaman the Syrian." In chap. xviii. 19 he added the
words , and in ver. 20 altered oidas, thou knowest, into the first
person. He entirely omitted verses 31-33, in which our blessed Saviour
declares that the things foretold by the prophets concerning His sufferings,
and death, and resurrection, should all be fulfilled. He expunged nineteen
verses out of chap. xix., from the end of ver. 27 to the beginning of ver.
47. In chap. xx. he omitted ten verses, from the end of ver. 8 to the end of
ver. 18. He rejected also verses 37 and 38, in which there is a reference to
Moses. Marcion also erased of chap. xxi. the first eighteen verses, as well
as verses 21 and 22, on account of this clause, "that all things which are
written may be fulfilled; "xx. 16 was left out by him, so also verses 35-37,
50, and 51 (and, adds Lardner, conjecturally, not herein following his
authority Epiphanius, also vers. 38 and 49). In chap. xxiii. 2, after the
words "perverting the nation," Marcion added, "and destroying the law and
the prophets; "and again, after "forbidding to give tribute unto Cæsar," he
added, "and perverting women and children." He also erased ver. 43. In chap.
xxiv. he omitted that part of the conference between our Saviour and the two
disciples going to Emmaus, which related to the prediction of His
sufferings, and which is contained in verses 26 and 27. These two verses he
omitted, and changed the words at the end of ver. 25, . Such are the alterations, according to
Epiphanius, which Marcion made in his Gospel from St. Luke. Tertullian says
(in the 4th Chapter of the preceding Book) that Marcion erased the passage
which gives an account of the parting of the raiment of our Saviour among
the soldiers. But the reason he assigns for the erasure''respiciens Psalmi
prophetiam''shows that in this, as well as in the few other instances which
we have already named, where Tertullian has charged Marcion with so altering
passages, his memory deceived him into mistaking Matthew for Luke, for the
reference to the passage in the Psalm is only given by St. Matthew xxvii.
35.
5.On an impartial review of these alterations, some seem to be but
slight; others might be nothing but various readings; but others, again, are
undoubtedly designed perversions. There were, however, passages enough left
unaltered and unexpunged by the Marcionites, to establish the reality of the
flesh and blood of Christ, and to prove that the God of the Jews was the
Father of Christ, and of perfect goodness as well as justice. Tertullian,
indeed, observes (chap. xliii.) that "Marcion purposely avoided erasing all
the passages which made against him, that he might with the greater
confidence deny having erased any at all, or at least that what he had
omitted was for very good reasons."
6.To show the unauthorized and unwarrantable character of these
alterations, omissions, additions, and corruptions, the Catholic Christians
asserted that their copies of St. Luke's Gospel were more ancient than
Marcion's (so Tertullian in chap. iii. and iv. of this Book iv.); and they
maintained also the genuineness and integrity of the unadulterated Gospel,
in opposition to that which had been curtailed and altered by him (chap.
v.).
Elucidations.
I
Deadly Sins, cap. IX., p. 356.
To maintain a modern and wholly uncatholic system of Penitence, the
schoolmen invented a technical scheme of sins mortal and sins venial, which
must not be read into the Fathers, who had no such technicalities in mind.
By "deadly sins" they meant all such as St. John recognizes (1 John 5:16-17)
and none other; that is to say sins of surprise and infirmity, sins having
in them no malice or wilful disobedience, such as an impatient word, or a
momentary neglect of duty. Should a dying man commit a deliberate sin and
then expire, even after a life of love and obedience, who could fail to
recognize the fearful nature of such an end? But, should his last word be
one of infirmity and weakness, censurable but not involving wilful
disobedience, surely we may consider it as provided for by the comfortable
words'"there is a sin not unto death." Yet "all unrighteousness is sin," and
the Fathers held that all sin should be repented of and confessed before
God; because all sin when it is finished bringeth forth death."
In St. Augustine's time, when moral theology became systematized in the
West, by his mighty genius and influence, the following were recognized
degrees of guilt: (1.) Sins deserving excommunication. (2.) Sins requiring
to be confessed to the brother offended in order to God's forgiveness, and
(3.) sins covered by God's gracious covenant, when daily confessed in the
Lord's Prayer, in public, or in private. And this classification was
professedly based on Holy Scripture. Thus: (1.) on the text'"To deliver such
an one unto Satan, etc." (1 Corinthians 5:4-5). (2.) On the text'( Matthew
18:15), "Confess your sins one to another, brethren" (James 5:16), and (3.)
on the text'( Matthew 6:12) "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them
that trespass against us." This last St. Augustine [5170] regards as the
"daily medication" of our ordinary life, habitual penitence and faith and
the baptismal covenant being presupposed.
The modern Trent theology has vastly amplified the scholastic teachings and
refinements, and the elevation of Liguori to the rank of a church-doctor has
virtually made the whole system de fide with the Latins. The Easterns know
nothing of this modern and uncatholic teaching, and it is important that the
student of the Ante-Nicene Patrologia should be on his guard against the
novel meanings which the Trent theology imposes upon orthodox (Nicene)
language. The long ages during which Eastern orthodoxy has been obscured by
the sufferings and consequent ignorance of the Greeks, have indeed tainted
their doctrinal and practical system, but it still subsists in amazing
contrast with Latin impurity. See, "On the indulgences," of the latter, the
Orthodox Theology of Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitza," Tom. II. p. 541, Paris,
1860.
II
Reservation of Baptism, cap. xi., note, p. 361.
It is important, here, to observe the heretical origin of a sinful
superstition which becomes conspicuous in the history of Constantine. If the
church tolerated it in his case, it was doubtless in view of this
extraordinary instance of one, who was a heathen still, at heart, becoming a
guardian and protector of the persecuted Faithful. It is probable that he
was regarded as a Cyrus or a Nebuchadnezzar whom God had raised up to
protect and to deliver His people; who was to be honoured and obeyed as
"God's minister" (Romans 13:4) in so far, and for this purpose. The church
was scrupulous and he was superstitious; it would have been difficult to
discipline him and worse not to discipline him. Tacitly, therefore, he was
treated as a catechumen, but was not formally admitted even to that class.
He permitted Heathenism, and while he did so, how could he be received as a
Christian? The Christian church never became responsible for his life and
character, but strove to reform him and to prepare him for a true confession
of Christ at some "convenient season." In this, there seems to have been a
great fault somewhere, chargeable perhaps to Eusebius or to some other
Christian counsellor; but, when could any one say'"the emperor is sincere
and humble and penitent and ought now to be received into the church." It
was a political conversion, and as such was accepted, and Constantine was a
heathen till near his death. As to his final penitence and acceptance'"
Forbear to judge." 2 Kings 10:29-31 Concerning his baptism, see Eusebius, de
Vita Const. iv. 61, see also, Mosheim's elaborate and candid views of the
whole subject: First Three Centuries, Vol. II. 460-471.
III
Peter, cap. xiii. p. 365.
The great Gallican, Launoy, doctor of the Sorbonne, has proved that the
Fathers understand the Rock to be Christ, while, only rarely, and that
rhetorically, not dogmatically, St. Peter is called a stone or a rock; a
usage to which neither Luther nor Calvin could object. Tertullian himself,
when he speaks dogmatically, is in accord with other Fathers, and gives no
countenance to the modern doctrine of Rome. See La PapautT, of the AbbT
GuettTe, pp. 42-61. It is important, also, to note that the primacy of St.
Peter, more or less, whatever it may have been in the mind of the Fathers,
was wholly personal, in their view.Of the fables which make it hereditary
and a purtenance of Rome they knew nothing.
IV
Loans, cap. xvii. p. 372.
The whole subject of usury, in what it consists, etc., deserves to receive
more attention than it does in our times, when nominal Christians are
steeped in the sin of money-traffic to the injury of neighbours, on a scale
truly gigantic. God's word clearly rebukes this sin. So does the Council of
Nice. [5171] Now by what is the sin defined? Certainly by the spirit of the
Gospel; but, is it also, by the letter? A sophistical casuistry which
maintains the letter, and then sophisticates and refines so as to explain it
all away, is the product of school divinity and of modern Jesuitry; but even
the great Bossuet is its apologist. (See his TraitT de l' Usure. opp. ix. p.
49, etc., ed. Paris, 1846.) But for an exhaustive review of the whole
matter, I ask attention to Huet, Le RfgneSocial, etc. (Paris, 1853) pp.
334-345.
V
The Baptist, cap. xviii. p. 375.
The interpretation of Tertullian, however, has the all-important merit
(which Bacon and Hooker recognize as cardinal) of flowing from the Scripture
without squeezing. (1.) Our Lord sent the message to John as a personal and
tender assurance to him. (2.) The story illustrates the decrease of which
the Baptist had spoken prophetically (John 3:30); and (3.) it sustains the
great principle that Christ alone is without sin, this being the one fault
recorded of the Baptist, otherwise a singular instance of sinlessness. The
B. Virgin's fault (gently reproved by the Lord, John 2:4), seems in like
manner introduced on this principle of exhibiting the only sinless One, in
His Divine perfections as without spot. So even Joseph and Moses (Psalms
106:33, and Genesis 47:20) are shewn "to be but men." The policy of Joseph
has indeed been extravagantly censured.
VI
Harshness, cap. xix., note 6., p. 378. Also, cap. xxvi. p. 393.
Tertullian seems with reflect the early view of the church as to our Lord's
total abnegation of all filial relations with the Virgin, when He gave to
her St. John, instead of Himself, on the Cross. For this purpose He had made
him the beloved disciple and doubtless charged him with all the duties with
which he was to be clothed. Thus He fulfilled the figurative law of His
priesthood, as given by Moses, (Deuteronomy 33:9) and crucified himself,
from the beginning, according to his own Law (Luke 14:26-27) which he
identifies with the Cross, here and also in Matthew 10:37-38 These then are
the steps of His own holy example, illustrating His own precept, for
doubtless, as "the Son of man," His filial love was superlative and made the
sacrifice the sharper: (1.) He taught Joseph that He had no earthly father,
when he said'"Wist ye not that I must be in my Father's house," (Luke 3:49);
but, having established this fact, he then became "subject" to both his
parents, till His public ministry began. (2.) At this time, He seems to have
admonished His mother, that He could not recognize her authority any longer,
(John 2:4) having now entered upon His work as the Son of God. (3.)
Accordingly, He refused, thenceforth, to know her save only as one of His
redeemed, excepting her in nothing from this common work for all the Human
Race, (Matthew 12:48) in the passage which Tertullian so forcibly expounds.
(4.) Finally, when St. Mary draws near to the cross, apparently to claim the
final recognition of the previous understanding (John 2:4) to which the Lord
had referred her at Cana'He fulfils His last duty to her in giving her a son
instead of Himself, and thereafter (5) recognizes her no more; not even in
His messages after the Resurrection, nor when He met her with other
disciples. He rewards her, instead, with the infinite love He bears to all
His saints, and with the brightest rewards which are bestowed upon Faith. In
this consists her superlative excellence and her conspicuous glory among the
Redeemed (Luke 1:47-48) in Christ's account.
VII
Children, cap. xxiii. p. 386.
In this beautiful testimony of our author to the sanctity of marriage, and
the blessedness of its fruits, I see his austere spirit reflecting the
spirit of Christ so tenderly and so faithfully, in the love of children,
that I am warmly drawn to him. I cannot give him up to Montanism at this
period of his life and labours. Surely, he was as yet merely persuaded that
the prophetic charismata were not extinct, and that they had been received
by his Phrygian friends, although he may still have regarded them as
prophesying subject to all the infirmities which St. Paul attributes even to
persons elevated by spiritual gifts. (1 Corinthians 14) Why not recognize
him in all his merits, until his open and senile lapse is complete?
VIII
Hades, cap. xxxiv. p. 406.
Here again our author shews his unsettled view as to Sheol or Hades, on
which see Kaye, pp. 247-150. Here he distinguishes between the Inferi and
Abraham's bosom; but (in B. iii. cap. 24.) he has already, more aptly,
regarded the Inferi, or Hades, as the common receptacle of departed spirits,
where a "great gulf" indeed, separates between the two classes.
A caricature may sometimes illustrate characteristic features more
powerfully than a true portrait. The French call the highest gallery in
theatres, paradis; and I have sometimes explained it by the fact that the
modern drama originated in the monkish Mysteries, revived so profanely in
our own day. To reconcile the poor to a bad place they gave it the name of
Paradise, thus illustrating their Mediæval conceptions; for trickling down
from Tertullian his vivid notions seem to have suffused all Western theology
on this subject. Thus, then, one vast receptacle receives all the dead. The
pit, as we very appropriately call it in English, answers to the place of
lost spirits, where the rich man was in torments. Above, are ranged the
family of Abraham reclining, as it were, in their father's bosom, by turns.
Far above, under skylights, (for the old Mysteries were celebrated in the
day-time) is the Paradise, where the Martyrs see God, and are represented as
"under the altar" of heaven itself. Now, abandoning our grotesque
illustration, but using it for its topography, let us conceive of our own
globe, as having a world-wide concavity such as they imagined, from
literalizing the under-world of Sheol. In its depths is the Phylace (1 Peter
3:19) of "spirits in prison." In a higher region repose the blessed spirits
in "Abraham's bosom." Yet nearer to the ethereal vaults, are the martyrs in
Paradise, looking out into heavenly worlds. The immensity of the scale does
not interfere with the vision of spirits, nor with such communications as
Abraham holds with his lost son in the history of Dives and Lazarus. Here
indeed Science comes to our aid, for if the telephone permits such
conversations while we are in the flesh, we may at least imagine that the
subtile spirit can act in like manner, apart from such contrivances. Now, so
far as Tertullian is consistent with him self, I think these explanations
may clarify his words and references. The Eastern Theology is less
inconsistent and bears the marks alike of Plato and of Origen. But of this
hereafter. Of a place, such as the Mediæval Purgatory, affirmed as de fide
by the Trent creed, the Fathers knew nothing at all. See Vol. II. p. 490,
also 522, this Series.
Additional Note.
I
Passage not easy to identify, p. 390, note 14.
Easy enough, by the LXX. See Isaiah 63:3 . The first verse, referring to Edom, leads our author to
accentuate this point of Gentile ignorance.
Footnotes
[3464] [The remarks of Bishop Kaye on our author's Marcion are simply
invaluable, and the student cannot dispense with what is said more
particularly of this Book. See Kaye, pp. 450-480.]
[3465] Paraturam.
[3466] Provocamus ad. [Kaye, p. 469, refers to Schleiermacher's Critical
Essay on St. Luke and to a learned note of Mr. Andrews Norton of Harvard
(vol. iii. Appendix C.) for valuable remarks on Marcion's Gospel.]
[3467] Et, emphatic.
[3468] Dotem quandam.
[3469] [See cap. 2., infra.]
[3470] Patrocinaretur.
[3471] Proescriptive occurere. This law term (the Greek ) seems
to refer to the Church's "rule of faith" (praescriptio), which he might at
once put in against Marcion's heresy; only he prefers to refute him on his
own ground.
[3472] Atque adeo.
[3473] Apud Creatorem.
[3474] Olim.
[3475] Isa. ii. 3.
[3476] Isa. ii. 4.
[3477] Isa. ii. 4.
[3478] Isa. ii. 4, according to the Sept.
[3479] Ps. xix. 7.
[3480] T.'s version of Isa. x. 23. "Decisus Sermo" = "determined" of A.V.
[3481] Compendiatum.
[3482] Laciniosis.
[3483] Isa. xliii. 18, 19.
[3484] Novate novamen novum. Agricultural words.
[3485] Altered version of Jer. iv. 3,4.
[3486] Jer. xxxi. 31, 32, with slight change.
[3487] Isa. lv. 3.
[3488] Secundum Mariae censum. See Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical
Literature (third edition), in the article "Genealogy of Jesus Christ,"
where the translator of this work has largely given reasons for believing
that St. Luke in his genealogy, (chap. iii.) has traced the descent of the
Virgin Mary. To the authorities there given may be added this passage of
Tertullian, and a fuller one, Adversus Judaeos, ix., towards the end. [p.
164, supra.]
[3489] Isa. xi. i.
[3490] Mal. i. 10, 11.
[3491] To its former self.
[3492] Deut. xxxii. 39.
[3493] Isa. xlv. 7.
[3494] Recogitare.
[3495] Saltim.
[3496] Aemularum invicem.
[3497] Praejudicatum est.
[3498] In the external world.
[3499] Sacramenta.
[3500] Expeditam a nobis.
[3501] [The term was often employed for a written book, says
Kaye (p. 298), who refers to Book i. cap. i. supra, etc.]
[3502] Interim, perhaps "occasionally."
[3503] Praestructuram.
[3504] Instrumentum. [See cap. I, supra. And, above, note 9. Also in cap.
iii. and the Apology, (cap. xlvii.) he calls the Testaments, Digests, or
Sancta Digesta.]
[3505] By this canon of his, that the true Gospels must have for their
authors either apostles or companions and disciples of apostles, he shuts
out the false Gospels of the heretics, such as the Ebionites, Encratites,
Nazarenes, and Marcionites (Le Prieur).
[3506] Apostolicos, companions of the apostles associated in the
authorship.
[3507] He means, of course, St. Mark and St. Luke.
[3508] Adsistat illi.
[3509] Immo Christi.
[3510] Insinuant.
[3511] Instaurant
[3512] Isdem regulis.
[3513] Supplementum.
[3514] Viderit.
[3515] De capite.
[3516] Scilicet.
[3517] Evertere.
[3518] Congredi.
[3519] Dissimulamus.
[3520] Ex nostro.
[3521] Compare Irenaeus, Adversus Hoereses (Harvey), i. 25 and iii. 11;
also Epiphanius, Hoer. xlii. See also the editor's notes on the passages in
Irenaeus, who quotes other authorities also, and shows the particulars of
Marcion's mutilations. [Vol. I. 429.]
[3522] Quem caederet.
[3523] Posterior.
[3524] See Hieronymi, Catal. Scriptt. Eccles. 7, and Fabricius notes.
[3525] Instrumenti.
[3526] Gal. ii. 2.
[3527] [Dr. Holmes not uniformly, yet constantly inserts the prefix St.
before the name of Paul, and brackets it, greatly disfiguring the page. It
is not in our author's text, but I venture to dispense with the
ever-recurring brackets.]
[3528] This is Oehler's arrangement of the chapter, for the sake of the
sense. The former editions begin this third chapter with "Sedenim Marcion
nactus."
[3529] Aliud est si.
[3530] Sacramentum.
[3531] Habuit utique.
[3532] Paraturam.
[3533] Sed enim.
[3534] See Gal. ii. 13,14.
[3535] Compare what has been already said in book i. chap. 20, and below
in book v. chap. 3. See also Tertullian's treatise, De Praescript. Haeret.
chap. 23. [Kaye, p. 275.]
[3536] Statum.
[3537] Propria.
[3538] Variare convictum.
[3539] 1 Cor. ix. 22.
[3540] Integrum.
[3541] Inde nostra digesta.
[3542] Germanum instrumentum.
[3543] That is, according to the Marcionite cavil.
[3544] De titulo quoque.
[3545] Funis ducendus est.
[3546] Ratio.
[3547] Praejudicans.
[3548] Posterius revincetur. See De Praescriptione Haeret., which goes on
this principle of time. Compare especially chapters xxix. and xxx. [p. 256,
supra.]
[3549] Falsum.
[3550] Passione.
[3551] Materia.
[3552] De veritate materiam.
[3553] Saeculo post.
[3554] Interim.
[3555] Communio ejus.
[3556] De veritate disceptat.
[3557] Quod est secundum nos. [A note of T.'s position.]
[3558] Projectam. [Catholic = primitive.]
[3559] Praeferunt.
[3560] Penes nos.
[3561] Post futura.
[3562] Sane.
[3563] Eversi.
[3564] Nisi quod.
[3565] Matt. x. 24.
[3566] 1 Cor. xv. 11.
[3567] 1 Cor. xiv. 32.
[3568] Gal. i. 8.
[3569] [On this whole chpater and subject, consult Kaye, pp. 278-289.]
[3570] Sacrosanctum. Inviolate. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 384. Compare
De Proescript. Hoeret. c. 36, supra.
[3571] De proximo. Westcott renders this, "who are nearest to us." See
in loco.
[3572] etet. [N.B. Not Peter's See, then.]
[3573] Alumnas ecclesias. He seems to allude to the seven churches of
the Apocalypse.
[3574] [Not the Order of bishops (As we now speak) but of their
succession from St. John. Jaye, p. 219.]
[3575] Generositas.
[3576] De societate sacramenti. [i.e. Catholic Unity.]
[3577] Eadem.
[3578] Plane.
[3579] Censum.
[3580] Examine.
[3581] Favos. See Pliny, Nat. Hist. xi. 21.
[3582] Patrocinabitur. [Jones on the Canon, Vol. I. p. 66.]
[3583] Proinde per illas.
[3584] See Hieronymus, Catal. Scriptt. Eccles. c. 8.
[3585] Digestum.
[3586] See above, chap. 2. p. 347.
[3587] Capit videri.
[3588] Flagitandus.
[3589] Potius institerit.
[3590] The Gospels of the apostles John and Matthew, and perhaps Mark's
also, as being St. Peter's.
[3591] Dedicata cum.
[3592] Competit.
[3593] Confirmavit.
[3594] Denique.
[3595] Apostolica, i.e., evangelia.
[3596] That is, the canonical Gospel of St. Luke, as distinct from
Marcion's corruption of it. [N.B. "Us" = Catholics.]
[3597] Traducto.
[3598] Nunc'nunc.
[3599] Nunc'nunc.
[3600] Expedimur.
[3601] Fide, integrity.
[3602] Posteritati falsariorum praescribentem.
[3603] [Mark the authority of churches. He uses the plural'quod ab
omnibus.]
[3604] Certe, for certo.
[3605] Propterea.
[3606] Conveniemus.
[3607] Sic habebit.
[3608] This seems to be the sense of the words, "sub illa utique
conditione quaeex utraque parte condicta sit."
[3609] Scindit.
[3610] That is, between what is severe and judicial and punitive on one
side, that is, the Creator's; and what is mild, merciful, and forgiving, on
the other, that is, the Redeemer's side (Rigalt.).
[3611] Proescriptio.
[3612] Defigimus.
[3613] Creatoris pronunciandum.
[3614] Adjuverit.
[3615] Repraesentaverit.
[3616] Restauraverit virtutes ejus.
[3617] Sententias reformaverit.
[3618] Luke iii. 1 and iv. 31.
[3619] Utique.
[3620] Ecquid ordinis.See above, book i. chap. xxiii. [Comp. i. cap.
xix.]
[3621] This is here the force of viderit, our author's very favourite
idiom.
[3622] Apparere.
[3623] Sapit.
[3624] Impegerit.
[3625] Descendisse autem, dum fit, videtur et subit oculos. Probably
this bit of characteristic Latinity had better be rendered thus; "The
accomplishment of a descent, however, is, whilst happening, a visible
process, and one that meets the eye." Of the various readings, "dum sit,"
"dum it," "dum fit," we take the last with Oehler, only understanding the
clause as a parenthesis.
[3626] Suggestu.
[3627] Indignum.
[3628] Cui.
[3629] Ingressuro praedictationem.
[3630] This is the literal rendering of Tertullian's version of the
prophet's words, which occur chap. ix. 1, 2. The first clause closely
follows the LXX. (ed. Tisch.): This
curious passage is explained by Grotius (on Matt. iv. 14) as a mistake of
ancient copyists; as if what the Seventy had originally rendered , had been faultily written and
the latter had crept into the text with the marginal note , instead
of a repetition of . However this be, Tertullian's old Latin Bible had
the passage thus: "Hoc primum bibito, cito facito, regio Zabulon," etc.
[3631] Si utique.
[3632] Agnoscere.
[3633] Matt. v. 17.
[3634] Additum.
[3635] Matt. xv. 24.
[3636] Matt. xv. 26.
[3637] Praefert.
[3638] Tam repentinus.
[3639] Etsi passim adiretur.
[3640] Luke iv. 32.
[3641] Eloquium.
[3642] Facilius.
[3643] That is, the Creator.
[3644] Luke iv. 33, 34.
[3645] Si non Creatoris.
[3646] See above, in book iii. chap. xii., on the name Emmanuel; in
chap. xv., on the name Christ; and in chap. xvi., on the name Jesus.
[3647] Quid tale ediderit.
[3648] Ps. xvi. 10, and probably Dan. ix. 24.
[3649] Compare what was said above in book iii., chap. xvi. p. 335.
[3650] Exceperat.
[3651] Such is our author's reading of Luke i. 35.
[3652] Matt. i. 21.
[3653] Saevi.
[3654] Optimi.
[3655] Praemisimus.
[3656] De candida salutis: see Luke x. 20.
[3657] Aut cur.
[3658] Quidem.
[3659] Verisimiliorem statum.
[3660] Habebat.
[3661] Ipso nomine, or by His very name.
[3662] Nazaraeos; or, Nazarites. [Christians were still so called by the
Jews in the Third Century. Kaye, 446.]
[3663] Lam. iv. 7.
[3664] Descendit apud, see Luke iv. 16-30.
[3665] Emancipata.
[3666] Luke iv. 23.
[3667] Luke iv. 29.
[3668] Luke iv. 24.
[3669] A rebuke of Marcion's Docetic views of Christ.
[3670] Scilicet.
[3671] Per caliginem.
[3672] "For nothing can touch and be touched but a bodily substance."
This line from Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, i. 305, is again quoted by
Tertullian in his De Anima, chap. v. (Oehler).
[3673] Luke iv. 40.
[3674] See Isa. liii. 4.
[3675] Interim.
[3676] Luke iv. 41.
[3677] Proinde enim.
[3678] Illius erat.
[3679] Porro.
[3680] Propriae non habebat.
[3681] Prae timore.
[3682] See above, book i. chap. vii. xxvi. and xxvii.
[3683] Materiae
[3684] Cedebant.
[3685] Aut nunquid.
[3686] Necessitatem.
[3687] In aliam notam.
[3688] Luke iv. 42.
[3689] Sermonem. [Nota Bene, Acts vii. 38.]
[3690] Habitus loci.
[3691] The law was given in the wilderness of Sinai; see Ex. xix. 1.
[3692] Isa. xxv. 1.
[3693] Luke iv. 42, 43.
[3694] Argumentum processurum erat.
[3695] See Luke v. 1-11.
[3696] Jer. xvi. 16.
[3697] Attentius argumentatur.
[3698] Apud illum, i.e., the Creator.
[3699] Luke v. 12-14.
[3700] 1 Cor. v. 11.
[3701] Per carnalia, by material things.
[3702] Hoc nomine.
[3703] Aemulus.
[3704] Another allusion to Marcion's Docetic doctrine.
[3705] Materiam.
[3706] Unicum.
[3707] Ex., literally, "alone of." so Luke iv. 27.
[3708] Compare 2 Kings v. 9-14 with Luke iv. 27.
[3709] Facilius'rather than of Israelites.
[3710] Per Nationes. [Bishop Andrewes thus classifies the "Sins of the
Nations," as Tertullian's idea seems to have suggested: (1) Pride, Amorite;
(2) Envy, Hittite; (3) Wrath, Perizzite; (4) Gluttony, Gigashite; (5)
Lechery, Hivite; (6) Covetousness, Canaanite; (7) Sloth, Jebusite.]
[3711] Compare, in Simeon's song, Luke ii. 32, the designation, "A light
to lighten the Gentiles.
[3712] [See Elucidation I.]
[3713] Such seems to be the meaning of the obscure passage in the
original, "Syro facilius emundato significato per nationes emundationis in
Christo limine earum quae sepetem maculis, capitalium delictorum
inhorrerent, idoatria," etc. We have treated significato as one member of an
ablative absolute clause, from significatum, a noun occuring in Gloss. Lat.
Gr. synonymous with . Rigault, in a note on the passage, imputes the
obscurity to Tertullian's arguing on the Marcionite hypothesis. "Marcion,"
says he, "held that the prophets, like Elisha, belongs to the Creator, and
Christ to the good God. To magnify Christ's beneficence, he prominently
dwells on the alleged fact, that Christ, although a stranger to the
Creator's world, yet vouchsafed to do good in it. This vain conceit
Tertullian refutes from the Marcionite hypothesis itself. God the Creator,
said they, had found Himself incapable of cleansing this Israelite; but He
had more easily cleansed the Syrian. Christ, however, cleansed the
Israelite, and so showed himself the superior power. Tertullian denies both
positions."
[3714] Quasi per singulos titulos.
[3715] There was a mystic completeness in the number seven.
[3716] Dicabatur.
[3717] Sicut sermonem compendiatum, ita et lavacrum. In chap. i. of this
book, the N.T. is called the compendiatum. This illustrates the present
phrase.
[3718] Et hoc opponit.
[3719] Repraesentavit.
[3720] Quasi non audeam.
[3721] Vindicare in.
[3722] Plane. An ironical cavil from the Marcionite view.
[3723] Si tamen major.
[3724] Luke v. 14.
[3725] Utpote prophetatae
[3726] Emaculatum.
[3727] [i.e., the Great High Priest whose sacrifice is accepted of the
Father, for the sins of the whole world.]
[3728] Suscepturus: to carry or take away.
[3729] Legis indultor.
[3730] Advenit.
[3731] Atquin.
[3732] Formam.
[3733] Ab ea avertendos.
[3734] Aliquatenus.
[3735] Jam.
[3736] Supervacuus.
[3737] Gradu.
[3738] Ecce.
[3739] Sententiam.
[3740] Matt. v. 17.
[3741] Quod salvum est.
[3742] That is, you retain the passage in St. Luke, which relates the
act of honouring the law; but you reject that in St. Matthew, which contains
Christ's profession of honouring the law.
[3743] Nostros: or, perhaps, "our people,"'that is, the Catholics.
[3744] Luke v. 16-26.
[3745] Isa. xxxv. 2.
[3746] Isa. xxxv. 3 in an altered form.
[3747] Isa. xxxv. 4.
[3748] Animi vigorem.
[3749] This seems to be Isa. liii. 12, last clause.
[3750] Isa. i. 18.
[3751] Mic. vii. 18, 19.
[3752] Jonah iii. 10.
[3753] Circumduxit.
[3754] 2 Sam. xii. 13.
[3755] 1 Kings xxi. 29.
[3756] Resignati jejunii. See 1 Sam. xiv. 43-45.
[3757] Ezek. xxxiii. 11.
[3758] Consequens est ut ostendas.
[3759] Istam.
[3760] Parem.
[3761] See book i. chap. xxvi.'xxviii.
[3762] Admonere.
[3763] Retractare: give a set treatise about them.
[3764] Proescriptio.
[3765] To secure terseness in the premisses, we are obliged to lengthen
out the brief terms of the conclusion, virgo est.
[3766] Si forte.
[3767] Isa. vii. 14.
[3768] Si et Dei.
[3769] Si neque patris.
[3770] On Marcion's principles, it must be remembered.
[3771] Compare T.'s treatise, Adversus Valentinianos, chap. xii.
[3772] Censentur.
[3773] Si forte.
[3774] Nominum communio simplex.
[3775] Defendimus. See above, book iii. chap. xv. xvi.
[3776] Ex. accidenti obvenit.
[3777] Super.
[3778] Proprio.
[3779] Non convenit.
[3780] Causam.
[3781] The context explains the difference between nomen and appellatio.
The former refers to the name Jesus or Christ, the latter to the designation
Son of man.
[3782] Dan. iii. 25.
[3783] Dan. vii. 13.
[3784] Secundum intentionem eorum.
[3785] Eum: that is, man.
[3786] Repercutere.
[3787] Scandalo isto.
[3788] Denique.
[3789] Dispice.
[3790] Interpellandi.
[3791] Corpus ex corpore.
[3792] Plane; introducing the sharp irony.
[3793] This is perhaps the best sense of T.'s sarcasm: "Atque adeo (thus
far) inspice cor Pontici aut (or else) cerebrum."
[3794] He means Levi or St. Matthew; see Luke v. 27-39.
[3795] Profanum.
[3796] Matt. xvi. 17.
[3797] Luke v. 31.
[3798] Male descendit.
[3799] Homo a deo Marcionis.
[3800] See chap. vii. of this book, and chap. ii. of book. iii.
[3801] Plenum ordinem.
[3802] See below, chap. xviii.
[3803] Tuebor.
[3804] Ipsum.
[3805] Marcion's diversitas implied an utter incompatibility between
John and Christ; for it assigned John to the Creator, from whom it took
Christ away.
[3806] De disciplinis: or, "about discipleships."
[3807] De auctoritatibus; or, "about the authors thereof."
[3808] Humiliter.
[3809] Luke v. 34, 35.
[3810] Concessit.
[3811] Rejecturus alioquin.
[3812] Ps. xix. 5, 6.
[3813] Isa. lxi. 10.
[3814] Depurat.
[3815] The same, which spake again by Isaiah.
[3816] Isa. xlix. 18.
[3817] Song of Sol. iv. 8.
[3818] There is also in Hebrew an affinity between , "Lebanon." [Note this strange but reiterated and
emphatic identification of incense with idolatry. In the Gentile church it
was throughly identified with Paganism.]
[3819] See also book i. chap. xxix. [on this reservation of Baptism see
Elucidation II.]
[3820] Alter.
[3821] Jer. iv. 3.
[3822] His reading of (probably) Isa. xliii. 19; comp. 2 Cor. v. 17.
[3823] Olim statuimus.
[3824] Ille.
[3825] Novitas.
[3826] Vetustas.
[3827] That is, "the oldness of the law."
[3828] Notandam.
[3829] Separatione. The more general reading is separationem.
[3830] Alienis: i.e., "things not his own."
[3831] Amplitudinem.
[3832] Provehitur, "is developed."
[3833] Aliud.
[3834] See Ps. lxxviii. 2.
[3835] Circumferret.
[3836] Cur destrueret.
[3837] Deberet.
[3838] Institutione: or, teaching, perhaps.
[3839] Alium.
[3840] Intervertit.
[3841] Operatione.
[3842] Concussum est sabbatum.
[3843] Per Jesum.
[3844] Professussequebatur.
[3845] Isa. i. 14.
[3846] This obscure passage runs thus in the original: "Marcion captat
status controlversiae (ut aliquid ludam cum mei Domini veritate), scripti et
voluntatis." Status is a technical word in rhetoric. "Est quaestio quae ex
prima causarum conflictione nascitur." See Cicero, Topic. c. 25, Part. c.
29; and Quinctilian, Instit. Rhetor. iii. 6. (Oehler).
[3847] Sumitur color.
[3848] Luke vi. 1-4; 1 Sam. xxi. 2-6.
[3849] Affectum.
[3850] Tune demum.
[3851] Statum.
[3852] Non constanter tuebatur.
[3853] Non constristandi quam vacandi.
[3854] [This adoption of an Americanism is worthy of passing notice.]
[3855] Placet illi quia Creator indulsit.
[3856] Luke vi. 7.
[3857] That is, the Christ of another God.
[3858] Ex. xx. 16.
[3859] It is impossible to say where Tertullian got this reading.
Perhaps his LXX. copy might have had (in Ex. xx. 10): sou, instead of su; every clause ending in sou, which
follows in that verse. NO critical authority, however, now known warrants
such a reading. [It is probably based inferentially on verse 9, "all thy
work."]
[3860] Ex. xii. 16.
[3861] The LXX. of the latter clause of Ex. xii. 16 thus runs: . Tertullian probably got this reading from
this clause, although the Hebrew is to this effect: "Save that which every
man (or, every soul) must eat, "which the Vulgate renders: "Exceptis his,
quae ad vescendum pertinent."
[3862] Liberandae animae: perhaps saving life.
[3863] In salutem animae: or, for saving life.
[3864] Luke vi. 9.
[3865] Pro anima: or, for a life.
[3866] Animae omni: or, any life.
[3867] Luke vi. 5.
[3868] Tuebatur.
[3869] Merito.
[3870] Destructum. We have, as has been most convenient, rendered this
word by annul, destroy, break.
[3871] Et.
[3872] Isa. i. 13, 14.
[3873] Isa. xxix. 13.
[3874] Isa. lviii. 13 and lvi. 2.
[3875] Matt. v. 17.
[3876] Obstruxit.
[3877] "Destroy"It was hardly necessary for Oehler to paraphrase our
author's characteristically strong sentence by, "since Marcion thought that
he had gagged," etc.
[3878] In other words, "permits to be done on the Sabbath."
[3879] Praesidia.
[3880] Quod, not quae, as if in apposition with praesidia.
[3881] See 2 Kings iv. 23.
[3882] Olim.
[3883] Forma.
[3884] Repraesentat.
[3885] Isa. xxxv. 3.
[3886] Luke vi. 12.
[3887] Ordinem.
[3888] Isa. xl. 9.
[3889] In vigore. Or this phrase may qualify the noun thus: "They were
astonished at His doctrine, in its might."
[3890] Luke iv. 32.
[3891] Isa. lii. 6.
[3892] Our author's reading of Isa. lii. 7.
[3893] Nahum i. 15.
[3894] Ps. xxii. 2.
[3895] Ps. iii. 4.
[3896] Luke vi. 13-19.
[3897] Nae.
[3898] Interpretari.
[3899] Apud creatorem.
[3900] Num. xxxiii. 9.
[3901] Ex. xxviii. 13-21.
[3902] Isa. xliii. 20.
[3903] Simpliciter: i.e., simply or without relation to any types or
prophecies.
[3904] Non simpliciter.
[3905] Res.
[3906] Rei praeparatura.
[3907] Luke vi. 14. [Elucidation III.]
[3908] Isa. viii. 14; Rom. ix. 33; 1 Pet. ii. 8.
[3909] Caetera.
[3910] Affectavit.
[3911] De non suis; opposed to the de figuris suis peculiariter. [St.
Peter was not the dearest of the Apostles though he was the foremost.]
[3912] Ps. lxxxvii. 4, 5, according to the Septuagint.
[3913] Mari.
[3914] Isa. xlix. 12.
[3915] Isa. xlix. 18.
[3916] Isa. xlix. 21.
[3917] Proprietatem.
[3918] The original runs thus: "Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias
ejus, per quas proprietatem doctrinae suae inducit ad edictum, ut ita
dixerin, Christi." There is here an allusion to the edict of the Roman
praetor, that is, his public announcement, in which he states (when entering
on his office) the rules by which he states (when entering on his office)
the rules by which he will be guided in the administration of the same (see
White and Riddle, Latin Dict. s. v. Edictum).
[3919]
[3920] Luke vi. 20.
[3921] Ps. xlv. i. [And see Vol. I. p. 213, supra.]
[3922] Affectibus.
[3923] Prout incidit.
[3924] Ps. lxxxii. 3, 4.
[3925] Ps. lxxii. 4.
[3926] Ps. lxxii. 11.
[3927] Ps. lxxii. 12, 13, 14.
[3928] Ps. ix. 17, 18.
[3929] Ps. cxiii. 5-8.
[3930] The books of "Samuel" were also called the books of "Kings."
[3931] 1 Sam. ii. 8.
[3932] Isa. iii. 14, 15.
[3933] Isa. x. 1, 2.
[3934] Solatii.
[3935] Tertullian seems to have read instead of
, let us reason together, in his LXX.
[3936] Isa. i. 17, 18.
[3937] Jamdudum pertinent.
[3938] Luke vi. 21.
[3939] In evenglii scilicet sui praestructionem.
[3940] Isa. v. 26.
[3941] Isa. lxv. 13.
[3942] An Christo praeministrentur.
[3943] Luke vi. 21.
[3944] Isa. lxv. 13, 14.
[3945] Apostolicos, companions of the apostles associated in the
authorship.
[3946] Gestivit.
[3947] Isa. lxi. 1.
[3948] Luke vi. 20.
[3949] Isa. lxi. 1.
[3950] Luke vi. 21.
[3951] Isa. lxi. 2.
[3952] Luke vi. 21.
[3953] Isa. lxi. 3.
[3954] Statim admissus.
[3955] Said in irony, as if Marcion's Christ deserved the rejection.
[3956] Luke vi. 22.
[3957] His reading of Isa. li. 7.
[3958] Isa. lii. 5.
[3959] Sancite.
[3960] Circumscribit.
[3961] Famulis et magistratibus. It is uncertain what passage this
quotation represents. It sounds like some of the clauses of Isa. liii.
[3962] Personam nominis.
[3963] Sancitur.
[3964] Luke vi. 26.
[3965] Versipellem. An indignant exlamation on Marcion's Christ.
[3966] Suggillans.
[3967] Porro.
[3968] Hic.
[3969] Suggiliaverunt. This is Oehler's emendation; the common reading
is figuraverunt.
[3970] Motus est.
[3971] Deus optimus.
[3972] That is, apathetic, inert, and careless about human affairs.
[3973] Demutat.
[3974] Ejus erunt.
[3975] Sufferentiam.
[3976] Benignitatem.
[3977] Ad maledictionem praecavendam.
[3978] Deut. xxx. 19.
[3979] Portendebat in.
[3980] Opposuit.
[3981] Timendum.
[3982] Creatori docere.
[3983] Ratas habet.
[3984] Divitum causas.
[3985] Gloriam.
[3986] Erit par creatoris.
[3987] Austerioris.
[3988] Aspernatorem.
[3989] Advocatorem.
[3990] 1 Kings iii. 5-13.
[3991] Vitia.
[3992] Luke vi. 24. [See Southey's Wesley, on "Riches," vol. ii. p.
310.]
[3993] Deut. viii. 12-14.
[3994] Tertullian says, ex Perside.
[3995] Insilit.
[3996] Isa. xxxix. 6.
[3997] Jer. ix. 23, 24.
[3998] Isa. iii. 16-24.
[3999] Homo: "the mean man," A.V.
[4000] Vir.
[4001] Isa. v. 14.
[4002] Isa. x. 33.
[4003] Ps. xlix. 16, 17.
[4004] Relucent.
[4005] Ps. lxii. 11.
[4006] Amos vi. 1-6.
[4007] Luke vi. 25.
[4008] Isa. lxv. 13.
[4009] Ps. cxxvi. 5.
[4010] Distinguendo.
[4011] Luke vi. 26.
[4012] Isa. iii. 12.
[4013] Jer. xvii. 5.
[4014] Ps. cxviii. 8, 9.
[4015] Nedum benedictionem.
[4016] Non pertinuissent ad.
[4017] 2 Esdras xv. 1 and comp. Luke vi. 27, 28.
[4018] Benedicite. St. Luke's word, however, is , "do
good."
[4019] Calumniantur. St. Luke's word applies to injury of speech as well
as of act.
[4020] Isa. lxvi. 5.
[4021] "We have here the sense of Marcion's objection. I do not suppose
Tertullian quotes his very words."'Le Prieur.
[4022] Le Prieur refers to a similar passage in Tertullian's De
Patientia, chap. vi. Oehler quotes an eloquent passage in illustration from
Valerianus Episc. Hom. xiii.
[4023] Ex. xxi. 24.
[4024] Luke vi. 29.
[4025] Renuntiandum est.
[4026] Penes.
[4027] Zech. vii. 10.
[4028] Zech. viii. 17.
[4029] Deut. xxxii. 35; comp. Rom. xii. 19 and Heb. x. 30.
[4030] Fidem non capit.
[4031] Talione, opposito.
[4032] Leges talionis. [Judicial, not personal, reprisals.]
[4033] Voluntatem.
[4034] Compotem facit. That is, says Oehler, intellectus sui.
[4035] Prophetia.
[4036] Disciplinas: or, "lessons."
[4037] Denique.
[4038] Considerem, or, as some of the editions have it, consideremus.
[4039] Alioquin.
[4040] In vacuum.
[4041] Praestare, i.e., debuerat praestare.
[4042] Passim.
[4043] Excitatura.
[4044] Luke vi. 30.
[4045] Datori.
[4046] The author's reading of Deut. xv. 4.
[4047] Cura ultro ne sit.
[4048] Praejudicat.
[4049] Deut. xv. 7, 8.
[4050] De fenore.
[4051] Below, in the next chapter.
[4052] This obscure passage runs thus: "Immo unum erit ex his per quae
lex Creatoris erit in Christo."
[4053] Prior ea.
[4054] This is the idea, apparently, of Tertullian's question: "Quis
enim poterit diligere extraneos?" But a different turn is given to the sense
in the older reading of the passage: Quis enim non diligens proximos poterit
diligere extraneos? "For who that loveth not his neighbours will be able to
love strangers?" The inserted words, however, were inserted conjecturally by
Fulvius Ursinus without ms. authority.
[4055] Gradus.
[4056] Cujus non extitit primus.
[4057] In proximos.
[4058] Sacramentum.
[4059] The sense rather than the words of Hos. i. 6, 9.
[4060] Luke vi. 31.
[4061] Passivitatem sententiae meae.
[4062] Parem factum.
[4063] Possim.
[4064] Praestare.
[4065] Hac inconvenientia voluntatis et facti. Will and action.
[4066] Non agitur.
[4067] Strictum.
[4068] Pro meo arbitrio.
[4069] At enim. The Greek .
[4070] Isa. lviii. 7.
[4071] Ezek. xviii. 7.
[4072] Merito.
[4073] "Recisum sermonem facturus in terris Dominus." This reading of
Isa. x. 23 is very unlike the original, but (as frequently happens in
Tertullian) is close upon the Septuagint version: [Rom. ix. 28.]
[4074] Luke vi. 34. [Bossuet, Trate de l'usure, Opp. ix. 48.]
[4075] Ezek. xviii. 8. [Huet, Règne Social, etc., p. 334. Paris, 1858.]
[4076] Literally, what redounds to the loan.
[4077] Fructum fenoris: the interest.
[4078] Quorundam tune fidem.
[4079] Primis quibusque praeceptis.
[4080] Balbutientis adhuc benignitatis. [Elucidation IV.]
[4081] Pignus reddes dati (i.e., fenoris) is his reading of a clause in
Ezek. xviii. 16.
[4082] Deut. xxiv. 12, 13.
[4083] Deut. xv. 2.
[4084] Luke vi. 35. In the original the phrase is,
[4085] One of the flagrant errors of Marcion's belief of God. See above,
chap. xi.
[4086] Quam spado.
[4087] Hoc eram ejus.
[4088] Ante duos unum. Before God made Adam and Eve one flesh, "I was
created Adam, not became so by birth."'Fr. Junius.
[4089] Denuo.
[4090] Me enixus est.
[4091] Non in animam sed in spiritum.
[4092] Luke vi. 35.
[4093] Euge.
[4094] Suavis.
[4095] Eloquia.
[4096] Ps. xix. 11.
[4097] Suggillavit.
[4098] Reading of Luke vi. 36.
[4099] Isa. lviii. 7.
[4100] Isa. i. 17.
[4101] Hos. vi. 6.
[4102] Luke vi. 37, 38.
[4103] Apud quem.
[4104] Mensus feurit.
[4105] Luke vi. 39.
[4106] Luke vi. 40.
[4107] De discipulo.
[4108] Revincat.
[4109] Luke vi. 41-45. Cerdon is here referred to as Marcion's master,
and Apelles as Marcion's pupil.
[4110] Scandalum. See above, book i. chap. ii., for Marcion's perverse
application of the figure of the good and the corrupt tree.
[4111] In hoc solo adulterium Marcionis manus stupuisse miror. He means
that this passage has been let uncorrupted by M. (as if his hand failed in
the pruning process), foolishly for him.
[4112] Videbitur.
[4113] Luke vi. 46.
[4114] Editus.
[4115] Temptabat. Perhaps, "was tampering with them."
[4116] Eloquia.
[4117] Isa. xxix. 13.
[4118] Luke vii. 1-10.
[4119] Comp. Epiphanius, Hoeres. xlii., Refut. 7, for the same argument:
"If He found not
so great faith, even is Israel, as He discovered in this Gentile centurion,
He does not therefore condem the faith of Israel. For if He were alien from
Israel's God, and did not pertain to Him, even as His father, He would
certainly not have inferentially praised Israel's faith" (Oehler).
[4120] Nec exinde. This points to Christ's words, "I have not found such
faith in Israel."'Oehler.
[4121] Alienae fidei.
[4122] Ceterum.
[4123] Suggillaset.
[4124] Aemulus.
[4125] Eam talem, that is, the faith of Israel.
[4126] Luke vii. 11-17.
[4127] Documentum.
[4128] Luke vii. 16.
[4129] Et quidem adhuc orantes.
[4130] Comp. Epiphanius, Hoeres. xlii., Schol. 8, cum Refut.;
Tertullian, De Proescript Hoeret. 8; and De Bapt. 10.
[4131] Ut ulterius. This is the absurd allegation of Marcion. So
Epiphanius (Le Prieur).
[4132] Ego.
[4133] Scandalum. Playing on the word "scandalum" in its application to
the Baptist and to Marcion.
[4134] "It is most certain that the Son of God, the second Person of the
Godhead, is in the writings of the fathers throughout called by the title of
Spirit, Spirit of God, etc.; with which usage agree the Holy Scriptures. See
Mark ii. 8; Rom. i. 3, 4; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. iii. 18-20;
also John vi. 63, compared with 56."'Bp. Bull, Def. Nic. Creed (translated
by the translator of this work), vol. i. p. 48 and note X. [The whole
passage should be consulted.]
[4135] Ex forma prophetici moduli.
[4136] Tertullian stands alone in the notion that St. John's inquiry was
owing to any withdrawal of the Spirit, so soon before his martyrdom, or any
diminution of his faith. The contrary is expressed by Origen, Homil. xxvii.,
on Luke vii.; Chrysostom on Matt. xi.; Augustine, Sermon. 66, de Verbo;
Hilary on Matthew; Jerome on Matthew, and Epist. 121, ad Algas.; Ambrose on
Luke, book v. 93. They say mostly that the inquiry was for the sake of his
disciples. (Oxford Library of the Fathers, vol. x. p. 267, note e).
[Elucidation V.]
[4137] Ut in massalem suam summam.
[4138] Unus jam de turba.
[4139] Eundem.
[4140] Etiam prophetes.
[4141] Facilius.
[4142] Jesus.
[4143] Luke vii. 20.
[4144] Sperabat.
[4145] Documentorum.
[4146] Major.
[4147] Scandalum.
[4148] Luke vii. 21, 22.
[4149] That is, not the Creator's Christ'whose prophet John
was'therefore a different Christ from Him whom John announced. This is said,
of course, on the Marcionite hypothesis (Oehler).
[4150] Angelum.
[4151] Luke vii. 26, 27, and Mal. iii. 1-3.
[4152] Eleganter.
[4153] Scrupulum.
[4154] Luke vii. 28.
[4155] That is, Christ, according to Epiphanius. See next note.
[4156] Comp. the Refutation of Epihanius (Hoeres. xlii. Refut. 8):
"Whether with reference to John or to the Saviour, He pronounces a blessing
on such as should not be offended in Himself or in John. Nor should they
devise for themselves whatsoever things they heard not from him. He also has
a geater object in view, on account of which the Savious said this; even
that no one should think that John (who was pronounced to be greater than
any born of women) was greater than the Savious Himself, because even HE was
born of a woman. He guards against this mistake, and says, 'Blessed is he
who shall not be offended in me._0' He then adds, 'He that is least in the
kingdom of heaven is greater than he._0' Now, in respect of His birth in the
flesh, the Saviour was less than he by the space of six months. But in the
kingdom He was greater being even his God. For the Only-begotten came not to
say aught in secret, or to utter a falsehood in His preaching, as He says
Himself, 'In secret have I said nothing, but in public,_0' etc. "' Oehler.
[4157] Luke vii. 25.
[4158] Tantundem competit creatori.
[4159] Major tanto propheta.
[4160] De remissa.
[4161] Luke vii. 36-50.
[4162] Comp. Epiphanius, Hoeres. xlii., Refut. 10, 11.
[4163] Hos. vi. 6.
[4164] Hab. ii. 4.:
[4165] Isa. xxxii. 9, 10. Quoted as usual, from the LXX.:
[4166] Ostenderet.
[4167] Eloquii.
[4168] Pronunciatio.
[4169] Isa. vi. 9.
[4170] Luke viii. 8.
[4171] Luke viii. 18.
[4172] Pronuntiationi.
[4173] Sane: with a touch of irony.
[4174] Luke viii. 18.
[4175] Luke viii. 16.
[4176] Luke viii. 17.
[4177] Matt. xii. 48.
[4178] Rationales. "Quae voces adhibita ratione sunt
interpretandae."'Oehler.
[4179] Luke x. 25.
[4180] Luke xx. 20.
[4181] Singular in the original, but (to avoid confusion) here made
plural.
[4182] In allusion to Luke vii. 16. See above, chap .xviii.
[4183] Advivit.
[4184] Adgenerantur.
[4185] Constat. [Jarvis, Introd. p. 204 and p. 536.]
[4186] Nunc: i.e., when Christ was told of His mother and brethren.
[4187] "C. Sentius Saturninus, a consular, held this census of the whole
empire as principal augur, because Augustus determined to impart the
sanction of religion to his institution. The agent through whom Saturninus
carried out the census in Judaea was the governor Cyrenius, according to
Luke, chap. ii."'Fr. Junius. Tertullian mentions Sentius Saturninus again in
De Pallio, i. Tertullian's statement in the text has weighed with
Sanclemente and others, who suppose that Saturninus was governor of Judaea
at the time of our Lord's birth, which they place in 747 A.u.C. "It is
evident, however," says Wieseler, "that this argument is far from decisive;
for the New Testamant itself supplies far better aids for determining this
question than the discordant ecclesiastical traditions'different fathers
giving different dates, which might be appealed to with equal justice; while
Tertullian is even inconsistent with himself, since in his treatise Adv.
Jud. viii., he gives 751 A. U. C. as the year of our Lord's birth"
(Wieseler's Chronological Synopsis by Venebles, p. 99, note 2). This Sentius
Saturninus filled the office of governor of Syria, 744-748. For the
elaborate argument of Aug. W. Zumpt, by which he defends St. Luke's
chronology, and goes far to prove that Publius Sulpicius Quirinus (or
"Cyrenius") was actually the governor of Syria at the time of the Lord's
birth, the reader may be referred to a careful abridgment by the translator
of Wieseler's work, pp. 129-135.
[4188] Non simpliciter. St Mark rather than St. Luke is quoted in this
interrogative sentence.
[4189] Ex condicione rationali. See Oehler's note, just above, on the
word "rationales."
[4190] Abdicavit: Rigalt thinks this is harsh, and reminds us that at
the cross the Lord had not cast away his Mother. [Elucidation VI.]
[4191] This is literally from St. Matthew's narrative, chap. xii. 48.
[4192] In semetipso.
[4193] Matt. x. 37.
[4194] Ceterum.
[4195] i.e., the kindred. [N.B. He includes the Mother!]
[4196] We have translated Oehler's text of this passage: "Denique nihil
magnum, si fidem sanguini, quam non habebat." For once we venture to differ
from that admirable editor (and that although he is supported in his view by
Fr. Junius), and prefer the reading of the mss. and the other editions:
"Denique nihil magnum, si fidem sanguini, quem non habebat." To which we
would give an ironical turn, usual to Tertullian, "After all, it is not to
be wondered at if He preferred faith to flesh and blood, which he did not
himself possess!"'in allusion to Marcion's Docetic opinion of Christ.
[4197] Luke vii. 25.
[4198] Agnorant.
[4199] Et pari utrinque stupore discriminis fixum.
[4200] Josh. iii. 9-17.
[4201] This obscure passage is thus led by Oehler, from whom we have
translated: "Lege extorri familiae dirimendae in transitu ejus Jordanis
machaeram fuisse, curjus impetum atque decursum plane et Jesus docuerat
prophetis transmeantibus stare." The machoeram ("sword") is a metaphor for
the river. Rigaltius refers to Virgil's figure, Aeneid, viii. 62, 64, for a
justfication of the simile. Oehler has altered the reading from the "ex
sorte familae," etc., of the mss. to"extorri familiae," etc. The former
reading would mean probably: "Read out of the story of the nation how that
Jordan was as a sword to hinder their passage across its stream." The sorte
(or, as yet another variation has it, "et sortes," "the accounts") meant the
national record, as we have it in the beginning of the book of Joshua. But
the passage is almost hopelessly obscure.
[4202] Solis.
[4203] Istus.
[4204] Ps. xxix. 3.
[4205] Hab. iii. 10, according to the Septuagint.
[4206] Nah. i. 4.
[4207] See above, book iii. chap. xiii.
[4208] Luke viii. 30.
[4209] Atque ita ipsum esse.
[4210] Ps. xxiv. 8.
[4211] Luke viii. 28.
[4212] Agentem.
[4213] Conversaretur.
[4214] Substantiae: including these demons.
[4215] Sed enim: of the Greek.
[4216] Aliquid.
[4217] Pusillitatibus.
[4218] Ego.
[4219] Luke viii. 43-46
[4220] See above, book iii. chap. xxv.
[4221] Adaequatum: on par with.
[4222] Lev. xv. 19.
[4223] A Marcionite hypothesis.
[4224] Luke viii. 48.
[4225] Ecquomodo legem ejus irrupit.
[4226] Primo.
[4227] Spurcitia.
[4228] Non temere.
[4229] In lege taxari.
[4230] Illa autem redundavit.
[4231] Distinxisse.
[4232] Isa. vii. 9.
[4233] Luke viii. 48.
[4234] Utique.
[4235] Epiphanius, in Hoeres. xlii. Refut. 14, has the same remark.
[4236] Qua res vacua.
[4237] In allusion to the Marcionite Hypothesis mentioned above.
[4238] Luke ix. 1-6.
[4239] Vestit.
[4240] Libertatem oris.
[4241] Deut. xxv. 4.
[4242] In testationem redigi.
[4243] Probatum.
[4244] Luke ix. 7, 8.
[4245] Luke ix. 10-17.
[4246] Scilicet.
[4247] De pristino more.
[4248] Aut.
[4249] Protelavit.
[4250] Exuberare.
[4251] Redundaverant.
[4252] 1 Kings xvii. 7-16.
[4253] Ordinem.
[4254] I have no doubt that ten was the word written by our author; for
some Greek copies read déka , and Ambrose in his Hexaëmeron , book vi. chap.
ii., mentions the same number (Fr. Junius).
[4255] 2 Kings iv. 42-44.
[4256] Luke iv. 20.
[4257] Recensebat.
[4258] Luke ix. 21.
[4259] Utique.
[4260] Immo.
[4261] Luke ix. 22.
[4262] See below, chaps. xl.-xliii.
[4263] Sic quoque.
[4264] Luke ix. 24.
[4265] Certe.
[4266] Compare above, chap. x., towards the end.
[4267] Jam tunc.
[4268] Dan. iii. 25, 26.
[4269] Ista.
[4270] Decucurrerunt.
[4271] Isa. lvii. i.
[4272] We have, by understanding res, treated these adjectives as nouns.
Rigalt. applies them to the doctrina of the sentence just previous. Perhaps,
however, "persecutione" is the noun.
[4273] Luke ix. 26.
[4274] Materia conveniat.
[4275] Ordo.
[4276] Perorantibus.
[4277] Foeditatem.
[4278] Ipsius etiam carnis indignitatem; because His flesh, being
capable of suffering and subject to death, seemed to them unworthy of God.
So Adv. Judaeos, chap. xiv., he says: "Primo sordidis indutus est, id est
carnis passibilis et mortalis indignitate." Or His "indignity" may have been
382, His "unkingly aspect" (as Origen expresses it, Contra Celsum, 6); His
"form of a servant," or slave, as St. Paul says. See also Tertullian's De
Patientia, iii. (Rigalt.)
[4279] Coagulatur. [Job x. 10.]
[4280] Ex feminae humore.
[4281] Pecus. Julias Firmicus, iii. I, uses the word in the same way:
"Pecus intra viscera matris artuatim concisum a medicis proferetur." [Jul.
Firmicus Maternus, floruit circa, A.D. 340.]
[4282] Such is probably the meaning of "non decem mensium cruciatu
deliberatus." For such is the situation of the infant in the womb, that it
seems to writhe (cruciari) all curved and contracted (Rigalt.). Latinius
read delibratus instead of deliberatus, which means, "suspended or poised in
the womb as in a scale." This has my approbation. I would compare De Carne
Christi, chap. iv. (Fr. Junius.) Oehler reads deliberatus in the sense of
liberatus.
[4283] Statim lucem lacrimis auspicatus.
[4284] Primo retinaculi sui vulnere: the cutting of the umbilical nerve.
[Contrast Jer. Taylor, on the Nativity, Opp. I. p. 34.]
[4285] Nec sale ac melle medicatus. Of this application in the case of a
recent childbirth we know nothing; it seems to have been meant for the skin.
See Pliny, in his Hist. Nat. xxii. 25.
[4286] Nec pannis jam sepulturae involucrum initiatus.
[4287] Volutatus per immunditias.
[4288] Vix.
[4289] Tarde.
[4290] Expositus.
[4291] i.e., he never passed through stages like these.
[4292] Veritate.
[4293] Debuit pronuntiasse.
[4294] Ps. viii. 6.
[4295] Ps. xxii. 6.
[4296] Isa. liii. 5.
[4297] Se deposuit.
[4298] Ad meritum confusionis.
[4299] Quod illum finxisti.
[4300] Luke ix. 28-36.
[4301] Scilicet, in ironical allusion to a Marcionite opinion.
[4302] Luke ix. 35.
[4303] Quoscunque.
[4304] In sordibus aliquibus.
[4305] Sic.
[4306] To belong to another god.
[4307] Secundum perversitatem.
[4308] Praedicatores.
[4309] Informator, Moses, as having organized the nation.
[4310] Reformator, Elias, the great prophet.
[4311] It was a primitive opinion in the Church that Elijah was to come,
with Enoch, at the end of the world. See De Anima, chap. xxxv. and l.; also
Irenaeus, De Hoeres. v. 5. [Vol. I. 530.]
[4312] Luke ix. 33.
[4313] This Tertullian seems to have done in his treatise De Ecstasi,
which is mentioned by St. Jerome'see his Catalogus Scriptt. Eccles. (in
Tertulliano); and by Nicephorus, Hist. Eccles. iv. 22, 34. On this subject
of ecstasy, Tertullian has some observations in De Anima, chap. xxi. and
xlv. (Rigalt. and Oehler.)
[4314] [Elucidation VII.]
[4315] Amentiam.
[4316] Excidat sensu.
[4317] He calls those the carnally-minded ("psychicos") who thought that
ecstatic raptures and revelations had ceased in the church. The term arises
from a perverse application of 1 Cor. ii. 14: In opposition to the wild
fanaticism of Montanus, into which Tertullian strangely fell, the Catholics
believed that the true prophets, who were filled with the Spirit of God,
discharged their prophetic functions with a quiet and tranquil mind. See the
anonymous author, Contra Cataphrygas, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 17;
Epiphanius, Hoeres. 48. See also Routh, Rell. Sacrae, i. p. 100; and Bp.
Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian, etc. 3. pp. 27-36. (Munter's Primord.
Eccles Afric. p. 138, quoted by Oehler.)
[4318] Amentiam.
[4319] Ceterum.
[4320] According to the hypothesis.
[4321] Totum ordinem, in the three periods represented by Moses, and
Elijah, and Christ.
[4322] Compare Deut. xix. 15 with Luke ix. 28.
[4323] Consignari.
[4324] In eo suggestu.
[4325] Conscriptum fuerat.
[4326] Marcion's god.
[4327] Compare above, book i. chap. 15, and book iv. chap. 7.
[4328] Precario. This word is used in book v. chap.xii. to describe the
transitoriness of the Creator's paradise and world.
[4329] Nec nunc.
[4330] Ps. ii. 7.
[4331] Isa. l. 10, according to the Septuagint.
[4332] Ejus est exhibentis.
[4333] Non praemisisti. Oehler suggests promisisti, "have given us no
promise."
[4334] Censum: Some read sensum, "sense."
[4335] Deut. xviii. 15.
[4336] Anima: life.
[4337] Deut. xviii. 19.
[4338] Isa. l. 10.
[4339] Tertullian, by introducing this statement with an "inquit," seems
to make a quotation of it; but it is only a comment on the actual
quotations. Tertullian's invariable object in this argument is to march some
event or word pertaining to the Christ of the New Testament with some
declaration of the Old Testament. In this instance the approving words of
God upon the mount are in Heb. i. 5 applied to the Son, while in Ps. ii. 7
the Son applies them to Himself. Compare the Adversus Praxean, chap. xix.
(Fr. Junius and Oehler.) It is, however, more likely that Tertullian really
means to quote Isa. xliv. 26, "that confirmeth the word of His servant,"
which Tertullian reads, "Sistens verba filii sui," the Septuagint being,
[4340] In Christo. In with an ablative is often used by our author for
in with an accusative.
[4341] Or perhaps "by the Creator."
[4342] Isa. lxiii. 9, according to the Septuagint; only he reads faciet
for aorist esōsen.
[4343] A Marcionite position.
[4344] Habitum.
[4345] Interdum.
[4346] Hab. iii. 2, according to the Septuagint. St. Augustine similarly
applied this passage, De Vicit. Dei, ii. 32.
[4347] Zech. iv. 3, 14.
[4348] Commemoremur: be reminded, or call to mind.
[4349] Cognoscenter: , "so as to know Thee."
[4350] See Ex. xxxiii. 13-23.
[4351] Posterioribus temporibus. [The awful ribaldry of Voltaire upon
this glorious revelation is based apon the Vulgate reading of Exod. xxxiii.
23, needlessly transferred to our Version, but corrected by the late
Revisers.]
[4352] Num. xii. 6-8.
[4353] Noluit.
[4354] It is difficult to see what this inquit means.
[4355] Nedum.
[4356] Personam: "I personate Israel."
[4357] Genitura.
[4358] Luke ix. 41.
[4359] The true Christ is
[4360] Totem apud te.
[4361] De tuo commisisti.
[4362] Quam olim
[4363] Imputes.
[4364] This fable is not extant (Oehler).
[4365] Adhuc.
[4366] Insiliit.
[4367] Nisi quod nec ille. This ille, of course, means the Creator's
Christ.
[4368] Diligit: or loves.
[4369] Luke ix. 47, 48.
[4370] Autem.
[4371] 2 Kings ii. 23,24.
[4372] Committit.
[4373] Parvulos.
[4374] Pueros: [young lads].
[4375] Partus Habraeos.
[4376] Ex. ii. 15-21.
[4377] See a like comparison in book i. chap. xxix. p. 294.
[4378] Qui de infantia primus est: i.e., cujus qui de infantia, etc.
[Elucidation VIII.]
[4379] Repraesentat plagam.
[4380] 2 Kings i. 9-12.
[4381] I translate after Oehler's text, which is supported by the oldest
authorities. Pamelius and Rigaltius, however, read "Christi lenitatem
increpantis eandem animadversionem," etc. ("On the contrary, I recognize the
gentleness of Christ, who rebuked His disciples when they," etc.) This
reading is only conjectural, suggested by the "Christi lenitatem" of the
context.
[4382] Destinantes.
[4383] Luke ix. 51-56.
[4384] Isa. xlii. 2,3.
[4385] Compare De Patientia, chap. xv.
[4386] 1 Kings xix. 12.
[4387] Luke ix. 57, 58.
[4388] Salutem: i.e., "Christ, who is our salvation" (Fr. Junius).
[4389] Luke ix. 59,60.
[4390] Animam defunctam.
[4391] Lev. xxi. I, according to our author's reading.
[4392] Num. vi. 6,7.
[4393] Imbuerat.
[4394] Sectam.
[4395] Gen. xix. 17.
[4396] Apostolos: Luke x. i.
[4397] Compare above, book iv. chap. xiii. p. 364.
[4398] Ex. xv. 27 and Num. xxxiii. 9.
[4399] Causarum: "occasions" or circumstances.
[4400] Potestatum. In Marcionite terms, "The Gods of the Old and the New
Testaments."
[4401] Consparsionum. [Punic Latin.] Ex. xii. 34,35.
[4402] Virgam, Luke x. 4, and Matt x. 10.
[4403] Causarum offerentiam.
[4404] Expeditionem, with the sense also of "supplies" in the next
clause.
[4405] Circumcidens.
[4406] Struxerat.
[4407] Deut. xxix. 5.
[4408] Luke x. 4.
[4409] See 2 Kings iv. 29.
[4410] Literally, "bless him not, i.e., salute him not."
[4411] Literally, "answer him not, i.e., return not his salvation."
[4412] Luke x. 5.
[4413] 2 Kings iv. 26. He reads the optative instead of the indicative.
[4414] Luke x. 7.
[4415] Deut. xxv. 4.
[4416] Compare above, book ii. chap. 17, p. 311.
[4417] See this argued at length above, in book ii. chap. 20. p. 313.
[4418] Dominatoribus.
[4419] Luke x. 9.
[4420] Subitum.
[4421] Accipit tempus.
[4422] Inducens speciem.
[4423] Tardasse.
[4424] The announcement (According to the definition) defining the
beginning of its existence in time.
[4425] Appropinquasse.
[4426] Luke x. 11.
[4427] Et judicem in utroque.
[4428] Hoerentia.
[4429] Nedum.
[4430] Luke x. 11.
[4431] Inhumanitas.
[4432] Ecclesiam. There is force in thus using Christian terms for
Jewish ordinances, full as he is of the identity of the God of the old with
Him of the ne covenant.
[4433] Deut. xxiii. 3.
[4434] Luke x. 16.
[4435] Num. xiv. 27.
[4436] Luke x. 19.
[4437] Isa. xi. 8,9.
[4438] Deputetur.
[4439] Penes Creatorem.
[4440] Ps. xci. 13.
[4441] Isa. xxvii. I, Sept.
[4442] Isa. xxxv. 8,9, Sept.
[4443] Evacuationem.
[4444] Isa. xxxv. 3,5,6, Sept.
[4445] Secundum ordinem praedicationis.
[4446] Ostenditur.
[4447] Luke x. 21.
[4448] Satis inique.
[4449] Praemiserat.
[4450] Argumenta.
[4451] Deliquerant.
[4452] On the Marcionite hypothesis.
[4453] Deducerentur.
[4454] In quem competunt omnia.
[4455] Isa. vii. 9.
[4456] Rom. i. 20-23.
[4457] Ingenia.
[4458] Denique.
[4459] Olim.
[4460] Isa. xxix. 14, Sept.
[4461] Isa. xlv. 3, Sept.
[4462] Ventriloquorum,
[4463] 0 Isa. xliv. 25, Sept.
[4464] Isa. xlii. 6 and xlix. 6.
[4465] Luke x. 21.
[4466] Ergo.
[4467] Res ejus edisserens.
[4468] Uti traduceret eas.
[4469] Constructionem.
[4470] Destructionem.
[4471] Luke x. 22.
[4472] Per.
[4473] on which see above, chap. xxiii. p. 385.
[4474] Marcion's god.
[4475] Alieno abstinere.
[4476] Aut si.
[4477] Ecquomodo.
[4478] Creatoris est.
[4479] Ps. ii. 8.
[4480] Luke x. 22.
[4481] Isa. i. 3.
[4482] This passage it is not easy to identify. [See Is. lxiii. 3.] The
books point to Isa. lxv. 5, but there is there no trace of it.
[4483] 0 Isa. xl. 15. [Compare Is. lxiii. 3. Sept.]
[4484] 1 Speculam.
[4485] When the vintage was gathered, Isa. i. 8.
[4486] Quae cometere possunt.
[4487] Luke x. 23,24.
[4488] Ut decuit.
[4489] Merito.
[4490] Repraesentationem.
[4491] Aeque.
[4492] Tamen.
[4493] 0 Ex. xx. 12 and Deut. vi. 2.
[4494] 1 Luke x. 27.
[4495] 2 Legalem.
[4496] Recidivae
[4497] This is perhaps the meaning of "ne plus liquid observationis
exigeret sublimior spe."
[4498] Nec alius.
[4499] Principaliter.
[4500] Et utramque vitam.
[4501] Ei opponit.
[4502] Caput.
[4503] 0 Dei tuiMarcionites.
[4504] 1 Captanda.
[4505] 2 Praestet.
[4506] i.e., he must needs have it taught and recommended by Christ.
[4507] Viderit.
[4508] As Marcion pretended.
[4509] Luke xi. 1.
[4510] Suffigi.
[4511] Scito.
[4512] Proinde.
[4513] 0 Sensum.
[4514] 1 Luke xi. 2.
[4515] 2 Generavit.
[4516] 3 Mundialis spiritus: perhaps "the breath of life."
[4517] 4 Gen. i. 2.
[4518] 5 Luke xi. 3.
[4519] Milium.
[4520] Ps. lxviii. 25.
[4521] Luke xi. 4.
[4522] Praedamnavit.
[4523] 0 Hoc ordine.
[4524] 1 Infamat.
[4525] 2 Luke xi. 9.
[4526] 3 Salutem : perhaps salvation.
[4527] 4 Unde sum functus. This obscure clause may mean "the right of
praying," or "the right of access, and boldness to knock."
[4528] 5 Ad praestandum non suo homini.
[4529] 6 Autem.
[4530] See Luke xi. 5-8.
[4531] A sarcastic allusion to the ante-nuptial error of Marcion, which
he has exposed more than once (See book i. chap. xxix. and book iv. chap.
xxiii. p. 386.).
[4532] Saeculum.
[4533] 0 Tantum quod = vixdum (Oehler).
[4534] 1 Luke xi. 8.
[4535] 2 Tam cito.
[4536] 3 Luke xi. 11-13.
[4537] 4 Apud quem.
[4538] 5 Luke xi. 14.
[4539] 6 Isa. xxix. 18.
[4540] 7 Luke xi. 19.
[4541] Luke xi. 18.
[4542] Luke xi. 20.
[4543] 0 Ex. viii. 19.
[4544] 1 Significaret.
[4545] 2 Vetustatum scilicet suarum.
[4546] 3 Apud.
[4547] 4 Applicuit.
[4548] 5 Luke xi. 21,22.
[4549] 6 Ceterum.
[4550] 7 Defluendo.
[4551] 8 The scorpion here represents any class of the lowest animals,
especially such as stung. The Marcionites impiously made it a reproach to
the Creator, that He had formed such worthless and offensive creatures.
Compare book i. chap. 17, note 5. p. 283.
[4552] Luke xi. 27,28.
[4553] 0 See above, on Luke viii. 21.
[4554] 1 Natura.
[4555] 2 Proinde.
[4556] 3 Purgare.
[4557] 4 From the Marcionite point of view.
[4558] 5 Luke xi. 29.
[4559] 6 Luke xi. 33.
[4560] 7 Luke vi. 28, also xi. 37-52.
[4561] 8 Fiximus.
[4562] 9 Denotari.
[4563] Tunc.
[4564] Retractabat.
[4565] Circumferret.
[4566] Luke xi. 39.
[4567] Lavacro.
[4568] Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7; comp. Hos. viii. 6.
[4569] Luke xi. 41.
[4570] The Pharisees and lawyers.
[4571] Holuscula.
[4572] Marcion's gospel had (vocationem, perhaps a general word
for hospitality) instead of judgment,'a quality which M. did not
allow in his god. See Epiphanius, Hoeres. xlii., Schol. 26 (Oehler and Fr.
Junius).
[4573] Luke xi. 42.
[4574] Deut. vi. 5.
[4575] Amaxam.
[4576] Nondum palam facto.
[4577] Sectam administrat.
[4578] Isa. i. 10.
[4579] Ps. cxviii. 9.
[4580] Quodsiquis.
[4581] Officiis.
[4582] Idem.
[4583] Luke xi. 46.
[4584] Suggillians.
[4585] Vocationem: Marcion's
[4586] Nedum.
[4587] Taxat.
[4588] Clamantes.
[4589] See Isa. v. 5, 23, and x. 2.
[4590] Isa. xxviii. 14.
[4591] The books point to Isa. iii. 3,4 for this; but there is only a
slight similarity in the latter clause, even in the Septuagint.
[4592] Legis doctores: the of the Gospels.
[4593] Luke xi. 47.
[4594] Zelotes.
[4595] Luke xi. 52.
[4596] As Marcion held Him to be.
[4597] A Marcionite position.
[4598] Saevum.
[4599] Deficiendo.
[4600] As narrated by St. Luke xii. 1-21.
[4601] Contumaces.
[4602] Luke xii. 2.
[4603] Luke xii. 4.
[4604] Isa. lvii. 1.
[4605] Luke xii. 5.
[4606] Demereri.
[4607] Luke xii. 8.
[4608] Occidi habebunt.
[4609] Luke xii. 9.
[4610] Post occisionem.
[4611] Luke xii. 10.
[4612] So full of blasphemy, as he is, against the Creator.
[4613] Infuscat.
[4614] Luke xii. 11, 12.
[4615] Documentum.
[4616] Simul.
[4617] Num. xxii.-xxiv.
[4618] A Marcionite objection.
[4619] "Two men of the Hebrews."'A.V.
[4620] Ex. ii. 13, 14.
[4621] Luke xii. 13, 14.
[4622] Ne uteretur.
[4623] Excusserat. Oehler interprets the word by temptaverat.
[4624] Nunquid indigne tulerit.
[4625] This is an instance of the title "Spirit" being applied to the
divine nature of the Son. See Bp. Bull's Def. Nic. Fid. (by the translator).
[See note 13, p. 375, supra.]
[4626] Above, chap. xv. of this book. p. 369, supra.
[4627] Comp. 1 Sam. ii. 8 with Ps. cxiii. 7 and Luke i. 52.
[4628] Luke xii. 16-20.
[4629] Apud Persas.
[4630] Isa. xxxix.
[4631] Agere curam: take thought.'A.V.
[4632] Luke xii. 22-28.
[4633] Aemulam.
[4634] Flosculo: see Luke xii. 24-27.
[4635] Ultro subjectis.
[4636] Pro sua vilitate.
[4637] Luke xii. 28.
[4638] Tantum quod revelato.
[4639] Luke xii. 30.
[4640] Luke xii. 30.
[4641] Expunxerim.
[4642] Luke xii. 31.
[4643] 0 De alieno bonus.
[4644] 1 Qualis.
[4645] 2 Secundo gradu.
[4646] 3 Status.
[4647] 4 Peraequatio.
[4648] 5 Cui per omnia pariaverint.
[4649] 6 Luke xii. 35.
[4650] 7 Luke xii. 35.
[4651] 8 Luke xii. 36.
[4652] Luke xii. 39.
[4653] 0 Sed ille potius.
[4654] 1 A censure on Marcion's Christ.
[4655] 2 Suffossus.
[4656] 3 Luke xi. 40.
[4657] 4 Defendo.
[4658] 5 Portendat.
[4659] 6 Salvo.
[4660] 7 Luke xii. 41.
[4661] 8 Actorum.
[4662] 9 Luke xii. 41-46.
[4663] Illi catechizat.
[4664] Decet.
[4665] Luke xii. 49.
[4666] Ille: Marcion's Christ.
[4667] Iste: the Creator.
[4668] Ps. xcvii. 3.
[4669] Hos. viii. 14.
[4670] Vel: or, "if you please;" indicating some uncertainty in the
quotation. The passage is more like Jer. xv. 14 than anything in Isaiah
(see, however, Isa. xxx. 27, 30).
[4671] Viderit.
[4672] Luke xii. 51.
[4673] 0 Pamelius supposes that Tertullian here refers to St. Matthew's
account, where the word is on the ground that the mss. and
versions of St. Luke's Gospel invariably read According to
Rigaltius, however, Tertullian means that sword is written in Marcion's
Gospel of Luke, as if the heretic had adulterated the passage. Tertullian no
doubt professes to quote all along from the Gospel of Luke, according to
Marcion's reading.
[4674] St. Luke's word being (division), not
(sword).
[4675] Luke xii. 53.
[4676] Parentes.
[4677] Mic. vii. 6.
[4678] Luke xii. 56.
[4679] Luke xii. 57.
[4680] Zech. viii. 16.
[4681] Jer. xxii. 3.
[4682] Isa. i. 17.
[4683] 0 Tertullian calls by a proper name the vineyard which Isaiah (in
his chap. v.) designates "the vineyard of the Lord of hosts," and interprets
to be "the house of Israel" (ver. 7). The designation comes from ver. 2,
where the original clause is translated in the Septuagint,
Tertullian is most frequently in close
agreement with the LXX.
[4684] 1 Isa. v. 7.
[4685] Ex. praecepto.
[4686] Ex arbitrio.
[4687] Luke xii. 58,59.
[4688] Eodem gradu.
[4689] Luke xiii. 15.
[4690] Omni animae
[4691] Recognoscor.
[4692] Utique.
[4693] Puta.
[4694] Laqueum.
[4695] Materia.
[4696] Lacrimosa austeritate, see Luke xiii. 28.
[4697] Forte.
[4698] Luke xiii. 20,21.
[4699] Vanitatem vanitate.
[4700] Vel.
[4701] Luke xiii. 25.
[4702] Isa. ii. 19.
[4703] Luke xiii. 25-28.
[4704] Quid ergo illuc Creatori.
[4705] Si stique.
[4706] Luke xiv. 12-14.
[4707] Isa. lviii. 7.
[4708] Forma.
[4709] Cui parti.
[4710] Luke xiv. 16.
[4711] Saturitatem.
[4712] Dehine.
[4713] Tantum quodjam.
[4714] Tantum quodjam.
[4715] Luke xiv. 18.
[4716] Ex. xxxii. 1.
[4717] Isa. vi. 10.
[4718] Pertinentissime.
[4719] Jer. vii. 23.
[4720] Jer. vii. 24.
[4721] Jer. xi. 8.
[4722] Luke xiv. 18-20.
[4723] Jer. vii. 25; also xxv. 4, xxvi. 5, xxv. 15, xliv. 4.
[4724] Jer. vii. 26.
[4725] Luke xiv. 21.
[4726] Jer. ii. 31.
[4727] Jer. ii. 31.
[4728] Luke xiv. 23.
[4729] Dehinc.
[4730] Septuagint.
[4731] Deut. xxxii. 20,21.
[4732] Gerunt: although vainly at present ("jam vana in
Judaeis"'Oehler); Semler conjectures "gemunt, bewail."
[4733] Gustaturos.
[4734] Specula, "a look-out;" is the word in LXX.
[4735] Isa. i. 8.
[4736] Semel.
[4737] This is probably the meaning of a very involved sentence: "Quid
ex hoc ordine secundum dispensationem et praedicationes Creatoris recensendo
competit illi, cujus ("Creatoris"'Oehler) nec ordinem habet nec
dispositionem ad parabolae conspirationem qui totum opus semel facit?"
[4738] "By the fathers." See above.
[4739] "By the prophets." See also above.
[4740] An obscure sentence, which thus runs in the original: "Ante
debent alii excusare, postea alii convenisse."
[4741] The Jews.
[4742] The Gentiles.
[4743] 0 Speculum.
[4744] 1 Fastidiosos.
[4745] 2 Portendit.
[4746] 3 Plane: This is a Marcionite position (Oehler).
[4747] 4 Luke xv. 1-10.
[4748] 5 Habuit.
[4749] 6 Cujus fuit: i.e., each of the things respectively.
[4750] 7 Argumentum.
[4751] 8 Vacat circa cum.
[4752] Luke xvi. 13.
[4753] 0 Defendi.
[4754] 1 Offendi.
[4755] 2 What in the Punic language is called Mammon, says Rigaltius, the
Latins call lucrum, "gain or lucre." See Augustine, Serm. xxv. de Verbo
domini. I would add Jerome, On the VI. of Matthew where he says: "In the
Syriac tongue, riches are called mammon." And Augustine, in another passage,
book ii., On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount, says: "Riches in Hebrew are
said to be called mammon. This is evidently a Punic word, for in that
language the synonyme for gain (lucrum) is mammon." Compare the same author
on Ps. ciii. (Oehler).
[4756] 3 Ab actu.
[4757] 4 Auctorem.
[4758] 5 Famulatam.
[4759] 6 Ammentavit.
[4760] 7 Luke xvi. 13.
[4761] 8 Magis destinabantur: middle voice.
[4762] 9 Utique.
[4763] Nominaturus.
[4764] Alius.
[4765] Quem non posuit.
[4766] Luke xvi. 11.
[4767] Meum: Luke xvi. 12, where, however, the word is "that which is your own."
[4768] Notando.
[4769] Ad hoc ut seperatur.
[4770] Luke xvi. 15.
[4771] Jer. xvii. 5.
[4772] Jer. xvii. 10, in sense but not in letter.
[4773] 0 Jer. xx. 12.
[4774] Luke xvi. 15.
[4775] Isa. ii. 12 (Sept).
[4776] Luke xvi. 16.
[4777] Sedatio: literally, "a setting to rest,"
[4778] Ut undeunde magis probeturregum Dei.
[4779] Luke xvi. 17 and xxi. 23.
[4780] Isa. xl. 8.
[4781] See above, note on chap. xxviii., towards the end, on this
designation of Christ's divine nature.
[4782] Isa. xl. 3.
[4783] 0 Luke xvi. 18.
[4784] 1 Deut. xxiv. 1.
[4785] A Marcionite challenge.
[4786] Plane.
[4787] St. Matthew's Gospel.
[4788] Matt. xix. 8.
[4789] Matt. xix. 4, 6.
[4790] Direxit.
[4791] Gestans.
[4792] Excusaverit.
[4793] 0 Ideo ut.
[4794] 1 Luke xvi. 18.
[4795] 2 Nubere. This verb is here used of both sexes, in a general
sense.
[4796] Alias.
[4797] Etiam: first word of the sentence.
[4798] Alicubi.
[4799] Nondum.
[4800] Tu.
[4801] Alibi: i.e., than in the Marcionite connection.
[4802] Apud te.
[4803] Scilicet.
[4804] 1 Cor. vi. 15.
[4805] Justitia divortii.
[4806] Matt. v. 32.
[4807] Deut. xxii. 28, 29.
[4808] Mal. ii. 15.
[4809] Debeo.
[4810] Sententiam.
[4811] Literally, "Moses."
[4812] Illiberis. [N.B. He supposes Philip to have been dead.]
[4813] Costa: literally, "rib" or "side."
[4814] Deut. xxv. 5, 6.
[4815] Jaculatus est.
[4816] The condition being that the deceased brother should have let
"no child" see (Deut. xxv. 5).
[4817] Ad subsequens argumentum divitis.
[4818] Luke xvi. 19-31.
[4819] Ipsum.
[4820] Suggillati Herodis male maritati.
[4821] Deformans.
[4822] Luke xvi. 29.
[4823] Apud inferos. [Note the origin of this doctrine.]
[4824] Revincente: perhaps "reproves his eyesight," in the sense of
refutation.
[4825] Luke xvi. 23.
[4826] Sublimiorem inferis. [Elucidation VIII.]
[4827] Compare Heb. ii. 2 with x. 35 and xi. 26.
[4828] Ascensum in coelum: Sept. Amos ix.
6. See on this passage the article Heaven in Kitto's Cyclopaedia (ed edit.),
vol. ii. p. 245, where the present writer has discussed the probable meaning
of the verse.
[4829] Isa. xxxiii. 14-16, according to the Septuagint, which has but
slight resemblance to the Hebrew.
[4830] Cur non capiat.
[4831] Candida quaedam prospiciatur: where candida is a noun
substantive (see above, chap. vii. p. 353).
[4832] There seems to be here an allusion to Luke ix. 35.
[4833] Nec. accepisset.
[4834] Luke ix. 20.
[4835] See Isa. lii. 7, xxxiii. 14 (Sept.), and Amos ix. 6.
[4836] Omnino.
[4837] See 1 Sam. ii. 6-8. Ps. cxiii. 7, and Luke i. 52.
[4838] Divinitatum; "divine powers."
[4839] Ipsarum materiarum.
[4840] Luke xvii. 1, 2.
[4841] Zech. ii. 8.
[4842] Luke xvii. 3.
[4843] 0 Ex acceptione personae. The Greek "respect of
persons."
[4844] 1 Lev. xix. 17. The last clause in A.V. runs, "And not suffer sin
upon him;" but the Sept gives this reading, nor need the Hebrew mean other than this. The prenominal
particle be well rendered on his account.
[4845] 2 Luke xvii. 4.
[4846] 3 Lev. xix. 18.
[4847] 4 Dones.
[4848] 5 Erga: i.q. circa.
[4849] 6 See Lev. xiii. and xiv.
[4850] 7 Morositatem.
[4851] 8 Praevenientem.
[4852] Luke xvii. 11-19.
[4853] 0 Or, perhaps, "had proved the prophecy true by His accomplishment
of it."
[4854] 1 Retractari.
[4855] 2 See above in chap. ix.
[4856] 3 Praefatus est: see Luke iv. 27.
[4857] 4 Destructionem.
[4858] 5 Authenticus. "He was the true, the original Priest, of whom the
priests under the Mosaic law were only copies" (Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of
Tertullian, pp. 293, 294, and note 8).
[4859] 6 Luke xvii. 14.
[4860] 7 Et utique viderit.
[4861] 8 Tam opiniosus.
[4862] 9 Qua: "I should prefer quia" (Oehler).
[4863] Pristino leproso: but doubtful.
[4864] Causas.
[4865] Luke xvii. 17.
[4866] Schisma illud ex novem tribubus. There is another reading which
substitutes the word decem. "It is, however, immaterial; either number will
do roundly. If 'ten_0' be the number, it must be understood that the tenth
is divided, accurately making nine and a half tribes. If 'nine_0' be read,
the same amount is still made up, for Simeon was reckoned with Judah, and
half of the tribe of Benjamin remained loyal" (Fr. Junius).
[4867] Avulsas.
[4868] 1 Kings xi. 29-39 and xii. 15.
[4869] Nae.
[4870] John iv. 12, 20.
[4871] Amos vi. 1.
[4872] Subiciens: or "subjecting."
[4873] 0 John iv. 22.
[4874] Tota promissio Christus.
[4875] Matricem.
[4876] Fontem non puteum salutis.
[4877] Agnovisse.
[4878] Justificandos.
[4879] Luke xvii. 19.
[4880] Luke xvii. 15.
[4881] Luke xvii. 19.
[4882] Luke xvii. 20, 21.
[4883] 0 Una sententia.
[4884] 1 Excelsum: Sept.
[4885] Deut. xxx. 11-13.
[4886] Luke xvii. 21.
[4887] Luke xvii. 25.
[4888] Substantialiter.
[4889] Assumi.
[4890] Ps. cxviii. 21.
[4891] See Isa. viii. 14 and 1 Cor. x. 4.
[4892] Luke xvii. 26-30.
[4893] 0 Luke xvii. 32.
[4894] 1 Ut ille.
[4895] 2 Ille: emphatic.
[4896] That is, the Creator's Christ from the Marcionite point of view.
[4897] Luke xviii. 1-8.
[4898] Luke xviii. 7, 8.
[4899] Meliorem Deum.
[4900] Reprobatum.
[4901] Luke xviii. 10-14.
[4902] Sive reprobatricem superbiae, sive justificatricem humilitatis.
[4903] 0 Destructorem.
[4904] 1 See above, chap. xxvi. p. 392.
[4905] 2 Luke xviii. 19.
[4906] Utique.
[4907] Matt. v. 45.
[4908] Ad contestandum.
[4909] Luke xviii. 18-20.
[4910] Luke xviii. 21, 22.
[4911] See above, chap. ix., near the beginning.
[4912] Adjecit quod deerat.
[4913] Ubique.
[4914] Traduceretur.
[4915] Matt. v. 17.
[4916] Mic. vi. 8. The last clause agrees with the Septuagint:
[4917] The clauses of Christ's words, which are here adapted to
Micah's, are in every case broken with an inquit.
[4918] Tunc pendentibus: i.e., at the time mentioned in the story of
the blind man.
[4919] Notitiam.
[4920] Luke xviii. 38.
[4921] Non temere.
[4922] Luke xviii. 39.
[4923] Luke xviii. 40.
[4924] Atquin.
[4925] Infameretis.
[4926] Luke xviii. 42.
[4927] Remunerator.
[4928] That is, in the sound only, and phantom of the word; an allusion
to the Docetic absurdity of Marcion.
[4929] That is, that He was "Son of David," etc.
[4930] Censum: that is, must believe Him born of her.
[4931] This, perhaps, is the meaning in a clause which is itself more
antithetical than clear: "Ruens in antithesim, ruentem et ipsam
antithesim."
[4932] In book iii. chap. vii. (At the beginning), occurs the same
proverb of Marcion and the Jews. See p. 327.
[4933] See 2 Sam. v. 6-8.
[4934] The Marcionites.
[4935] See 2 Sam. v. 8.
[4936] Fidei equidem pravae: see preceding page, note 3.
[4937] Atquin.
[4938] Et hoc filius David: i.e., praestitit, "showed Himself good,"
perhaps.
[4939] De suo retundendam. Instead of contrast, he shows the similarity
of the cases.
[4940] Ejusdem carnis: i.e., infirmae (Oehler).
[4941] Exorandum sibi.
[4942] Luke xix. 9.
[4943] 0 The older reading, which we here follow, is: "Enimvery Zacchaeus
etsi allophylus fortasse," etc. Oehler, however, points the passage thus:
"Enimvero Zacchaeus etsi allophylus, fortasse," etc., removing the doubt,
and making Zacchaeus "of another race" than the Jewish, for certain. This is
probably more than Tertullian meant to say.
[4944] 1 Aliqua notitia afflatus.
[4945] 2 Isa. lviii. 7.
[4946] 3 In the same passage.
[4947] 4 For the history of Zacchaeus, see Luke xix. 1-10.
[4948] 5 Isa. lviii. 6.
[4949] 6 Luke xix. 8.
[4950] 7 Luke xix. 9.
[4951] 8 Salutaria esse.
[4952] Luke xix. 10.
[4953] 0 Substantiis.
[4954] 1 Caro: "the flesh," here a synonym with the corpus of the
previous clauses.
[4955] 2 Elisa est.
[4956] 3 Secundum rationem feneratae.
[4957] 4 Ex pate severitatis.
[4958] 5 This phrase comes not from the present passage, but from Luke
viii. 18, where the words are here the expression is ho
echei only.
[4959] 6 Luke xix. 22.
[4960] 7 The original of this obscure sentence is as follows: "Aut si et
hic Creatorem finxerit austerum . . hic quoque me ille instruit eujus
pecuniam ut fenerem edocet.
[4961] 8 Luke xx. 4.
[4962] 9 Luke xx. 6.
[4963] Existeret.
[4964] Ipse.
[4965] "Of knowledge of good and evil." The "law" thereof occurs in
Gen. iii. 3.
[4966] Luke xx. 5.
[4967] Increpaturus.
[4968] Certe. [The word sacrament not technical here.]
[4969] Luke xx. 8.
[4970] Luke xx. 25.
[4971] Materia.
[4972] Monetam.
[4973] 0 Non alieno.
[4974] Quo magis absit a Christo.
[4975] Luke xx. 27-33.
[4976] Ut videatur.
[4977] Subostendisse.
[4978] Luke xx. 34.
[4979] Luke xx. 35, 36.
[4980] Surely Oehler's responsio ought to be responsionis, as the older
books have it.
[4981] Absolvitur.
[4982] Ex abundanti.
[4983] 0 We have translated here, post praescriptionem, according to the
more frequent sense of the word, praescriptio. But there is another meaning
of the word, which is not unknown to our author, equivalent to our objection
or demurrer, or (to quote Oehler's definition) "clausula qua reus adversarii
intentionem oppugnat' the form by which the defendant rebuts the
plaintiff's charge." According to this sense, we read: "I shall now proceed
. . . and after putting in a demurrer (or taking exception) against the
tactics of my opponent."
[4984] 1 Cohaerentes.
[4985] Decucurrerunt in legendo: or, "they ran through it, by thus
reading."
[4986] We have adapted, rather than translated, Tertullian's words in
this parenthesis. His words of course suit the order of the Latin, which
differs from the English. The sentence in Latin is, "Quos autem dignatus est
Deus illius aevi possessione et resurrectione a mortuis." The phrase in
question is illius aevi. Where shall it stand? The Marcionites placed it
after "Deus" in government, but Tertullian (following the undoubted meaning
of the sentence) says it depends on "possessione et resurrectione," i.e.,
"worthy of the possession, etc., of that world." To effect this
construction, he says, "Ut facta hic distinctione post deum ad sequentia
pertineat illius aevi:" i.e., he requests that a stop be placed after the
word "deus," whereby the phrase "illius aevi" will belong to the words which
follow'"possessione et resurrectione a mortuis."
[4987] Luke xx. 33.
[4988] Luke xx. 39.
[4989] Formam: "its conditions" or "process."
[4990] Luke xx. 41-44.
[4991] Non obtundebat.
[4992] Luke xviii. 38.
[4993] 0 Luke xx. 41.
[4994] 1 Tueretur.
[4995] 2 See above: book iii. chap. xv. and xvi. pp. 333, 334.
[4996] The illam here refers to the nominum proprietas, i.e., His title
Christ and His name Jesus.
[4997] Transnominaret.
[4998] Proinde.
[4999] Luke xxi. 8.
[5000] Consimilem: of course Marcion's Christ; the Marcionite being
challenged in the "You."
[5001] Luke xxi. 9-11.
[5002] Compare, in Luke xxi., verses 9, 22, 28, 31-33, 35, and 36.
[5003] 0 Verses 12, 13.
[5004] 1 Omnipotens: of hosts'A.V.
[5005] 2 Zech. ix. 15, 16 (Septuagint).
[5006] Allophylis.
[5007] Eph. ii. 20.
[5008] Luke xxi. 12-14.
[5009] Num. xxii.-xxiv.
[5010] Ex. iv. 10-12.
[5011] Isa. xliv. 5.
[5012] Exerta.
[5013] 0 See Gen. xxxii. 28.
[5014] 1 Isa. l. 4.
[5015] 2 Luke xxi. 16, 17.
[5016] 3 Per tolerantiam: "Endurance."
[5017] 4 Comp. Luke xxi. 19 with Matt. xxiv. 13.
[5018] 5 Ps. ix. 18.
[5019] After the Septuagint he makes a plural appellative ("eis qui
toleraverint," LXX. ) of the Hebrew
[5020] Luke xxi. 20.
[5021] Luke xxi. 25, 26.
[5022] Luke xxi. 26.
[5023] Joel iii. 30, 31.
[5024] Elata: "fear was raised to its very highest."
[5025] Hab. iii. 9-12 (Septuagint).
[5026] Luke xxi. 27, 28.
[5027] Luke xxi. 31.
[5028] Dan. vii. 13.
[5029] Dan. vii. 14.
[5030] Luke xix. 12, 13, etc.
[5031] Ps. ii. 8.
[5032] Dan. vii. 14.
[5033] Luke xx. 35, 36.
[5034] Hab. iii. 13.
[5035] In Luke xxi. 7.
[5036] Luke xxi. 33.
[5037] Luke xxi. 29-31.
[5038] Arbuscularum.
[5039] Luke xxi. 33.
[5040] Nescio an.
[5041] Isa. xl. 8.
[5042] Luke xxi. 34, 35. [Here follows a rich selection of parallels to
Luke xxi. 34-38.]
[5043] 0 Comp. Deut. viii. 12-14.
[5044] 1 Luke xxi. 37.
[5045] 2 Hosea xii. 4. One reading of the LXX. is,
[5046] 3 Zech. xiv. 4.
[5047] 4 Luke xxi. 38.
[5048] 5 Isa. l. 4.
[5049] 6 Literally, "the prophecies."
[5050] 7 Luke xxii. i.
[5051] 8 Sacramentum.
[5052] Lev. xxiii. 5.
[5053] 0 Luke xxii. 15.
[5054] 1 Vervecina Judaica. In this rough sarcasm we have of course our
author's contempt of Marcionism.
[5055] 2 Isa. liii. 7.
[5056] 3 Levabit: literally, "shall lift up," etc.
[5057] 4 Ps. xli. 9.
[5058] 5 Amos. ii. 6.
[5059] 6 Exitum.
[5060] 7 Revocati.
[5061] 8 This passage more nearly resembles Zech. xi. 12 and 13 than
anything in Jeremiah, although the transaction in Jer. xxxii. 7-15 is noted
by the commentators, as referred to. Tertullian had good reason for
mentioning Jeremiah and not Zechariah, because the apostle whom he refers to
(Matt. xxvii. 3-10) had distinctly attributed the prophecy to Jeremiah
("Jeremy the prophet," ver. 9). This is not the plcae to do more than emrely
refer to the voluminous controversy which has arisen from the apostle's
mention of Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. It is enough to remark that
Tertullian's argument is unaffected by the discrepancy in the name of the
particular prophet. On all hands the prophecy is admitted, and this at once
satisifes our author's argument. For the ms. evidence in favour of the
unquestionably correct reading, , the reader is referred to Dr.
Tregelles' Critical Greek Testament, in loc.; only to the convincing amount
of evidence collected by the very leraned editor must now be added the
subsequently obtained authority of Tischendorf's Codex Sinaiticus.
[5062] 9 Appretiati vel honorati. There is nothing in the original or the
Septuagint to meet the second word honorati, which may refer to the
"honorarium," or "fee paid on admission to a post of honour,"'a term of
Roman law, and referred to by Tertullian himself.
[5063] Luke xxii. 19. [See Jewell's Challenge, p. 266, supra.]
[5064] Corpus veritatis: meant as a thrust against Marcion's Docetism.
[5065] Ad vanitatem Marcionis. [Note 9, p. 289.]
[5066] Peponem. In his De Anima, c. xxxii., he uses this word in strong
irony: "Cur non magis et pepo, tam insulsus."
[5067] [This text, imperfectly quoted in the original, is fulled out by
Dr. Holmes.]
[5068] So the Septuagint in Jer. xi. 19,
(A.V. "Let us destroy the tree with the fruit"). See above, book iii. chap.
xix. p. 337.
[5069] Illuminator antiquitatum. This general phrase includes typical
ordinances under the law, as well as the sayings of the prophets.
[5070] Luke xxii. 20.
[5071] Isa. lxiii. 1 (Sept. slightly altered).
[5072] In Juda.
[5073] 0 Gen. xlix. 11.
[5074] Luke xxii. 22.
[5075] Ipse.
[5076] This is an argumentum ad hominem against Marcion for his cavil,
which was considered above in book ii. chap. v.-viii. p. 300.
[5077] Obstitit peccaturo.
[5078] Si ignorabat. One would have expected "si non ignorabat," like
the "si sciebat" of the next step in the argument.
[5079] The original of this not very clear sentence is: "Nam et Petrum
praesumptorie aliquid eloctum negationi potius destinando zeloten deum tibi
ostendit."
[5080] Luke xxii. 34 and 54-62.
[5081] Luke xxii. 47-49.
[5082] Isa. xxix. 13.
[5083] 0 Luke xxii. 66, 67.
[5084] 1 Oehler's admirable edition is also carefully printed for the
most part, but surely his quaesisset must here be quaesissent.
[5085] Luke xxii. 67.
[5086] Supersedit ostendere.
[5087] i.e., not to answer that question of theirs. This seems to be
the force of the perfect tense, "occultasse se."
[5088] He makes Jesus stretch forth His hand, porrigens manum inquit.
[5089] Luke xxii. 69.
[5090] Dan. vii. 13.
[5091] Ps. cx. 1.
[5092] Luke xxii. 70.
[5093] 0 Luke xxii. 70.
[5094] 1 Or does he suppose that they repeated this same question twice?
His words are, "dum rursus interrogant."
[5095] 2 Either, "Art thou," or, "Thou art, then the Son of God."
[5096] Oblique.
[5097] Ut, quiasic senserunt.
[5098] Aperte.
[5099] Aeque ita et ille confirmative respondit.
[5100] Ut perseveraverint in eo quod pronuntiatio sapiebat See Luke
xxii. 71.
[5101] Onerare coeperunt.
[5102] "King Messiah;" Luke
xxiii. 1, 2.
[5103] 0 Gravassent.
[5104] 1 Proinde.
[5105] 2 Luke xxiii. 3.
[5106] Constitutues est in judicio. The Septuagint is "shall stand on His trial."
[5107] Isa. iii. 13, 14 (Septuagint).
[5108] Ps. ii. 1, 2.
[5109] Velut munus. This is a definition, in fact, of the xenium in the
verse from Hosea. This was the Roman lautia, "a state
entertainment to distinguished foreigners in the city."
[5110] Luke xxiii. 7.
[5111] Hos. x. 6 (Sept. ).
[5112] Luke xxiii. 8, 9.
[5113] 0 Isa. liii. 7.
[5114] 1 Isa. l. 4 (Sept.).
[5115] 2 Ps. xxii. 15.
[5116] 3 Luke xxiii. 25.
[5117] 4 Comp. Luke xxiii. 33 with Isa. liii. 12.
[5118] 5 This remarkable suppression was made to escape the wonderful
minuteness of the prophetic evidence to the details of Christ's death.
[5119] Ps. xxii. 18.
[5120] Ps. xxii. 16.
[5121] Ps. xxii. 16, 7, 8.
[5122] We append the original of these obscure sentences: "Quo jam
testimonium vestimentorum? Habe falsi tui praedam; totus psalmus vestimenta
sunt Christi." The general sense is apparent. If Marcion does suppress the
details about Christ's garments at the cross, to escape the inconvenient
proof they afford that Christ is the object of prophecies, yet there are so
many other points of agreement between this wonderful Psalm and St. Luke's
history of the crucifixion (not expunged, as it would seem, by the heretic),
that they quite compensate for the loss of this passage about the garments
(Oehler).
[5123] 0 Comp. Josh. x. 13.
[5124] 1 Argumenta.
[5125] 2 Isa. l. 3.
[5126] 3 Amos. viii. 9.
[5127] 4 Here you have the meaning of the sixth hour.
[5128] 5 Luke xxiii. 45.
[5129] 6 Ezek. xi. 22, 23.
[5130] Isa. i. 8.
[5131] Comp. Luke xxiii. 46 with Ps. xxxi. 5.
[5132] Luke xxiii. 46.
[5133] Spiritus: or "breath."
[5134] Expirasse: considered actively, "breathed out," in reference to
the "expiravit" of the verse 46 above.
[5135] A sharp rebuke of Marcion's Docetism here follows.
[5136] Autem.
[5137] Autem.
[5138] Nusquam comparuit phantasma cum spiritu.
[5139] Post expirationem.
[5140] See these stages in Luke xxiii. 47-55.
[5141] Non nihil: "a something."
[5142] This argument is also used by Epiphanius to prove the reality of
Christ's body, Hoeres. xl. Confut. 74. The same writer also employs for the
same purpose the incident of the women returning from the sepulchre, which
Tertullian is going to adduce in his next chapter, Confut. 75 (Oehler).
[5143] 0 Luke xxiii. 51.
[5144] 1 Ps. i. 1.
[5145] 2 The first word of the passage just applied to Joseph.
[5146] 3 Luke xxiv. 1.
[5147] 4 Hos. v. 15 and vi. 1, 2.
[5148] 5 Volutata.
[5149] 6 Luke xxiv. 3.
[5150] 7 Isa. lvii. 2, according to the Septuagint,
[5151] 8 Luke xxiv. 4.
[5152] Tot fere laternsibus.
[5153] 0 Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15, compared with Matt. xviii. 16 and 2 Cor.
xiii. 1.
[5154] 1 Isa. xxvii. 11, according to the Septuagint,
[5155] 2 Luke xxiv. 13-19.
[5156] 3 Luke xxiv. 21.
[5157] 4 Plane.
[5158] 5 Luke xxiv. 25.
[5159] 6 Luke xxiv. 6,7.
[5160] 7 Videte. The original is much stronger "handle me, and see." Two sentences thrown into one.
[5161] 8 Luke xxiv. 37-39.
[5162] 9 Luke xxiv. 39.
[5163] Luke xxiv. 41.
[5164] An additional proof that He was no phantom.
[5165] Ut opinor.
[5166] Sententiis.
[5167] Prophetarum.
[5168] Luke xxiv. 47 and Matt. xxviii. 19.
[5169] Ps. xix. 4.
[5170] Opp. Tom. vi. p. 228. Ed. Migne.
[5171] Calmet. Opp. i. 483 and Tom. x., p. 525.
Also, see links to 3500 other Manuscripts:
/believe/txv/earlych7.htm
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet
http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html