8 Ps. xvi. 10, and probably Dan. ix. 24.
9 Compare what was said above in book iii., chap. xvi. p. 'o Exceperat.
•' Such IS our author's reading of Luke i. 35.
i^Saivi.
"4 Optimi.
"5 Pra;misimus.
'6 De Candida salutis: see Luke x. to.
'^CJuidem.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book IV.
however, the rebuke has not a more probable meaning' 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 impossi- ble 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.
CHAP. 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 ^ to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very ac- count,3 Naze>'e?ies* after Him. For we are they of whom it is written, " Her Nazarites were whiter than snow; " ^ even they who were once defiled with the stains of sin, and dark- ened with the clouds of ignorance. But to Christ the title Nazarene was destined to be- come a suitable one, from the hiding-place of His infancy, for which He went down and dwelt at Nazareth,^ to escape from Archelaus the son of Herod. This fact I have not re- frained from mentioning on this account, be- cause 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 Judaea which had not been by the prophets thus assigned ' 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,^ whilst in another verse He is said to have been re- jected» by reason of a simple proverb.'" Here at once, when I observe that they laid their hands on Him, I cannot help drawing a con- clusion respecting His bodily substance, which cannot be believed to have been a phantom," 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 preci- pice. For although He escaped through the ' Verisimiliorem statum.
2 Habebat.
3 Ipso nomine, or by His very name.
4 Nazaraeos; or, Nazarites. [Christians were still so called by the Jews in the Third Century. Kaye, 446.]
* Descendit apud, see Luke iv. 16-30.
7 Emancipata " \ rebuke of Marcion's Doceti* views of Chiist midst of them. He had already experienced their rough treatment, and afterwards went His way, no doubt " because the crowd (as usually happens) gave way, or was even broken through; but not because ic was eluded as by an impalpable disguise,'^ which, if there had been such, would not at all have sub- mitted to any touch.
" Tangere enim et tangi, nisi corpus, nulla potest res," '* 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 con- ferred the blessings of healing, '^ 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.'* "Surely," says he, "He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows." Now the Greeks are accus- tomed to use for carry a word which also sig- nifies to take away. A general promise is enough for me in passing. '' 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," '«— of what God, is clear enough from the case itself. But they were rebuked, and ordered not to speak; precisely because'' 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 be- come known, and who were assuredly worthier preachers. It was natural to Him ^ to refuse the proclamation of an unclean spirit, at whose command there was an abundance of saints. He, however,^' 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 tes- timony of an alien or any sort of substance, who did not happen to have a substance of his own,''^ but had descended in an alien one. And now, too, as the destroyer also of the Creator, he would have desired nothing better 12 Scilicet.
13 Per caliginem.
■4 " For nothing can touch and be touched but a bodily sub- stance." This line from Lucretius, De Rerum NaturaA. 305, is again quoted by TertuUian in his De AKt'ma, chap. v. (Oehler).
'* See Isa. liii. 4.
'7 Interim.
'9 Proinde enim.
20 Illius erat.
=• Porro.
22 Propriae non habebat.
CHAl'. IX.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
than to be acknowledged by His spirits, and to be divulged for the sake of being feared: ' only that Marcion says' 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 ^ of fear — anger, severity, judgments, vengeance, condemna- tion. But it was from fear, undoubtedly, that the evil spirits were cowed.* 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 5 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^ of having to conduct himself contrary to his nature, where- as he might in his simple goodness have at once treated them with leniency. He fell, too, into another false position ^ — 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." ^ This was, indeed, the Creator's customary region. It was proper that the Word' should there appear in body, where He had afore- time, wrought in a cloud. To the gospel also was suitable that condition of place '" which had once been determined on for the law." " Let the wilderness and the solitary place, therefore, be glad and rejoice;" so had Isaiah promised." When " stayed " by the crowds, He said," I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also." '^ Had He dis- played 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 listen- ing to Him.
' Prae timore.
2 See above, book i. chap. vii. xxvi. and xxvii.
3 Materiae.
4 Cedebant.
5 Aut nunquid. S Necessitatem.
7 In aliam notam.
9Sermonem. [Nota Bene, Acts vii. 38.] lo Habitus loci.
" The law was given in the wilderness of Sinai; see Ex. xix. i. «- Isa. XXXV. I.
CHAP. IX. — OUT OF ST. LUKE's FIFTH CHAPTER ARE FOUND PROOFS OF CHRIST's BELONGING TO THE CREATOR, E.G. IN THE CALL OF FISH- ERMEN 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 in- deed had He such respect for that of fisher- men, 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 nar- rative was meant to be drawn out"'), saying to Peter, when he trembled at the very large draught of the fishes, " Fear not; from hence- forth thou shalt catch men? " 's gy 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," '^ 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 op- position to his Antitheses, that the position of Marcion derives no advantage from the di- versity 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,'' as a proof in his domain,'^ a certain companion in misery {aw-a\ai-Kupov), and associate in hatred (avfifiiaov/ievov), wit^i himself, for the cure of leprosy,'^ I shall5^ot be sorry to meet him, and before anything else to point out to him the force of the law figuratively inter- preted, 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 apos- tle also forbids us even to eat food,^ foras- much as the taint of sins would be communi- cated as if contagious, wherever a man should mix himself with the sinner. The Lord, there- fore, wishing that the law should be more profoundly understood as signifying spiritual truths by carnal facts-' — and thus^' not de- '4 Argumentum processurum erat.
'7 Attentius argumentatur.
«S Apud ilium, i.e., the Creator.
21 Per camalia, by viaterial things.
~ Hoc nomine.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book iV stroying, but rather building up, that law which He wanted to have more earnestly ac- knowledged— touched the leper, by whom (even although as man He might have been defiled) He could not be defiled as God, be- ing 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 • 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 ^ 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 ^ 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," to the exclusion of ^ so many lepers in Israel,* this fact contributes nothing to the distinction of Christ, as if he were in this way the better one for cleansing this Israelite leper, although a stranger to him, whom his own Lord had been unable to cleanse. The cleansing of the Syrian rather^ was significant throughout the nations of the world ^ of their own cleansing in Christ their light, ^ steeped as they were in the stains of the seven deadly sins: '° idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false-witness, and fraud." Seven times, ' j^mulus.
2 Another allusion to Marcion's Docetic doctrine.
5 E.X., literally, " alone of." So Luke iv. 27.
6 Compare 2 Kings v. 9-14 with Luke iv. 27.
7 Facilius — rather than of Israelites.
8 Per Nationes. [Bishop Andrewes thus classifies the "Sins of the Nations," as Tertullian's idei seems to have suggested: (i) Pride^ Amorite; (2) Envy, Hittite; (j) Wrath, Perizzite; (4) Gluttony Girgashite; (5) Lechery, Hivite; (6) Coveiousness, Canaanite; (7) Sloth, Jebusite.]
9 Compare, in Simeon's song, Luke ii. 32, the designation, " A light to lighten the Gentiles.
" Such seems to be the meaning of the obscure passage in the original, " Syro facilius emundato significato per nationes emun- dationis in Christo lumine carum qua; septem maculis, capitalium delictorum inhorrerent, idolatria," etc. We have treated signifi- cato as one member of an ablative absolute clause, from signi Ji- catum, a noun occurring in Gloss. Lat. Gr. synonymous with i^Aoicrtv. 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, belonged to the Creator, and Christ to the good God. 'l"o magnify Christ's benefi- cence, 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 Martherefore, as if once for each,'= did he wasii in Jordan; both in order that he might cele- brate the expiation of a perfect hebdomad; '' and because the virtue and fulness of the onr baptism was thus solemnly imputed'* to Christ, alone, who was one day to establish on earth not only a revelation, but also a baptism, en- dued with compendious efficacy. '= Even Marcion finds here an antithesis:"^ 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 '^ the cure. And surely I might venture '^ to claim '9 the Very Word also as of the Cre- ator's substance. There is nothing of which He who was the primitive Author is not also the more powerful one. Forsooth,^ it is in- credible 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 be- longs to the Creator, on the ground that He was once more powerful than a servant of the Creator — since, in comparison with the weak- ness of Elisha, He is acknowledged to be the greater, if indeed greater! =' For the cure is the same, although there is a difference in the working of it. What has your Christ per- formed more than my Elisha? Nay, what great thing has the word of your Christ per- formed, when it has simply done that which a river of the Creator effected? On the same principle occurs all the rest. So far as re- nouncing all human glory went. He forbade the man to publish abroad the aire; but so far as the honour of the law was concerned, He re- quested that the usual course should be fol- lowed: "Go, show thyself to the priest, and cionite 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 Israel- ite, and so showed himself the superior power. Tertullian denies both positions."
'2 Quasi per singulos titulos.
'3 There was a mystic completeness in the nur.iber seven.
"4 Dicabatur.
'5 Sicut sermonem compendiatum, ita et lavacrum. In chap. i. of this book, the N.T. is called the compendiatum. This iUu»- trates the present phrase.
1* Et hoc opponit.
17 Reprajsentavit.
'S Quasi non audeam.
■9 Vindicare in.
2o Plane. An ironical cavil from the Marcionite view.
-' Si tamen major.
CHAP. X.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
present the offering which Moses command- ed." ' For the figurative signs of the law in its types He still would have observed, be- cause of their prophetic import.* These types signified that a man. once a sinner, but afterwards purified ^ 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.'' Accordingly He added: "that it maybe 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 ^ their sicknesses and infirmities. This very con- sistent 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 solemni- ties of the law, therefore He gave this pre- cept. Well, what then? Has He continued in his goodness (that is to say, in his permis- sion of the law) or not? For if he has perse- vered in his goodness, he will never become a destroyer of the law; nor will he ever be accounted as belonging to another god, be- cause 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 de- struction 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, there- fore, he was good whilst upholding the law,^ 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 ' as the destroyer of a good law. So that if he commanded the offering of the gift because lie knew that every cured leper would be sure to bring one; he possibly abstained from com- manding what he knew would be spontaneously done. In vain, therefore, was his com- ing down, as if with the intention of destroy- ' Utpote prophetatae. 3 Emaculatum.
^[i.e., the Great High Priest whose sacrifice is accepted of the Father, for the sins of the whole world.] 5 Suscepturus: ia carry or take auuiy. ^l.egis indultor. 7 Advenit.
ing the law, when he makes concessions to the keepers of the law. And yet,* because he knew their disposition,' he ought the more earnestly to have prevented their neglect of the law," 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 ex- tent " to have persisted in his patience. But he adds also his own authority increased by the weight of this " testimony." Of what tes- timony, I ask,'- 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, '3 or as patient, or as incon- stant— provided, Marcion, I drive you from your position.''* Observe, '^ 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:'* " I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it." '' What business, therefore, had you to erase out of the Gospel that which was quite consistent in it? '* For you have confessed that, in his goodness, he did in act what you deny that he did in word.'' We have there- fore 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) ^° have inserted it.
CHAP. 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 ARGU- MENT BY SEVERAL QUOTATIONS FROM THE PROPHETS.
The sick of the palsy is healed,-' 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."^- What glory, and what excellency? "Be strong, ye weak hands, and ye feeble knees:" *' this refers to the palsy. " Be strong; fear not." -■* Be strong is not vainly repeated, nor is fear not vainly added; because with the 8 Atquin.
9 Formam.
'° Ab ea avertendos. " Aliquatenus.
13 Supervacuus.
14 Gradu.
18 Quod salvum est.
19 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.
2oNostros: or, perhaps, "our people,"— that is, the Catholics.
23 Isa. XXXV. 3 in an altered form.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book IV.
renewal of the limbs there was to be, accord- ing to the promise, a restoration also of bodily energies: "Arise, and take up thy couch;" and likewise moral courage ' 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." ^ For in an earlier passage, speak- ing 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. "3 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 trans- gressions of the remnant of Thine heritage. He retaineth not His anger as a testimony agatfist 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 mto the depths of the sea.""* 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 ^ — 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 ac- knowledged his sin against Uriah, the prophet Nathan said unto him, " The Lord hath can- celled* thy sin, and thou shalt not die;"' how king Ahab in like manner, the husband of Jezebel, guilty of idolatry and of the blood of Naboth, obtained pardon because of his re- pentance;® and how Jonathan the son of Saul blotted out by his deprecation the guilt of a violated fast.' Why should I recount the fre- quent restoration of the nation itself after the forgiveness of their sins? — by that God, indeed, who will have mercy rather than sacri- fice, and a sinner's repentance rather than his