that which he seemeth to have. ' ' s What shall be given? The increase of faith, or under- standing, or even salvation. What shall be taken away? That, of course, which shall be given. By whom shall the gift and the dep- rivation 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 Mar- cion's god also will it be taken away. Now, for whatever reason He threatens the "dep- rivation," it will not be the work of a god who knows not how to threaten, because in- capable of anger. I am, moreover, astonished when he says that " a candle is not usually hidden," * who had hidden himself — a greater and more needful light — during so long a time; andv/hen he promises that "everything shall be brought out of its secrecy and made manifest," 7 who hitherto has kept his god in obscurity, waiting (I suppose) until Marcion be born. We now come to the most strenu- ously-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? " * In this manner 1 Luke viii. 8.
2 Luke viii. i8.
3 Pronuntiationi.
4 Sane: with a touch of irony.
5 Luke viii. i8. ^ Luke viii. i6.
7 Luke viii. 17.'
heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal in- terpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution,'' 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 Fle 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 temp- tation (" Behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him;"'° again, when inquiring about tribute, the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him"), so, when it makes no men- tion of temptation, it does not admit the in- terpretation of temptation. However, al- though J do tiof 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 hav- ing been born, when they '- 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, '^ 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 an- swered 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 contemporane- ously '* with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them? '^ May a man rather not have fathers and sisters (living), 9 Rationales. " Quae voces adhibita ratione sunt interpre- tanda;."— Oehler.
<2 Singular in the original, but (to avoid confusion) here made plural.
13 In allusion to Luke vii. 16. See above, chap. xviiL •4 Advivit 15 ^dgenerantur TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book IV.
or even no relatives at all? But there is his- torical proof ' that at this very time " a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturni- nus,3 which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of testing the point had there- fore 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 re- sorts to non-literal" 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. 5 He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him " stood ivithout," while strangers were witJmi 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* them. And therefore, when to the previous question, " Who is my mother, and who are my breth- ren?" ^ 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. No"' no one transfers a thing except from him who possesses that which is transferred. If, there- fore. 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,^ that "whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, 1 Constat. [Jarvis, Introd. p.204 and p. 536.]
2 Nunc: i.e., when Christ was told of His mother and brethren. 3"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 Palli'o, i. Tertullian's statement in the text has weighed with Sanclemente and others, who suppose that Saturninus was governor of Judsea 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 Testament itself supplies far bet- ter aids for determining this question than the discordant ecclesias- tical traditions, — different fathers giving different dates, which might be appealed to with equal justice; while Tertullian is even inconsi.stent 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 Venables, p. gg, 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 Siilpicius Quirinus (or " Cyrenius ") was actually the governor of Syria at the time of the Lord's birth, the reader may be referred to a care- ful abridgment by the translator of Wieseler's work, pp. i2y-i35.
4Non simpliciter. St. Mark rather than St. Luke is quoted in this interrogative sentence.
5 Ex condicione rational!. See Oehler's note, just above, on the word " rationales."
*Abdicavit: Rigalt'thinks this AarM, and reminds us that at the cross the Lord hao not cast away His mother. [Elucidation VL] 7 This is literally from St. Matthew's narrative, chap. xii. 48.
*In semetipso.J was not a disciple worthy of Him."' Be- sides,'" 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 rela- tives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it" did not possess."
CHAP. XX. COMPARISON OF CHRIST's POWER OVER WINDS AND WAVES WITH MOSES' COM- MAND OF THE WATERS OF THE RED SEA AND THE JORDAN. CHRIST's POWER OVER UN- CLEAN SPIRITS. THE CASE OF THE LEGION. THE CURE OF THE ISSUE OF BLOOD. THE MOSAIC UNCLEANNESS ON THIS POINT EX- PLAINED.
But " what manner of man is this? for He commandeth even the winds and water!" '^ Of course He is the new master and proprietor of the elements, now that the Creator is de- posed, and excluded from their possession! Nothing of the kind. But the elements own"» their own Maker, just as they had been ac- customed to obey His servants also. Ex- amine 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 Judaea. How the sea yawns from its very depths, then fixes itself in two solidified masses, and so, out of the interval between them,'^ makes a way for the people to pass dry-shod across; again does the same rod vibrate, the sea re- turns in its strength, and in the concourse of its waters the chivalry of Egypt is engulphed! To that consummation the very winds sub- served! 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,'* when his priests began to pass over! '^ loCeterum.
"i.e., the kindred. [N.B. He includes the Mother!]
12 We have translated Oehler's text of this passage: " Denique nihil magnum, si fidem sangiiini, 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 older editions: " Denique nihil magnum, si fidem sanguini, ijiiein non habebat." To wliich 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 'iAatQ\o-a''\Docetic opiaion of Christ.
'3 Luke viii. 25.
'4 Agnorant.
'5 Et pari utrinque stupore discriminis fixum.
•7 This obscure passage is thus read by Oehler, from whom we have translated: " Lege extorri familiae dirimendae in transitu ejus Jordanis machseram fuisse, cujus impetum atque decursum plane et Jesus docuerat prophetis transmeantibus stare." The mach- trrarn (" sword ") is a metaphor for the ri^ier. Rigaltius refers to Virgil's figure, yUneid, viii. fc, i'4, for a justification of the CHAP. XX.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
AVhat will you say to this? If it be your Christ that is tneant abore, 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,' if a prediction of His present passage on the sea had not pre- ceded Christ's coming. As psalm is, in fact, accomplished by this ^ crossing over the lake. "The Lord," says the psalmist, "is upon many waters."^ When He disperses its waves, Habakkuk's words are fulfilled, where he says, "Scattering the waters in His pas- sage."* /Vhen at His rebuke the sea is calmed, Nahum is also verified: He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry,"^ including the winds indeed, whereby it was disquieted. With what evidence would you have my Christ vin- dicated? 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, ° instead of one who in a figu- rative and allegorical sense was to wage a spiritual warfare against spiritual enemies, in spiritual campaigns, and with spiritual weap- ons: come now, when in one man alone you discover a multitude of demons calling itself Legion,'^ of course comprised of spirits, you should learn that Christ also must be under- stood to be an exterminator of spiritual foes, who wields spiritual arms and fights in spirit- ual strife; and that it was none other than He,* who now had to contend with even a lefjion 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." ° 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? '° No doubt, of that God whose torments and abyss they knew and dreaded. It seems impossible for them to have re- mained 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 un- likely that the Creator was ignorant thereof. For if He had been at any time ignorant that there was another god above Himself, He had simile. Oehler has altered the reading from the ex sorte fam- iliae," etc., of the MSS. to " extorri familiec," etc. The former reading would mean probably: " Read out of the story of the na- tion how that Jordan was as a sword to hinder their passage across its stream." The Jiw^t' (or, as yet another variation has it, '■'■ et scries" " 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. ' Solis.
2 Istius.
^Hab. iii. 10, according to >the Septuagint.
* See above, book iii. chap, xiii, ^ Luke viii. 30.
* Atque ita ipsum es6C. 9Ps. xxiv. 8.
"> Luke viii. 28.
by this time at all events discovered that there was one at work " 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." As therefore both the Creator and His creatures '^ 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,''* inasmuch as they had not lied, inasmuch as they had acknowl- edged 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's of the Creator's failings '* and infirmities in Christ; for I on my side '^ 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,'* 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 ques- tioned Adam, as if in ignorance: Adam, where art thou? " '5 Thus you have both the Creator excused in the same way as Christ, and Christ acting similarly to ^ 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,-' He de- sired not only that this woman should touch Him, but that He should heal her.*^ Here, " Agentem.
'2 Conversaretur.
'3 Substantiae: including these demons.
«4 Sed enim: the dAAa yap of the Greek.
'5 Aliquid.
'6 Pusillitatibus.
19 See above, book iii. chap. xxv.
20 Adaequatum: on a par with.
22 A Marcionite hypothesis.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book IV.
then, is a God who is not merciful by nature, but in hostiUty! Yet, if we find that such was the merit of this woman's faith, that He said unto her. Thy faith hath saved thee,"' what are you, that you should detect an hos- tility to the law in that act, which the Lord Himself shows us to have been done as a re- ward 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 believ- ing? Whom despising? The Creator? Her touch at least was an act of faith. And if of faith in the Creator, how could she have vio- lated His law,^ 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:^ 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, not 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.* She there- fore, not without reason, 5 interpreted for her- seJf 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* 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 ^ ill health, for which she knew that the succour of God's mercy was needed, and not the fiatural relief of time. And thus she may evidently be regarded as having discerned ** the law, instead of breaking it. This will prove to be the faith which was to confer in- telligence likewise. " If ye will not believe," ' Luke viii. 48.
3 Kcquomodo legem ejus irrupit.
3 Priino.
4Spurcitia.
4bpii 5 Non temere.
' In lege taxari.
7 Ilia autem redundavit.
8 Distinxisse.
says (the prophet), "ye shall not under- stand." ^ When Christ approved of the faith of this woman, which simply rested in the Creator, He declared by His answer to her," that He was Himself the divine object of the faith of which He approved. Nor can I over- look the fact that His garment, by being touched, demonstrated also the truth of His body; for of course " it was a body, and not a phantom, which the garment clothed." 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 be- ing an unsubstantial thing. '^ He therefore, who, by reason of this vacuity of his sub- stance, was incapable of contamination, how could he possibly have desired this touch? '♦ As an adversary of the law, his conduct was deceitful, for he was not susceptible of a real pollution. '.
CHAP. 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 MUL- TITUDE. THE CONFESSION OF ST. PETER. BEING ASHAMED OF CHRIST. THIS SHAME IS ONLY POSSIBLE OF THE TRUE CHRIST. MAR- CIONITE PRETENSIONS ABSURD.
He sends forth His disciples to preach the kingdom of God.'s Does He here say of what God? He forbids their taking anything for their journey, by way of either food or rai- ment. Who would have given such a com- mandment as this, but He who feeds the ravens and clothes '* the flowers of the field? Who anciently enjoined for the treading ox an unmuzzled mouth, '^ that he might be at liberty to gather his fodder from his labour, on the principle that the worker is worthy of his hire?'^ Marcion may expunge such pre- cepts, 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 wihiess. 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 testi- ■o Luke viii. 48. " Utique.
12 Epiphanius, in Uteres, xlii. Rc/ut. 14, has the same remark. ■3 Qua res vacua.
■4 In allusion to the Marcionite hypothesis mentioned above.
16 Vestit. ' 17 Libertatem oris.
CHAr. X.\l.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION mony," does really threaten as a judge. Again, that it was no new god which recom- mended = by Christ, was clearly attested by the opinion of all men, because some main- tained 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 prophets. 3 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 multi- tude in the desert place;■• this, you must knows was after the manner of the Old Testa- ment.* Or else,^ 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* of not five thousand, but of six hundred thousand human beings. However, such was the great- ness of His viiracle, that He willed the slender supply of food, not only to be enough, but even to prove superabundant;' 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 '° by the blessing of the prophet throughout the period of the famine. You have the third book of the Kings." If you also turn to the fourth book, you will dis- cover all this conduct " of Christ pursued by that man of God, who ordered ten '^ barley loaves which had been given him to be dis- tributed 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, ac- cording to the word of the Lord." "* O Christ, even in Thy novelties Thou art old! Accord- ingly, when Peter, who had been an eye- witness of the miracle, and had compared it with the ancient precedents, and had dis- covered in them prophetic intimations of what should one day come to pass, answered (as the mouthpiece of them all) the Lord's in- quiry, "Whom say ye that I am?"'^ in the » In testationem redigi.
2 Probatum.
5 Scilicet.
* De pristine more. 7 Aut.
* Protelavit. 9 Exuberare.
•0 Redundaverant.
'2 Ordinem.
'3 1 have no doubt that ten was the word written by our author; for some Greek copies read fi^Ko, and Ambrose in his Hexa'etne- '*on, book vi. chap, ii,, mentions the same number (Fr. Junius).