together, let not man put asunder."'* 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 '^ the institution of the Cre- ator,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 '* the Father, even Him who united male and female, must He not have rather e.xculpated '' than abol- ished the enactment of Moses? But, observe, if this Christ be yours when he teaches con- trary to Moses and the Creator, on the same principle must He be mine if I can show that 9 Deut. xxiv. I.
"J A Marcionite challenge.
" Plane.
'- St. Matthew's Gospel.
'iMatt. xix. 8.
'S Direxit.
>6 Gestans.
'7 Excusaverit.
CHAP. XXXIV.]
TER'l'ULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
His teaching is not contrary to them. I main- tain, 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 marry- ing 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," = — "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 adul- terer as the man who marries one who is un- divorced. Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry,3 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 ab- solutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions,* when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition. In very deed ^ His teaching is not contrary to Moses, whose precept He partially^ defends, I will not ' say confirms. If, however, you deny that divorce is in any way permitted by Christ, how is it that you on your side® 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 any- where else,' 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,'" if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle, you know," does not permit " the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot."" Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, '3 has even in Christ a de- fender. 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."'"* He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who mar- ' Ideo ut.
3 Nubere. This verb is here used of both se.xes, in a general sense.
* Alias.
5 Etiam: Jlrst word of the sentence.
* Alicubi.
7 Nondura.
8Tu.
9 Alibi: i.e., than in the Marcionite connection. ' ' Apud te. ' ' Scilicet. ''Justitia divortii.
ries a woman put away by her husband. The Creator, however, except on account of adul- tery, 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.'^ 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." '* Thus you have Christ following spontaneously the tracks of the Creator every- where, both in permitting divorce and in for- bidding it. You find Him also protecting marriage, in whatever direction you try to es- cape. He prohibits divorce when He will have the marriage inviolable; He permits di- vorce when the marriage is spotted with un- faithfulness. You should blush when you re- fuse 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 '^ now to show whence the Lord derived this decision'® 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 '' by any suddenly devised proposal of divorce; because it was not suddenly proposed, but had its root in the previously mentioned John. For John re- proved Herod, because he had illegally mar- ried the wife of his deceased brother, who had a daughter by her (a union which the law per- mitted only on the one occasion of the brother dying childless,^ when it even prescribed such a marriage, in order that by his own brother, and from his own wife,''' seed might be reck- oned to the deceased husband)," 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 -^ 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 >7 Debeo.
i3 Sententiam.
'9 Literally, '"Moses."
2ti Illiberis. L^-!'• H^ supposes Philip to have been dead.]
-' Costa: literally, " rib " or " side."
^3 Jaculatus est.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book IV.
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;' 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 para- ble of the rich man^ tormented in hell, and the poor man resting in Abraham's bosom. ^ For this passage, so far as its letter goes, comes before us abruptly; but if we regard its sense and purport, it naturally fits in with the mention of John wickedly slain, and of Herod, who had been condemned by him for his impious marriage. ^ It sets forth in bold outline* the end of both of them, the "tor- ments " 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."' Marcion, however, violently turns the passage to an- other end, and decides that both the torment and the comfort are retributions of the Creator, reserved in the next life^ 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 an- swer to this is, that the Scripture itself which dazzles' his sight expressly distinguishes be- tween 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," '° and from a distance too, ex- cept 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 recep- tion 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 • The condition being tl«it the deceased brother should have left " no child " see (Deut. xxv. 5). 'Ad subsequens argumentum divitis.
4 Ipsum.
SSuggillati Herodis male maritati. *Deformans.
*Apud inferos. [Note the origin of this doctrine.] 9 Revincente: perhaps " reproves his eyesight," in the sense of re/uiaiioH. »o Luke xvi. 2-!.
Abraham's bosom. Although it is not in heaven, it is yet higher than hell," and is ap- pointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until the consumma- tion of all things shall complete the resurrec- tion of all men with the " full recompense of their reward." ^- This consummation will then be manifested in heavenly promises, which Marcion, however, claims for his own god, just as if the Creator had never an nounced them. Amos, however, tells us of " those stories towards heaven "'3 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? " '< Now, although this everlasting abode is prom- ised, 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 cer- tainly of the heavenly promise, why may it not be possible, '5 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 '* of both judgments? If so, you have here, O heretics, during your present lifetime, a warning that Moses and the proph- ets 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 admoni- tion, says 3farcion, of our God from heaven has commanded us not to hear Moses and the prophets, but Christ; Hear Him is the C07n- mand.^'' This is true enough. For the apos- tles 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 '^ to say, "Thou art the Christ,"'' unless he had beforehand heard and believed Moses and the prophets, by whom alone Christ had been hitherto announced. Their faith, in- deed, had deserved this confirmation by such a voice from heaven as should bid them hear " Sublimiorem inferis. [Elucidation VIII.]
'2 Compare Heb. ii. 2 with x. 35 and xi. 26.
'3Ascensum in caelum: Sept. av6.^a<n.v ec? rov ovfiavoy, Amos ix. 6. See on this passage the article Hravkn in Kitto's Cyc/''- fxEclia (jd edit.), vol. ii. p. 245, where the present writer has dis- cussed the probable meaning of the verse.
M Isa. xxxiii. 14-16, according to the Septuagint, which has but slight resemblance to the Hebrew.
'5 Cur non capiat.
i<> Candida qua:dam prospiciatur: where Candida is a aoua sub- stantive (see above, chap. vii. p. 353).
»7 'J'here seems to be here an allusion to Luke ix. 35.
^^ Nee accepisset.
CHAP. XXXV.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
Hhn^ whom they had recognized as preaching peace, announcing glad tidings, promising an everlasting abode, building for them steps upwards into heaven.' Down in hell, how- ever, it was said concerning them: "They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them!" — even those who did not believe them or at least did not sincerely ^ believe that after death there were punishments for the arro- gance of wealth and the glory of luxury, an- nounced indeed by Moses and the prophets, but decreed by that God, who deposes princes from their thrones, and raiseth up the poor from dunghills. 3 Since, therefore, it is quite consistent in the Creator to pronounce differ- ent sentences in the two directions of reward and punishment, we shall have to conclude that there is here no diversity of gods,-* but only a difference in the actual matters '^ before us.
CHAP. XXXV. THE JUDICIAL SEVERITY OF CHRIST AND THE TENDERNESS OF THE CREA- TOR, ASSERTED IN CONTRADICTION TO MAR- CION. 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 REJECT- ED BY THE BUILDERS. INDICATIONS OF SEVERITY IN THE COMING OF CHRIST. PROOFS THAT HE IS NOT THE IMPASSIBLE BEING MAR- CION 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," ^ that is, one of His disciples. Judge, then, what the sort of punishment is which He so sever- ely 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." ^ Such identity of care proceeds from one and the same Being. A trespassing brother He will have rebuked.^ 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,' although possessing ' See Isa. lii. 7, xxxiii. 14 (Sept.), and Amos ix. 6.
2 Omnino.
3 See 1 Sam. ii. 6-8, Ps. cxiii. 7, and Luke i. 52. 4Divinitatum; " divine powers."
5 Ipsarum raaterianim. ' Luke xvii. i, 2. * Luke xvii. 3.
9Ex acceptione personae. The Greek n-poauTroAiiJ/io, " respect or persons."
the injunction in Leviticus: "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; thy neighbor thou shalt seriously rebuke, and on his ac- count shalt not contract sin."'° Nor is it to be wondered at, if He thus teaches who for- bids 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." " But that surely, is a small matter; for with the Creator there is a larger grace, when He sets no Umits to forgiveness, indefinitely charging you "not to bear any malice against your brother," " 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 '^ an of- fence, but forget it. The law about lepers had a profound meaning as respects '■* the forms of the disease itself, and of the inspection by the high priest. '5 The interpretation of this sense it will be our task to ascertain. Marcion's labour, however, is to object to us the strict- ness '* of the law, with the view of maintaining that here also Christ is its enemy — forestall- ing'^ 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 " '* — 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,'' to busy Himself with inquiries -° into the quali- ties and details of cures; or for the Creator to be summoned to the scrutiny of the law in the person of Christ? If any part 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 espe- cially,which (as excelling in glory and strength, because they are His owti acts) rightly enough leave in the distance behind them the works which are done by His servants. But enough 10 Lev. xix. 17. The last clause in A. V. runs, " And not suffer sin upon him;" but the Sept. gives this reading, icai ov A^i//>; Si avrov o/u.apTi'ai'; nor need the Hebrew mean other than this. The prenominal particle l"'"'^? niay be well rendered St auroj on his account.
" Luke xvii. 4.
'3 Dones.
'4 Erga: /.y. circa.
•5 See Lev. xiii. and xiv.
'6 Morositatem.
'7 Prsevenientem.
'9 Or. perhaps, '• had proved the prophecy true by His acrotn- plishment of it."
20 Retractari.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book IV.
has been already said on this point in a for- mer passage.' Now, although He said in a preceding chapter,^ that " there were many- lepers in Israel in the days of Eliseus the orophet, and none of them was cleansed sav- mg Naaman the Syrian," yet of course the .nere number proves nothing towards a dif- erence in the gods, as tending to the abase- ment ^ 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 eas- ily than ten by him who had never healed one before? But His main purpose in this decla- ration was to strike at the unbelief or the pride of Israel, 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 Him- self the veritable* 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 ex- tinguisher 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." ^ 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,^ if anybody supposes that Christ had such views as these! 7 But there are certainly better in- terpretations to be found of the passage, and more deserving of belief: how that they were cleansed on this account, because ^ 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?' Because Eli- sha 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 pro- founder reason. Consider, therefore, the * See above in chap. ix. "Praefatus est: see Luke iv. 27. 3 Destructionem.
* Authenticus. " He was the true, the original Priest, of whom the priests under the Mosaic law were only copies " (Bp. Kaye, On the IVritings 0/ Tertullian, pp. 293, 294, and note 8).
5 Luke xvii. 14.
* Et utique viderit. 7 Tam opiniosus.
8 Qua: " I should prefer quia" (Oehler). 9 Pristine leproso: but doubtful.
true motives. '° The miracle was performed in the district of Samaria, to which country also belonged one of the lepers." Samaria, however, had revolted from Israel, carrying with it the disaffected nine tribes," which, hav- ing been alienated '^ by the prophet Ahijah,"* 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's 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." '^ Accordingly, He who said, " Woe unto them that trust in the mountain of Samaria,"''' 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 v/here the temple was; submitting'^ the Samaritan to the Jew, inasmuch as " salvation was of the Jews,"'' whether to the Israelite or the Samaritan. To the tribe of Judah, indeed, wholly apper- tained the promised Christ,™ in order that men might know that at Jerusalem were both the priests and the temple; that there also was the womb ^' of religion, and its living fountain, not its jnere "well." -^ Seeing, therefore, that they recognised ^^ the truth that at Jerusalem the law was to be fulfilled. He healed them whose salvation was to come ^^ of faith "^ with- out 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 ac- cording to the law, because he had already paid his tribute of gratitude when " he glori- fied God;^ for thus did the Lord will that the law's requirement should be interpreted. And yet who was the God to whom the Samari- tan gave thanks, because thus far not even had an Israelite heard of another god? Who else but He by whom all had hitherto been '° Causas.
" Luke xvii. 17.
•2 Schisma illud ex novem tribubus. There is another reading which substitutes the word decern. " It is, however, immaterial; either number will do roundly. If ' ten ' be the number, it must be understood that the tenth is divided, accurately making nine and a half tribes. If ' nine ' be read, the same amount isstill made up, for.Simeon was reckoned Wxttijudah^ and half of the tribe of Benjamin remained loyal " (Fr. Junius).
'3 Avulsas.
■SNa.
■7 Amos vi. I.
'SSubiciens: or " subjecting."
20 Tota promissio Christus.
2« Matricem.
22 Fontem non puteum salutit.
=^3 Agnovisse.
"4 Justificandos.
25 Luke xvii. ig.
^Lukc xvii. 15.
CHAP. XXXVI.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
healed through Christ? And therefore it was said to him, " Thy faith hath made thee whole,"' 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." = Now, who will not in- terpret the words ^'within yoii" to mean myour hand, within your pmver, 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.^ " The com- mandment is not a lofty one,* 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."^ This means, "Nei- ther in this place nor that place is the king- dom of God; for, behold, it is within you." * 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,' at which His kingdom will be really^ revealed. In this statement He shows that it was His own king- dom which His answer to them had contempla- ted, and which was now awaiting His own sufferings and rejection. But having to be re- jected and afterwards to be acknowledged, and taken up^ and glorified, He borrowed the very word "rejected" from the passage.