son," "that is, to Christ's people; for His '2 Debemus.
'3 Istos: that is, the Jews (Rigalt.).
'4 Utique jam in tanto opere.
'5 Natum esse quum inaxime.
'* Generavi: Sept. kyivv'i\<Ta.
'8 Curiosius.
'9 Deputans cami: a note against Docetism.
" Ps. Ixxii. I CHAP. X.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
sons are they who are born again in Him. But it will here be said that this Psalm has reference to Solomon. However, will not those portions of the Psalm which apply to Christ alone, be enough to teach us that all the rest, too, relates to Christ, and not to Solomon? "He shall come down," says He, " like rain upon a fleece,' and like dropping showers upon the earth,"'' describing His descent from heaven to the flesh as gentle and unobserved. 3 Solomon, however, if he had indeed any descent at all, came not down like a shower, because he descended not from heaven. But I will set before you more lit- eral points. "* " He shall have dominion," says the Psalmist, " from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth." ^ To Christ alone was this given; whilst Solomon reigned over only the moderately-sized king- dom of Judah. "Yea, all kings shall fall down before Him." Whom, indeed, shall they all thus worship, except Christ? "All nations shall serve Him."^ To whom shall all thus do homage, but Christ? " His name shall endure for ever," Whose name has this eternity of fame, but Christ's? " Longer than the sun shall His name remain," for longer than the sun shall be the Word of God, even Christ. "And in Him shall all nations be blessed."'' In Solomon was no nation blessed; in Christ every nation. And what if the Psalm proves Him to be even God? "They shall call W\m blessed." ^ (On what ground?) Because ^'' blessed is the Lord God of Israel, who only doeth wonderful things. "» ''^ Blessed d\so is His glorious name, and with His glory shall all the earth be filled." '° On the contrary, Solomon (as I make bold to affirm) lost even the glory which he had from God, seduced by his love of women even into idolatry. And thus, the statement which oc- curs in about the middle of this Psalm, " His enemies shall lick the dust"" (of course, as having been, (to use the apostle's phrase,) "put under His feet"'^), will bear upon the very object which I had in view, when I both introduced the Psalm, and insisted on my opinion of its sense, — namely, that I might demonstrate both the glory of His kingdom and the subjection of His enemies in pursu- ' Super vellus: so Sept. iirX ttokov.
3 Similarly the Rabbis Saadias Gaon and Hadarsan, above men- tioned in our note, beautifully applied to Messiah'' s placid birth, " without a human father,"the figures of Ps. ex. 3, " womb of the morning," " dew of thy birth."
4 Simpliciora, 6 Ps. Ixx. II.
29 ance of the Creator's own plans, with the view of laying down '^ this conclusion, that none but He can be believed to be the Christ of the Creator.
CHAP. X. — DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY, CONTINUED. HOW ARE THE DEAD RAISED? AND WITH WHAT BODY DO THEY COME? THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN SUCH A SENSE AS TO MAINTAIN THE TRUTH OF THK RAISED BODY, AGAINST MARCION. CHRIST AS THE SECOND ADAM CONNECTED WITH THE CREATOR OF THE FIRST MAN. LET US BEAR THE IMAGE OF THE HEAVENLY. THE TRIUMPH OVER DEATH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROPHETS. HOSEA AND ST. PAUL COMPARED.
Let us now return to the resurrection, to the defence of which against heretics of all sorts we have given indeed sufficient attention in another work of ours.'" But we will not be wanting (in some defence of the doctrine) even here, in consideration of such persons as are ignorant of that little treatise. " What," asks he, " shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not?"'s Now, never mind '^ that practice, (whatever it may have been.) The Februarian lustrations '^ will perhaps'^ answer him (quite as well), by praying for the dead.'' Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates some new god as the author and advocate of this (baptism for the dead. His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in pro- portion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection. We have the apostle in another passage defining " but one baptism. " ^ To be " baptized for the dead ' ' therefore means, in fact, to be baptized for the body;^' for, as we have shown, it is the 13 Consecuturus.
'4 He refers to his De Resurrect. Carnis. See chap. xlviJt.
16 Viderit.
•7'" Kalendae Februariae. The great expiation or lustration, celebrated at Rome in the month which received its name from the festival, is described by Ovid, Fasti, book ii., lines 19-28, and 267- 452, in which latter passage the same feast is called Lupercalia. Of course as the rites were held on the 15th of the month, the word kalertdtF here has not its more usual meaning (Paley's edi- tion of the Fasti, pp. 52-76). Ochler refers also to Macrobius, Saturn, i. 13; Cicero, De Legibus, ii. 21; Plutarch, Nunia, p. 132. He well remarks (note in loc), that Terlullian, by intimating that the heathen rites of the Febriia will afford quite as satisfac- tory an answer to the apostle's question, as the Christian supersti- tion alluded to, not only means no authorization of the said super- stition for himself, but expresses his belief that St. Paul's only ob- ject was to gather some evidence for the great doctrine of the res- surrection from the faith which underlay the practice alluded to. In this respect, however, the heathen festival would afford a much less pointed illustration; for though it was indeed a lustration for the dead, »repl vf^Kpiiv, and had for its object their happiness and welfare, it went no further than a vague notion of an indefinite immortality, and it touched not the recovery of the body. Ther« is therefore force in TertuUian's si forte.
>8Si forte.
•9 Tcp tv-)(f.(TOa{. virkp ritv vtKpiiV (Rigalt.).
" Pro corporibus.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book v.
body which becomes dead. What, then, shall they do who are baptized for the body,' if the body= rises not again? We stand, then, on firm ground (when we say) that^ the next question which the apostle has discussed equally relates to the body. But " some man will say, 'How are the dead raised up? With what body do they come? ' " * Having estab- lished the doctrine of the resurrection which was denied, it was natural 5 to discuss what would be the sort of body (in the resurrec- tion), of which no one had an idea. On this point we have other opponents with whom to engage. For Marcion does not in any wise admit the resurrection of the flesh, and it is only the salvation of the soul which he prom- ises; consequently the question which he raises is not concerning the sort of body, but the very substance thereof. Notwithstand- ing,* he is most plainly refuted even from what the apostle advances respecting the quality of the body, in answer to those who ask, " How are the dead raised up? with what body do they come? " For as he treated of the sort of body, he of course ipso facto pro- claimed in the argument that it was a body which would rise again. Indeed, since he proposes as his examples "wheat grain, or some other grain, to which God giveth a body, such as it hath pleased Him;"^ since also he says, that "to every seed is its own body;"* that, consequently,' " there is one kind of flesh of men, whilst there is another of beasts, and (another) of birds; that there are also celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial; and that there is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars " " — does he not therefore intimate that there is to be " a resurrection of the flesh or body, which he illustrates by fleshly and cor- poreal samples? Does he not also guarantee that the resurrection shall be accomplished by that God from whom proceed all the (crea- tures which have served him for) examples? "So also," says he, "is the resurrection of the dead."" How? Justas the grain, which is sown a body, springs up a body. This sowing of the body he called the dissolving thereof in the ground, " because it is sown in corruption," (but "is raised) to honour and power." '3 Now, just as in the case of the - Corpora.
3 Ut, with the subjunctive verb induxerit.
5 Consequens erat.
♦ Porro.
9Ut.
" Portendit.
grain, so here: to Him will belong the work in the revival of the body, who ordered the process in the dissolution thereof. If, how- ever, you remove the body from the resurrec- tion which you submitted to the dissolution, what becomes of the diversity in the issue? Likewise, " although it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.""* Now, al- though the natural principle of life '^ and the spirit have each a body proper to itself, so that the " natural body " may fairly be taken'* to signify the soul,'^ and " the spiritual body " the spirit, yet that is no reason for suppos- ing '^ the apostle to say that the soul is to be- come spirit in the resurrection, but that the body (which, as being born along with the soul, and as retaining its life by means of the soul,'' admits of being called animal (or natu- ral^) will become spiritual, since it rises through the Spirit to an eternal life. In short, since it is not the soul, but the flesh v/hich is " sown in corruption," when it turns to decay in the ground, it follows that (after such dis- solution) the soul is no longer the natural body, but the flesh, which was the natural body, (is the subject of the future change), forasmuch as of a natural body it is made a spiritual body, as he says further down, " That was not first which is spiritual. ' ' ^' For to this effect he just before remarked of Christ Him- self: " The first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit." ^^^ Our heretic, however, in the ex- cess of his folly, being unwilling that the state- ment should remain in this shape, altered "last Adam" into "last Lord; "^3 because he feared, of course, that if he allowed the Lord to be the last (or second) Adam, we should contend that Christ, being the second Adam, must needs belong to that God who owned also the first Adam. But the falsifica- tion is transparent. For why is there a first Adam, unless it be that there is also a second Adam? For things are not classed together unless they be severally alike, and have an identity of either name, or substance, or ori- gin.=^ Now, although among things which are even individually diverse, one must be first and another last, yet they must have one author. If, however, the author be a different '5 Anima: we will call it soul in the context.
16 Possit videri.
•7 Animam.
'8 Non ideo.
'9 Animam.
20 Animale. The terseness of his argument, by his use of the same radical terms Anima and Animate^ is lost in the English. [See Cap. 15 infra. Also, Kaye p. 180. St. Augustine seems t« tolerate our author's views of a corporal spirit in his treatise dt Haresibi4S.'\ 236 ia\aao^ ' Khafi. into 6 iaxaTot Kiipio;.
»4 Vel auctoris.
CHAT.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
one, he himself indeed maybe called the last. But the thing which he introduces is the first, and that only can be the last, which is like this first in nature.' It is, however, not like the first in nature, when it is not the work of the same author. In like manner (the heretic) will be refuted also with the word " man: " " The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven,"' Now, since the first was a. man, how can there be a second, unless he is a man also? Or, else, if the second is " Lord," was the first " Lord " also?3 It is, however, quite enough for me, that in his Gospel he admits the Son of man to be both Christ and Man; so that he will not be able to deny Him (in this passage), in the "Adam" and the man " (of the apostle). What follows will also be too much for him. For when the apostle says, "As is the earthy," that is, man, " such also are they that are earthy " — men again, of course; "therefore as is the heavenly," meaning the Man, from heaven, " such are the men also that are heavenly." * For he could not possibly have opposed to earthly men any heavenly beings that were not men also; his object being the more ac- curately to distinguish their state and expec- tation by using this name in common for them both. For in respect of their present state and their future expectation he calls men earthly and. heavenly, still reserving their parity of name, according as they are reckoned (as to their ultimate condition s) in Adam or in Christ. Therefore, when exhorting them to cherish the hope of heaven, he says: "As we have borne the image of the earthy, so let us also bear the image of the heaven- ly,"*— language which relates not to any condition of resurrection life, but to the rule of the present time. He says, Z<?/ us bear, as a precept; not We shall bear, in the sense of a promise — wishing us to walk even as he himself was walking, and to put off the like- ness of the earthly, that is, of the old man, in the works of the flesh. For what are this next words? "Now this I say, brethren, that fiesh and blood cannot inherit the king- »Par.
3 Marcion seems to have changed man into Lord, or rather to have omitted the ai'SpcuTros of the second clause, letting the verse run thus: o jrpiTos ai-SpwTrot « y^s;(oi.K6?, 6 ieurepos Kvpio^ ef ovpavov. Anything to cut off all connection with the Creator.
4 The ot cTrovpoftot, the " de ccslo honii7ies" of this ver. 48 are Christ's risen people; comp. Phil. iii. 20, 21 (Alford).
5 Secundum exitum.
* I Cor. XV. 49. T. argues from the reading ij>ope<ru>nev (instead ■ of <f>ope<roixtv), which indeed was read by many of the fathers, and (what is still more important) is found in the Codex Sinaiticus. We add the critical note of Dean Alford on this reading: "ACDFK.L rel latt copt goth, Theodotus, Basil, Caesarius, Cyril, Macarius, Methodius (who prefixes eva), Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Ps. Athan- asius, Damascene, Irenaeus (int), TertuUian, Cyprian, Hilary, Jerome." Alford retains the usual <t>op4tTotitv, on the strength chiefly of the Codex Vaticanus.
dom of God." He means the works of the flesh and blood, which, in his Epistle to the Galatians, deprive men of the kingdom of God.* In other passages also he is accus- tomed to put the natural condition instead of the works that are done therein, as when he says, that " they who are in the flesh cannot please God."' Now, when shall we be able to please God except whilst we are in this flesh? There is, I imagine, no other time wherein a man can work. If, however, whilst we are even naturally living in the flesh, we yet eschew the deeds of the flesh, then we shall not be in the flesh; since, although we are not absent from the substance of the flesh, we are notwithstanding strangers to the sin thereof. Now, since in the viord flesh we are enjoined to put off, not the substance, but the works of the flesh, therefore in the use of the same word the kingdom of God is denied to the works of the flesh, not to the substance thereof. For not that is condemned in which evil is done, but only the evil which is done in it. To administer poison is a crime, but the cup in which it is given is not guilty. So the body is the vessel of the works of the flesh, whilst the soul which is within it mixes the poison of a wicked act. How then is it, that the soul, which is the real author of the works of the flesh, shall attain to '° the king- dom of God, after the deeds done in the body have been atoned for, whilst the body, which was nothing but (the soul's) ministering cogent, must remain in condemnation? Is the cup to be punished, but the poisoner to escape? Not that we indeed claim the kingdom of God for the flesh: all we do is, to assert a resur- rection for the substance thereof, as the gate of the kingdom through which it is entered. But the resurrection is one thing, and the kingdom is another. The resurrection is first, and afterwards the kingdom. We say, there- fore, that the flesh rises again, but that when changed it obtains the kingdom. " For the dead shall be raised incorruptible," even those who had been corruptible when their bodies fell into decay; "and we shall be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye." For this corruptible" — and as he spake, the apostle seemingly pointed to his own flesh — " must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality," " In order, indeed, that it may be rendered a fit substance for the kingdom of God. " For we shall be like the angels." '^ This will be the 'o Merebitur.
" I Cor. XV. Si. 13 Matt. xxii. 30 aad Luke xx. 36.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book v.
perfect change of our flesh — only after its resurrection.' Now if, on the contrary, = there is to be no flesh, how then shall it put on incorruption and immortality? Having then become something else by its change, it will obtain the kingdom of God, no longer the (old) flesh and blood, but the body which God shall have given it. Rightly then does the apostle declare, " Flesh and blood cannot in- herit the kingdom of God;"^ for this (honour) does he ascribe to the changed con- dition *, which ensues on the resurrection. Since, therefore, shall then be accomplished the word which was written by the Creator, "O death, where is thy victory" — or thy struggle?s "O death, where is thy sting? "^ — written, I say, by the Creator, for He wrote them by His prophet ^ — to Him will belong the gift, that is, the kingdom, who proclaimed the word which is to be accomplished in the kingdom. And to none other God does he tell us that " thanks " are due, for having enabled us to achieve "the victory" even over death, than to Him from whom he re- ceived the very expression ^ of the exulting and triumphant challenge to the mortal foe.
CHAP. XI. — THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. THE CREATOR THE FATHER OF MERCIES. SHOWN TO BE SUCH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, AND ALSO IN CHRIST. THE NEW- NESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. THE VEIL OF OBDURATE BLINDNESS UPON ISRAEL, NOT REPREHENSIBLE ON MARCION 's PRINCIPLES. THE JEWS GUILTY IN REJECTING THE CHRIST OF THE CREATOR. SATAN, THE GOD OF THIS WORLD. THE TREASURE IN EARTHEN VESSELS EXPLAINED AGAINST MARCION. THE CREA- TOR'S RELATION TO THESE VESSELS, I.E. OUR BODIES.
If, owing to the fault of human error, the word God has become a common name (since in the world there are said and believed to be "gods many"'), yet "the blessed God," (who is " the Father) of our Lord Jesus Christ," '° will be understood to be no other God than the Creator, who both blessed all things (that He had made), as you find in Genesis," and is Himself "blessed by all things," as Daniel tells us." Now, if the title * Sed resuscitatae.
» Aut si.
4Derautationi.
5 Suggested by the i<rx"<'*« of Sept. in Isa. xxv. 8.
7 Isa. xxv. 8 and (especially) Hos. xiii. 14.
' The Septuagint version of the passage in Hosea is, iroO ^ iitcij »ou. 6a.va.rf; ttoC to kivtvov <rov, ^5i), which is very like the form of tne apostrophe in i Cor. xv. 55.
of Father may be claimed for (Marcion's) sterile god, how much more for the Creator? To none other than Him is it suitable, who is also "the Father of mercies," '^ and (in the prophets) has been described as " full of compassion, and gracious, and plenteous in mercy."''' In Jonah you find the signal act of His mercy, which He showed to the pray- ing Ninevites.'s How inflexible was He at the tears of Hezekiah! '* How ready to forgive Ahab, the husband of Jezebel, the blood of Naboth, when he deprecated His anger.'' How prompt in pardoning David on his con- fession of his sin ''^ — preferring, indeed, the sinner's repentance to his death, of course because of His gracious attribute of mercy.'' Now, if Marcion's god has exhibited or pro- claimed any such thing as this, I will allow him to be " the Father of mercies." Since, however, he ascribes to him this title only from the time he has been revealed, as if he were the father of mercies from the time only when he began to liberate the human race, then we on our side, too,"" adopt the same precise date of his alleged revelation; but it is that we may deny him! It is then oot competent to him to ascribe any quality to his god, whom indeed he only promulged by the fact of such an ascription; for only if it, were previously evident that his god had an | existence, could he be permitted to ascribe an attribute to him. The ascribed attribute is only an accident; but accidents^' are pre- ceded by the statement of the thing itself of which they are predicated, especially when an- other claims the attribute which is ascribed to him who has not been previously shown to exist. Our denial of his existence will be all the more peremptory, because of the fact that the attribute which is alleged in proof of it belongs to that God who has been already re- vealed. Therefore "the New Testament" will appertain to none other than Him who promised it — if not " its letter, yet its spirit; "=" and herein will lie lis newness. In- deed, He who had engraved its letter in stones is the same as He who had said of its spirit, " I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." '^ Even if "the letter killeth, yet the Spirit giveth life;"-* and both belong to Him who says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, 14 Ps. Ixxxvi. IS, cxii. 4, cxh'. 8; Jonah iv. 2.
'5 Jonah iii. 8.
'9 Ezek. xxxiii. 11.
'° Atquin et nos.
2' The Contingent qualities in logic.
CHAP. XI.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
and I heal."' We have already made good the Creator's claim to this twofold character of judgment and goodness^ — " killing in the letter" through the law, and "quickening in the Spirit " through the Gospel. Now these attributes, however different they be, cannot possibly make two gods; for they have already (in the prevenient dispensation of the Old Testament) been found to meet in One.^ He alludes to Moses' veil, covered with which " his face could not be stedfastly seen by the children of Israel."* Since he did this to maintain the superiority of the glory of the New Testament, which is permanent in its glory, over that of the Old, " which was to be done away," s this fact gives support to my belief which exalts the Gospel above the law; and you must look well to it that it does not even more than this. For only there is su- periority possible where was previously the thing over which superiority can be affirmed. But then he says, " But their minds were blinded"^ — of the world; certainly not the Creator's mind, but the minds of the people which are in the world. ^ Of Israel he says. Even unto this day the same veil is upon their heart; "^ showing that the veil which was on the face of Moses was a figure of the veil which is on the heart of the nation still; because even now Moses is not seen by them in heart, just as he was not then seen by them in eye. But what concern has Paul with the veil which still obscures Moses from their view, if the Christ of the Creator, whom Moses predicted, is not yet come? How are the hearts of the Jews represented as still covered and veiled, if the predictions of Moses relat- ing to Christ, in whom it was tneir duty to believe through him, are as yet unfulfilled? What had the apostle of a strange Christ to complain of, if the Jews failed in understand- ing the mysterious announcements of their own God, unless the veil which was upon their hearts had reference to that blindness which concealed from their eyes the Christ of Moses? Then, again, the words which fol- low, But when it shall turn to the Lord, the evil shall be taken away,"' properly refer to the Jew, over whose gaze Moses* veil is spread, to the effect that, when he is turned to the faith of Christ, he will understand how Moses spoke of Christ. But how shall the veil of the Creator be taken away by the ' Deut. xxxii. 39.
2 See above in book ii. [cap. xi. p. 306.]
3 Apud unum recenseri praevenerunt.
6 Obtunsi: " blunted," 2 Cor. iii. 14.
7 He seems to have read the clause as applying to the morld, but St. Paul certainly refers only to the obdurate Jews. The text is: " Sed obtunsi sunt sensus mundi.