A collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6830
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

A collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:02 pm

From another thread:
Peter Kirby wrote:IMO, what would be nice are side-by-side quotations of Tertullian, Epiphanius, and the other such sources. (In translation and original... would be nice.)

I'd value that more than getting anybody's judgment calls about what may or may not be the exact wording of the text, which is for the most part unrecoverable anyway.
In an effort to take steps in that general direction, this thread will collect at least some of the most important witnesses to the Marcionite texts (both Evangelion and Apostolikon), laying out the original Latin or Greek alongside an English translation. This thread will not (yet) attach these texts to the relevant Lucan chapter and verse; that is a separate step. Nor have I even (yet) narrowed down the Tertullianic and Epiphanian texts to focus only on the textual issues; I have formatted the relevant books in their entirety.

The following are what I have so far (each link will take you to the relevant post in this thread; I had to split the texts up due to the character limit on posts):
All of the Tertullianic texts and translations I have copied from the Tertullian Project. The Greek of Epiphanius I got from Skeptik, the English from Masseiana.

I hope to collect more and add them to this thread as I go along.

Ben.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Oct 16, 2017 5:50 am, edited 30 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6830
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:02 pm

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.27.2.

Contra Haereses I
Against Heresies 1
2. Succedens autem ei Marcion Ponticus, adampliavit doctrinam, impudorate blasphemans eum, qui a lege et prophetis annuntiatus est Deus ; malorum factorem et bellorum concupiscentem et inconstantem quoque sententia et contrarium sibi ipsum dicens. Iesum autem ab eo Patre, qui est super mundi fabricatorem Deum, venientem in Iudaeam temporibus Pontii Pilati praesidis, qui fuit procurator Tiberii Caesaris, in hominis forma manifestatum his, qui in Iudaea erant, dissolventem prophetas et legem et omnia opera eius Dei, qui mundum fecit, quem et Cosmocratorem dicit. Et super haec id quod est secundum Lucam evangelium circumcidens et omnia, quae sunt de generatione Domini conscripta auferens, et de doctrina sermonum Domini multa auferens, in quibus manifestissime conditorem huius universitatis suum Patrem confitens Dominus conscriptus est; semetipsum esse veraciorem, quam sunt hi, qui evangelium tradiderunt, apostoli, suasit discipulis suis; sed particulam Evangelii tradens eis. Similiter autem et apostoli Pauli epistolas abscidit, auferens quaecunque manifeste dicta sunt ab Apostolo de eo Deo qui mundum fecit, quoniam hic Pater Domini nostri Iesu Christi, et quaecunque ex propheticis memorans Apostolus docuit praenunciantibus adventum Domini.2. Marcion of Pontus succeeded him, and developed his doctrine. In so doing, he advanced the most daring blasphemy against Him who is proclaimed as God by the law and the prophets, declaring Him to be the author of evils, to take delight in war, to be infirm of purpose, and even to be contrary to Himself. But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judaea in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Caesar, was manifested in the form of a man to those who were in Judaea, abolishing the prophets and the law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom also he calls Cosmocrator. Besides this, he mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father. He likewise persuaded his disciples that he himself was more worthy of credit than are those apostles who have handed down the Gospel to us, furnishing them not with the Gospel, but merely a fragment of it. In like manner, too, he dismembered the Epistles of Paul, removing all that is said by the apostle respecting that God who made the world, to the effect that He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and also those passages from the prophetical writings which the apostle quotes, in order to teach us that they announced beforehand the coming of the Lord.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.6.1-2.

Contra Haereses IV
Against Heresies 4
1. Dominus enim ostendens semetipsum discipulis, quoniam ipse est Verbum, qui agnitionem Patris facit, et exprobrans Iudaeis putantibus se habere Deum, cum et frustrentur Verbum eius, per quem cognoscitur Deus, dicebat: Nemo cognoscit Filium nisi Pater, neque Patrem quis cognoscit nisi Filius, et cui voluerit Filius revelare. Sic et Matthaeus posuit, et Lucas similiter, et Marcus idem ipsum: Iohannes enim praeterit locum hunc. Hi autem qui peritiores Apostolis volunt esse, sic describunt: Nemo cognovit Patrem nisi Filius, nec Filium nisi Pater, et cui voluerit Filius revelare; et interpretantur, quasi a nullo cognitus sit verus Deus ante Domini nostri adventum: et eum Deum qui a prophetis sit annuntiatus, dicunt non esse Patrem Christi.1. For the Lord, revealing Himself to His disciples, that He Himself is the Word, who imparts knowledge of the Father, and reproving the Jews, who imagined that they, had [the knowledge of] God, while they nevertheless rejected His Word, through whom God is made known, declared, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him]." Thus hath Matthew set it down, and Luke in like manner, and Mark the very same; for John omits this passage. They, however, who would be wiser than the apostles, write [the verse] in the following manner: "No man knew the Father, but the Son; nor the Son, but the Father, and he to whom the Son has willed to reveal [Him];" and they explain it as if the true God were known to none prior to our Lord's advent; and that God who was announced by the prophets, they allege not to be the Father of Christ.
2. Si autem Christus tunc inchoavit esse, quando et secundum hominem adventum suum egit, et a temporibus Tiberii Caesaris commemoratus est pater providere hominibus, et non semper Verbum eius una cum plasmate fuisse ostendebatur; nec tunc quidem oportuit alterum Deum annuntiari, sed causas tantae incuriae et negligentiae eius inquiri. Nullam enim oportet quaestionem talem esse, et tantum invalescere, ut et Deum quidem mutet, et eam quae est erga fabricatorem, qui nos alit per suam conditionem, fidem nostram evacuet. Sicut enim in Filium fidem nostram dirigimus, sic et in Patrem dilectionem firmam et immobilem habere debemus. Et bene Iustinus in eo libro qui est ad Marcionem ait: Quoniam ipsi quoque domino non credidissem, alterum deum annuntianti praeter fabricatorem et factorem et nutritorem nostrum. sed quoniam ab uno deo, qui et hunc mundum fecit, et nos plasmavit et omnia continent et administrat, unigenitus filius venit ad nos, suum plasma in semetipsum recapitulans, firma est mea ad eum fides, et immobilis erga patrem dilectio, utraque deo nobis praebente.2. But if Christ did then [only] begin to have existence when He came [into the world] as man, and [if] the Father did remember [only] in the times of Tiberius Caesar to provide for [the wants of] men, and His Word was shown to have not always coexisted with His creatures; [it may be remarked that] neither then was it necessary that another God should be proclaimed, but [rather] that the reasons for so great carelessness and neglect on His part should be made the subject of investigation. For it is fitting that no such question should arise, and gather such strength, that it would indeed both change God, and destroy our faith in that Creator who supports us by means of His creation. For as we do direct our faith towards the Son, so also should we possess a firm and immoveable love towards the Father. In his book against Marcion, Justin does well say: "I would not have believed the Lord Himself, if He had announced any other than He who is our framer, maker, and nourisher. But because the only-begotten Son came to us from the one God, who both made this world and formed us, and contains and administers all things, summing up His own handiwork in Himself, my faith towards Him is steadfast, and my love to the Father immoveable, God bestowing both upon us."

Eusebius renders a bit of this passage in Greek in History of the Church 4.18.9:

Καὶ καλῶς ὁ Ἰουστῖνος ἐν τῷ πρὸς Μαρκίωνα συντάγματί φησιν ὅτι αὐτῷ τῷ κυρίῳ οὐκ ἂν ἐπείσθην ἄλλον θεὸν καταγγέλλοντι παρὰ τὸν δημιουργόν....

Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6830
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:02 pm

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.31.5-6.

ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΠΑΣΩΝ ΑΙΡΕΣΕΩΝ ΕΛΕΓΧΟΥ Ζ
Refutation of All Heresies 7
[7.31.5] Τούτοις κατακολουθῶν <οὖν λόγοις> Μαρκίων τὴν γένεσιν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν παντάπας(ιν) παρῃτήσατο, ἄτοπον εἶναι νομίζων ὑπὸ τὸ πλάσμα τοῦ ὀλεθρίου τούτου νείκους γεγονέναι τὸν λόγον τὸν τῇ φιλίᾳ συναγωνιζόμενον – τουτέστι τῷ ἀγαθῷ· – ἀλλὰ <γάρ φησι> χωρὶς γενέσεως «<ἐν> ἔτει πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος» κατεληλυθότα αὐτὸν ἄνωθεν, μέσον ὄντα κακοῦ καὶ ἀγαθοῦ, [7.31.6] »διδάσκειν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς». εἰ γὰρ μεσίτης ἐστίν, ἀπήλλακται, φησί, πάσης τῆς τοῦ κακοῦ φύσεως. – κακὸς δ' ἔστιν, ὡς λέγει, ὁ δημιουργὸς καὶ τούτου τὰ ποιήματα· διὰ τοῦτο ἀγέν<ν>ητος κατῆλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, φησίν, ἵνα ᾖ πάσης ἀπηλλαγμένος κακίας. – ἀπήλλακται δέ, φησί, καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσεως, ἵνα ᾖ μεσίτης, ὡς, φησίν, ὁ Παῦλος <*> καὶ ὡς αὐτὸς ὁμολογεῖ <λέγων>· «τί με λέγετε ἀγαθόν; εἷ<ς> ἐστιν ἀγαθός».[7.31.5] Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour. He considered it to be absurd that tinder the (category of a) creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship -— that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, [7.31.6] He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues. For if He is a Mediator, He has been, he says, liberated from the entire nature of the Evil Deity. Now, as he affirms, the Demiurge is evil, and his works. For this reason, he affirms, Jesus came down unbegotten, in order that He might be liberated from all (admixture of) evil. And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states, and as Himself acknowledges: "Why do you call me good? There is one good."

Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 10.19.3a.

ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΠΑΣΩΝ ΑΙΡΕΣΕΩΝ ΕΛΕΓΧΟΥ Ι
Refutation of All Heresies 10
[10.19.3a] ...διὸ καὶ ταῖς παραβολαῖς ταῖς εὐαγγελικαῖς χρῶνται, οὕτως λέγοντες· «οὐ δύναται δένδρον καλὸν καρποὺς πονηροὺς ποιεῖν» καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, εἰς τοῦτο φάσκων εἰρῆσθαι <ταῦτα>, τὰ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ κακῶς νοθευόμενα.[10.19.3a] Wherefore also they thus employ the evangelical parables, saying, A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, and the rest of the passage. Now Marcion alleges that the conceptions badly devised by the (just one) himself constituted the allusion in this passage.

Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:21 am, edited 2 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6830
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:03 pm

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.1-6.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUARTUS
Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV
1. [1] Omnem sententiam et omnem paraturam impii atque sacrilegi Marcionis ad ipsum iam evangelium eius provocamus quod interpolando suum fecit. Et ut fidem instrueret, dotem quandam commentatus est illi, opus ex contrarietatum oppositionibus Antitheses cognominatum et ad separationem legis et evangelii coactum, qua duos deos dividens, proinde diversos, alterum alterius instrumenti, vel, quod magis usui est dicere, testamenti, ut exinde evangelio quoque secundum Antitheses credendo patrocinaretur. [2] Sed et istas proprio congressu cominus, id est per singulas iniectiones Pontici, cecidissem, si non multo opportunius in ipso et cum ipso evangelio cui procurant retunderentur; quamquam tam facile est praescriptive occurrere, et quidem ut accepto eas faciam, ut rato habeam, ut nobiscum facere dicam, quo magis de caecitate auctoris sui erubescant, nostrae iam antitheses adversus Marcionem. [3] Atque adeo confiteor alium ordinem decucurrisse in veteri dispositione apud creatorem, alium in nova apud Christum. Non nego distare documenta eloquii, praecepta virtutis, legis disciplinas, dum tamen tota diversitas in unum et eundem deum competat, illum scilicet a quo constat eam dispositam sicut et praedicatam. [4] Olim contionatur Esaias prodituram ex Sion legem et sermonem domini ex Hierusalem, aliam utique legem aliumque sermonem. Denique iudicabit, inquit, inter nationes, et traducet populum plurimum, scilicet non unius gentis Iudaeorum, sed nationum quae per novam legem evangelii et novum sermonem apostolorum iudicantur et traducuntur apud semetipsas de pristino errore, simul crediderunt, atque exinde concidunt machaeras suas in aratra, et sibynas, quod genus venabulorum est, in falces, id est feros et saevos quondam animos convertunt in sensus probos et bonae frugis operarios. [5] Et rursus: Audite me, audite me, et populus meus et reges, auribus intendite in me, quoniam lex prodibit a me et iudicium meum in lucem nationum, quo iudicaverat atque decreverat nationes quoque illuminandas per evangelii legem atque sermonem. Haec erit lex et apud David, invituperabilis, qua perfecta, convertens animam, utique ab idolis ad deum. Hic erit et sermo, de quo idem Esaias, Quoniam, inquit, decisum sermonem faciet dominus in terra. [6] Compendiatum est enim novum testamentum et a legis laciniosis oneribus expeditum. Sed quid pluribus, cum manifestius et luce ipsa clarius novatio praedicetur a creatore per eundem? Ne rememineritis priorum, et antiqua ne recogitaveritis: vetera transierunt, nova oriuntur: ecce facio nova, quae nunc orientur. Item per Hieremiam: Novate vobis novamen novum, et ne severitis in spinas, et circumcidimini praeputio cordis vestri. Et alibi: Ecce venient dies, dicit dominus, et perficiam domui Iacob et domui Iudae testamentum novum, non secundum testamentum quod disposui patribus eorum in die qua arripui dispositionem eorum ad educendos eos de terra Aegypti. [7] Adeo pristinum testamentum temporale significat, dum mutabile ostendit, etiam dum aeternum de postero pollicetur. Nam per Esaiam, Audite me et vivetis, et disponam vobis testamentum aeternum, adiciens sancta et fidelia David, ut id testamentum in Christo decursurum demonstraret. Eundem ex genere David, secundum Mariae censum, [8] etiam in virga ex radice Iesse processura figurate praedicabat. Igitur si alias leges aliosque sermones et novas testamentorum dispositiones a creatore dixit futuras, ut etiam ipsorum sacrificiorum alia officia potiora et quidem apud nationes destinarit, dicente Malachia, Non est voluntas mea in vobis, inquit dominus, et sacrificia vestra non excipiam de manibus vestris, quoniam a solis ortu usque ad occasum glorificatum est in nationibus nomen meum, et in omni loco sacrificium nomini meo offertur, et sacrificium mundum scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura, necesse est omnis demutatio veniens ex innovatione diversitatem ineat cum his quorum fit, et contrarietatem ex diversitate. [9] Sicut enim nihil demutatum quod non diversum, ita nihil diversum quod non contrarium. Eiusdem ergo deputabitur etiam contrarietas ex diversitate cuius fuerit demutatio ex innovatione. Qui disposuit demutationem, iste instituit et diversitatem; qui praedicavit innovationem, iste praenuntiavit et contrarietatem. [10] Quid differentiam rerum ad distantiam interpretaris potestatum? quid antitheses exemploram distorques adversus creatorem, quas in ipsis quoque sensibus et affectionibus eius potes recognoscere? Ego, inquit, percutiam, et ego sanabo: Ego, inquit, occidam, et ego vivificabo, condens scilicet mala et faciens pacem; qua etiam soles illum mobilitatis quoque et inconstantiae nomine reprehendere, prohibentem quae iubet et iubentem quae prohibet. Cur ergo non et antitheses ad naturalia reputasti contrarii sibi semper creatoris? Nec mundum saltim recogitare potuisti, nisi fallor, etiam apud Ponticos ex diversitatibus structum aemularum invicem substantiarum. [11] Prius itaque debueras alium deum luminis, alium tenebrarum determinasse, ut ita posses alium legis, alium evangelii asseverasse. Ceterum praeiudicatum est ex manifestis, cuius opera et ingenia per antitheses constant, eadem forma constare etiam sacramenta.1. [1] Every opinion and the whole scheme of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now bring to the test of that very Gospel which, by his process of interpolation, he has made his own. To encourage a belief of this Gospel he has actually devised for it a sort of dower, in a work composed of contrary statements set in opposition, thence entitled Antitheses, and compiled with a view to such a severance of the law from the gospel as should divide the Deity into two, nay, diverse, gods----one for each Instrument, or Testament as it is more usual to call it; that by such means he might also patronize belief in "the Gospel according to the Antitheses." [2] These, however, I would have attacked in special combat, hand to hand; that is to say, I would have encountered singly the several devices of the Pontic heretic, if it were not much more convenient to refute them in and with that very gospel to which they contribute their support. Although it is so easy to meet them at once with a peremptory demurrer, yet, in order that I may both make them admissible in argument, and account them valid expressions of opinion, and even contend that they make for our side, that so there may be all the redder shame for the blindness of their author, we have now drawn out some antitheses of our own in opposition to Marcion. [3] And indeed I do allow that one order did run its course in the old dispensation under the Creator, and that another is on its way in the new under Christ. I do not deny that there is a difference in the language of their documents, in their precepts of virtue, and in their teachings of the law; but yet all this diversity is consistent with one and the same God, even Him by whom it was arranged and also foretold. [4] Long ago did Isaiah declare that "out of Sion should go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" ----some other law, that is, and another word. In short, says he, "He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; " meaning not those of the Jewish people only, but of the nations which are judged by the new law of the gospel and the new word of the apostles, and are amongst themselves rebuked of their old error as soon as they have believed. And as the result of this, "they beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears (which are a kind of hunting instruments) into pruning-hooks; " that is to say, minds, which once were fierce and cruel, are changed by them into good dispositions productive of good fruit. [5] And again: "Hearken unto me, hearken unto me, my people, and ye kings, give ear unto me; for a law shall proceed from me, and my judgment for a light to the nations; " wherefore He had determined and decreed that the nations also were to be enlightened by the law and the word of the gospel. This will be that law which (according to David also) is unblameable, because "perfect, converting the soul" from idols unto God. This likewise will be the word concerning which the same Isaiah says, "For the Lord will make a decisive word in the land." [6] Because the New Testament is compendiously short, and freed from the minute and perplexing burdens of the law. But why enlarge, when the Creator by the same prophet foretells the renovation more manifestly and clearly than the light itself? "Remember not the former things, neither consider the things of old" (the old things have passed away, and new things are arising). "Behold, I will do new things, which shall now spring forth." So by Jeremiah: "Break up for yourselves new pastures, and sow not among thorns, and circumcise yourselves in the foreskin of your heart." And in another passage: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Jacob, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I arrested their dispensation, in order to bring them out of the land of Egypt." [7] He thus shows that the ancient covenant is temporary only, when He indicates its change; also when He promises that it shall be followed by an eternal one. For by Isaiah He says: "Hear me, and ye shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you," adding "the sure mercies of David," in order that He might show that that covenant was to run its course in Christ. That He was of the family of David, according to the genealogy of Mary, [8] He declared in a figurative way even by the rod which was to proceed out of the stem of Jesse. Forasmuch then as he said, that from the Creator there would come other laws, and other words, and new dispensations of covenants, indicating also that the very sacrifices were to receive higher offices, and that amongst all nations, by Malachi when he says: "I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord, neither will I accept your sacrifices at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place a sacrifice is offered unto my name, even a pure offering" ----meaning simple prayer from a pure conscience,----it is of necessity that every change which comes as the result of innovation, introduces a diversity in those things of which the change is made, from which diversity arises also a contrariety. [9] For as there is nothing, after it has undergone a change, which does not become different, so there is nothing different which is not contrary. Of that very thing, therefore, there will be predicated a contrariety in consequence of its diversity, to which there accrued a change of condition after an innovation. He who brought about the change, the same instituted the diversity also; He who foretold the innovation, the same announced beforehand the contrariety likewise. [10] Why, in your interpretation, do you impute a difference in the state of things to a difference of powers? Why do you wrest to the Creator's prejudice those examples from which you draw your antitheses, when you may recognise them all in His sensations and affections? "I will wound," He says, "and I will heal; ""I will kill," He says again, "and I will make alive" ----even the same "who createth evil and maketh peace; " from which you are used even to censure Him with the imputation of fickleness and inconstancy, as if He forbade what He commanded, and commanded what He forbade. Why, then, have you not reckoned up the Antitheses also which occur in the natural works of the Creator, who is for ever contrary to Himself? You have not been able, unless I am misinformed, to recognise the fact, that the world, at all events, even amongst your people of Pontus, is made up of a diversity of elements which are hostile to one another. [11] It was therefore your bounden duty first to have determined that the god of the light was one being, and the god of darkness was another, in such wise that you might have been able to have distinctly asserted one of them to be the god of the law and the other the god of the gospel. It is, however, the settled conviction already of my mind from manifest proofs, that, as His works and plans exist in the way of Antitheses, so also by the same rule exist the mysteries of His religion.
2. [1] Habes nunc ad Antitheses expeditam a nobis responsionem. Transeo nunc ad evangelii, sane non Iudaici sed Pontici, interim adulterati demonstrationem, praestructuram ordinem quem aggredimur. Constituimus inprimis evangelicum instrumentum apostolos auctores habere, quibus hoc munus evangelii promulgandi ab ipso domino sit impositum. Si et apostolicos, non tamen solos, sed cum apostolis et post apostolos, quoniam praedicatio discipulorum suspecta fieri posset de gloriae studio, si non adsistat illi auctoritas magistrorum, immo Christi, quae magistros apostolos fecit. [2] Denique nobis fidem ex apostolis Ioannes et Matthaeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus instaurant, isdem regulis exorsi, quantum ad unicum deum attinet creatorem et Christum eius, natum ex virgine, supplementum legis et prophetarum. Viderit enim si narrationum dispositio variavit, dummodo de capite fidei conveniat, de quo cum Marcione non convenit. [3] Contra Marcion evangelio, scilicet suo, nullum adscribit auctorem, quasi non licuerit illi titulum quoque affingere, cui nefas non fuit ipsum corpus evertere. Et possem hic iam gradum figere, non agnoscendum contendens opus quod non erigat frontem, quod nullam constantiam praeferat, nullam fidem repromittat de plenitudine tituli et professione debita auctoris. [4] Sed per omnia congredi malumus, nec dissimulamus quod ex nostro intellegi potest. Nam ex iis commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem caederet. Porro Lucas non apostolus sed apostolicus, non magister sed discipulus, utique magistro minor, certe tanto posterior quanto posterioris apostoli sectator, Pauli sine dubio, ut et si sub ipsius Pauli nomine evangelium Marcion intulisset, non sufficeret ad fidem singularitas instrumenti destituta patrocinio antecessorum. [5] Exigeretur enim id quoque evangelium quod Paulus invenit, cui fidem dedidit, cui mox suum congruere gestiit, siquidem propterea Hierosolymam ascendit ad cognoscendos apostolos et consultandos, ne forte in vacuura cucurrisset, id est ne non secundum illos credidisset et non secundum illos evangelizaret. Denique ut cum auctoribus contulit, et convenit de regula fidei, dextras miscuere, et exinde officia praedicandi distinxerunt, ut illi in Iudaeos, Paulus in Iudaeos et in nationes. Igitur si ipse illuminator Lucae auctoritatem antecessorum et fidei et praedicationi suae optavit, quanto magis eam evangelio Lucae expostulem, quae evangelio magistri eius fuit necessaria?2. [1] You have now our answer to the Antitheses compendiously indicated by us. I pass on to give a proof of the Gospel ----not, to be sure, of Jewry, but of Pontus----having become meanwhile adulterated; and this shall indicate the order by which we proceed. We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic men also, they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters. [2] Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion. [3] Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fulness of its title and the just profession of its author. [4] But we prefer to join issue on every point; nor shall we leave unnoticed what may fairly be understood to be on our side. Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process. Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master----at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle whom he followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul ) was subsequent to the others; so that, had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St. Paul himself, the single authority of the document, destitute of all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith. [5] There would be still wanted that Gospel which St. Paul found in existence, to which he yielded his belief, and with which he so earnestly wished his own to agree, that he actually on that account went up to Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles, "lest he should run, or had been running in vain; " in other words, that the faith which he had learned, and the gospel which he was preaching, might be in accordance with theirs. Then, at last, having conferred with the (primitive) authors, and having agreed with them touching the rule of faith, they joined their hands in fellowship, and divided their labours thenceforth in the office of preaching the gospel, so that they were to go to the Jews, and St. Paul to the Jews and the Gentiles. Inasmuch, therefore, as the enlightener of St. Luke himself desired the authority of his predecessors for both his own faith and preaching, how much more may not I require for Luke's Gospel that which was necessary for the Gospel of his master.
3. [1] Aliud est si penes Marcionem a discipulatu Lucae coepit religionis Christianae sacramentum. Ceterum si et retro decucurrit, habuit utique authenticam paraturam, per quam ad Lucam usque pervenit, cuius testimonio adsistente Lucas quoque possit admitti. [2] Sed enim Marcion nactus epistulam Pauli ad Galatas, etiam ipsos apostolos suggillantis ut non recto pede incedentes ad veritatem evangelii, simul et accusantis pseudapostolos quosdam pervertentes evangelium Christi, connititur ad destruendum statum eorum evangeliorum quae propria et sub apostolorum nomine eduntur, vel etiam apostolicorum, ut scilicet fidem quam illis adimit suo conferat. [3] Porro etsi reprehensus est Petras et Ioannes et Iacobus, qui existimabantur columnae, manifesta causa est. Personarum enim respectu videbantur variare convictum. Et tamen cum ipse Paulus omnibus omnia fieret, ut omnes lucraretur, potuit et Petro hoc in consilio fuisse aliquid aliter agendi quam docebat. [4] Proinde si et pseudapostoli irrepserant, horum quoque qualitas edita est, circumcisionem vindicantium et Iudaicos fastos. Adeo non de praedicatione sed de conversatione a Paulo denotabantur, aeque denotaturo si quid de deo creatore aut Christo eius errassent. Igitur distinguenda erunt singula. Si apostolos praevaricationis et simulationis suspectos Marcion haberi queritur usque ad evangelii depravationem, Christum iam accusat, accusando quos Christus elegit. Si vero apostoli quidem integrum evangelium contulerunt, de sola convictus inaequalitate reprehensi, pseudapostoli autem veritatem eorum interpolaverunt, et inde sunt nostra digesta, quod erit germanum illud apostolorum instrumentum quod adulteros passum est, quod Paulum illuminavit et ab eo Lucam? Aut si tam funditus deletum est, ut cataclysmo quodam, ita inundatione falsariorum obliteratum, iam ergo nec Marcion habet verum. [5] Aut si ipsum erit verum, id est apostolorum, quod Marcion habet solus (et quomodo nostro consonat quod non apostolorum, sed Lucae refertur?) aut si non statim Lucae deputandum est quo Marcion utitur, quia nostro consonat, scilicet adulterato etiam circa titulum, ceterum apostolorum est. Iam ergo et nostrum, quod illi consonat, aeque apostolorum est, sed adulteratum de titulo quoque.3. [1] In the scheme of Marcion, on the contrary, the mystery of the Christian religion begins from the discipleship of Luke. Since, however, it was on its course previous to that point, it must have had its own authentic materials, by means of which it found its own way down to St. Luke; and by the assistance of the testimony which it bore, Luke himself becomes admissible. [2] Well, but Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles ) for "not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel," as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character of those Gospels which are published as genuine and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them. [3] But then, even if he censures Peter and John and James, who were thought to be pillars, it is for a manifest reason. They seemed to be changing their company from respect of persons. And yet as Paul himself "became all things to all men," that he might gain all, it was possible that Peter also might have betaken himself to the same plan of practising somewhat different from what he taught. [4] And, in like manner, if false apostles also crept in, their character too showed itself in their insisting upon circumcision and the Jewish ceremonies. So that it was not on account of their preaching, but of their conversation, that they were marked by St. Paul, who would with equal impartiality have marked them with censure, if they had erred at all with respect to God the Creator or His Christ. Each several case will therefore have to be distinguished. When Marcion complains that apostles are suspected (for their prevarication and dissimulation) of having even depraved the gospel, he thereby accuses Christ, by accusing those whom Christ chose. If, then, the apostles, who are censured simply for inconsistency of walk, composed the Gospel in a pure form, but false apostles interpolated their true record; and if our own copies have been made from these, where will that genuine text of the apostle's writings be found which has not suffered adulteration? Which was it that enlightened Paul, and through him Luke? It is either completely blotted out, as if by some deluge----being obliterated by the inundation of falsifiers----in which case even Marcion does not possess the true Gospel; [5] or else, is that very edition which Marcion alone possesses the true one, that is, of the apostles? How, then, does that agree with ours, which is said not to be (the work) of apostles, but of Luke? Or else, again, if that which Marcion uses is not to be attributed to Luke simply because it does agree with ours (which, of course, is, also adulterated in its title), then it is the work of apostles. Our Gospel, therefore, which is in agreement with it, is equally the work of apostles, but also adulterated in its title.
4. [1] Funis ergo ducendus est contentionis, pari hinc inde nisu fluctuante. Ego meum dico verum, Marcion suum. Ego Marcionis affirmo adulteratum, Marcion meum. Quis inter nos determinabit, nisi temporis ratio, ei praescribens auctoritatem quod antiquius reperietur, et ei praeiudicans vitiationem quod posterius revincetur? In quantum enim falsum corruptio est veri, in tantum praecedat necesse est veritas falsum. [2] Prior erit res passione, et materia aemulatione. Alioquin quam absurdum, ut, si nostrum antiquius probaverimus, Marcionis vero posterius, et nostrum ante videatur falsum quam habuerit de veritate materiam, et Marcionis ante credatur aemulationem a nostro expertum quam et editum, et postremo id verius existimetur quod est serius, post tot ac tanta iam opera atque documenta Christianae religionis saeculo edita, quae edi utique non potuissent sine evangelii veritate, id est ante evangelii veritatem. [3] Quod ergo pertinet ad evangelium interim Lucae, quatenus communio eius inter nos et Marcionem de veritate disceptat, adeo antiquius Marcione est quod est secundum nos, ut et ipse illi Marcion aliquando crediderit, cum et pecuniam in primo calore fidei catholicae ecclesiae contulit, proiectam mox cum ipso, posteaquam in haeresim suam a nostra veritate descivit. Quid nunc, si negaverint Marcionitae primam apud nos fidem eius, adversus epistulam quoque ipsius? Quid si nec epistulam agnoverint? [4] Certe Antitheses non modo fatentur Marcionis, sed et praeferunt. Ex his mihi probatio sufficit. Si enim id evangelium quod Lucae refertur penes nos (viderimus an et penes Marcionem) ipsum est quod Marcion per Antitheses suas arguit ut interpolatum a protectoribus Iudaismi ad concorporationem legis et prophetarum, qua etiam Christum inde confingerent, utique non potuisset arguere nisi quod invenerat. [5] Nemo post futura reprehendit quae ignorat futura. Emendatio culpam non antecedit. Emendator sane evangelii a Tiberianis usque ad Antoniniana tempora eversi Marcion solus et primus obvenit, expectatus tamdiu a Christo, paenitente iam quod apostolos praemisisse properasset sine praesidio Marcionis. Nisi quod humanae temeritatis, non divinae auctoritatis, negotium est haeresis, quae sic semper emendat evangelia dum vitiat; cum et si discipulus Marcion, non tamen super magistrum; et si apostolus Marcion, Sive ego, inquit Paulus, sive illi, sic praedicamus; et si prophetes Marcion, et spiritus prophetarum prophetis erunt subditi, non enim eversionis sunt, sed pacis; etiam si angelus Marcion, citius anathema dicendus quam evangelizator, quia aliter evangelizavit. Itaque dum emendat, utrumque confirmat, et nostrum anterius, id emendans quod invenit, et id posterius quod de nostri emendatione constituens suum et novum fecit.4. [1] We must follow, then, the clue of our discussion, meeting every effort of our opponents with reciprocal vigor. I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us, except it be that principle of time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an elemental truth, that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin. For, inasmuch as error is falsification of truth, it must needs be that truth therefore precede error. [2] A thing must exist prior to its suffering any casualty; and an object must precede all rivalry to itself. Else how absurd it would be, that, when we have proved our position to be the older one, and Marcion's the later, ours should yet appear to be the false one, before it had even received from truth its objective existence; and Marcion's should also be supposed to have experienced rivalry at our hands, even before its publication; and, in fine, that that should be thought to be the truer position which is the later one----a century later than the publication of all the many and great facts and records of the Christian religion, which certainly could not have been published without, that is to say, before, the truth of the gospel. [3] With regard, then, to the pending question, of Luke's Gospel (so far as its being the common property of ourselves and Marcion enables it to be decisive of the truth, ) that portion of it which we alone receive is so much older than Marcion, that Marcion, himself once believed it, when in the first warmth of faith he contributed money to the Catholic church, which along with himself was afterwards rejected, when he fell away from our truth into his own heresy. What if the Marcionites have denied that he held the primitive faith amongst ourselves, in the face even of his own letter? What, if they do not acknowledge the letter? [4] They, at any rate, receive his Antitheses; and more than that, they make ostentatious use of them. Proof out of these is enough for me. For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current amongst us (we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion), is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism, for the purpose of such a conglomeration with it of the law and the prophets as should enable them out of it to fashion their Christ, surely he could not have so argued about it, unless he had found it (in such a form). [5] No one censures things before they exist, when he knows not whether they will come to pass. Emendation never precedes the fault. To be sure, an amender of that Gospel, which had been all topsy-turvy from the days of Tiberius to those of Antoninus, first presented himself in Marcion alone----so long looked for by Christ, who was all along regretting that he had been in so great a hurry to send out his apostles without the support of Marcion! But for all that, heresy, which is for ever mending the Gospels, and corrupting them in the act, is an affair of man's audacity, not of God's authority; and if Marcion be even a disciple, he is yet not "above his master; " if Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, "Whether it be I or they, so we preach; " if Marcion be a prophet, even "the spirits of the prophets will be subject to the prophets," for they are not the authors of confusion, but of peace; or if Marcion be actually an angel, he must rather be designated "as anathema than as a preacher of the gospel," because it is a strange gospel which he has preached. So that, whilst he amends, he only confirms both positions: both that our Gospel is the prior one, for he amends that which he has previously fallen in with; and that that is the later one, which, by putting it together out of the emendations of ours, he has made his own Gospel, and a novel one too.
5. [1] In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod et ab initio, id ab initio quod ab apostolis, pariter utique constabit id esse ab apostolis traditum quod apud ecclesias apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum. Videamus quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauserint, ad quam regulam Galatae sint recorrecti, quid legant Philippenses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesii, quid etiam. Romani de proximo sonent, quibus evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque suo signatum reliquerunt. [2] Habemus et Ioannis alumnas ecclesias. Nam etsi Apocalypsin eius Marcion respuit, ordo tamen episcoporum ad originem recensus in Ioannem stabit auctorem. Sic et ceterarum generositas recognoscitur. Dico itaque apud illas, nec solas iam apostolicas, sed apud universas quae illis de societate sacramenti confoederantur, id evangelium Lucae ab initio editionis suae stare quod cum maxime tuemur, Marcionis vero plerisque nec notum, nullis autem notum ut non eadem damnatum. [3] Habet plane et illud ecclesias, sed suas, tam posteras quam adulteras, quarum si censum requiras, facilius apostaticum invenias quam apostolicum, Marcione scilicet conditore, vel aliquo de Marcionis examine. Faciunt favos et vespae, faciunt ecclesias et Marcionitae. Eadem auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum ceteris quoque patrocinabitur evangeliis, quae proinde per illas et secundum illas habemus, Ioannis dico et Matthaei, licet et Marcus quod edidit Petri affirmetur, cuius interpres Marcus. Nam et Lucae digestum Paulo adscribere solent. [4] Capit magistrorum videri quae discipuli promulgarint. Itaque et de his Marcion flagitandus, quod omissis eis Lucae potius institerit, quasi non et haec apud ecclesias a primordio fuerint, quemadmodum et Lucae. Atquin haec magis a primordio fuisse credibile est, ut priora, qua apostolica, ut cum ipsis ecclesiis dedicata. Ceterum quale est, si nihil apostoli ediderunt, ut discipuli potius ediderint, qui nec discipuli existere potuissent sine ulla doctrina magistrorum? [5] Igitur dum constet haec quoque apud ecclesias fuisse, cur non haec quoque Marcion attigit, aut emendanda si adulterata, aut agnoscenda si integra? Nam et competit ut si qui evangelium pervertebant, eorum magis curarent perversionem quorum sciebant auctoritatem receptiorem. Ideo et pseudapostoli, quod per falsum apostolos imitarentur. In quantum ergo emendasset quae fuissent emendanda, si fuissent corrupta, in tantum confirmavit non fuisse corrupta quae non putavit emendanda. [6] Denique emendavit quod corruptum existimavit. Sed nec hoc merito, quia non fuit corruptum. Si enim apostolica integre decucurrerunt, Lucae autem, quod est secundum nos, adeo congruit regulae eorum ut cum illis apud ecclesias maneat, iam et Lucae constat integrum decucurrisse usque ad sacrilegium Marcionis. Denique ubi manus illi Marcion intulit, tunc diversum et aemulum factum est apostolicis. [7] Igitur dabo consilium discipulis eius, ut aut et illa convertant, licet sero, ad formam sui, quo cum apostolicis convenire videantur (nam et cotidie reformant illud, prout a nobis cotidie revincuntur), aut erubescant de magistro utrobique traducto, cum evangelii veritatem nunc ex conscientia tramittit, nunc ex impudentia evertit. His fere compendiis utimur, cum de evangelii fide adversus haereticos expedimur, defendentibus et temporum ordinem posteritati falsariorum praescribentem, et auctoritatem ecclesiarum traditioni apostolorum patrocinantem, quia veritas falsum praecedat necesse est, et ab eis procedat a quibus tradita est.5. [1] On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. [2] We have also St. John's foster churches. For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author. In the same manner is recognised the excellent source of the other churches. I say, therefore, that in them (and not simply such of them as were rounded by apostles, but in all those which are united with them in the fellowship of the mystery of the gospel of Christ ) that Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion's Gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it known without being at the same time condemned. [3] It too, of course, has its churches, but specially its own----as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their original, you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or some one of Marcion's swarm. Even wasps make combs; so also these Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means, and according to their usage----I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew----whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul. [4] And it may well seem that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free course in the churches, as well as Luke's Gospel, from the beginning. Nay, it is even more credible that they existed from the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they were prior, and coeval in origin with the churches themselves. But how comes it to pass, if the apostles published nothing, that their disciples were more forward in such a work; for they could not have been disciples, without any instruction from their masters? [5] If, then, it be evident that these (Gospels) also were current in the churches, why did not Marcion touch them----either to amend them if they were adulterated, or to acknowledge them if they were uncorrupt? For it is but natural that they who were perverting the gospel, should be more solicitous about the perversion of those things whose authority they knew to be more generally received. Even the false apostles (were so called) on this very account, because they imitated the apostles by means of their falsification. In as far, then, as he might have amended what there was to amend, if found corrupt, in so far did he firmly imply that all was free from corruption which he did not think required amendment. [6] In short, he simply amended what he thought was corrupt; though, indeed, not even this justly, because it was not really corrupt. For if the (Gospels) of the apostles have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke's, which is received amongst us, so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke's Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. [7] I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned either way----when once he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again subverts it by shameless tampering. Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against heretics for the faith of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on.
6. [1] Sed alium iam hinc inimus gradum, ipsum, ut professi sumus, evangelium Marcionis provocantes, sic quoque probaturi adulteratum. Certe enim totum quod elaboravit etiam Antitheses praestruendo in hoc cogit, ut veteris et novi testamenti diversitatem constituat, proinde Christum suum a creatore separatum, ut dei alterius, ut alienum legis et prophetarum. [2] Certe propterea contraria quaeque sententiae suae erasit, conspirantia cum creatore, quasi ab assertoribus eius intexta: competentia autem sententiae suae reservavit. Haec conveniemus, haec amplectemur, si nobiscum magis fuerint, si Marcionis praesumptionem percusserint. Tunc et illa constabit codem vitio haereticae caecitatis erasa quo et haec reservata. [3] Sic habebit intentio et forma opusculi nostri, sub illa utique condicione quae ex utraque parte condicta sit. Constituit Marcion alium esse Christum qui Tiberianis temporibus a deo quondam ignoto revelatus sit in salutem omnium gentium, alium qui a deo creatore in restitutionem Iudaici status sit destinatus quandoque venturus. Inter hos magnam et omnem differentiam scindit, quantam inter iustum et bonum, quantam inter legem et evangelium, quantam inter Iudaismum et Christianismum. [4] Hinc erit et nostra praescriptio, qua defigimus nihil Christo dei alterius commune esse debere cum creatore, ceterum creatoris pronuntiandum si administraverit dispositiones eius, si impleverit prophetias eius, si adiuverit leges eius, si repraesentaverit promissiones eius, si restauraverit virtutes eius, si sententias reformaverit, si mores, si proprietates expresserit. Huius pacti et huius praescripti, quaeso te, lector, memineris ubique, et incipe recognoscere aut Marcionis Christum aut creatoris.6. [1] But we now advance a step further on, and challenge (as we promised to do) the very Gospel of Marcion, with the intention of thus proving that it has been adulterated. For it is certain that the whole aim at which he has strenuously laboured even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the prophets. [2] It is certain, also, that with this view he has erased everything that was contrary to his own opinion and made for the Creator, as if it had been interpolated by His advocates, whilst everything which agreed with his own opinion he has retained. The latter statements we shall strictly examine; and if they shall turn out rather for our side, and shatter the assumption of Marcion, we shall embrace them. It will then become evident, that in retaining them he has shown no less of the defect of blindness, which characterizes heresy, than he displayed when he erased all the former class of subjects. [3] Such, then, is to be the drift and form of my little treatise; subject, of course, to whatever condition may have become requisite on both sides of the question. Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come. Between these he interposes the separation of a great and absolute difference----as great as lies between what is just and what is good; as great as lies between the law and the gospel; as great, (in short, ) as is the difference between Judaism and Christianity. [4] Hence will arise also our rule, by which we determine that there ought to be nothing in common between the Christ of the rival god and the Creator; but that (Christ) must be pronounced to belong to the Creator, if He has administered His dispensations, fulfilled His prophecies, promoted His laws, given reality to His promises, revived His mighty power, remoulded His determinations expressed His attributes, His properties. This law and this rule I earnestly request the reader to have ever in his mind, and so let him begin to investigate whether Christ be Marcion's or the Creator's.

Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6830
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:03 pm

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.7-9.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUARTUS
Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV
7. [1] Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum, utique de caelo creatoris, in quod de suo ante descenderat. Ecquid ergo ordinis fuerat ut prius de suo caelo in creatoris descendens describeretur? Cur enim non et ista reprehendam quae non implent fidem ordinariae narrationis, deficientis in mendacio semper? Plane semel dicta sint per quae iam alibi retractavimus an descendens per creatorem, et quidem adversus ipsum, potuerit ab eo admitti et inde tramitti in terram aeque ipsius. [2] Nunc autem et reliquum ordinem descensionis expostulo, tenens descendisse illum. Viderit enim sicubi appamisse positum est. Apparere subitum ex inopinato sapit conspectum, qui semel impegerit oculos in id quod sine mora apparuit. Descendisse autem dum fit, videtur et subit oculos. De facto etiam ordinem facit, atque ita cogit exigere, quali habitu, quali suggestu, quonam impetu vel temperamento, etiam quo in tempore diei noctisve descenderit: praeterea quis viderit descendentem, quis retulerit, quis asseveraverit rem utique nec asseveranti facile credendam. [3] Indignum denique ut Romulus quidem ascensus sui in caelum habuerit Proculum affirmatorem, Christus vero dei descensus de caelo sui non invenerit annuntiatorem, quasi non sic et ille ascenderit iisdem mendacii scalis, sicut et iste descendit. Quid autem illi cum Galilaea, si non erat creatoris, cui ista regio destinabatur ingressuro praedicationem? dicente Esaia, Hoc primum bibito, cito facito, regio Zabulon et terra Nephthalim, et ceteri qui maritimam et Iordanis, Galilaea nationum, populus qui sedetis in tenebris, videte lumen magnum: qui habitatis terram, sedentes in umbra mortis, lumen ortum est super vos. [4] Bene autem quod et deus Marcionis illuminator vindicatur nationum, quo magis debuerit vel de caelo descendere, et, si utique, in Pontum potius descendere quam in Galilaeam. Ceterum et loco et illuminationis opere secundum praedicationem occurrentibus Christo iam eum prophetatum incipimus agnoscere, ostendentem in primo ingressu venisse se non ut legem et prophetas dissolveret, sed ut potius adimpleret. Hoc enim Marcion ut additum erasit. [5] Sed frustra negabit Christum dixisse quod statim fecit ex parte. Prophetiam enim interim de loco adimplevit. De caelo statim ad synagogam. Ut dici solet, ad quod venimus; hoc age, Marcion, aufer etiam illud de evangelio, Non sum missus nisi ad oves perditas domus Israel, et, Non est auferre panem filiis et dare eum canibus, ne scilicet Christus Israelis videretur. [6] Sufficiunt mihi facta pro dictis. Detrahe voces Christi mei, res loquentur. Ecce venit in synagogam; certe ad oves perditas domus Israelis. Ecce doctrinae suae panem prioribus offert Israelitis; certe ut filios praefert. Ecce aliis eum nondum impertit; certe ut canes praeterit. Quibus autem magis impertisset quam extraneis creatoris, si ipse inprimis non fuisset creatoris? [7] Et tamen quomodo in synagogam potuit admitti tam repentinus, tam ignotus, cuius nemo adhuc certus de tribu, de populo, de domo, de censu denique Augusti, quem testem fidelissimum dominicae nativitatis Romana archiva custodiunt? Meminerant certe, nisi circumcisum scirent, non admittendum in sancta sanctorum. Sed etsi passim synagoga adiretur, non tamen ad docendum nisi ab optime cognito et explorato et probato, iam pridem in hoc ipsum vel aliunde commendato cum hoc munere. Stupebant autem omnes ad doctrinam eius. Plane. Quoniam, inquit, in potestate erat sermo eius, non quoniam adversus legem et prophetas docebat. Utique enim eloquium divinum et vim et gratiam praestabat, magis exstruens quam destruens substantiam legis et prophetarum. [8] Alioquin non stuperent, sed horrerent. Nec mirarentur, sed statim aversarentur destructorem legis et prophetarum, et utique inprimis alterius dei praedicatorem, quia nec potuisset adversus legem et prophetas docere et hoc nomine adversus creatorem, non praemissa diversae atque aemulae divinitatis professione. Cum ergo nihil tale scriptura significet, nisi solam vim et potestatem sermonis admirationi fuisse, facilius ostendit secundum creatorem docuisse illum, quia non negavit, quam adversus creatorem, quia non significavit. [9] Atque ita aut eius erit agnoscendus secundum quem docuit, aut praevaricator iudicandus si secundum eum adversus quem venerat docuit. Exclamat ibidem spiritus daemonis, Quid nobis et tibi est Iesu? venisti perdere nos: scio qui sis, sanctus dei. [10] Hic ego non retractabo an et hoc cognomentum competierit ei quem nec Christum vocari oporteret, si non creatoris. Alibi iam de nominibus expostulatum est. At nunc discepto quomodo hoc eum vocari cognoverit daemon, nulla unquam retro emissa praedicatione in illum a deo ignoto et in id temporis muto, cuius nec sanctum eum contestari potuit, ut ignoti etiam ipsi suo creatori. Quid autem iam tale ediderit novae divinitatis per quod posset alterius dei sanctus intellegi? [11] Tantum quod synagogam introgressus, et nec sermone operatus aliquid adversus creatorem? Sicut ergo quem ignorabat nullo modo poterat Iesum et sanctum dei agnoscere, ita quem norat agnovit. Nam et prophetam meminerat sanctum dei praedicasse, et Iesum nomen dei esse in filio Nave. Haec et ab angelo exceperat secundum nostrum evangelium: Propterea quod in te nascetur vocabitur sanctum, filius dei: et, Vocabis nomen eius Iesum. [12] Sed et habebat utique sensum aliquem dominicae dispositionis (licet daemon tamen), magis quam alienae et nondum satis cognitae. Nam et praemisit, Quid nobis et tibi, Iesu? non quasi in extraneum, sed ad quem pertinent spiritus creatoris. Nec enim dixit, Quid tibi et nobis? sed, Quid nobis et tibi? se deplorans et sorti suae exprobrans; quam iam videns adicit, Venisti perdere nos. [13] Adeo iudicis et ultoris et, ut ita dixerim, saevi dei filium agnoverat Iesum, non optimi illius, et perdere et punire nescientis. Quorsum hunc locum praemisimus ? Ut Iesum et a daemone non alium doceamus agnitum et a semetipso non alium confirmatum quam creatoris. Atquin, inquis, increpuit illum Iesus. Plane, ut invidiosum, et in ipsa confessione petulantem et male adulantem; quasi haec esset summa gloria Christi, si ad perditionem daemonum venisset et non potius ad hominum salutem, qui nec discipulos de subactione spirituum sed de candida salutis gloriari volebat. [14] Aut cur eum increpuit? Si quasi mentitum in totum, ergo non fuit Iesus, nec dei sanctus omnino: si quasi ex parte mentitum, quod eum Iesum quidem et sanctum dei, sed creatoris, existimasset, iniustissime increpuit hoc sentientem quod sciebat sentiendum, et hoc non existimantem quod ignorabat existimandum, alium Iesum et alterius dei sanctum. [15] Quodsi verisimiliorem statum non habet increpatio nisi quem nos interpretamur, iam ergo et daemon nihil mentitus est, non ob mendacium increpitus; ipse enim erat Iesus, praeter quem alium daemon agnovisse non poterat, et Iesus eum confirmavit quem agnoverat daemon, dum non ob mendacium increpat daemonem.7. [1] In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum," of course meaning from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own. What then had been his Course, for him to be described as first descending from his own heaven to the Creator's? For why should I abstain from censuring those parts of the statement which do not satisfy the requirement of an ordinary narrative, but always end in a falsehood? To be sure, our censure has been once for all expressed in the question, which we have already suggested: Whether, when descending through the Creator's domain, and indeed in hostility to him, he could possibly have been admitted by him, and by him been transmitted to the earth, which was equally his territory? [2] Now, however, I want also to know the remainder of his course down, assuming that he came down. For we must not be too nice in inquiring whether it is supposed that he was seen in any place. To come into view indicates a sudden unexpected glance, which for a moment fixed the eye upon the object that passed before the view, without staying. But when it happens that a descent has been effected, it is apparent, and comes under the notice of the eyes. Moreover, it takes account of fact, and thus obliges one to examine in what condition with what preparation, with how much violence or moderation, and further, at what time of the day or night, the descent was made; who, again, saw the descent, who reported it, who seriously avouched the fact, which certainly was not easy to be believed, even after the asseveration. [3] It is, in short, too bad that Romulus should have had in Proculus an avoucher of his ascent to heaven, when the Christ of (this) god could not find any one to announce his descent from heaven; just as if the ascent of the one and the descent of the other were not effected on one and the same ladder of falsehood! Then, what had he to do with Galilee, if he did not belong to the Creator by whom that region was destined (for His Christ) when about to enter on His ministry? As Isaiah says: "Drink in this first, and be prompt, O region of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, and ye others who (inhabit) the sea-coast, and that of Jordan, Galilee of the nations, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light; upon you, who inhabit (that) land, sitting in the shadow of death, the light hath arisen." [4] It is, however, well that Marcion's god does claim to be the enlightener of the nations, that so he might have the better reason for coming down from heaven; only, if it must needs be, he should rather have made Pontus his place of descent than Galilee. But since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them; for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation. [5] It will, however, be vain for him to deny that Christ uttered in word what He forthwith did partially indeed. For the prophecy about place He at once fulfilled. From heaven straight to the synagogue. As the adage runs: "The business on which we are come, do at once." Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel; " and, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs," ----in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite. [6] But facts will satisfy me instead of words. Withdraw all the sayings of my Christ, His acts shall speak. Lo, He enters the synagogue; surely (this is going) to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Behold, it is to Israelites first that He offers the "bread" of His doctrine; surely it is because they are "children" that He shows them this priority. Observe, He does not yet impart it to others; surely He passes them by as "dogs." For to whom else could He better have imparted it, than to such as were strangers to the Creator, if He especially belonged not to the Creator? [7] And yet how could He have been admitted into the synagogue----one so abruptly appearing, so unknown; one, of whom no one had as yet been apprised of His tribe, His nation, His family, and lastly, His enrolment in the census of Augustus----that most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of Rome? They certainly would have remembered, if they did not know Him to be circumcised, that He must not be admitted into their most holy places. And even if He had the general right of entering the synagogue (like other Jews), yet the function of giving instruction was allowed only to a man who was extremely well known, and examined and tried, and for some time invested with the privilege after experience duly attested elsewhere. But "they were all astonished at His doctrine." Of course they were; "for, says (St. Luke), "His word was with power ----not because He taught in opposition to the law and the prophets. No doubt, His divine discourse gave forth both power and grace, building up rather than pulling down the substance of the law and the prophets. [8] Otherwise, instead of "astonishment, they would feel horror. It would not be admiration, but aversion, prompt and sure, which they would bestow on one who was the destroyer of law and prophets, and the especial propounder as a natural consequence of a rival god; for he would have been unable to teach anything to the disparagement of the law and the prophets, and so far of the Creator also, without premising the doctrine of a different and rival divinity, Inasmuch, then, as the Scripture makes no other statement on the matter than that the simple force and power of His word produced astonishment, it more naturally shows that His teaching was in accordance with the Creator by not denying (that it was so), than that it was in opposition to the Creator, by not asserting (such a fact). [9] And thus He will either have to be acknowledged as belonging to Him, in accordance with whom He taught; or else will have to be adjudged a deceiver since He taught in accordance with One whom He had come to oppose. In the same passage, "the spirit of an unclean devil" exclaims: "What have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus? Art Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God." [10] I do not here raise the question whether this appellation was suitable to one who ought not to be called Christ, unless he were sent by the Creator. Elsewhere there has been already given a full consideration of His titles. My present discussion is, how the evil spirit could have known that He was called by such a name, when there had never at any time been uttered about Him a single prophecy by a god who was unknown, and up to that time silent, of whom it was not possible for Him to be attested as "the Holy One," as (of a god) unknown even to his own Creator. What similar event could he then have published of a new deity, whereby he might betoken for "the holy one" of the rival god? [11] Simply that he went into the synagogue, and did nothing even in word against the Creator? As therefore he could not by any means acknowledge him, whom he was ignorant of, to be Jesus and the Holy One of God; so did he acknowledge Him whom he knew (to be both). For he remembered how that the prophet had prophesied of "the Holy One" of God, and how that God's name of "Jesus" was in the son of Nun. These facts he had also received from the angel, according to our Gospel: "Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Holy One, the Son of God; " and, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus." [12] Thus he actually had (although only an evil spirit) some idea of the Lord's dispensation, rather than of any strange and heretofore imperfectly understood one. Because he also premised this question: "What have we to do with Thee? "----not as if referring to a strange Jesus, to whom pertain the evil spirits of the Creator. Nor did he say, What hast Thou to do with us? but, "What have we to do with Thee? "as if deploring himself, and deprecating his own calamity; at the prospect of which he adds: "Art Thou come to destroy us?" [13] So completely did he acknowledge in Jesus the Son of that God who was judicial and avenging, and (so to speak) severe, and not of him who was simply good, and knew not how to destroy or how to punish! Now for what purpose have we adduced his passage first? In order to show that Jesus was neither acknowledged by the evil spirit, nor affirmed by Himself, to be any other than the Creator's. Well, but Jesus rebuked him, you say. To be sure he did, as being an envious (spirit), and in his very confession only petulant, and evil in adulation----just as if it had been Christ's highest glory to have come for the destruction of demons, and not for the salvation of mankind; whereas His wish really was that His disciples should not glory in the subjection of evil spirits but in the fair beauty of salvation. [14] Why else did He rebuke him? If it was because he was entirely wrong (in his invocation), then He was neither Jesus nor the Holy One of God; if it was because he was partially wrong----for having supposed him to be, rightly enough, Jesus and the Holy One of God, but also as belonging to the Creator----most unjustly would He have rebuked him for thinking what he knew he ought to think (about Him), and for not supposing that of Him which he knew not that he ought to suppose----that he was another Jesus, and the holy one of the other god. [15] If, 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 impossible for the evil spirit to have acknowledged any other, whilst Jesus affirmed that He was He whom the evil spirit had acknowledged, by not rebuking him for uttering a lie.
8. [1] Nazaraeus vocari habebat secundum prophetiam Christus creatoris. Unde et ipso nomine nos Iudaei Nazarenos appellant per eum. Nam et sumus de quibus scriptum est: Nazaraei exalbati sunt super nivem, qui scilicet retro luridati delinquentiae maculis et nigrati ignorantiae tenebris. Christo autem appellatio Nazaraei competitura erat ex infantiae latebris, ad quas apud Nazareth descendit, vitando Archelaum filium Herodis. [2] Hoc propterea non omisi, quia Christum Marcionis oportuerat omne commercium eierasse etiam locorum familiarium Christi creatoris, habentem tanta Iudaeae oppida non ita Christo creatoris per prophetas emancipata. Ceterum prophetarum erit Christus ubicunque secundum prophetas invenitur. Et tamen apud Nazareth. quoque nihil novi notatur praedicasse, dum alio, merito unius proverbii, eiectus refertur. Hic primum manus ei iniectas animadvertens necesse habeo iam de substantia eius corporali praefinire, quod non possit phantasma credi qui contactum et quidem violentia plenum detentus et captus et ad praecipitium usque protractus admiserit. [3] Nam etsi per medios evasit, sed ante iam vim expertus, et postea dimissus; scilicet soluto, uti assolet, tumultu, vel etiam irrupto, non tamen per caliginem eluso, quae nulli omnino tactui succidisset, si fuisset. Tangere enim et tangi nisi corpus nulla potest res, etiam saecularis sapientiae digna sententia est. [4] Ad summam, et ipse mox tetigit alios, quibus manus imponens, utique sentiendas, beneficia medicinarum conferebat, tam vera, tam non imaginaria, quam erant per quas conferebat. Ipse igitur est Christus Esaiae, remediator valetudinum. Hic, inquit, imbecillitates nostras aufert et languores portat. Portare autem Graeci etiam pro eo solent ponere quod est tollere. Sufficit interim mihi generalis repromissio. Quodcunque curaverit Iesus, meus est. Veniemus tamen et ad species curationum. [5] Ceterum et a daemoniis liberare curatio est valetudinis. Itaque spiritus nequam quasi ex forma iam prioris exempli cum testimonio excedebant vociferantes, Tu es filius dei. Cuius dei, vel hic pareat. Sed proinde increpabantur et iubebantur tacere. Proinde enim Christus ab hominibus, non a spiritibus immundis, volebat se filium dei agnosci, ille Christus duntaxat cui hoc congruebat quia praemiserat per quos posset agnosci, et utique digniores praedicatores. [6] Illius erat praeconium immundi spiritus respuere cui sancti abundabant. Porro qui nunquam fuerat annuntiatus (si tamen volebat agnosci, frustra autem venerat si nolebat), non esset aspernatus testimonium alienae et cuiuscunque substantiae, qui propriae non habebat, qui in aliena descenderat. [7] Iam nunc et qua destructor creatoris nihil magis gestisset quam a spiritibus ipsius agnosci et divulgari prae timore; nisi quod Marcion deum suum timeri negat, defendens bonum non timeri, sed iudicem, apud quem sint materiae timoris, ira, saevitia, iudicia, vindicta, damnatio. Sed et daemonia timore utique cedebant. Ergo timendi dei filium confitebantur, occasionem habitura non cedendi, si non timendi: et ille iussu et increpitu ea expellens, non suasu qua bonus, timendum se exhibebat. [8] Aut numquid ideo increpabat quia timebatur, nolens timeri? Et quomodo ea volebat excedere, quod nisi timore non facerent? Cecidit ergo in necessitatem qua disparem se naturae suae ageret, cum posset ut bonus semel eis parcere. Cecidit et in aliam praevaricationis notam, cum se a daemoniis quasi filium creatoris sustineret timeri, ut iam non propria potestate expelleret daemonia, sed per creatoris auctoritatem. [9] In solitudinem procedit. Solemnis et huiusmodi regio creatoris. Oportebat sermonem illic quoque videri in corpore ubi egerat aliquando et in nube. Competebat et evangelio habitus loci qui placuerat et legi. Capiat itaque iocunditatem solitudo: hoc Esaias promiserat. Detentus a turbis, Oportet me, inquit, et aliis civitatibus annuntiare regnum dei. [10] Ostenderat iam alicubi deum suum? Non puto adhuc usque. Sed de his loquebatur qui alium quoque deum noverant? Nec hoc credo. Ergo si nec ille alium deum ediderat nec illi noverant praeter creatorem, eiusdem dei regnum portendebat quem solum sciebat notum eis qui audiebant.8. [1] The Christ of the Creator had to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account, Nazerenes 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 darkened with the clouds of ignorance. But to Christ the title Nazarene was destined to become a suitable one, from the hiding-place of His infancy, for which He went down and dwelt at Nazareth, to escape from Archelaus the son of Herod. [2] This fact I have not refrained from mentioning on this account, because it behoved Marcion's Christ to have forborne all connection whatever with the domestic localities of the Creator's Christ, when he had so many towns in 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 rejected by reason of a simple proverb. Here at once, when I observe that they laid their hands on Him, I cannot help drawing a conclusion respecting His bodily substance, which cannot be believed to have been a phantom, since it was capable of being touched and even violently handled, when He was seized and taken and led to the very brink of a precipice. [3] For although He escaped through the 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 it was eluded as by an impalpable disguise, which, if there had been such, would not at all have submitted 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. [4] In short, He did himself touch others, upon whom He laid His hands, which were capable of being felt, and conferred the blessings of healing, 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 accustomed to use for carry a word which also signifies to take away. A general promise Is enough for me in passing. Whatever were the cures which Jesus effected, He is mine. [5] 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 become known, and who were assuredly worthier preachers. [6] 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 testimony 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. [7] And now, too, as the destroyer also of the Creator, he would have desired nothing better than to be acknowledged by His spirits, and to be divulged for the sake of being feared: 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, condemnation. 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. [8] Or else did he 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, whereas 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. [9] "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 aforetime, 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." [10] Had He displayed His God anywhere yet? I suppose as yet nowhere. But was He speaking of those who knew of another god also? I do not believe so. If, therefore, neither He had preached, nor they had known, any other God but the Creator, He was announcing the kingdom of that God whom He knew to be the only God known to those who were listening to Him.
9. [1] De tot generibus operum quid utique ad piscaturam respexit, ut ab illa in apostolos sumeret Simonem et filios Zebedaei (non enim simplex factum videri potest de quo argumentum processurum erat), dicens Petro trepidanti de copiosa indagine piscium, Ne time, abhinc enim homines eris capiens? [2] Hoc enim dicto intellectum illis suggerebat adimpletae prophetiae, se eum esse qui per Hieremiam pronuntiarat, Ecce ego mittam piscatores multos, et piscabuntur illos, homines scilicet. Denique relictis naviculis secuti sunt eum, ipsum intellegentes qui coeperat facere quod edixerat. Aliud est si affectavit de naviculariorum collegio adlegere, habiturus apostolum quandoque nauclerum Marcionem. [3] Praestruximus quidem adversus Antitheses nihil proficere proposito Marcionis quam putat diversitatem legis et evangelii, ut et hanc a creatore dispositam, denique praedicatam in repromissione novae legis et novi sermonis et novi testamenti. Sed quoniam attentius argumentatur apud illum suum nescio quem suntalai/pwron, id est commiseronem, et summisou&menon, id est coodibilem, in leprosi purgationem, non pigebit ei occurrere et inprimis figuratae legis vim ostendere, quae in exemplo leprosi non contingendi, immo ab omni commercio submovendi, communicationem prohibebat hominis delictis commaculati, cum qualibus et apostolus cibum quoque vetat sumere; participari enim stigmata delictorum, quasi ex contagione, si qui se cum peccatore miscuerit. [4] Itaque dominus volens altius intellegi legem per carnalia spiritalia significantem, et hoc nomine non destruens sed magis exstruens, quam pertinentius volebat agnosci, tetigit leprosum, a quo etsi homo inquinari potuisset, deus utique non inquinaretur, incontaminabilis scilicet. Ita non praescribetur illi quod debuerit legem observare et non contingere immundum, quem contactus immundi non erat inquinaturus. [5] Hoc magis meo Christo competere sic doceo, dum tuo non competere demonstro. Si enim ut aemulus legis tetigit leprosum, nihili faciens praeceptum legis per contemptum inquinamenti, quomodo posset inquinari, qui corpus non habebat quod inquinaretur? Phantasma enim inquinari non posset. Qui ergo inquinari non poterat ut phantasma, iam non virtute divina incontaminabilis erit sed phantasmatis inanitate; nec contempsisse videri potest inquinamentum, cuius materiam non habebat; ita nec legem destruxisse, qui inquinamentum ex occasione phantasmatis, non ex ostentatione virtutis, evaserat. [6] Si autem Helisaeus prophetes creatoris unicum leprosum Naaman Syrum ex tot leprosis Israelitis emundavit, nec hoc ad diversitatem facit Christi, quasi hoc modo melioris dum Israeliten leprosum emundat extraneus, quem suus dominus emundare non valuerat; Syro facilius emundato, significato per nationes emundationis in Christo lumine earum, quae septem maculis capitalium delictorum inhorrerent, idololatria, blasphemia, homicidio, adulterio, stupro, falso testimonio, fraude. [7] Quapropter septies, quasi per singulos titulos, in Iordane lavit, simul et ut totius hebdomadis caneret expiationem, et quia unius lavacri vis et plenitudo Christo soli dicabatur, facturo in terris, sicut sermonem compendiatum, ita et lavacrum. Nam et hoc opponit Marcion, Helisaeum quidem materia eguisse, aquam adhibuisse, et eam septies, Christum vero verbo solo et hoc semel functum curationem statim repraesentasse. Quasi non audeam et verbum ipsum in substantiam creatoris vindicare. Nullius rei non ille potior auctor qui prior. [8] Incredibile plane ut potestas creatoris verbo remedium vitii unius operata sit, quae verbo tantam mundi molem semel protulit. Unde magis dinoscitur Christus creatoris quam ex verbi potestate? Sed ideo alius Christus, quia aliter quam Helisaeus, quia potentior dominus famulo suo. Quid constituis, Marcion, proinde res agi a servis quemadmodum ab ipsis dominis? Non times ne in dedecus tibi vertat, si ideo Christum negas creatoris quia potentior fuerit famulo creatoris, qui ad Helisaei pusillitatem maior agnoscitur, si tamen maior? Par enim curatio, licet distet operatio. Quid amplius praestitit tuus Christus quam meus Helisaeus? Immo quid magnum praestitit tui Christi verbum, cum id praestiterit quod fluvius creatoris? [9] Secundum haec cetera quoque occurrunt. Quantum enim ad gloriae humanae aversionem pertinebat, vetuit eum divulgare, quantum autem ad tutelam legis, iussit ordinem impleri: Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, et offer mvmus quod praecepit Moyses. Argumenta enim figurata utpote prophetatae legis adhuc in suis imaginibus tuebatur, quae significabant hominem quondam peccatorem verbo mox dei emaculatum offerre debere munus deo apud templum, orationem scilicet et actionem gratiarum apud ecclesiam per Christum Iesum, catholicum patris sacerdotem. [10] Itaque adiecit, Ut sit vobis in testimonium, sine dubio quo testabatur se legem non dissolvere sed adimplere, quo testabatur se ipsum esse qui morbos et valetudines eorum suscepturus annuntiabatur. Hanc tam congruentem et debitam interpretationem testimonii adulator Christi sui Marcion sub obtentu mansuetudinis et lenitatis quaerit excludere. Nam et bonus, inquit, praeterea sciens omnem qui lepra esset liberatus solemnia legis executurum, ideo ita praecepit. [11] Quid tum? Perseveravitne in bonitate, id est permissione legis, an non? Si enim bonus perseveravit, nusquam destructor erit legis, nec dei alterius habebitur, cessante legis destructione per quam alterius dei vindicatur. [12] Si non perseveravit bonus, destruendo postea legem, falsum ergo testimonium postea collocavit apud illos in curatione leprosi; deseruit enim bonitatem, dum destruit legem. Malus iam quando legis eversor, si bonus cum legis indultor. Sed et eo quod indulsit legi obsequium, bonam legem confirmavit. Nemo enim malo obsequi patitur. [13] Ergo et sic malus, si obsequium malae legi indulsit, et sic deterior, si bonae legis destructor advenit. Proinde si ut sciens omnem qui lepra liberatus esset ita facturum ideo praecepit munus offerre, potuit et non praecepisse quod sciebat ultro futurum. In vanum ergo descendit quasi legem destructurus, cum cedit obsecutoribus legis. Atquin quasi sciens formam eorum magis ab ea avertendos praevenire debuerat, si in hoc venerat. Cur enim non tacuit, ut homo solo suo arbitrio legi obediret? Tunc enim aliquatenus posset videri patientiae suae praestitisse. [14] Sed adicit etiam auctoritatem suam exaggeratam testimonii pondere. Cuius iam testimonii, nisi legis assertae? Certe nihil interest quomodo firmaverit legem, sive qua bonus, sive qua supervacuus, sive qua patiens, sive qua inconstans, dum te, Marcion, de gradu pellam. Ecce praecepit legem impleri. [15] Quocunque modo praecepit, eodem potuit etiam illam praemisisse sententiam, Non veni legem dissolvere sed adimplere. Quid ergo tibi fuit de evangelio erasisse quod salvum est? Confessus es enira prae bonitate fecisse illum quod negas dixisse. Constat ergo dixisse illum, quia et fecit, et te potius vocem domini de evangelio eradicasse quam nostros iniecisse.9. [1] Out of so many kinds of occupations, why indeed had He such respect for that of fishermen, as to select from it for apostles Simon and the sons of Zebedee (for it cannot seem to be the mere fact itself for which the narrative was meant to be drawn out ), saying to Peter, when he trembled at the very large draught of the fishes, "Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men?" [2] By saying this, He suggested to them the meaning of the fulfilled prophecy, that it was even He who by Jeremiah had foretold, "Behold, I will send many fishers; and they shall fish them," 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. [3] We have indeed already laid it down, in opposition to his Antitheses, that the position of Marcion derives no advantage from the diversity which he supposes to exist between the Law and the Gospel, inasmuch as even this was ordained by the Creator, and indeed predicted in the promise of the new Law, and the new Word, and the new Testament. Since, however, he quotes with especial care, as a proof in his domain, a certain companion in misery (suntalai/pwron), and associate in hatred (summisou/menon), with himself, for the cure of leprosy, I shall not be sorry to meet him, and before anything else to point out to him the force of the law figuratively interpreted, which, in this example of a leper (who was not to be touched, but was rather to be removed from all intercourse with others), prohibited any communication with a person who was defiled with sins, with whom the apostle also forbids us even to eat food, forasmuch as the taint of sins would be communicated as if contagious: wherever a man should mix himself with the sinner. [4] The Lord, therefore, wishing that the law should be more profoundly understood as signifying spiritual truths by carnal facts ----and thus not destroying, but rather building up, that law which He wanted to have more earnestly acknowledged----touched the leper, by whom (even although as man He might have been defiled) He could not be defiled as God, being of course incorruptible. The prescription, therefore, could not be meant for Him, that He was bound to observe the law and not touch the unclean person, seeing that contact with the unclean would not cause defilement to Him. [5] 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. [6] 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. [7] Seven times, therefore, as if once for each, did he wash in Jordan; both in order that he might celebrate the expiation of a perfect hebdomad; and because the virtue and fulness of the one baptism was thus solemnly imputed to Christ, alone, who was one day to establish on earth not only a revelation, but also a baptism, endued 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 the Very Word also as of the Creator's substance. There is nothing of which He who was the primitive Author is not also the more powerful one. [8] Forsooth, it is incredible that that power of the Creator should have, by a word, produced a remedy for a single malady, which once by a word brought into being so vast a fabric as the world! From what can the Christ of the Creator be better discerned, than from the power of His word? But Christ is on this account another (Christ), because He acted differently from Elisha----because, in fact, the master is more powerful than his servant! Why, Marcion, do you lay down the rule, that things are done by servants just as they are by their very masters? Are you not afraid that it will turn to your discredit, if you deny that Christ belongs to the Creator, on the ground that He was once more powerful than a servant of the Creator----since, in comparison with the weakness of Elisha, He is acknowledged to be the greater, if indeed greater! For the cure is the same, although there is a difference in the working of it. What has your Christ performed more than my Elisha? Nay, what great thing has the word of your Christ performed, when it has simply done that which a river of the Creator effected? [9] On the same principle occurs all the rest. So far as renouncing all human glory went, He forbade the man to publish abroad the cure; but so far as the honour of the law was concerned, He requested that the usual course should be followed: "Go, show thyself to the priest, and present the offering which Moses commanded." For the figurative signs of the law in its types He still would have observed, because 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. [10] Accordingly He added: "that it may be for a testimony unto you"----one, no doubt, whereby He would testify that He was not destroying the law, but fulfilling it; whereby, too, He would testify that it was He Himself who was foretold as about to undertake their sicknesses and infirmities. This very consistent and becoming explanation of "the testimony," that adulator of his own Christ, Marcion seeks to exclude under the cover of mercy and gentleness. For, being both good (such are his words), and knowing, besides, that every man who had been freed from leprosy would be sure to perform the solemnities of the law, therefore He gave this precept. [11] Well, what then? Has He continued in his goodness (that is to say, in his permission of the law) or not? For if he has persevered in his goodness, he will never become a destroyer of the law; nor will he ever be accounted as belonging to another god, because there would not exist that destruction of the law which would constitute his claim to belong to the other god. [12] If, however, he has not continued good, by a subsequent destruction of the law, it is a false testimony which he has since imposed upon them in his cure of the leper; because he has forsaken his goodness, in destroying the law. If, therefore, he was good whilst upholding the law, 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. [13] 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 he knew that every cured leper would be sure to bring one; he possibly abstained from commanding what he knew would be spontaneously done. In vain, therefore, was his coming down, as if with the intention of destroying the law, when he makes concessions to the keepers of the law. And yet, 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 extent to have persisted in his patience. [14] But he adds also his own authority increased by the weight of this "testimony." Of what testimony, 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, or as patient, or as inconstant----provided, Marcion, I drive you from your position. Observe, he commanded that the law should be fulfilled. [15] 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 therefore good proof that He uttered the word, in the fact that He did the deed; and that you have rather expunged the Lord's word, than that our (evangelists) have inserted it.

Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6830
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:03 pm

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.10-12.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUARTUS
Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV
10. [1] Curatur et paralyticus, et quidem in coetu, spectante populo. Videbit enim, inquit Esaias, populus sublimitatem domini et gloriam dei. Quam sublimitatem, et quam gloriam? Convalescite manus dimissae et genua dissoluta; hoc erit paralysis. Convalescite, nec timete. Non otiose iterans, Convalescite, nec vane subiungens, Nec timete, quoniam cum redintegratione membrorum virium quoque repraesentationem pollicebatur: Exsurge, et tolle dicturi erant, Quis dimittet peccata nisi solus deus? [2] Habes itaque iam et specialis medicinae dispunctam prophetiam, et eorum quae medicinam sunt secuta. Pariter ct dimissorem delictorum Christum recognosce apud eundem prophetam: Quoniam, inquit, in plurimis dimittet delicta eorum, et delicta nostra ipse aufert. Nam et in priore ex ipsius domini persona, Etsi fuerint delicta vestra tanquam roseum, velut nivem exalbabo, etsi tanquam coccinum, velut lanam exalbabo; in roseo sanguinem ostendens prophetarum, in coccino domini, ut clariorem. Etiam Micheas de venia delictorum, Quis deus quomodo tu, eximens iniquitates et praeteriens iniustitias residuis haereditatis tuae? et non tenuit in testimonium iram suam, quia voluit esse misericordiam; avertet, et miserebitur nostri; demerget delicta nostra, et demerget in profundo maris peccata nostra. [3] Sed et si nihil tale in Christum fuisset praedicatum, haberem huius benignitatis exempla in creatore, promittentia mihi et in filio patris affectus. Video Ninivitas scelerum veniam consecutos a creatore, ne dixerim tunc quoque a Christo, quia a primordio egit in patris nomine. Lego et Nathan prophetam agnoscenti David delictum suum in Uriam dixisse, Et dominus circumduxit delictum tuum et non morieris; proinde et Achab regem, maritum Iezabel, reum idololatriae et sanguinis Nabuthae, veniam meruisse paenitentiae nomine; Ionathan, filium Saulis, resignati ieiunii culpam deprecatione delesse. [4] Quid de ipso populo retexam totiens delictorum indulgentia restituto? ab eo scilicet deo qui mavult misericordiam quam sacrificium, et peccatoris paenitentiam quam mortem. Prius est igitur neges creatorem indulsisse aliquando delicta, consequens est ut ostendas nec in Christum suum tale quid eum praedicasse; et ita probabis novam istam Christi novi scilicet benignitatem, si probaveris nec parem creatori nec praedicatam a creatore. [5] Sed et peccata dimittere an eius possit esse qui negetur tenere, et an eius sit absolvere cuius non sit etiam damnare, et an congruat eum ignoscere in quem nihil sit admissum, alibi iam congressi malumus admonere quam rectractare. [6] De filio hominis duplex est nostra praescriptio, neque mentiri posse Christum, ut se filium hominis pronuntiaret si non vere erat, neque filium hominis constitui qui non sit natus ex homine, vel patre vel matre, atque ita discutiendum cuius hominis filius accipi debeat, patris an matris. Si ex deo patre est, utique non est ex homine; si non et ex homine, superest ut ex homine sit matre; si ex homine, iam apparet quia ex virgine. Cui enim homo pater non datur, nec vir matri eius deputabitur: porro, cui vir non deputabitur, virgo est. [7] Ceterum duo iam patres habebuntur, deus et homo, si non virgo sit mater. Habebit enim virum, ut virgo non sit, et habendo virum duos patres faciet, deum et hominem, ei qui et dei et hominis esset filius. Talem, si forte, Castori aut Herculi nativitatem tradunt fabulae. Si haec ita distinguuntur, id est si ex matre filius est hominis quia ex patre non est, ex matre autem virgine quia non ex patre homine, hic erit Christus Esaiae quem concepturam virginem praedicat. [8] Qua igitur ratione adtnittas filium hominis, Marcion, circumspicere non possum. Si patris hominis, negas dei filium; si et dei, Herculem de fabula facis Christum; si matris tantum hominis, meum concedis; si neque patris hominis <neque matris>, ergo nullius hominis est filius, et necesse est mendacium admiserit, qui se quod non erat dixit. [9] Unum potest angustiis tuis subvenire, si audeas aut deum tuum patrem Christi Hominem quoque cognominare, quod de aeone fecit Valentinus, aut virginem hominem negare, quod nec Valentinus quidem fecit. Quid nunc, si ipso titulo filii hominis censetur Christus apud Danielem? Nonne sufficit ad probationem prophetici Christi? [10] Cum enim id se appellat quod in Christum praedicabatur creatoris, sine dubio ipsum se praestat intellegi in quem praedicabatur. Nominum communio simplex, si forte, videri potest, et tamen nec Christum nec Iesum vocari debuisse defendimus diversitatis condicionem tenentes. Appellatio autem, quod est filius hominis, in quantum ex accidenti obvenit, in tantum difficile est ut et ipsa concurrat super nominis communionem. Ex accidenti enim proprio est, maxime cum causa non convenit eadem per quam deveniat in communionem. [11] Atque adeo si et Christus Marcionis natus ex homine diceretur, tunc et ipse caperet appellationis communionem, et essent duo filii hominis, sicut et duo Christi et duo Iesus. Ergo cum appellatio propria est eius in quo habet causam, si et alii vindicetur in quo est communio nominis, non etiam appellationis, suspecta iam fit communio nominis quoque in eo cui vindicatur sine causa communio appellationis, et sequitur ut unus idemque credatur qui et nominis et appellationis capacior invenitur, dum alter excluditur, qui non habet appellationis communionem, carens causa. Nec alius erit capacior utriusque quam qui prior et nomen sortitus est Christi et appellationem filii hominis, Iesus scilicet creatoris. [12] Hic erat visus Babylonio regi in fornace cum martyribus suis quartus, tanquam filius hominis. Idem ipsi Danieli revelatus directo filius hominis veniens cum caeli nubibus iudex, sicut et scriptura demonstrat. [13] Hoc dixi sufficere potuisse de nominatione prophetica circa filium hominis. Sed plus mihi scriptura confert, ipsius scilicet domini interpretatione. Nam cum Iudaei solummodo hominem eius intuentes, necdum et deum certi, qua dei quoque filium, merito retractarent non posse hominem delicta dimittere, sed deum solum, cur non secundum intentionem eorum de homine eis respondit habere eum potestatem dimittendi delicta, quando et filium hominis nominans hominem nominaret? nisi quia ideo ipsa voluit eos appellatione filii hominis ex instrumento Danielis repercutere, ut ostenderet deum et hominem qui delicta dimitteret; [14] illum scilicet solum filium hominis apud Danielis prophetiam consecutum iudicandi potestatem, ac per eam utique et dimittendi delicta (qui enim iudicat, et absolvit), ut scandalo isto discusso per scripturae recordationem facilius eum agnoscerent ipsum esse filium hominis ex ipsa peccatorum remissione. Denique nusquam adhuc professus est se filium hominis quam in isto loco primum in quo primum peccata dimisit, id est in quo primum iudicavit, dum absolvit. [15] Ad haec quodcunque diversa pars fuerit argumentata quale sit dispice. Nam in illam necesse est amentiam tendat, ut et filium hominis defendat ne mendacem eum faciat, et ex homine neget natum ne filium virginis concedat. Quodsi et auctoritas divina et rerum natura et communis sapientia non admittunt insaniam haereticam, occasio est et hic interpellandi quam brevissime de substantia corporis adversus phantasmata Marcionis. [16] Si natus ex homine est, ut filius hominis, corpus ex corpore est. Plane facilius invenias hominem natum cor non habere vel cerebrum, sicut ipsum Marcionem, quam corpus, ut Christum Marcionis. Atque adeo inspice cor Pontici aut cerebrum.10. [1] 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 renewal of the limbs there was to be, according to the promise, a restoration also of bodily energies: "Arise, and take up thy couch; "and likewise moral courage not to be afraid of those who should say, "Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" [2] 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, speaking in the person of the Lord himself, he had said: "Even though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them as white as snow; even though they be like crimson, I will whiten them as wool." In the scarlet colour He indicates the blood of the prophets; in the crimson, that of the Lord, as the brighter. Concerning the forgiveness of sins, Micah also says: "Who is a God like unto Thee? pardoning iniquity, and passing by the transgressions of the remnant of Thine heritage. He retaineth not His anger as a testimony against them, because He delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, and will have compassion upon us; He wipeth away our iniquities, and casteth our sins into the depths of the sea." [3] 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 acknowledged his sin against Uriah, the prophet Nathan said unto him, "The Lord hath cancelled 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 repentance; and how Jonathan the son of Saul blotted out by his deprecation the guilt of a violated fast. [4] Why should I recount the frequent restoration of the nation itself after the forgiveness of their sins?----by that God, indeed, who will have mercy rather than sacrifice, and a sinner's repentance rather than his death. You will first have to deny that the Creator ever forgave sins; then you must in reason show that He never ordained any such prerogative for His Christ; and so you will prove how novel is that boasted benevolence of the, of course, novel Christ when you shall have proved that it is neither compatible with the Creator nor predicted by the Creator. [5] But whether to remit sins can appertain to one who is said to be unable to retain them, and whether to absolve can belong to him who is incompetent even to condemn, and whether to forgive is suitable to him against whom no offence can be committed, are questions which we have encountered elsewhere, when we preferred to drop suggestions rather than treat them anew. [6] Concerning the Son of man our rule is a twofold one: that Christ cannot lie, so as to declare Himself the Son of man, if He be not truly so; nor can He be constituted the Son of man, unless He be born of a human parent, either father or mother. And then the discussion will turn on the point, of which human parent He ought to be accounted the son----of the father or the mother? Since He is (begotten) of God the Father, He is not, of course, (the son) of a human father. If He is not of a human father, it follows that He must be (the son) of a human mother. If of a human mother, it is evident that she must be a virgin. For to whom a human father is not ascribed, to his mother a husband will not be reckoned; and then to what mother a husband is not reckoned, the condition of virginity belongs. [7] But if His mother be not a virgin, two fathers will have to be reckoned to Him----a divine and a human one. For she must have a husband, not to be a virgin; and by having a husband, she would cause two fathers----one divine, the other human----to accrue to Him, who would thus be Son both of God and of a man. Such a nativity (if one may call it so) the mythic stories assign to Castor or to Hercules. Now, if this distinction be observed, that is to say, if He be Son of man as born of His mother, because not begotten of a father, and His mother be a virgin, because His father is not human----He will be that Christ whom Isaiah foretold that a virgin should conceive. [8] On what principle you, Marcion, can admit Him Son of man, I cannot possibly see. If through a human father, then you deny him to be Son of God; if through a divine one also, then you make Christ the Hercules of fable; if through a human mother only, then you concede my point; if not through a human father also, then He is not the son of any man, and He must have been guilty of a lie for having declared Himself to be what He was not. [9] One thing alone can help you in your difficulty: boldness on your part either to surname your God as actually the human father of Christ, as Valentinus did with his aeon; or else to deny that the Virgin was human, which even Valentinus did not do. What now, if Christ be described in Daniel by this very title of "Son of man? "Is not this enough to prove that He is the Christ of prophecy? [10] For if He gives Himself that appellation which was provided in the prophecy for the Christ of the Creator, He undoubtedly offers Himself to be understood as Him to whom (the appellation) was assigned by the prophet. But perhaps it can be regarded as a simple identity of names; and yet we have maintained that neither Christ nor Jesus ought to have been called by these names, if they possessed any condition of diversity. But as regards the appellation "Son of man," in as far as it Occurs by accident, in so far there is a difficulty in its occurrence along with a casual identity of names. For it is of pure accident, especially when the same cause does not appear whereby the identity may be occasioned. [11] And therefore, if Marcion's Christ be also said to be born of man, then he too would receive an identical appellation, and there would be two Sons of man, as also two Christs and two Jesuses. Therefore, since the appellation is the sole right of Him in whom it has a suitable reason, if it be claimed for another in whom there is an identity of name, but not of appellation, then the identity of name even looks suspicious in him for whom is claimed without reason the identity of appellation. And it follows that He must be believed to be One and the Same, who is found to be the more fit to receive both the name and the appellation; while the other is excluded, who has no right to the appellation, because he has no reason to show for it. Nor will any other be better entitled to both than He who is the earlier, and has had allotted to Him the name of Christ and the appellation of Son of man, even the Jesus of the Creator. [12] It was He who was seen by the king of Babylon in the furnace with His martyrs: "the fourth, who was like the Son of man." He also was revealed to Daniel himself expressly as "the Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven" as a Judge, as also the Scripture shows. [13] What I have advanced might have been sufficient concerning the designation in prophecy of the Son of man. But the Scripture offers me further information, even in the interpretation of the Lord Himself. For when the Jews, who looked at Him as merely man, and were not yet sure that He was God also, as being likewise the Son of God, rightly enough said that a man could not forgive sins, but God alone, why did He not, following up their point about man, answer them, that He had power to remit sins; inasmuch as, when He mentioned the Son of man, He also named a human being? except it were because He wanted, by help of the very designation "Son of man" from the book of Daniel, so to induce them to reflect as to show them that He who remitted sins was God and man----[14] that only Son of man, indeed, in the prophecy of Daniel, who had obtained the power of judging, and thereby, of course, of forgiving sins likewise (for He who judges also absolves); so that, when once that objection of theirs was shattered to pieces by their recollection of Scripture, they might the more easily acknowledge Him to be the Son of man Himself by His own actual forgiveness of sins. I make one more observation, how that He has nowhere as yet professed Himself to be the Son of God----but for the first time in this passage, in which for the first time He has remitted sins; that is, in which for the first time He has used His function of judgment, by the absolution. [15] All that the opposite side has to allege in argument against these things, (I beg you) carefully weigh what it amounts to. For it must needs strain itself to such a pitch of infatuation as, on the one hand, to maintain that (their Christ) is also Son of man, in order to save Him from the charge of falsehood; and, on the other hand, to deny that He was born of woman, lest they grant that He was the Virgin's son. Since, however, the divine authority and the nature of the case, and common sense, do not admit this insane position of the heretics, we have here the opportunity of putting in a veto in the briefest possible terms, on the substance of Christ's body, against Marcion's phantoms. [16] Since He is born of man, being the Son of man, He is body derived from body. You may, I assure you, more easily find a man born without a heart or without brains, like Marcion himself, than without a body, like Marcion's Christ. And let this be the limit to your examination of the heart, or, at any rate, the brains of the heretic of Pontus.
11. [1] Publicanum adlectum a domino in argumentum deducit, quasi ab adversario legis adlectum, extraneum legis et Iudaismi profanum. Excidit ei vel de Petro, legis homine, et tamen non tantum adlecto, sed etiam testimonium consecuto agnitionis praestitae a patre. Nusquam legerat lumen et spem et expectationem nationum praedicari Christum. Atquin probavit potius Iudaeos, dicendo medicum sanis non esse necessarium sed male habentibus. [2] Si enim male valentes voluit intellegi ethnicos et publicanos, quos adlegebat, sanos Iudaeos confirmabat, quibus medicum necessarium negabat. Hoc si ita est, male descendit ad legem destruendam, quasi ad malam valetudinem remediandam, in qua qui agebant bene valebant, quibus medicus necessarius non erat. [3] Quale est autem ut similitudinem medici proposuerit, nec impleverit? Nam sicut sanis medicum nemo adhibet, ita nec in tantum extraneis, quantum est homo a deo Marcionis, suum habens et auctorem et protectorem, et ab illo potius medicum Christum. Hoc similitudo praeiudicat, ab eo magis praestari medicum ad quem pertinent qui languent. [4] Unde autem et Ioannes venit in medium? Subito Christus, subito et Ioannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, quae suum et plenum habent ordinem apud creatorem. Sed de Ioanne cetera alibi. Ad praesentes enim quosque articulos respondendum est. Nunc illud tuebor, ut demonstrem et Ioannem Christo et Christum Ioanni convenire, utique prophetae creatoris, qua Christum creatoris, atque ita erubescat haereticus, Ioannis ordinem frustra frustratus. [5] Si enim nihil omnino administrasset Ioannes, secundum Esaiam vociferator in solitudinem et praeparator viarum dominicarum per denuntiationem et laudationem paenitentiae, si non etiam ipsum inter ceteros tinxisset, nemo discipulos Christi manducantes et bibentes ad formam discipulorum Ioannis assidue ieiunantium et orantium provocasset, quia, si qua diversitas staret inter Christum et Ioannem et gregem utriusque, nulla esset comparationis exactio, vacaret provocationis intentio. [6] Nemo enim miraretur et nemo torqueretur, si diversae divinitatis aemulae praedicationes de disciplinis quoque inter se non convenirent, non convenientes prius de auctoritatibus disciplinarum. Adeo Ioannis erat Christus et Ioannes Christi, ambo creatoris, et ambo de lege et prophetis praedicatores et magistri. Sed et Christus reiecisset Ioannis disciplinam, ut dei alterius, et discipulos defendisset, ut merito aliter incedentes, aliam scilicet et contrariam initiatos divinitatem. At nunc humiliter reddens rationem quod non possent ieiunare filii sponsi quamdiu cum eis esset sponsus, postea vero ieiunaturos promittens cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset, nec discipulos defendit, sed potius excusavit, quasi non sine ratione reprehensos, nec Ioannis reiecit disciplinam, sed magis concessit, tempori Ioannis eam praestans, ut tempori suo eam destinans, reiecturus alioquin eam et defensurus aemulos eius, si non ipsius fuisset iam quae erat. [7] Teneo meum Christum etiam in nomine sponsi, de quo psalmus, Ipse tanquam sponsus egrediens de thalamo suo: a summo caeli profectio eius et deversio eius ad summum usque eius. Qui etiam per Esaiam gaudens ad patrem, Exultet, inquit, anima mea in domino, induit enim me indumentum salutaris, et tunicam iocunditatis velut sponso, circumposuit mihi mitram velut sponsae. In se enim et ecclesiam deputat, de qua idem spiritus ad ipsum, Et circumpones tibi omnes eos, velut ornamentum sponsae. [8] Hanc sponsam Christus sibi etiam per Salomonem ex vocatione gentium arcessit: siquidem legisti, Veni sponsa de Libano, eleganter Libani utique montis mentione iniecta, qui turis vocabulo est penes Graecos; de idololatria enim sibi sponsabat ecclesiam. Nega te nunc dementissimum, Marcion. Ecce legem tui quoque dei impugnas. Nuptias non coniungit, coniunctas non admittit, neminem tingit nisi caelibem aut spadonem, morti aut repudio baptisma servat. Quid itaque Christum eius sponsum facis? Illius hoc nomen est qui masculum et feminam coniunxit, non qui separavit. [9] Errasti in illa etiam domini pronuntiatione qua videtur nova et vetera discernere. Inflatus es utribus veteribus et excerebratus es novo vino, atque ita veteri, id est priori evangelio, pannum haereticae novitatis assuisti. In quo alter creator, velim discere. Cum per Hieremiam praecepit, Novate vobis novamen novum, nonne a veteribus avertit? cum per Esaiam edicit, Vetera transierunt, et ecce nova quae ego facio, nonne ad nova convertit? Olim hanc statuimus destinationem pristinorum a creatore potius repromissam a Christo exhiberi, sub unius et eiusdem dei auctoritate, cuius sint et vetera et nova. [10] Nam et vinum novum is non committit in veteres utres qui et veteres utres non habuerit, et novum additamentum nemo inicit veteri vestimento nisi cui non defuerit et vetus vestimentum. Ille non facit quid, si faciendum non est, qui habeat unde faciat, si faciendum esset. Itaque si in hoc dirigebat similitudinem, ut ostenderet se evangelii novitatem separare a legis vetustate, suam demonstrabat et illam a qua separabat alienorum separatione non fuisse notandam, quia nemo alienis sua adiungit ut ab alienis separare possit. [11] Separatio per coniunctionem capit, de qua fit. Ita quae separabat, et in uno ostendebat fuisse, sicut et fuissent si non separaret. Et tamen sic concedimus separationem istam per reformationem, per amplitudinem, per profectum, sicut fructus separatur a semine, cum sit fructus ex semine: sic et evangelium separatur a lege, dum provehitur ex lege, aliud ab illa sed non alienum, diversum sed non contrarium. [12] Nec forma sermonis in Christo nova. Cum similitudines obicit, cum quaestiones refutat, de septuagesimo septimo venit psalmo: Aperiam, inquit, in parabolam os meum, id est similitudinem; eloquar problemata, id est edisseram quaestiones. Si hominem alterius gentis probare voluisses, utique de proprietate loquelae probares.11. [1] The publican who was chosen by the Lord, he adduces for a proof that he was chosen as a stranger to the law and uninitiated in Judaism, by one who was an adversary to the law. The case of Peter escaped his memory, who, although he was a man of the law, was not only chosen by the Lord, but also obtained the testimony of possessing knowledge which was given to him by the Father. He had nowhere read of Christ's being foretold as the light, and hope, and expectation of the Gentiles! He, however, rather spoke of the Jews in a favourable light, when he said, "The whole needed not a physician, but they that are sick." [2] For since by "those that are sick" he meant that the heathens and publicans should be understood, whom he was choosing, he affirmed of the Jews that they were "whole" for whom he said that a physician was not necessary. This being the case, he makes a mistake in coming down to destroy the law, as if for the remedy of a diseased condition. because they who were living under it were "whole," and "not in want of a physician." [3] How, moreover, does it happen that he proposed the similitude of a physician, if he did not verify it? For, just as nobody uses a physician for healthy persons, so will no one do so for strangers, in so far as he is one of Marcion's god-made men, having to himself both a creator and preserver, and a specially good physician, in his Christ. This much the comparison predetermines, that a physician is more usually furnished by him to whom the sick people belong. [4] Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John! After this fashion occur all things in Marcion's system. They have their own special and plenary course in the Creator's dispensation. Of John, however, what else I have to say will be found in another passage. To the several points which now come before us an answer must be given. This, then, I will take care to do ----demonstrate that, reciprocally, John is suitable to Christ, and Christ to Joan, the latter, of course, as a prophet of the Creator, just as the former is the Creator's Christ; and so the heretic may blush at frustrating, to his own frustration, the mission of John the Baptist. [5] For if there had been no ministry of John at all----"the voice," as Isaiah calls him, "of one crying in the wilderness," and the preparer of the ways of the Lord by denunciation and recommendation of repentance; if, too, he had not baptized (Christ) Himself along with others, nobody could have challenged the disciples of Christ, as they ate and drank, to a comparison with the disciples of John, who were constantly fasting and praying; because, if there existed any diversity between Christ and John, and their followers respectively, no exact comparison would be possible, nor would there be a single point where it could be challenged. [6] For nobody would feel surprise, and nobody would be perplexed, although there should arise rival predictions of a diverse deity, which should also mutually differ about modes of conduct, having a prior difference about the authorities upon which they were based. Therefore Christ belonged to John, and John to Christ; while both belonged to the Creator, and both were of the law and the prophets, preachers and masters. Else Christ would have rejected the discipline of John, as of the rival god, and would also have defended the disciples, as very properly pursuing a different walk, because consecrated to the service of another and contrary deity. But as it is, while modestly giving a reason why "the children of the bridegroom are unable to fast during the time the bridegroom is with them," but promising that "they should afterwards fast, when the bridegroom was taken away from them," He neither defended the disciples, (but rather excused them, as if they had not been blamed without some reason), nor rejected the discipline of John, but rather allowed it, referring it to the time of John, although destining it for His own time. Otherwise His purpose would have been to reject it, and to defend its opponents, if He had not Himself already belonged to it as then in force. [7] I hold also that it is my Christ who is meant by the bridegroom, of whom the psalm says: "He is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and His return is back to the end of it again." By the mouth of Isaiah He also says exultingly of the Father: "Let my soul rejoice in the Lord; for He hath clothed me with the garment of salvation and with the tunic of joy, as a bridegroom. He hath put a mitre round about my head, as a bride." To Himself likewise He appropriates the church, concerning which the same Spirit says to Him: "Thou shall clothe Thee with them all, as with a bridal ornament." [8] This spouse Christ invites home to Himself also by Solomon from the call of the Gentiles, because you read: "Come with me from Lebanon, my spouse." He elegantly makes mention of Lebanon (the mountain, of course) because it stands for the name of frankincense with the Greeks; for it was from idolatry that He betrothed Himself the church. Deny now, Marcion, your utter madness, (if you can)! Behold, you impugn even the law of your god. He unites not in the nuptial bond, nor, when contracted, does he allow it; no one does he baptize but a caelebs or a eunuch; until death or divorce does he reserve baptism. Wherefore, then, do you make his Christ a bridegroom? This is the designation of Him who united man and woman, not of him who separated them. [9] You have erred also in that declaration of Christ, wherein He seems to make a difference between things new and old. You are inflated about the old bottles, and brain-muddled with the new wine; and therefore to the old (that is to say, to the prior) gospel you have sewed on the patch of your new-fangled heresy. I should like to know in what respect the Creator is inconsistent with Himself. When by Jeremiah He gave this precept, "Break up for yourselves new pastures," does He not turn away from the old state of things? And when by Isaiah He proclaims how "old things were passed away; and, behold, all things, which I am making, are new," does He not advert to a new state of things? We have generally been of opinion that the destination of the former state of things was rather promised by the Creator, and exhibited in reality by Christ, only under the authority of one and the same God, to whom appertain both the old things and the new. [10] For new wine is not put into old bottles, except by one who has the old bottles; nor does anybody put a new piece to an old garment, unless the old garment be forthcoming to him. That person only does not do a thing when it is not to be done, who has the materials wherewithal to do it if it were to be done. And therefore, since His object in making the comparison was to show that He was separating the new condition of the gospel from the old state of the law, He proved that that from which He was separating His own ought not to have been branded as a separation of things which were alien to each other; for nobody ever unites his own things with things that are alien to them, in order that he may afterwards be able to separate them from the alien things. [11] A separation is possible by help of the conjunction through which it is made. Accordingly, the things which He separated He also proved to have been once one; as they would have remained, were it not for His separation. But still we make this concession, that there is a separation, by reformation, by amplification, by progress; just as the fruit is separated from the seed, although the fruit comes from the seed. So likewise the gospel is separated from the law, whilst it advances from the law----a different thing from it, but not an alien one; diverse, but not contrary. [12] Nor in Christ do we even find any novel form of discourse. Whether He proposes similitudes or refute questions, it comes from the seventy-seventh Psalm. "I will open," says He, "my mouth in a parable" (that is, in a similitude); "I will utter dark problems" (that is, I will set forth questions). If you should wish to prove that a man belonged to another race, no doubt you would fetch your proof from the idiom of his language.
12. [1] De sabbato quoque illud praemitto, nec hanc quaestionem consistere potuisse si non dominum sabbati circumferret Christus. Nec enim disceptaretur cur destrueret sabbatum, si destruere deberet. Porro destruere deberet, si alterius dei esset, nec quisquam miraretur facientem quod illi congruebat. Mirabantur ergo, quia non congruebat illi deum creatorem circumferre et sabbatum eius impugnare. [2] Et ut prima quaeque decidamus, ne eadem ubique novemus ad omnem argumentationem adversarii ex aliqua nova Christi institutione nitentem, haec iam definitio stabit, ideo de novitate institutionis cuiusque disceptatum, quia de novitate divinitatis nihil erat usque adhuc editum, sicuti nec disceptatum, nec posse retorqueri ex ipsa novitate institutionis cuiusque satis aliam a Christo demonstratam divinitatem, quando et ipsam novitatem pronuntiatam a creatore constiterit in Christo non esse mirandam. Et oportuerit utique prius alium deum exponi, postea disciplinam eius induci, quia deus auctoritatem praestet disciplinae, non deo disciplina; nisi si et Marcion plane tam perversas non per magistrum litteras didicit, sed per litteras magistrum. [3] Cetera de sabbato ita dirigo. Si sabbatum Christus intervertit, secundum exemplum fecit creatoris; siquidem in obsidione civitatis Hierichuntis circumlata per muros arca testamenti octo diebus, etiam sabbato, ex praecepto creatoris sabbatum operatione destruxit, ut putant qui hoc et de Christo existimant, ignorantes neque Christum sabbatum destruxisse neque creatorem, ut mox docebimus. Et tamen per Iesum tunc quoque concussum est sabbatum, ut et hoc in Christum renuntiaretur. [4] Etiam si odio insecutus est sollemnissimum Iudaeorum diem, ut Christus non Iudaeorum, de odio quoque sabbati professus creatorem, ut Christus ipsius, sequebatur exclamantem ore Esaiae, Neomenias et sabbata vestra odit anima mea. Sed et haec quoquo modo dicta sint, scimus adhibendam tamen in hac specie etiam abruptam defensionem adversus abruptam provocationem. [5] Nunc et ad ipsam materiam disceptabo, in qua visa est destruere sabbatum Christi disciplina. Esurierant discipuli ea die; spicas decerptas manibus efflixerant, cibum operati ferias ruperant. Excusat illos Christus, et reus est sabbati laesi; accusant pharisaei, Marcion captat status controversiae (ut aliquid ludam cum mei domini veritate), scripti et voluntatis. De scriptura enim sumitur creatoris et de Christi voluntate color, quasi de exemplo David introgressi sabbatis templum et operati cibum audenter fractis panibus propositionis. [6] Meminerat enim et ille hoc privilegium donatum sabbato a primordio quo dies ipse compertus est, veniam ieiunii dico. Cum enim prohibuisset creator in biduum legi manna, solummodo permisit in parasceue, ut sabbati sequentis ferias pridiana pabuli paratura ieiunio liberaret. [7] Bene igitur quod et causam. eandem secutus est dominus in sabbati, si ita volunt dici, destructione; bene quod et affectum creatoris expressit in sabbato non ieiunandi honore. Denique tunc demum sabbatum destruxisset, etiam ipsum creatorem, si discipulos sabbato ieiunare mandasset adversus statum scripti et voluntatis creatoris. [8] Sed quoniam discipulos non constanter tuebatur, sed excusat, quoniam humanam opponit necessitatem quasi deprecatricem, quoniam potiorem honorem sabbati servat non contristandi quam vacandi, quoniam David comitesque eius cum discipulis suis aequat in culpa et in venia, quoniam placet illi quia creator indulsit, quoniam de exemplo eius et ipse tam bonus est, ideo alienus est a creatore? [9] Exinde observant pharisaei si medicinas sabbatis ageret, ut accusarent eum, certe qua sabbati destructorem, non qua novi dei professorem; fortasse enim hunc solum articulum ubique ingeram, alium Christum nusquam praedicatum. In totum autem errabant pharisaei circa sabbati legem, non animadvertentes condicionaliter eam indicentem ferias operum, sub certa specie eorum. Nam cum de die sabbati dicit, Omne opus tuum non facies in ea, dicendo Tuum de humano opere definiit, quod quisque ex artificio vel negotio suo exequitur, non de divino. [10] Opus autem salutis et incolurnitatis non est hominis, sed dei proprium. Sicut et rursus in lege, Non facies, inquit, omne opus in ea, nisi quod fiet omni animae, id est in causa animae liberandae: quia opus dei etiam per hominem fieri potest in salutem animae, a deo tamen, quod facturus fuerat et Christus homo, quia et deus. In hunc ergo sensum legis inducere volens illos per manus arefactae restitutionem interrogat, Licetne sabbatis benefacere, an non? animam liberare, an perdere? [11] ut id operis permittens quod pro anima facturus esset admoneret eos quae opera sabbati lex prohiberet, humana scilicet, et quae praeciperet, divina scilicet, quae fierent animae omni. Dominus sabbati dictus, quia sabbatum ut rem suam. tuebatur. Quod etiam si destruxisset, merito, qua dominus magis ille qui instituit. [12] Sed non omnino destruxit qua dominus, ut hinc iam apparere possit ne tum quidem in arcae circumlatione apud Hierichuntem sabbatum a creatore destructum. Nam et illud opus dei erat quod ipse praeceperat, et quod propter animas disposuerat hominum suorum in discrimine belli constitutas. [13] Sed et si odium alicubi sabbatorum professus est, Vestra sabbata dicendo, hominum ea deputans, non sua, quae sine dei timore celebrat populus plenus delictis, labiis deum diligens, non corde, suis sabbatis, id est quaecunque disciplina eius agerentur, alium statum fecit, quae per eundem postea propheten vera et delicata et non profananda pronuntiat. [14] Ita nec Christus omnino sabbatum rescindit, cuius legem tenuit et supra in causa discipulorum pro anima operatus (esurientibus enim solatium cibi indulsit), et nunc manum aridam curans, factis ubique ingerens, Non veni dissolvere legem, sed adimplere, si Marcion hac voce os ei obstruxit. Adimplevit enim et hic legem, dum condicionem interpretatur eius, dum operum differentiam illuminat, dum facit quae lex de sabbati feriis excipit, dum ipsum sabbati diem benedictione patris a primordio sanctum benefactione sua efficit sanctiorem, in quo scilicet divina praesidia ministrabat, quod adversarius aliis diebus praestitisset, ne sabbatum creatoris ornaret, ne opera debita sabbato redderet. [15] In quo die si et Helisaeus prophetes Sunamitidis filium mortuum restituit in vitam, vides pharisaee, tuque Marcion, olim creatoris esse sabbatis benefacere, animam liberare, non perdere, nihil Christum novi intulisse quod non sit ex forma, ex lenitate, ex misericordia, ex praedicatione quoque creatoris. Nam et hic specialis medicinae prophetiam repraesentat. Invalescunt manus dissolutae, sicut et genua dissoluta in paralytico.12. [1] Concerning the Sabbath also I have this to premise, that this question could not have arisen, if Christ did not publicly proclaim the Lord of the Sabbath. Nor could there be any discussion about His annulling the Sabbath, if He had a right to annul it. Moreover, He would have the right, if He belonged to the rival god; nor would it cause surprise to any one that He did what it was right for Him to do. Men's astonishment therefore arose from their opinion that it was improper for Him to proclaim the Creator to be God and yet to impugn His Sabbath. [2] Now, that we may decide these several points first, lest we should be renewing them at every turn to meet each argument of our adversary which rests on some novel institution of Christ, let this stand as a settled point, that discussion concerning the novel character of each institution ensued on this account, because as nothing was as yet advanced by Christ touching any new deity, so discussion thereon was inadmissible; nor could it be retorted, that from the very novelty of each several institution another deity was clearly enough demonstrated by Christ, inasmuch as it was plain that novelty was not in itself a characteristic to be wondered at in Christ, because it had been foretold by the Creator. And it would have been, of course, but right that a new god should first be expounded, and his discipline be introduced afterwards; because it would be the god that would impart authority to the discipline, and not the discipline to the god; except that (to be sure) it has happened that Marcion acquired his very perverse opinions not from a master, but his master from his opinion! [3] All other points respecting the Sabbath I thus rule. If Christ interfered with the Sabbath, He simply acted after the Creator's example; inasmuch as in the siege of the city of Jericho the carrying around the walls of the ark of the covenant for eight days running, and therefore on a Sabbath-day, actually annulled the Sabbath, by the Creator's command----according to the opinion of those who think this of Christ in this passage of St. Luke, in their ignorance that neither Christ nor the Creator violated the Sabbath, as we shall by and by show. And yet the Sabbath was actually then broken by Joshua, so that the present charge might be alleged also against Christ. [4] But even if, as being not the Christ of the Jews, He displayed a hatred against the Jews' most solemn day, He was only professedly following the Creator, as being His Christ, in this very hatred of the Sabbath; for He exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah: "Your new moons and your Sabbaths my soul hateth." Now, in whatever sense these words were spoken, we know that an abrupt defence must, in a subject of this sort, be used in answer to an abrupt challenge. [5] I shall now transfer the discussion to the very matter in which the teaching of Christ seemed to annul the Sabbath. The disciples had been hungry; on that the Sabbath day they had plucked some ears and rubbed them in their hands; by thus preparing their food, they had violated the holy day. Christ excuses them, and became their accomplice in breaking the Sabbath. The Pharisees bring the charge against Him. Marcion sophistically interprets the stages of the controversy (if I may call in the aid of the truth of my Lord to ridicule his arts), both in the scriptural record and in Christ's purpose. For from the Creator's Scripture, and from the purpose of Christ, there is derived a colourable precedent ----as from the example of David, when he went into the temple on the Sabbath, and provided food by boldly breaking up the shew-bread. [6] Even he remembered that this privilege (I mean the dispensation from fasting) was allowed to the Sabbath from the very beginning, when the Sabbath-day itself was instituted. For although the Creator had forbidden that the manna should be gathered for two days, He yet permitted it on the one occasion only of the day before the Sabbath, in order that the yesterday's provision of food might free from fasting the feast of the following Sabbath-day. [7] Good reason, therefore, had the Lord for pursuing the same principle in the annulling of the Sabbath (since that is the word which men will use); good reason, too, for expressing the Creator's will, when He bestowed the privilege of not fasting on the Sabbath-day. In short, He would have then and there put an end to the Sabbath, nay, to the Creator Himself, if He had commanded His disciples to fast on the Sabbath-day, contrary to the intention of the Scripture and of the Creator's will. [8] But because He did not directly defend His disciples, but excuses them; because He interposes human want, as if deprecating censure; because He maintains the honour of the Sabbath as a day which is to be free from gloom rather than from work; because he puts David and his companions on a level with His own disciples in their fault and their extenuation; because He is pleased to endorse the Creator's indulgence: because He is Himself good according to His example----is He therefore alien from the Creator? [9] Then the Pharisees watch whether He would heal on the Sabbath-day, that they might accuse Him----surely as a violator of the Sabbath, not as the propounder of a new god; for perhaps I might be content with insisting on all occasions on this one point, that another Christ is nowhere proclaimed. The Pharisees, however, were in utter error concerning the law of the Sabbath, not observing that its terms were conditional, when it enjoined rest from labour, making certain distinctions of labour. For when it says of the Sabbath-day, "In it thou shalt not do any work of thine," by the word thine it restricts the prohibition to human work----which every one performs in his own employment or business----and not to divine work. [10] Now the work of healing or preserving is not proper to man, but to God. So again, in the law it says, "Thou shalt not do any manner of work in it," except what is to be done for any soul, that is to say, in the matter of delivering the soul; because what is God's work may be done by human agency for the salvation of the soul. By God, however, would that be done which the man Christ was to do, for He was likewise God. Wishing, therefore, to initiate them into this meaning of the law by the restoration of the withered hand, He requires, "Is it lawful on the Sabbath-days to do good, or not? to save life, or to destroy it? " [11] In order that He might, whilst allowing that amount of work which He was about to perform for a soul, remind them what works the law of the Sabbath forbade----even human works; and what it enjoined----even divine works, which might be done for the benefit of any soul, He was called "Lord of the Sabbath," because He maintained the Sabbath as His own institution. Now, even if He had annulled the Sabbath, He would have had the right to do so, as being its Lord, (and) still more as He who instituted it. [12] But He did not utterly destroy it, although its Lord, in order that it might henceforth be plain that the Sabbath was not broken by the Creator, even at the time when the ark was carried around Jericho. For that was really God's work, which He commanded Himself, and which He had ordered for the sake of the lives of His servants when exposed to the perils of war. [13] Now, although He has in a certain place expressed an aversion of Sabbaths, by calling them your Sabbaths, reckoning them as men's Sabbaths, not His own, because they were celebrated without the fear of God by a people full of iniquities, and loving God "with the lip, not the heart," He has yet put His own Sabbaths (those, that is, which were kept according to His prescription) in a different position; for by the same prophet, in a later passage, He declared them to be "true, and delightful, and inviolable." [14] Thus Christ did not at all rescind the Sabbath: He kept the law thereof, and both in the former case did a work which was beneficial to the life of His disciples, for He indulged them with the relief of food when they were hungry, and in the present instance cured the withered hand; in each case intimating by facts, "I came not to destroy, the law, but to fulfil it," although Marcion has gagged His mouth by this word. For even in the case before us He fulfilled the law, while interpreting its condition; moreover, He exhibits in a dear light the different kinds of work, while doing what the law excepts from the sacredness of the Sabbath and while imparting to the Sabbath-day itself, which from the beginning had been consecrated by the benediction of the Father, an additional sanctity by His own beneficent action. For He furnished to this day divine safeguards, ----a course which His adversary would have pursued for some other days, to avoid honouring the Creator's Sabbath, and restoring to the Sabbath the works which were proper for it. [15] Since, in like manner, the prophet Elisha on this day restored to life the dead son of the Shunammite woman, you see, O Pharisee, and you too, O Marcion, how that it was proper employment for the Creator's Sabbaths of old to do good, to save life, not to destroy it; how that Christ introduced nothing new, which was not after the example, the gentleness, the mercy, and the prediction also of the Creator. For in this very example He fulfils the prophetic announcement of a specific healing: "The weak hands are strengthened," as were also "the feeble knees" in the sick of the palsy.

Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6830
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:03 pm

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.13-15.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUARTUS
Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV
13. [1] Certe evangelizat Sion et Hierusalem pacem et bona omnia, certe ascendit in montem et illic pernoctat in oratione et utique auditur a patre. Evolve igitur prophetas, et ordinem totum recognosce. In montem excelsum, inquit Esaias, ascende, qui evangelizas Sion, extolle cum vigore vocem tuam, qui evangelizas Hierusalem. Adhuc in vigore obstupescebant in doctrina eius; erat enim docens tanquam virtutem habens. Et rursus: Propterea cognoscet populus nomen meum in illa die. Quod nomen, nisi Christi? Quod ego sum ipse qui loquor. Tunc enim ipse erat qui in prophetis loquebatur, sermo, filius creatoris. [2] Adsum, dum hora est, in montibus, ut evangelizans auditionem pacis, ut evangelizans bona. Item Naum ex duodecim, Quoniam ecce veloces pedes in monte evangelizantis pacem. De voce autem nocturnae orationis ad patrem manifeste psalmus: Deus meus, clamabo per diem, et exaudies, et nocte, et non in vanitatem mihi. Et alibi de loco et voce cadem psalmus: Voce mea ad dominum exclamavi, et exaudivit me de monte sancto suo. [3] Habes nominis repraesentationem, habes actum evangelizantis, habes locum montis, et tempus noctis, et sonum vocis, et auditum patris, habes Christum prophetarum. Cur autem duodecim apostolos elegit, et non alium quemlibet numerum? Nae et ex hoc meum Christum interpretari possem, non tantum vocibus prophetarum, sed et argumentis rerum praedicatum. [4] Huius enim numeri figuras apud creatorem deprehendo duodecim fontes Elim, et duodecim gemmas in tunica sacerdotali Aaronis, et duodecim lapides ab Iesu de Iordane electos et in arcam testamenti conditos. Totidem enim apostoli portendebantur, proinde ut fontes et amnes rigaturi aridum retro et desertum a notitia orbem nationum (sicut et per Esaiam: Ponam in terra inaquosa flumina), proinde ut gemmae illuminaturi sacram ecclesiae vestem quam induit Christus pontifex patris, proinde ut et lapides solidi fide, quos de lavacro Iordanis Iesus verus elegit et in sacrarium testamenti sui recepit. [5] Quid tale de numeri defensione competit Christo Marcionis? Non potest simpliciter factum ab illo quid videri quod potest videri non simpliciter factum a meo. Eius erit res apud quem invenitur rei praeparatura. Mutat et Petro nomen de Simone, quia et creator Abrahae et Sarae et Auseae nomina reformavit, hunc vocando Iesum, illis syllabas adiciendo. Sed et cur Petrum? [6] Si ob vigorem fidei, multae materiae solidaeque nomen de suo accommodarent. An quia et petra et lapis Christus? Siquidem et legimus positum eum in lapidem offendiculi et in petram scandali. Omitto cetera. Itaque affectavit carissimo discipulorum de figuris suis peculiariter nomen communicare, puto propius quam de non suis. Conveniunt a Tyro et ex aliis regionibus multitudo etiam transmarina. Hoc spectabat psalmus: Et ecce allophyli et Tyrus et populus Aethiopum, isti fuerunt illic: Mater Sion, dicet homo: et homo factus est in illa (quoniam deus homo natus est), et aedificavit eam voluntate patris; ut scias ad eum tunc gentiles convenisse, quia deus homo natus erat aedificaturus ecclesiam ex voluntate patris, ex allophylis quoque. [7] Sic et Esaias: Ecce isti veniunt de longinquo, isti autem veniunt ab aquilone et mari, alii autem de terra Persarum. De quibus et rursus: Attolle per circuitum oculos tuos et vide, omnes congregati sunt. De quibus et infra, videns ignotos et extraneos: Et dices cordi tuo, Quis istos genuit mihi? porro hos quis mihi educavit? at hi mihi ubi fuerunt? Hic erit Christus non prophetarum? et quis erit Christus Marcionitarum? Si perversitas placet, qui non fuerit prophetarum.13. [1] Surely to Sion He brings good tidings, and to Jerusalem peace and all blessings; He goes up into a mountain, and there spends a night in prayer, and He is indeed heard by the Father. Accordingly turn over the prophets, and learn therefrom His entire course. "Into the high mountain," says Isaiah, "get Thee up, who bringest good tidings to Sion; lift up Thy voice with strength, who bringest good tidings to Jerusalem." "They were mightily astonished at His doctrine; for He was teaching as one who had power." And again: "Therefore, my people shall know my name in that day." What name does the prophet mean, but Christ's? "That I am He that doth speak----even I." For it was He who used to speak in the prophets----the Word, the Creator's Son. [2] "I am present, while it is the hour, upon the mountains, as one that bringeth glad tidings of peace, as one that publisheth good tidings of good." So one of the twelve (minor prophets), Nahum: "For behold upon the mountain the swift feet of Him that bringeth glad tidings of peace." Moreover, concerning the voice of His prayer to the Father by night, the psalm manifestly says: "O my God, I will cry in the day-time, and Thou shalt hear; and in the night season, and it shall not be in vain to me." in another passage touching the same voice and place, the psalm says: "I cried unto the Lord with my voice, and He heard me out of His holy mountain." [3] You have a representation of the name; you have the action of the Evangelizer; you have a mountain for the site; and the night as the time; and the sound of a voice; and the audience of the Father: you have, (in short, ) the Christ of the prophets. But why was it that He chose twelve apostles, and not some other number? In truth, I might from this very point conclude of my Christ, that He was foretold not only by the words of prophets, but by the indications of facts. [4] For of this number I find figurative hints up and down the Creator's dispensation in the twelve springs of Elim; in the twelve gems of Aaron's priestly vestment; and in the twelve stones appointed by Joshua to be taken out of the Jordan, and set up for the ark of the covenant. Now, the same number of apostles was thus portended, as if they were to be fountains and rivers which should water the Gentile world, which was formerly dry and destitute of knowledge (as He says by Isaiah: "I will put streams in the unwatered ground" ); as if they were to be gems to shed lustre upon the church's sacred robe, which Christ, the High Priest of the Father, puts on; as if, also, they were to be stones massive in their faith, which the true Joshua took out of the layer of the Jordan, and placed in the sanctuary of His covenant. [5] What equally good defence of such a number has Marcion's Christ to show? It is impossible that anything can be shown to have been done by him unconnectedly, which cannot be shown to have been done by my Christ in connection (with preceding types). To him will appertain the event in whom is discovered the preparation for the same. Again, He changes the name of Simon to peter, inasmuch as the Creator also altered the names of Abram, and Sarai, and Oshea, by calling the latter Joshua, and adding a syllable to each of the former. But why Peter? [6] If it was because of the vigour of his faith, there were many solid materials which might lend a name from their strength. Was it because Christ was both a rock and a stone? For we read of His being placed "for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence." I omit the rest of the passage. Therefore He would fain impart to the dearest of His disciples a name which was suggested by one of His own especial designations in figure; because it was, I suppose, more peculiarly fit than a name which might have been derived from no figurative description of Himself. There come to Him from Tyre, and from other districts even, a transmarine multitude. This fact the psalm had in view: "And behold tribes of foreign people, and Tyre, and the people of the Ethiopians; they were there. Sion is my mother, shall a man say; and in her was born a man" (forasmuch as the God-man was born), and He built her by the Father's will; that you may know how Gentiles then flocked to Him, because He was born the God-man who was to build the church according to the Father's will----even of other races also. [7] So says Isaiah too: "Behold, these come from far; and these from the north and from the west; and these from the land of the Persians." Concerning whom He says again: "Lift up thine eyes round about, and behold, all these have gathered themselves together." And yet again: "Thou seest these unknown and strange ones; and thou wilt say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these? But who hath brought me up these? And these, where have they been? " Will such a Christ not be (the Christ) of the prophets? And what will be the Christ of the Marcionites? Since perversion of truth is their pleasure, he could not be (the Christ) of the prophets.
14. [1] Venio nunc ad ordinarias sententias eius, per quas proprietatem doctrinae suae inducit, ad edictum, ut ita dixerim, Christi: Beati mendici (sic enim exigit interpretatio vocabuli quod in Graeco est), quoniam illorum est regnum dei. Iam hoc ipsum, quod a benedictionibus coepit, creatoris est, qui universa, prout edidit, nulla alia voce quam benedictionis dedicavit. Eructavit enim, inquit, cor meum sermonem optimum. [2] Hic erit sermo optimus, benedictionis scilicet, qui et novi quoque testamenti initiator agnoscitur de veteri exemplo. Quid ergo mirum est, si et ab affectibus creatoris ingressus est per huiusmodi dictionem, semper mendicos et pauperes et humiles ac viduas et pupillos usque diligentis, consolantis, asserentis, vindicantis? ut hanc Christi quasi privatam benignitatem rivulum credas de fontibus salvatoris. [3] Revera quo dirigam nescio in tanta frequentia eiusmodi vocum, tanquam in silva vel in prato vel in nemore pomorum. Passim prout incidit res petenda est. Inclamat psalmus: Iudicate pupillo et mendico, et humilem et paupcrem iuste tractate, liberate pauperem, et mendicum de manu peccatoris eruite. [4] Item psalmus septuagesimus primus: Iustitia iudicabit mendicos populi et faciet salvos filios pauperum. Et in sequentibus de Christo: Omnes nationes servient ei. David autem uni genti Iudaicae praefuit, ne qui in David putet dictum, quia et ille susceperat humiles et necessitatibus laborantes: Quod liberaverit, inquit, a dynasta mendicum, parcet mendico et pauperi, et animas pauperum salvas faciet, ex usura et iniustitia redimet eorum animas, et honoratum nomen eorum in conspectu ipsius. [5] Item: Avertantur peccatores in inferos, omnes nationes quae dei obliviscuntur, quoniam non in finem oblivioni habebitur mendicus, tolerantia pauperum non peribit in finem. Item: Quis sicut deus noster, qui habitat in excelsis et humilia prospectat in caelo et in terra, qui suscitat mendicum de terra et de stercore exaltat pauperem, uti sedere eum faciat cum principibus populi, utique in regno suo? [6] Sic et retro in Basiliis Anna, mater Samuelis, spiritu gloriam deo reddens, Qui, inquit, excitat pauperem de terra et mendicum, uti sedere eum faciat cum dynastis populi, utique in regno suo, et in thronis gloriae, utique regalibus. Per Esaiam vero quomodo invehitur in vexatores egenorum: Vos autem, ad quid incenditis vineam meam, et rapina mendici in domibus vestris? cur vos laeditis populum meum, et faciem mendicorum confunditis? Et rursus: Vae qui scribunt nequitiam, scribentes enim scribunt nequam, vitantes iudicia mendicorum et diripientes iudicata pauperum populi mei. [7] Quae iudicia pupillis quoque et viduis exigit, ut et ipsis egenis solatii: Iudicate pupillo, et iuste tractate viduam, et venite, conciliemur, dicit dominus. Cui tantus affectus in omnem condicionem humilitatis creatoris est, eius erit et regnum quod a Christo repromittitur, ad cuius affectum iam dudum pertinent ii quibus repromittitur. [8] Nam et si putas creatoris quidem terrenas promissiones fuisse, Christi vero caelestes, bcne quod caelum nullius alterius usque adhuc dei apparet nisi cuius et terra, bene quod creator vel minora promisit, ut facilius illi et de maioribus credam quam qui nunquam de minoribus prius fidem liberalitatis suae struxit. [9] Beati esurientes, quoniam ipsi saturabuntur. Possem hunc titulum in superiorem transmisisse, quod non alii sunt esurientes quam pauperes et mendici, si non et hanc promissionem creator specialiter in evangelii scilicet sui praestructionem destinasset; siquidem per Esaiam de eis quos vocaturus esset a summo terrae, utique nationes, Ecce, inquit, velociter, leviter advenient; velociter qua properantes sub finibus temporum, leviter qua sine oneribus pristinae legis. Non esurient neque sitient. [10] Ergo saturabuntur, quod utique nisi esurientibus et sitientibus non promittitur. Et rursus, Ecce, inquit, qui serviunt mihi saturabuntur, vos autem esurietis: ecce qui serviunt mihi bibent, vos autem sitietis. Videbimus et contraria ista, an Christo praeministrentur. Interim quod esurientibus saturitatem repromittit, dei creatoris est. Beati plorantes, quia ridebunt. [11] Decurre sententiam Esaiae: Ecce, qui serviunt mihi exultabunt in iocunditate, vos autem confundemini: ecce qui serviunt mihi oblectabuntur, vos autem clamabitis prae dolore cordis. Et haec contraria apud Christum recognosce. Certe oblectatio et exultatio in iocunditate illis promittitur qui in diversa condicione sunt, maestis et tristibus et anxiis. [12] Scilicet etiam psalmus cxxv, Qui seminant, inquit, in lacrimis, in exultatione metent. Porro tam exultantibus et iocunditatem capientibus risus accedit quam maerentibus et dolentibus fletus. Ita creator materias risus et fletus praedicans risuros plorantes prior dixit. [13] Igitur qui a consolatione pauperum et humilium et esurientium et flentium exorsus est, statim se illum repraesentare gestivit quem demonstraverat per Esaiam: Spiritus domini super me, propter quod unxit me ad evangelizandum pauperibus. Beati mendici, quoniam illorum est regnum caelorum; misit me curare obtritos corde: Beati qui esuriunt, quoniam saturabuntur; advocare languentes: Beati qui plorant, quoniam ridebunt; dare lugentibus Sionis gloriam, et pro cinere unguenti iocunditatem et gloriae habitum pro spiritu taedii. [14] Haec si statim admissus Christus administravit, aut ipse est qui se ad haec venturum praedicavit, aut si nondum venit qui praedicavit, ridicule sed necessarie dixerim, fortasse mandaverit Christo Marcionis. Beati eritis cum vos odio habebunt homines et exprobrabunt et eicient nomen vestrum velut nequam propter filium hominis. [15] Hac pronuntiatione sine dubio ad tolerantiam exhortatur. Quid minus creator per Esaiam? Ne metueritis ignominiam ab hominibus, et nullificatione eorum ne minuamini. Quae ignominia, quae nullificatio? Quae futura erat propter filium hominis. Quem istum? Qui est secundum creatorem. Unde probabimus? [16] Ex odio in ipsum quoque praedicato; sicut per Esaiam ad auctores odii Iudaeos: Propter vos blasphematur nomen meum in nationibus; et alibi: Sancite eum qui circumscribit animam suam, qui aspernamento habetur a nationibus, famulis et magistratibus. Si enim odium in illum filium hominis praedicabatur qui secundum creatorem est, evangelium autem nomen Christianorum, utique a Christo deductum, odio futurum contestatur propter filium hominis, quod est Christus, eum filium hominis in causa odii constituit qui erat secundum creatorem, in quem odium praedicabatur. [17] Et utique si nondvun venisset, non potuisset nominis odium, quod agitur hodie, personam nominis antecessisse. Nam et sancitur penes nos, et animam suam circumscribit propter nos eam ponens, et aspernamento habetur a nationibus. Et qui natus est, ipse erit filius hominis propter quem et nomen nostrum recusatur.14. [1] I now come to those ordinary precepts of His, by means of which He adapts the peculiarity of His doctrine to what I may call His official proclamation as the Christ. "Blessed are the needy" (for no less than this is required for interpreting the word in the Greek, "because theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Now this very fact, that He begins with beatitudes, is characteristic of the Creator, who used no other voice than that of blessing either in the first fiat or the final dedication of the universe: for "my heart," says He, "hath indited a very good word." [2] This will be that "very good word" of blessing which is admitted to be the initiating principle of the New Testament, after the example of the Old. What is there, then, to wonder at, if He entered on His ministry with the very attributes of the Creator, who ever in language of the same sort loved, consoled, protected, and avenged the beggar, and the poor, and the humble, and the widow, and the orphan? So that you may believe this private bounty as it were of Christ to be a rivulet streaming from the springs of salvation. [3] Indeed, I hardly know which way to turn amidst so vast a wealth of good words like these; as if I were in a forest, or a meadow, or an orchard of apples. I must therefore look out for such matter as chance may present to me. In the psalm he exclaims: "Defend the fatherless and the needy; do justice to the humble and the poor; deliver the poor, and rid the needy out of the hand of the wicked." [4] Similarly in the seventy-first Psalm: "In righteousness shall He judge the needy amongst the people, and shall save the children of the poor." And in the following words he says of Christ: "All nations shall serve Him." Now David only reigned over the Jewish nation, so that nobody can suppose that this was spoken of David; whereas He had taken upon Himself the condition of the poor, and such as were oppressed with want, "Because He should deliver the needy out of the hand of the mighty man; He shall spare the needy and the poor, and shall deliver the souls of the poor. From usury and injustice shall He redeem their souls, and in His sight shall their name be honoured." [5] Again: "The wicked shall be turned into hell, even all the nations that forget God; because the needy shall not alway be forgotten; the endurance of the poor shall not perish for ever." Again: "Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high, and yet looketh on the humble things that are in heaven and on earth!----who raiseth up the needy from off the ground, and out of the dunghill exalteth the poor; that He may set him with the princes of His people," that is, in His own kingdom. [6] And likewise earlier, in the book of Kings, Hannah the mother of Samuel gives glory to God in these words: "He raiseth the poor man from the ground, and the beggar, that He may set him amongst the princes of His people (that is, in His own kingdom), and on thrones of glory" (even royal ones). And by Isaiah how He inveighs against the oppressors of the needy "What mean ye that ye set fire to my vineyard, and that the spoil of the poor is in your houses? Wherefore do ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the face of the needy? " And again: "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees; for in their decrees they decree wickedness, turning aside the needy from judgment, and taking away their rights from the poor of my people." [7] These righteous judgments He requires for the fatherless also, and the widows, as well as for consolation to the very needy themselves. "Do justice to the fatherless, and deal justly with the widow; and come, let us be reconciled, saith the Lord." To him, for whom in every stage of lowliness there is provided so much of the Creator's compassionate regard, shall be given that kingdom also which is promised by Christ, to whose merciful compassion belong, and for a great while have belonged, those to whom the promise is made. [8] For even if you suppose that the promises of the Creator were earthly, but that Christ's are heavenly, it is quite clear that heaven has been as yet the property of no other God whatever, than Him who owns the earth also; quite clear that the Creator has given even the lesser promises (of earthly blessing), in order that I may more readily believe Him concerning His greater promises (of heavenly blessings) also, than (Marcion's god), who has never given proof of his liberality by any preceding bestowal of minor blessings. [9] "Blessed are they that hunger, for they shall be filled." I might connect this clause with the former one, because none but the poor and needy suffer hunger, if the Creator had not specially designed that the promise of a similar blessing should serve as a preparation for the gospel, that so men might know it to be His. For thus does He say, by Isaiah, concerning those whom He was about to call from the ends of the earth----that is, the Gentiles: "Behold, they shall come swiftly with speed: " swiftly, because hastening towards the fulness of the times; with speed, because unclogged by the weights of the ancient law. They shall neither hunger nor thirst. [10] Therefore they shall be filled,----a promise which is made to none but those who hunger and thirst. And again He says: "Behold, my servants shall be filled, but ye shall be hungry; behold, my servants shall drink, but ye shall be thirsty." As for these oppositions, we shall see whether they are not premonitors of Christ. Meanwhile the promise of fulness to the hungry is a provision of God the Creator. "Blessed are they that weep, for they shall laugh." [11] Turn again to the passage of Isaiah: "Behold, my servants shall exult with joy, but ye shall be ashamed; behold, my servants shall be glad, but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart." And recognise these oppositions also in the dispensation of Christ. Surely gladness and joyous exultation is promised to those who are in an opposite condition----to the sorrowful, and sad, and anxious. [12] Just as it is said in the th Psalm: "They who sow in tears shall reap in joy." Moreover, laughter is as much an accessory to the exulting and glad, as weeping is to the sorrowful and grieving. [13] Therefore the Creator, in foretelling matters for laughter and tears, was the first who said that those who mourned should laugh. Accordingly, He who began (His course) with consolation for the poor, and the humble, and the hungry, and the weeping, was at once eager to represent Himself as Him whom He had pointed out by the mouth of Isaiah: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the poor." "Blessed are the needy, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven." "He hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted." "Blessed are they that hunger, for they shall be filled." "To comfort all that mourn." "Blessed are they that weep, for they shall laugh." "To give unto them that mourn in Sion, beauty (or glory) for ashes, and the oil of joy for mourning, and the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness." [14] Now since Christ, as soon as He entered on His course, fulfilled such a ministration as this, He is either, Himself, He who predicted His own coming to do all this; or else if he is not yet come who predicted this, the charge to Marcion's Christ must be a ridiculous one (although I should perhaps add a necessary one), which bade him say, "Blessed shall ye be, when men shall bate you, and shall reproach you, and shall cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake." [15] In this declaration there is, no doubt, an exhortation to patience. Well, what did the Creator say otherwise by Isaiah? "Fear ye not the reproach of men, nor be diminished by their contempt." What reproach? what contempt? That which was to be incurred for the sake of the Son of man. What Son of man? He who (is come) according to the Creator's will. Whence shall we get our proof? [16] From the very cutting off, which was predicted against Him; as when He says by Isaiah to the Jews, who were the instigators of hatred against Him: "Because of you, my name is blasphemed amongst the Gentiles; " and in another passage: "Lay the penalty on Him who surrenders His own life, who is held in contempt by the Gentiles, whether servants or magistrates." Now, since hatred was predicted against that Son of man who has His mission from the Creator, whilst the Gospel testifies that the name of Christians, as derived from Christ, was to be hated for the Son of man's sake, because He is Christ, it determines the point that that was the Son of man in the matter of hatred who came according to the Creator's purpose, and against whom the hatred was predicted. [17] And even if He had not yet come, the hatred of His name which exists at the present day could not in any case have possibly preceded Him who was to bear the name. But He has both suffered the penalty in out presence, and surrendered His life, laying it down for our sakes, and is held in contempt by the Gentiles. And He who was born (into the world) will be that very Son of man on whose account our name also is rejected.
15. [1] Secundum haec, inquit, faciebant prophetis patres eorum. O Christum versipellem, nunc destructorem, nunc assertorem prophetarum! destruebat ut aemulus, convertens discipulos eorum; sibi asserebat ut amicus, suggillans insectatores eorum. Porro, in quantum non congruisset Christo Marcionis assertio prophetarum ad quorum venerat destructionem, in tantum congruit Christo creatoris suggillatio in insectatores prophetarum quos in omnibus adimplebat, vel quia magis creatoris est delicta patrum filiis exprobrare quam eius dei qui nec propria cuiusque castigat. [2] Sed non statim, inquis, prophetas tuebatur, si iniquitatem Iudaeoram affirmatam volebat, quod nec cum prophetis suis pie egissent. Atquin nulla hic iniquitas exprobranda erat Iudaeis, laudandis potius et probandis, si eos suggillaverunt ad quorum destructionem post tantum aevi deus optimus motus est. Sed, puto, iam et non optimus, iam aliquid et cum creatore moratus, nec in totum Epicuri deus. [3] Ecce enim demutat in maledictionem, et ostendit eum se esse qui novit offendi et irasci. Vae enim dicit. Sed fit nobis quaestio de verbi istius qualitate, quasi non tam maledictionis sit quam admonitionis. Et quid causae interest, quando et admonitio non fit sine aculeo comminationis, maxime per Vae amarior facta? Et admonitio autem et comminatio eius erunt qui norit irasci. Nemo enim admonebit et nemo comminabitur ne <quis> quid faciat, nisi qui factum vindicabit. Nemo vindicarit nisi qui norit irasci. [4] Alii agnoscunt quidem verbum maledictionis, sed volunt Christum sic Vae pronuntiasse, non quasi ex sententia sua proprie, sed quod Vae a creatore sit, et voluerit illis asperitatem creatoris opponere, quo suam supra in benedictionibus sufferentiam commendaret. Quasi non creatori competat, qua utrumque praestanti, et bonum deum et iudicem, ut quia praemiserat in benedictionibus benignitatem, subiceret etiam in maledictionibus severitatem, amplitudinem disciplinae utriusque instruendae, tam ad benedictionem sectandam quam ad maledictionem praecavendam. [5] Nam et ita praemiserat: Ecce posui ante vos benedictionem et maledictionem: quod etiam in hanc evangelii dispositionem portendebat. Alioquin qualis est ille qui, ut suam insinuaret bonitatem, creatoris opposuit asperitatem? Infirma commendatio est quae de alterius destructione fulcitur. [6] Atquin opponens asperitatem creatoris timendum eum confirmavit. Si timendum, magis utique obaudiendum quam neglegendum, et incipit iam Christus Marcionis creatori docere. Tunc, si Vae creatoris est quod in divites spectat, ergo Christus non est divitibus offensus, sed creator, et ratas habet Christus divitum causas, superbiam dico et gloriam et saeculi studia et dei incuriam, per quae Vae merentur a creatore. [7] Sed quomodo non eiusdem sit divites reprobare qui supra mendicos probarit? Nemo non contrarium eius quod probaverit reprobat. Itaque si creatori deputabitur maledictio in divites, eiusdem defendetur benedictio in mendicos, et totum iam opus Christi creatoris est. Si deo Marcionis adscribetur benedictio in mendicos, eiusdem imponetur et maledictio in divites, et erit par iam creatoris, tam bonus quam et iudex, nec erit iam discrimini locus quo duo dei fiunt, sublatoque discrimine supererit unum deum renuntiari creatorem. [8] Igitur Vae si et vox maledictionis est vel alicuius austerioris inclamationis, et a Christo dirigitur in divites, debeo creatorem divitum quoque aspernatorem probare, sicut probavi mendicorum advocatorem, ut Christum in hac quoque sententia creatoris ostendam. Locupletat is quidem Salomonem, sed quia permissa sibi optione maluit ea postulare quae sciebat deo grata, sapientiam <et intellegentiam,> et meruerat etiam divitias consequi, quas non magis voluit. Quamquam et divitias praestare non incongruens deo sit, per quas et divites solatio iuvantur et multa inde opera iustitiae et dilectionis administrantur. [9] Sed accidentia vitia divitiis illa in evangelio quoque Vae divitibus adscribunt, Quoniam, inquit, recepistis advocationem vestram, utique ex divitiis, de gloria earum et saecularibus fructibus. Itaque in Deuteronomio Moyses, Ne, inquit, cum manducaveris et repletus fueris, et domus magnas aedificaveris, pecoribus et bubus tuis multiplicatis et pecunia et auro, exaltetur cor tuum et obliviscaris domini dei tui. Quemadmodum et Ezechiam regem, thesauris inflatum et de eis potius quam de deo gloriatum, apud illos qui ex Perside advenerant insilit per Esaiam: Ecce dies veniunt, et auferentur omnia quae in domo tua sunt, et quae patres tui congesserunt in Babylonem transferentur. [10] Sic et per Hieremiam quoque edicit, Ne glorietur dives in divitiis suis, et qui gloriatur, scilicet in deo glorietur. Sic et in filias Sionis invehitur per Esaiam, cultu et divitiarum abundantia inflatas, comminabundus et alibi nobilibus et superbis: Dilatavit orcus animam suam et aperuit os suum, et descendent inclyti et magni et divites (hoc erit Christi Vae super divites), et humiliabitur homo, utique exaltatus divitiis, et inhonorabitur vir, utique ob substantiam honorabilis. [11] De quibus et rursus: Ecce dominus virtutum conturbabit gloriosos cum valentia, et elati comminuentur, et ruent gladio sublimes. Qui magis quam divites? quia receperunt scilicet advocationem suam, gloriam et honorem, sublimitatem ex divitiis. A quibus avertens nos et in psalmo XLVIII, Ne timueris, inquit, cum dives factus fuerit homo, et cum abundabit gloria eius, quoniam cum morietur non tollet omnia, nec descendet cum illo gloria sua. Item in LXI, Ne desideraveritis divitias, et si relucent, ne adieceritis cor. [12] Id ipsum postremo verbum Vae olim per Amos in divites affluentes deliciis destinatur. Vae enim, inquit, qui dormiunt in lectis eburneis et deliciis fluunt in toris suis, qui edunt hoedos de gregibus caprarum et vitulos de gregibus boum lactantes, complaudentes ad sonum organorum: tanquam perseverantia deputaverunt, et non tanquam fugientia : qui bibunt vinum liquatum et unguentis primariis unguntur. [13] Igitur et si tantummodo dehortantem a divitiis ostenderem creatorem, non etiam praedamnantem divites etiam verbo ipso quo et Christus, nemo dubitaret ab eodem adiectam in divites comminationem per Vae Christi a quo ipsarum materiarum, id est divitiarum, dehortatio praecucurrisset. Comminatio enim dehortationis accessio est. Ingerit Vae etiam saturatis, quia esurient, etiam ridentibus nunc, quia lugebunt. His respondebunt illa quae supra benedictionibus opposita sunt apud creatorem: Ecce, qui mihi serviunt saturabuntur, vos autem esurietis, utique quia saturati estis: et ecce, qui mihi serviunt oblectabuntur, vos autem confundemini, utique ploraturi, qui nunc ridetis. Sicut enim in psalmo: Qui seminant in lacrimis in laetitia metent; ita in evangelio, qui in risu seminant, scilicet ex laetitia, in lacrimis metent. Haec olim creator simul posuit, Christus solummodo distinguendo, non mutando, renovavit. [14] Vae, cum vobis benedixerint homines. Secundum haec faciebant et pscudoprophetis patres illorum. Aeque creator benedictionis et laudis humanae sectatores incusat per Esaiam: Populus meus, qui vos beatos dicunt, seducunt vos et vias pedum vestrorum disturbant. Prohibet et alias fidere omnino in hominem, sic et in laudem hominis, ut per Hieremiam: Maledictus homo qui spem habet in homine. [15] Nam et in psalmo cxvii: Bonum est confidere in deum quam confidere in homine, et bonum est sperare in deum quam sperare in principes. Ita totum quod ab homine captatur, abdixit creator, nedum benedictionem. Pseudoprophetas autem laudatos sive benedictos a patribus eorum tam eius est exprobrare quam prophetas vexatos et recusatos: sicut iniuriae prophetarum non pertinuissent ad deum ipsorum, ita nec gratiae pseudoprophetarum displicuissent nisi deo prophetarum.15. [1] "In the like manner," says He, "did their fathers unto the prophets." What a turncoat is Marcion's Christ! Now the destroyer, now the advocate of the prophets! He destroyed them as their rival, by converting their disciples; he took up their cause as their friend, by stigmatizing their persecutors. But, in as far as the defence of the prophets could not be consistent in the Christ of Marcion, who came to destroy them; in so far is it becoming to the Creator's Christ that He should stigmatize those who persecuted the prophets, for He in all things accomplished their predictions. Again, it is more characteristic of the Creator to upbraid sons with their fathers' sins, than it is of that god who chastizes no man for even his own misdeeds. [2] But you will say, He cannot be regarded as defending the prophets simply because He wished to affirm the iniquity of the Jews for their impious dealings with their own prophets. Well, then, in this case, no sin ought to have been charged against the Jews: they were rather deserving of praise and approbation when they maltreated those whom the absolutely good god of Marcion, after so long a time, bestirred himself to destroy. I suppose, however, that by this time he had ceased to be the absolutely good god; he had now sojourned a considerable while even with the Creator, and was no longer (like) the god of Epicurus purely and simply. [3] For see how he condescends to curse, and proves himself capable of taking offence and feeling anger! He actually pronounces a woe! But a doubt is raised against us as to the import of this word, as if it carried with it less the sense of a curse than of an admonition. Where, however, is the difference, since even an admonition is not given without the sting of a threat, especially when it is embittered with a woe? Moreover, both admonition and threatening will be the resources of him who knows how to feel angry, For no one will forbid the doing of a thing with an admonition or a threat, except him who will inflict punishment for the doing of it. No one would inflict punishment, except him who was susceptible of anger. [4] Others, again, admit that the word implies a curse; but they will have it that Christ pronounced the woe, not as if it were His own genuine feeling, but because the woe is from the Creator, and He wanted to set forth to them the severity of the Creator in order that He might the more commend His own long-suffering in His beatitudes Just as if it were not competent to the Creator, in the pre-eminence of both His attributes as the good God and Judge, that, as He had made clemency the preamble of His benediction so He should place severity in the sequel of His curses; thus fully developing His discipline in both directions, both in following out the blessing and in providing against the curse. [5] He had already said of old, "Behold, I have set before you blessing and cursing." Which statement was really a presage of this temper of the gospel. Besides, what sort of being is that who, to insinuate a belief in his own goodness, invidiously contrasted with it the Creator's severity? Of little worth is the recommendation which has for its prop the defamation of another. [6] And yet by thus setting forth the severity of the Creator, he, in fact, affirmed Him to be an object of fear. Now if He be an object of fear, He is of course more worthy of being obeyed than slighted; and thus Marcion's Christ begins to teach favourably to the Creator's interests. Then, on the admission above mentioned, since the woe which has regard to the rich is the Creator's, it follows that it is not Christ, but the Creator, who is angry with the rich; while Christ approves of the incentives of the rich ----I mean, their pride, their pomp, their love of the world, and their contempt of God, owing to which they deserve the woe of the Creator. [7] But how happens it that the reprobation of the rich does not proceed from the same God who had just before expressed approbation of the poor? There is nobody but reprobates the opposite of that which he has approved. If, therefore, there be imputed to the Creator the woe pronounced against the rich, there must be claimed for Him also the promise of the blessing upon the poor; and thus the entire work of the Creator devolves on Christ.----If to Marcion's god there be ascribed the blessing of the poor, he must also have imputed to him the malediction of the rich; and thus will he become the Creator's equal, both good and judicial; nor will there be left any room for that distinction whereby two gods are made; and when this distinction is removed, there will remain the verity which pronounces the Creator to be the one only God. [8] Since, therefore, "woe" is a word indicative of malediction, or of some unusually austere exclamation; and since it is by Christ uttered against the rich, I shall have to show that the Creator is also a despiser of the rich, as I have shown Him to be the defender of the poor, in order that I may prove Christ to be on the Creator's side in this matter, even when He enriched Solomon. But with respect to this man, since, when a choice was left to him, he preferred asking for what he knew to be well-pleasing to God----even wisdom----he further merited the attainment of the riches, which he did not prefer. The endowing of a man indeed with riches, is not an incongruity to God, for by the help of riches even rich men are comforted and assisted; moreover, by them many a work of justice and charity is carried out. [9] But yet there are serious faults which accompany riches; and it is because of these that woes are denounced on the rich, even in the Gospel. "Ye have received," says He, "your consolation; " that is, of course, from their riches, in the pomps and vanities of the world which these purchase for them. Accordingly, in Deuteronomy, Moses says: "Lest, when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, as well as thy silver and thy gold, thine heart be then lifted up, and thou forget the Lord thy God." in similar terms, when king Hezekiah became proud of his treasures, and gloried in them rather than in God before those who had come on an embassy from Babylon, (the Creator) breaks forth against him by the mouth of Isaiah: "Behold, the days come when all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store, shall be carried to Babylon." [10] So by Jeremiah likewise did He say: "Let not the rich man glory in his riches but let him that glorieth even glory in the Lord." Similarly against the daughters of Sion does He inveigh by Isaiah, when they were haughty through their pomp and the abundance of their riches, just as in another passage He utters His threats against the proud and noble: "Hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth, and down to it shall descend the illustrious, and the great, and the rich (this shall be Christ's `woe to the rich'); and man shall be humbled," even he that exalts himself with riches; "and the mighty man shall be dishonoured," even he who is mighty from his wealth. [11] Concerning whom He says again: "Behold, the Lord of hosts shall confound the pompous together with their strength: those that are lifted up shall be hewn down, and such as are lofty shall fall by the sword." And who are these but the rich? Because they have indeed received their consolation, glory, and honour and a lofty position from their wealth. In Psalms He also turns off our care from these and says: "Be not thou afraid when one is made rich, and when his glory is increased: for when he shall die, he shall carry nothing away; nor shall his glory descend along with him." So also in Psalms : "Do not desire riches; and if they do yield you their lustre, do not set your heart upon them." [12] Lastly, this very same woe is pronounced of old by Amos against the rich, who also abounded in delights. "Woe unto them," says he, "who sleep upon beds of ivory, and deliciously stretch themselves upon their couches; who eat the kids from the flocks of the goats, and sucking calves from the flocks of the heifers, while they chant to the sound of the viol; as if they thought they should continue long, and were not fleeting; who drink their refined wines, and anoint themselves with the costliest ointments." [13] Therefore, even if I could do nothing else than show that the Creator dissuades men from riches, without at the same time first condemning the rich, in the very same terms in which Christ also did, no one could doubt that, from the same authority, there was added a commination against the rich in that woe of Christ, from whom also had first proceeded the dissuasion against the material sin of these persons, that is, their riches. For such commination is the necessary sequel to such a dissuasive. He inflicts a woe also on "the full, because they shall hunger; on those too which laugh now, because they shall mourn." To these will correspond these opposites which occur, as we have seen above, in the benedictions of the Creator: "Behold, my servants shall be full, but ye shall be hungry "----even because ye have been filled; "behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed" ----even ye who shall mourn, who now are laughing. For as it is written in the psalm, "They who sow in tears shall reap in joy," so does it run in the Gospel: They who sow in laughter, that is, in joy, shall reap in tears. These principles did the Creator lay down of old; and Christ has renewed them, by simply bringing them into prominent view, not by making any change in them. [14] "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets." With equal stress does the Creator, by His prophet Isaiah, censure those who seek after human flattery and praise: "O my people, they who call you happy mislead you, and disturb the paths of your feet." In another passage He forbids all implicit trust in man, and likewise in the applause of man; as by the prophet Jeremiah: "Cursed be the man that trusteth in man." [15] Whereas in Psalms it is said: "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man; it is better to trust in the Lord than to place hope in princes." Thus everything which is caught at by men is adjured by the Creator, down to their good words. It is as much His property to condemn the praise and flattering words bestowed on the false prophets by their fathers, as to condemn their vexatious and persecuting treatment of the (true) prophets. As the injuries suffered by the prophets could not be imputed to their own God, so the applause bestowed on the false prophets could not have been displeasing to any other god but the God of the true prophets.

Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6830
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:04 pm

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.16-18.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUARTUS
Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV
16. [1] Sed vobis dico, inquit, qui auditis (ostendens hoc olim mandatum a creatore, Loquere in aures audientium), diligite inimicos vestros, et benedicite eos qui vos oderunt, et orate pro eis qui vos calumniantur. Haec creator una pronuntiatione clusit per Esaiam: Dicite, fratres nostri estis, eis qui vos oderunt. Si enim qui inimici sunt et oderunt et maledicunt et calumniantur fratres appellandi sunt, utique et benedici odientes et orari pro calumniatoribus iussit, qui eos fratres deputari praecepit. [2] Novam plane patientiam docet Christus, etiam vicem iniuriae cohibens permissam a creatore, oculum exigente pro oculo et dentem pro dente, contra ipse alteram amplius maxillam offerri iubens, et super tunicam pallio quoque cedi. Plane haec Christus adiecerit ut supplementa consentanea disciplinae creatoris. Atque adeo hoc statim renuntiandum est, an disciplina patientiae praedicatur penes creatorem. [3] Si per Zachariam praecepit ne unusquisque malitiae fratris sui meminerit, sed nec proximi. Nam et rursus, Malitiam, inquit, proximi sui unusquisque ne recogitet. Multo magis patientiam indixit iniuriae qui indixit oblivionem. Sed et cum dicit, Mihi vindictam, et ego vindicabo, proinde patientiam docet vindictae expectatricem. [4] In quantum ergo fidem non capit ut idem videatur et dentem pro dente, oculum pro oculo, in vicem iniuriae exigere qui non modo vicem, sed etiam ultionem, etiam recordationem et recogitationem iniuriae prohibet, in tantum aperitur nobis quomodo oculum pro oculo et dentem pro dente censuerit, non ad secundam iniuriam talionis permittendam, quam prohibuerat interdicta ultione, sed ad primam coercendam, quam prohibuerat talione opposito, ut unusquisque respiciens licentiam secundae iniuriae a prima semetipsum contineret. [5] Facilius enim vim comprimi scit repraesentatione talionis quam repromissione ultionis. Utrumque autem constituendum fuit pro natura et fide hominum, ut qui deo crederet ultionem a deo expectaret, qui minus fideret leges talionis timeret. Hanc legis voluntatem de intellectu laborantem dominus et sabbati et legis et omnium paternarum dispositionum Christus et revelavit et compotem fecit, mandans alterius quoque maxillae oblationem, ut tanto magis vicem iniuriae extingueret quam et lex per talionem voluerat impedisse, certe quam prophetia manifeste coercuerat, et memoriam iniuriae prohibens et ultionem ad deum redigens. [6] Ita si quid Christus intulit, non adversario sed adiutore praecepto, non destruxit disciplinas creatoris. Denique si in ipsam rationem patientiae praecipiendae, et quidem tam plenae atque perfectae, considerem, non consistet si non est creatoris, qui vindictam repromittit, qui iudicem praestat. Alioquin si tantum patientiae pondus non modo non repercutiendi sed et aliam maxillam praebendi, et non modo non remaledicendi sed etiam benedicendi, et non modo non retinendi tunicam sed et amplius et pallium concedendi, is mihi imponit qui non sit me defensurus, in vacuum patientiam praecepit, non exhibens mihi mercedem praecepti, patientiae dico fructum, quod est ultio, quam mihi permisisse debuerat si ipse non praestat, aut si mihi non permittebat ipse praestare, quoniam et disciplinae interest iniuriam vindicari. [7] Metu enim ultionis omnis iniquitas refrenatur. Ceterum passim emissa libertate dominabitur, utrumque oculum effossura et omnem dentem excitatura prae impunitatis securitate. Sed hoc est dei optimi et tantum boni, patientiae iniuriam facere, violentiae ianuam pandere, probos non defendere, improbos non coercere. [8] Omni petenti te dato, utique indigenti, vel tanto magis indigenti si etiam et abundanti. Ne quis ergo indigeat, datori imperatam habes in Deuteronomio formam creatoris. Non erit, inquit, in te indigehs, uti benedicens benedicat te dominus deus tuus, datorem scilicet, qui fecerit non esse indigentem. [9] Et plus hic. Non enim petenti iubet dari: Sed non sit, inquit, indigens in te, id est cura ultro ne sit; quo magis petenti praeiudicat dandum. Etiam in sequentibus: Si autem fuerit indigens e fratribus tuis, non avertes cor tuum, nec constringes manum tuam a fratre indigente: aperiens aperies illi manum, fenus fenerabis illi, quantum desiderarit. [10] Fenus enim nisi petenti dari non solet. Sed de fenore postmodum. Nunc si qui voluerit argumentari creatorem quidem fratribus dari iussisse, Christum vero omnibus petentibus, ut hoc sit novum atque diversum, immo unum erit ex his per quae lex creatoris erit in Christo. Non enim aliud Christus in omnes praecepit quam quod creator in fratres. Nam etsi maior est bonitas quae operatur in extraneos, sed non prior ea quae ante deberet in proximos. [11] Quis enim poterit diligere extraneos? Quodsi secundus gradus bonitatis est in extraneos qui in proximos primus est, eiusdem erit secundus gradus cuius et primus, facilius quam ut eius sit secundus cuius non extitit primus. Ita creator et secundum naturae ordinem primum in proximos docuit benignitatem, emissurus eam postea in extraneos, et secundum rationem dispositionis suae primo in Iudaeos, postea et in omne hominum genus. [12] Ideoque quamdiu intra Israelem erat sacramentum, merito in solos fratres misericordiam mandabat; at ubi Christo dedit gentes haereditatem et possessionem terminos terrae, et coepit expungi quod dictum est per Osee: Non populus meus populus meus, et non misericordiam consecuta misericordiam consecuta, natio scilicet, exinde Christus in omnes legem paternae benignitatis extendit, neminem excipiens in miseratione, sicut in vocatione. Ita et si quid amplius docuit, hoc quoque in haereditatem gentium accepit. [13] Et sicut vobis fieri vultis ab hominibus, ita et vos facite illis. In isto praecepto utique alia pars eius subauditur: Et sicut vobis non vultis fieri ab hominibus, ita et vos ne faciatis illis. Hoc si novus deus et ignotus retro et nondum plane editus praecepit, qui me nulla antehac institutione formaverit, qua prius scirem quid deberem mihi velle vel nolle atque ita et aliis facere quae et mihi vellem, non facere quae et mihi nollem, passivitatem sententiae meae permisit, nec adstrinxit me ad convenientiam voluntatis et facti, ut id aliis faciam quod mihi velim et id nec aliis faciam quod mihi nolim. [14] Non enim definiit quid mihi atque aliis debeam velle vel nolle, ut ad legem voluntatis parem factum, et possim alii non praestare quod ab alio mihi velim praestitum, amorem, obsequium, solatium, praesidium, et eiusmodi bona, proinde et alii facere quod ab alio mihi fieri nolim, vim, iniuriam, contumeliam, fraudem, et eiusmodi mala. Denique hac inconvenientia voluntatis et facti agunt ethnici nondum a deo instructi. [15] Nam etsi natura bonum et malum notum est, non tamen dei disciplina; qua cognita tunc demum convenientia voluntatis et facti ex fide, ut sub metu dei, agitur. Itaque deus Marcionis cum maxime revelatus, si tamen revelatus, non potuit huius praecepti de quo agitur tam strictum et obscurum et caecum adhuc et facilius pro meo potius arbitrio interpretandum compendium emittere, cuius nullam praestruxerat distinctionem. [16] At enim creator meus et olim et ubique praecepit indigentes pauperes et pupillos et viduas protegi, iuvari, refrigerari; sicut et per Esaiam: Infringito panem tuum mendicis, et qui sine tecto sunt, in domum tuam inducito, et nudum si videris, tegito. Item per Ezechielem de viro iusto: Panem suum dabit esurienti, et nudum conteget. Satis ergo iam tunc me docuit ea facere aliis quae mihi velim fieri. [17] Proinde denuntians, Non occides, Non adulterabis, Non furaberis, Non falsum testimonium dices, docuit ne faciam aliis quae fieri mihi nolim; et ideo ipsius erit praeceptum in evangelio qui illud retro et praestruxit et distinxit et ad arbitrium disciplinae suae disposuit et merito iam compendio substrinxit: quoniam et alias recisum sermonem facturus in terris dominus, id est Christus, praedicabatur.16. [1] "But I say unto you which hear" (displaying here that old injunction, of the Creator: "Speak to the ears of those who lend them to you" ), "Love your enemies, and bless those which hate you, and pray for them which calumniate you." These commands the Creator included in one precept by His prophet Isaiah: "Say, Ye are our brethren, to those who hate you." For if they who are our enemies, and hate us, and speak evil of us, and calumniate us, are to be called our brethren, surely He did in effect bid us bless them that hate us, and pray for them who calumniate us, when He instructed us to reckon them as brethren. [2] Well, but Christ plainly teaches a new kind of patience, when He actually prohibits the reprisals which the Creator permitted in requiring "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," and bids us, on the contrary, "to him who smiteth us on the one cheek, to offer the other also, and to give up our coat to him that taketh away our cloak." No doubt these are supplementary additions by Christ, but they are quite in keeping with the teaching of the Creator. And therefore this question must at once be determined, Whether the discipline of patience be enjoined by the Creator? [3] When by Zechariah He commanded, "Let none of you imagine evil against his brother," He did not expressly include his neighbour; but then in another passage He says, "Let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour." He who counselled that an injury should be forgotten, was still more likely to counsel the patient endurance of it. But then, when He said, "Vengeance is mine, and I will repay," He thereby teaches that patience calmly waits for the infliction of vengeance. [4] Therefore, inasmuch as it is incredible that the same (God) should seem to require "a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye," in return for an injury, who forbids not only all reprisals, but even a revengeful thought or recollection of an injury, in so far does it become plain to us in what sense He required "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,"----not, indeed, for the purpose of permitting the repetition of the injury by retaliating it, which it virtually prohibited when it forbade vengeance; but for the purpose of restraining the injury in the first instance, which it had forbidden on pain of retaliation or reciprocity; so that every man, in view of the permission to inflict a second (or retaliatory) injury, might abstain from the commission of the first (or provocative) wrong. [5] For He knows how much more easy it is to repress violence by the prospect of retaliation, than by the promise of (indefinite) vengeance. Both results, however, it was necessary to provide, in consideration of the nature and the faith of men, that the man who believed in God might expect vengeance from God, while he who had no faith (to restrain him) might fear the laws which prescribed retaliation. This purpose of the law, which it was difficult to understand, Christ, as the Lord of the Sabbath and of the law, and of all the dispensations of the Father, both revealed and made intelligible, when He commanded that "the other cheek should be offered (to the smiter)," in order that He might the more effectually extinguish all reprisals of an injury, which the law had wished to prevent by the method of retaliation, (and) which most certainly revelation had manifestly restricted, both by prohibiting the memory of the wrong, and referring the vengeance thereof to God. [6] Thus, whatever (new provision) Christ introduced, He did it not in opposition to the law, but rather in furtherance of it, without at all impairing the prescription of the Creator. If, therefore, one looks carefully into the very grounds for which patience is enjoined (and that to such a full and complete extent), one finds that it cannot stand if it is not the precept of the Creator, who promises vengeance, who presents Himself as the judge (in the case). If it were not so, ----if so vast a weight of patience----which is to refrain from giving blow for blow; which is to offer the other cheek; which is not only not to return railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing; and which, so far from keeping the coat, is to give up the cloak also----is laid upon me by one who means not to help me,----(then all I can say is, ) he has taught me patience to no purpose, because he shows me no reward to his precept----I mean no fruit of such patience. There is revenge which he ought to have permitted me to take, if he meant not to inflict it himself; if he did not give me that permission, then he should himself have inflicted it; since it is for the interest of discipline itself that an injury should be avenged. [7] For by the fear of vengeance all iniquity is curbed. But if licence is allowed to it without discrimination, it will get the mastery----it will put out (a man's) both eyes; it will knock out every tooth in the safety of its impunity. This, however, is (the principle) of your good and simply beneficent god----to do a wrong to patience, to open the door to violence, to leave the righteous undefended, and the wicked unrestrained! [8] "Give to every one that asketh of thee" ----to the indigent of course, or rather to the indigent more especially, although to the affluent likewise. But in order that no man may be indigent, you have in Deuteronomy a provision commanded by the Creator to the creditor. "There shall not be in thine hand an indigent man; so that the Lord thy God shall bless thee with blessings," ----thee meaning the creditor to whom it was owing that the man was not indigent. [9] But more than this. To one who does not ask, He bids a gift to be given. "Let there be, not," He says, "a poor man in thine hand; "in other words, see that there be not, so far as thy will can prevent; by which command, too, He all the more strongly by inference requires men to give to him that asks, as in the following words also: "If there be among you a poor man of thy brethren, thou shalt not turn away thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother. But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him as much as he wanteth," [10] Loans are not usually given, except to such as ask for them. On this subject of lending, however, more hereafter. Now, should any one wish to argue that the Creator's precepts extended only to a man's brethren, but Christ's to all that ask, so as to make the latter a new and different precept, (I have to reply) that one rule only can be made out of those principles, which show the law of the Creator to be repeated in Christ. For that is not a different thing which Christ enjoined to be done towards all men, from that which the Creator prescribed in favour of a man's brethren. For although that is a greater charity, which is shown to strangers, it is yet not preferable to that which was previously due to one's neighbours. [11] For what man will be able to bestow the love (which proceeds from knowledge of character, upon strangers? Since, however, the second step in charity is towards strangers, while the first is towards one's neighbours, the second step will belong to him to whom the first also belongs, more fitly than the second will belong to him who owned no first. Accordingly, the Creator, when following the course of nature, taught in the first instance kindness to neighbours, intending afterwards to enjoin it towards strangers; and when following the method of His dispensation, He limited charity first to the Jews, but afterwards extended it to the whole race of mankind. [12] So long, therefore, as the mystery of His government was confined to Israel, He properly commanded that pity should be shown only to a man's brethren; but when Christ had given to Him "the Gentiles for His heritage, and the ends of the earth for His possession," then began to be accomplished what was said by Hosea: "Ye are not my people, who were my people; ye have not obtained mercy, who once obtained mercy" ----that is, the (Jewish) nation. Thenceforth Christ extended to all men the law of His Father's compassion, excepting none from His mercy, as He omitted none in His invitation. So that, whatever was the ampler scope of His teaching, He received it all in His heritage of the nations. [13] "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." In this command is no doubt implied its counterpart: "And as ye would not that men should do to you, so should ye also not do to them likewise." Now, if this were the teaching of the new and previously unknown and not yet fully proclaimed deity, who had favoured me with no instruction beforehand, whereby I might first learn what I ought to choose or to refuse for myself, and to do to others what I would wish done to myself, not doing to them what I should be unwilling to have done to myself, it would certainly be nothing else than the chance-medley of my own sentiments which he would have left to me, binding me to no proper rule of wish or action, in order that I might do to others what I would like for myself, or refrain from doing to others what I should dislike to have done to myself. [14] For he has not, in fact, defined what I ought to wish or not to wish for myself as well as for others, so that I shape my conduct according to the law of my own will, and have it in my power not to render to another what I would like to have rendered to myself----love, obedience, consolation, protection, and such like blessings; and in like manner to do to another what I should be unwilling to have done to myself----violence, wrong, insult, deceit, and evils of like sort. Indeed, the heathen who have not been instructed by God act on this incongruous liberty of the will and the conduct. [15] For although good and evil are severally known by nature, yet life is not thereby spent under the discipline of God, which alone at last teaches men the proper liberty of their will and action in faith, asin the fear of God. The god of Marcion, therefore, although specially revealed, was, in spite of his revelation, unable to publish any summary of the precept in question, which had hitherto been so confined, and obscure, and dark, and admitting of no ready interpretation, except according to my own arbitrary thought, because he had provided no previous discrimination in the matter of such a precept. [16] This, however, was not the case with my God for He always and everywhere enjoined that the poor, and the orphan, and the widow should be protected, assisted, refreshed; thus by Isaiah He says: "Deal thy bread to the hungry, and them that are houseless bring into thine house; when thou seest the naked, cover him." By Ezekiel also He thus describes the just man: "His bread will he give to the hungry, and the naked will he cover with a garment." That teaching was even then a sufficient inducement to me to do to others what I would that they should do unto me. [17] Accordingly, when He uttered such denunciations as, "Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness," He taught me to refrain from doing to others what I should be unwilling to have done to myself; and therefore the precept developed in the Gospel will belong to Him alone, who anciently drew it up, and gave it distinctive point, and arranged it after the decision of His own teaching, and has now reduced it, suitably to its importance, to a compendious formula, because (as it was predicted in another passage) the Lord----that is, Christ" was to make (or utter) a concise word on earth."
17. [1] Hic nunc de fenore cum interponit, Et si feneraveritis a quibus speratis vos recepturos, quae gratia est vobis? percurre sequentia Ezechielis de eodem viro iusto: Pecuniam, inquit, suam fenori non dedit, et quod abundaverit non sumet, fenoris scilicet redundantiam, quod est usura. Prius igitur fuit ut fructum fenoris eradicaret, quo facilius adsuefaceret hominem ipsi quoque fenori, si forte, perdendo, cuius fructum didicisset amittere. [2] Hanc etenim dicimus operam legis fuisse procurantis evangelio. Quorundam tunc fidem paulatim ad perfectum disciplinae Christianae nitorem primis quibusque praeceptis balbutientis adhuc benignitatis informabat. Nam et supra, Et pignus, inquit, reddes debentis; utique si non sit solvendo, quia solutori utique pignus restituendum esse utrum homo scriberet? [3] Multo manifestius in Deuteronomio: Non dormies super pignus eius, redditione reddes illi pallium circa solis occasum, et dormiet in pallio suo. Adhuc clarius supra: Dimittes omne debitum quod tibi proximus debet, et fratrem tuum non reposces, quoniam remissio domini dei tui invocata est. [4] Porro cum debitum dimitti iubet, utique non exsoluturo (plus enim est, etsi exsoluturo, cum reposci vetat), quid aliud docet quam non exsoluturo feneremus, qui tantum detrimentum fenori indixit? Et eritis filii dei. Nihil impudentius, si ille nos sibi filios faciet qui nobis filios facere non permisit auferendo connubium. Quomodo in id nomen allecturus est suos quod iam erasit? [5] Filius spadonis esse non possum, maxime cum patrem habeam eundem quem et omnia. Nam tam pater omnium qui conditor universitatis, quam spado qui nullius substantiae conditor. Et si marem ac feminam non miscuisset creator, et si non universis quoque animalibus filios concessisset, hoc eram eius ante paradisum, ante delictum, ante exilium, ante duos unum. Denuo factus filius fui, statim cum me manibus enixus est, cum de suo halitu movit. [6] Ille me nunc rursus filium nuncupat, iam non in animam sed in spiritum pariens. Quia ipse, inquit, suavis est adversus ingratos et malos. Euge, Marcion, satis ingeniose detraxisti illi pluvias et soles, ne creator videretur. Sed quis iste suavis, qui ne cognitus quidem usque adhuc? [7] Quomodo suavis, a quo nulla beneficia praecesserant hoc genus suavitatis qua soles et imbres qui feneraverat, non recepturus ab humano genere? Ut creator, qui pro tanta elementorum liberalitate facilius idolis quam sibi debitum gratiae referentes homines usque adhuc sustinet, vere suavis etiam spiritalibus commodis: Eloquia enim domini dulciora super mel et favos. Ille igitur et ingratos suggillavit qui gratos experiri merebatur, cuius solem et imbres tu quoque Marcion ingratus habuisti. Ceterum tuus non poterat iam queri ingratos, qui non paraverat gratos. [8] Misericordiam quoque praecipiens, Estote, inquit, misericordes, sicut pater vester misertus est vestri. Hoc erit, Panem infringito esurienti, et <qui> sine tecto in domum tuam inducito, et nudum si videris tegito, et, Iudicate pupillo, et iustificate viduam. Agnosco doctrinam eius veterem qui mavult misericordiam quam sacrificium. Aut si alius nunc misericordiam praecepit, quia et ipse misericors sit, cur tanto aevo misericors mihi non fuit? [9] Nolite iudicare, ne iudicemini. Nolite condemnare, ne condemnemini. Dimittite, et dimittemini. Date, et dabitur vobis, mensuram bonam, pressam ac fluentem, dabunt in sinum vestrum. Eadem qua mensi eritis mensura, remetietur vobis. Ut opinor, haec retributionem pro meritis provocatam sonant. A quo ergo retributio? [10] Si ab hominibus tantum, ergo humanam docet disciplinam et mercedem, et in totum hominibus obediemus: si a creatore, ut a iudice et dispunctore meritorum, ergo illi nostrum impellit obsequium apud quem constituit retributionem captandam vel timendam, prout quisque iudicaverit aut condemnaverit aut dimiserit aut mensus fuerit: si ab ipso, ergo et ille iam iudicat, quod Marcion negat. [11] Eligant itaque Marcionitae ne tanti sit de magistri regula excidere quanti Christum aut hominibus aut creatori docentem habere. Sed caecus caecum ducit in foveam. Credunt aliqui Marcioni. Sed non est discipulus super magistmm. Hoc meminisse debuerat Apelles, Marcionis de discipulo emendator. Eximat et de oculo suo trabem haereticus, tunc in oculo Christiani si quam putat stipulam revincat. Proinde et arbor bona non proferat malum fructum, quia nec veritas haeresim; nec mala bonum, quia nec haeresis veritatem. Sic nec Marcion aliquid boni de thesauro Cerdonis malo protulit, nec Apelles de Marcionis. [12] Multo enim haec congruentius in ipsos interpretabimur quae Christus in homines allegorizavit, non in duos deos secundum scandalum Marcionis. Puto me non temere hucusque adhuc lineae insistere, qua definio nusquam omnino alium deum a Christo revelatum. In hoc solo adulterium Marcionis manus stupuisse miror. Nisi quod etiam latrones timent. Nullum maleficium sine formidine est, quia nec sine conscientia sui. Tam diu ergo et Iudaei non alium deum norant quam praeter quem neminem adhuc norant, nec alium deum appellabant quam quem solum norant. Si ita est, quis videbitur dixisse, Quid vocas, Domine, domine? [13] Utrumne qui nunquam hoc fuerat vocatus, ut nusquam adhuc editus, an ille qui semper dominus habebatur, ut a primordio cognitus, deus scilicet Iudaeorum? Quis item adiecisse potuisset, Et non facitis quae dico? Utrumne qui cum maxime edocere temptabat, an qui a primordio ad illos et legis et prophetarum eloquia mandaverat? Qui et inobaudientiam illis exprobrare posset, etiam si nunquam alias exprobrasset? Porro qui ante Christum, Populus iste me labiis diligit, cor autem eorum longe absistit a me, contionatus est, veterem utique illis contumaciam imputabat. Alioquin quam absurdum, ut novus deus, novus Christus, novae tantaeque religionis illuminator, contumaces et inobsequentes pronuntiaret quos non potuisset experiri?17. [1] And now, on the subject of a loan, when He asks, "And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? " compare with this the following words of Ezekiel, in which He says of the before-mentioned just man, "He hath not given his money upon usury, nor will he take any increase" ----meaning the redundance of interest, which is usury. The first step was to eradicate the fruit of the money lent, the more easily to accustom a man to the loss, should it happen, of the money itself, the interest of which he had learnt to lose. [2] Now this, we affirm, was the function of the law as preparatory to the gospel. It was engaged in forming the faith of such as would learn, by gradual stages, for the perfect light of the Christian discipline, through the best precepts of which it was capable, inculcating a benevolence which as yet expressed itself but falteringly. For in the passage of Ezekiel quoted above He says, "And thou shalt restore the pledge of the loan " ----to him, certainly, who is incapable of repayment, because, as a matter of course, He would not anyhow prescribe the restoration of a pledge to one who was solvent. [3] Much more clearly is it enjoined in Deuteronomy: "Thou shalt not sleep upon his pledge; thou shalt be sure to return to him his garment about sunset, and he shall sleep in his own garment." Clearer still is a former passage: "Thou shalt remit every debt which thy neighbour oweth thee; and of thy brother thou shalt not require it, because it is called the release of the Lord thy God." [4] Now, when He commands that a debt be remitted to a man who shall be unable to pay it (for it is a still stronger argument when He forbids its being asked for from a man who is even able to repay it), what else does He teach than that we should lend to those of whom we cannot receive again, inasmuch as He has imposed so great a loss on lending? "And ye shall be the children of God." What can be more shameless, than for him to be making us his children, who has not permitted us to make children for ourselves by forbidding marriage? How does he propose to invest his followers with a name which he has already erased? [5] I cannot be the son of a eunuch especially when I have for my Father the same great Being whom the universe claims for its! For is not the Founder of the universe as much a Father, even of all men, as (Marcion's) castrated deity, who is the maker of no existing thing? Even if the Creator had not united male and female, and if He had not allowed any living creature whatever to have children, I yet had this relation to Him before Paradise, before the fall, before the expulsion, before the two became one. I became His son a second time, as soon as He fashioned me with His hands, and gave me motion with His inbreathing. [6] Now again He names me His son, not begetting me into natural life, but into spiritual life. "Because," says He, "He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil." Well done, Marcion! how cleverly have you withdrawn from Him the showers and the sunshine, that He might not seem to be a Creator! But who is this kind being which hitherto has not been even known? [7] How can he be kind who had previously shown no evidences of such a kindness as this, which consists of the loan to us of sunshine and rain?----who is not destined to receive from the human race (the homage due to that) Creator,----who, up to this very moment, in return for His vast liberality in the gift of the elements, bears with men while they offer to idols, more readily than Himself, the due returns of His graciousness. But God is truly kind even in spiritual blessings. "The utterances of the Lord are sweeter than honey and honeycombs." He then has taunted men as ungrateful who deserved to have their gratitude----even He, whose sunshine and rain even you, O Marcion, have enjoyed, but without gratitude! Your god, however, had no right to complain of man's ingratitude, because he had used no means to make them grateful. [8] Compassion also does He teach: "Be ye merciful," says He, "as your Father also that had mercy upon you." This injunction will be of a piece with, "Deal thy bread to the hungry; and if he be houseless, bring him into thine house; and if thou seest the naked, cover him; " also with, "Judge the fatherless, plead with the widow." I recognise here that ancient doctrine of Him who "prefers mercy to sacrifice." If, however, it be now some other being which teaches mercy, on the ground of his own mercifulness, how happens it that he has been wanting in mercy to me for so vast an age? [9] "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; give, and it shall be given unto you: good measure, pressed down, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye measure withal, it shall be measured to you again." As it seems to me, this passage announces a retribution proportioned to the merits. But from whom shall come the retribution? [10] If only from men, in that case he teaches a merely human discipline and recompense; and in everything we shall have to obey man: if from the Creator, as the Judge and the Recompenser of merits, then He compels our submission to Him, in whose hands He has placed a retribution which will be acceptable or terrible according as every man shall have judged or condemned, acquitted or dealt with, his neighbour; if from (Marcion's god) himself, he will then exercise a judicial function which Marcion denies. [11] Let the Marcionites therefore make their choice: Will it not be just the same inconsistency to desert the prescription of their master, as to have Christ teaching in the interest of men or of the Creator? But "a blind man will lead a blind man into the ditch." Some persons believe Marcion. But "the disciple is not above his master." Apelles ought to have remembered this----a corrector of Marcion, although his disciple. The heretic ought to take the beam out of his own eye, and then he may convict the Christian, should he suspect a mote to be in his eye. Just as a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, so neither can truth generate heresy; and as a corrupt tree cannot yield good fruit, so heresy will not produce truth. Thus, Marcion brought nothing good out of Cerdon's evil treasure; nor Apelles out of Marcion's. [12] For in applying to these heretics the figurative words which Christ used of men in general, we shall make a much more suitable interpretation of them than if we were to deduce out of them two gods, according to Marcion's grievous exposition. I think that I have the best reason possible for insisting still upon the position which I have all along occupied, that in no passage to be anywhere found has another God been revealed by Christ. I wonder that in this place alone Marcion's hands should have felt benumbed in their adulterating labour. But even robbers have their qualms now and then. There is no wrong-doing without fear, because there is none without a guilty conscience. So long, then, were the Jews cognisant of no other god but Him, beside whom they knew none else; nor did they call upon any other than Him whom alone they knew. This being the case, who will He clearly be that said, "Why callest thou me Lord, Lord? " [13] Will it be he who had as yet never been called on, because never yet revealed; or He who was ever regarded as the Lord, because known from the beginning----even the God of the Jews? Who, again, could possibly have added, "and do not the things which I say? "Could it have been he who was only then doing his best to teach them? Or He who from the beginning had addressed to them His messages both by the law and the prophets? He could then upbraid them with disobedience, even if He had no ground at any time else for His reproof. The fact is, that He who was then imputing to them their ancient obstinacy was none other than He who, before the coming of Christ, had addressed to them these words, "This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart standeth far off from me." Otherwise, how absurd it were that a new god, a new Christ, the revealer of a new and so grand a religion should denounce as obstinate and disobedient those whom he had never had it in his power to make trial of!
18. [1] Proinde extollenda fide centurionis incredibile si is professus est talem se fidem nec in Israele invenisse ad quem non pertinebat fides Israelis. Sed nec exinde pertinere poterat, adhuc cruda ut probaretur vel compararetur, ne dixerim adhuc nulla. Scd cur non licuerit illi alienae fidei exemplo uti? Quoniam si ita esset, dixisset talem fidem nec in Israele unquam fuisse: ceterum dicens talem fidem debuisse se invenire in Israele, qui quidem ad hoc venisset ut eam inveniret, deus scilicet et Christus Israelis, quam non suggillasset nisi exactor et sectator eius. [2] Aemulus vero etiam maluisset eam talem inventam, ad quam infirmandam et destruendam magis venerat, non ad comprobandam. Resuscitavit et mortuum filium viduae. Non novum documentum. Hoc et prophetae creatoris ediderant, quanto magis filius? [3] Adeo autem in illud usque momenti nullum alium deum Christus intulerat, ut omnes illic creatori gloriam retulerint dicentes, Magnus prophetes prodiit in nobis, et Respexit deus populum suum. Quis deus? Utique cuius populus, et a quo prophetae. Quodsi illi quidem creatorem glorificabant, Christus vero et audiens et sciens non corrigebat, et quidem in tanto documento mortui resuscitati creatorem adhuc honorantes, sine dubio aut non alium circumferebat deum quam quem in suis beneficiis atque virtutibus honorari sustinebat: aut quale est ut illos tam diu errantes sustineret, ad hoc veniens ut errori eorum mederetur? [4] Sed scandalizatur Ioannes auditis virtutibus Christi, ut alterius. At ego rationem scandali prius expediam, quo facilius haeretici scandalum explodam. Ipso iam domino virtutum sermone et spiritu patris operante in terris et praedicante, necesse erat portionem spiritus sancti quae ex forma prophetici moduli in Ioanne egerat praeparaturam viarum dominicarum, abscedere iam ab Ioanne, redactam scilicet in dominum ut in massalem suam summam. [5] Itaque Ioannes communis iam homo, et unus iam de turba, scandalizabatur quidem qua homo, sed non qua alium Christum sperans vel intellegens, qui neque <haberet> unde speraret, ut nihil novi docentem vel operantem. Nemo haesitabit de aliquo quem dum scit non esse nec sperat nec intellegit; Ioannes autem certus erat neminem deum praeter creatorem, vel qua Iudaeus, etiam prophetes. Plane facilius quasi haesitavit de eo quem cum sciat esse an ipse sit nesciat. [6] Hoc igitur metu et Ioannes, Tu es, inquit, qui venis, an alium expectamus? simpliciter inquirens an ipse venisset quem expectabat. Tu es qui venis, id est qui venturus es, an alium expectamus? id est an alius est quem expectamus, si non tu es quem venturum expectamus? Sperabat enim, sicut omnes opinabantur, ex similitudine documentorum potuisse et prophetam interim missum esse, a quo alius esset, id est maior, ipse scilicet dominus, qui venturus expectabatur. Atque adeo hoc erat Ioannis scandalum quod dubitabat ipsum venisse quem expectabant, quem et praedicatis operationibus agnovisse debuerant, ut dominus per easdem operationes agnoscendum se nuntiaverit Ioanni. [7] Quae cum constent praedicata in Christum creatoris, sicut ad singula ostendimus, satis perversum ut Christum non creatoris per ea renuntiarit intellegendum per quae magis Christum creatoris agnosci compellebat. Multo perversius, si et testimohium Ioanni perhibet non Ioannis Christus, propheten eum confirmans, immo et supra ut angelum, ingerens etiam scriptum super illo: Ecce ego mitto angelum meum ante faciem tuam, qui praeparabit viam tuam; eleganter ad superiorem sensum scandalizati Ioannis commemorans prophetiam, ut confirmans praecursorem Ioannem iam advenisse extingueret scrupulum interrogationis illius: Tu es qui venis, an alium expectamus? Praecursore enim iam functo officium, praeparata via domini, ipse erat intellegendus cui praecursor ministraverat, [8] maior quidem omnibus natis mulierum: sed non ideo subiecto ei qui minor fuerit in regno dei, quasi alterius sit dei regnum in quo modicus quis maior erit Ioanne, alterius Ioannes qui omnibus natis mulierum maior sit. Sive enim de quocunque dicit modico per humilitatem, sive de semetipso quia minor Ioanne habebatur, omnibus scilicet in solitudinem concurrentibus ad Ioannem potius quam ad Christum (Quid existis videre in solitudinem?), tantundem et creatori competit et Ioannem ipsius esse maiorem natis mulierum, et Christum vel quemque modicum, qui maior Ioanne futurus sit in regno aeque creatoris, et qui sit maior tanto propheta, qui non fuerit scandalizatus in Christum, quod tunc Ioannem minuit. [9] Diximus de remissa peccatorum. Illius autem peccatricis feminae argumentum eo pertinebit, ut cum pedes domini osculis figeret, lacrimis inundaret, crinibus detergeret, unguento perduceret, solidi corporis veritatem, non phantasma inane, tractaverit, et ut peccatricis paenitentia secundum creatorem meruerit veniam, praeponere solitum sacrificio. Sed et si paenitentiae stimulus ex fide acciderat, per paenitentiam ex fide iustificatam ab eo audiit, Fides tua te salvam fecit, qui per Abacuc pronuntiarat, lustus ex fide sua vivet.18. [1] Likewise, when extolling the centurion's faith, how incredible a thing it is, that He should confess that He had "found so great a faith not even in Israel." to whom Israel's faith was in no way interesting! But not from the fact (here stated by Christ) could it have been of any interest to Him to approve and compare what was hitherto crude, nay, I might say, hitherto naught. Why, however, might He not have used the example of faith in another god? Because, if He had done so, He would have said that no such faith had ever had existence in Israel; but as the case stands, He intimates that He ought to have found so great a faith in Israel, inasmuch as He had indeed come for the purpose of finding it, being in truth the God and Christ of Israel, and had now stigmatized it, only as one who would enforce and uphold it. [2] If, indeed, He had been its antagonist, He would have preferred finding it to be such faith, having come to weaken and destroy it rather than to approve of it. He raised also the widow's son from death. This was not a strange miracle. The Creator's prophets had wrought such; then why not His Son much rather? [3] Now, so evidently had the Lord Christ introduced no other god for the working of so momentous a miracle as this, that all who were present gave glory to the Creator, saying: "A great prophet is risen up among us, and God hath visited His people." What God? He, of course, whose people they were, and from whom had come their prophets. But if they glorified the Creator, and Christ (on hearing them, and knowing their meaning) refrained from correcting them even in their very act of invoking the Creator in that vast manifestation of His glory in this raising of the dead, undoubtedly He either announced no other God but Him, whom He thus permitted to be honoured in His own beneficent acts and miracles, or else how happens it that He quietly permitted these persons to remain so long in their error, especially as He came for the very purpose to cure them of their error? [4] But John is offended when he hears of the miracles of Christ, as of an alien god. Well, I on my side will first explain the reason of his offence, that I may the more easily explode the scandal of our heretic. Now, that the very Lord Himself of all might, the Word and Spirit of the Father, was operating and preaching on earth, it was necessary that the portion of the Holy Spirit which, in the form of the prophetic gift, had been through John preparing the ways of the Lord, should now depart from John, and return back again of course to the Lord, as to its all-embracing original. [5] Therefore John, being now an ordinary person, and only one of the many, was offended indeed as a man, but not because he expected or thought of another Christ as teaching or doing nothing new, for he was not even expecting such a one. Nobody will entertain doubts about any one whom (since he knows him not to exist) he has no expectation or thought of. Now John was quite sure that there was no other God but the Creator, even as a Jew, especially as a prophet. Whatever doubt he felt was evidently rather entertained about Him whom he knew indeed to exist but knew not whether He were the very Christ. [6] With this fear, therefore, even John asks the question, "Art thou He that should come, or look we for another? " ----simply inquiring whether He was come as He whom he was looking for. "Art thou He that should come? "i.e. Art thou the coming One? "or look we for another? "i.e. Is He whom we are expecting some other than Thou, if Thou art not He whom we expect to come? For he was supposing, as all men then thought, from the similarity of the miraculous evidences, that a prophet might possibly have been meanwhile sent, from whom the Lord Himself, whose coming was then expected, was different, and to whom He was superior. And there lay John's difficulty. He was in doubt whether He was actually come whom all men were looking for; whom, moreover, they ought to have recognised by His predicted works, even as the Lord sent word to John, that it was by means of these very works that He was to be recognised. [7] Now, inasmuch as these predictions evidently related to the Creator's Christ----as we have proved in the examination of each of them----it was perverse enough, if he gave himself out to be not the Christ of the Creator, and rested the proof of his statement on those very evidences whereby he was urging his claims to be received as the Creator's Christ. Far greater still is his perverseness when, not being the Christ of John, he yet bestows on John his testimony, affirming him to be a prophet, nay more, his messenger, applying to him the Scripture, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." He graciously adduced the prophecy in the superior sense of the alternative mentioned by the perplexed John, in order that, by affirming that His own precursor was already come in the person of John, He might quench the doubt which lurked in his question: "Art thou He that, should come, or look we for another? "Now that the forerunner had fulfilled his mission, and the way of the Lord was prepared, He ought now to be acknowledged as that (Christ) for whom the forerunner had made ready the way. [8] That forerunner was indeed "greater than all of women born; " but for all that, He who was least in the kingdom of God was not subject to him; as if the kingdom in which the least person was greater than John belonged to one God, while John, who was greater than all of women born, belonged himself to another God. For whether He speaks of any "least person" by reason of his humble position, or of Himself, as being thought to be less than John----since all were running into the wilderness after John rather than after Christ ("What went ye out into the wilderness to see? " )----the Creator has equal right to claim as His own both John, greater than any born of women, and Christ, or every "least person in the kingdom of heaven," who was destined to be greater than John in that kingdom, although equally pertaining to the Creator, and who would be so much greater than the prophet, because he would not have been offended at Christ, an infirmity which then lessened the greatness of John. [9] We have already spoken of the forgiveness of sins. The behaviour of "the woman which was a sinner," when she covered the Lord's feet with her kisses, bathed them with her tears, wiped them with the hairs of her head, anointed them with ointment, produced an evidence that what she handled was not an empty phantom, but a really solid body, and that her repentance as a sinner deserved forgiveness according to the mind of the Creator, who is accustomed to prefer mercy to sacrifice. But even if the stimulus of her repentance proceeded from her faith, she heard her justification by faith through her repentance pronounced in the words, "Thy faith hath saved thee," by Him who had declared by Habakkuk, "The just shall live by his faith."

Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6830
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:04 pm

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.19-21.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUARTUS
Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV
19. [1] Quod divites Christo mulieres adhaerebant, quae et de facultatibus suis ministrabant ei, inter quas et uxor regis procuratoris, de prophetia est. Has enim vocabat per Esaiam: Mulieres divites, exsurgite et audite vocem meam: ut discipulas primo, dehinc ut operarias et ministras ostenderet: Filiae in spe audite sermones meos: diei anni mementote cum labore in spe; cum labore enim, quo sequebantur, et ob spem ministrabant. [2] Aeque de parabolis semel sufficiat probatum hoc genus eloquii a creatore promissum. At nunc illa quoque pronuntiatio eius ad populum, Aure audietis et non audietis, dedit Christo frequenter inculcare, Qui habet aures audiat: non quasi ex diversitate auditum permitteret Christus quem ademisset creator, sed quia comminationem exhortatio sequebatur. Primo, aure audietis et non audietis; dehinc, qui habet aures audiat. [3] Non enim audiebant ultro qui aures habebant, sed ostendebat aures cordis necessarias, quibus illos audituros negarat creator. Et ideo per Christum adicit: Videte quomodo audiatis et non audiatis, non corde scilicet audientes sed aure. Si dignum sensum pronuntiationi accommodes pro sensu eius qui auditui suscitabat, etiam dicendo, Videte quomodo audiatis, non audituris minabatur. Sane minatur mitissimus deus, quia nec iudicat nec irascitur. [4] Hoc probat etiam subiacens sensus. Ei qui habet dabitur, ab eo autem. qui non habet etiam quod habere se putat auferetur ei. Quid dabitur? Adiectio fidei vel intellectus vel salus ipsa. Quid auferetur? Utique quod dabitur. A quo dabitur et auferetur? Si a creatore auferetur, ab eo et dabitur. Si a deo Marcionis dabitur, ab eo et auferetur. [5] Quoquo tamen nomine comminatur ablationem, non erit eius dei qui nescit comminari quia non novit irasci. Miror autem cum lucernam negat abscondi solere, qui se tanto saeculo absconderat maius et necessarius lumen, cum omnia de occulto in apertum repromittit, qui deum suum usque adhuc obumbrat, expectans, opinor, nasci Marcionem. [6] Venimus ad constantissimum argurnentum omnium qui domini nativitatem in controversiam deferunt. Ipse, inquiunt, contestatur se non esse natum dicendo, Quae mihi mater, et qui mihi fratres? Ita semper haeretici aut nudas et simplices voces coniecturis quo volunt rapiunt, aut rursus condicionales et rationales simplicitatis condicione dissolvunt, ut hoc in loco. [7] Nos contrario dicimus primo non potuisse illi annuntiari quod mater et fratres eius foris starent quaerentes videre eum, si nulla illi mater et fratres nulli fuissent, quos utique norat qui annuntiarat vel retro notos vel tunc ibidem compertos, dum eum videre desiderant, vel dum ipsi nuntium mandant. Ad hanc primam propositionem nostram solet ex diverso responderi: Quid enim si temptandi gratia nuntiatum est ei? Sed hoc scriptura non dicit, quae quanto significare solet ex temptatione quid factum (Ecce legis doctor adsurrexit temptans eum: et de tributi consultatione, Et accesserunt ad eum pharisaei temptantes eum), tanto, ubi non facit temptationis mentionem, non admittit temptationis interpretationem. [8] Et tamen ex abundanti causas temptationis expostulo, cui rei temptaverint illum per nominationem matris et fratrum. Si ut scirent natusne esset an non: quando de hoc fuit quaestio quam ex ista temptatione discuterent? [9] Quis autem dubitaret natum, quem videret hominem, quem audisset filium se hominis professum, quem de conspectu omnis humanae qualitatis dubitarent deum aut filium dei credere, propheten facilius existimantes licet magnum aliquem, utique tamen natum? Etiamsi in exploratione nativitatis temptandus fuisset, quodcunque aliud argumentum temptationi competisset quam per earum personarum mentionem quas potuit etiam natus non habere. [10] Dic mihi, omnibus natis mater advivit? omnibus natis adgenerantur et fratres? non licet patres magis et sorores habere, vel et neminem? Sed et census constat actos sub Augusto nunc in Iudaea per Sentium Saturninum, apud quos genus eius inquirere potuissent. Adeo nullo modo constitit ratio temptationis istius, et vere mater et fratres eius foris stabant. Superest et inspicere sensum non simpliciter pronuntiantis, Quae mihi mater aut fratres? quasi ad generis et nativitatis negationem, sed et ex causae necessitate et condicione rationali. [11] Tam proximas enim personas foris stare extraneis intus defixis ad sermones eius, amplius et avocare eum a sollemni opere quaerentes, merito indignatus est. Non tam abnegavit quam abdicavit. Atque adeo cum praemisisset, Quae mihi mater et qui mihi fratres? subiungens, Nisi qui audiunt verba mea et faciunt ea, transtulit sanguinis nomina in alios, quos magis proximos pro fide iudicaret. [12] Nemo autem transfert quid nisi ab eo qui habet id quod transfert. Si ergo matrem et fratres eos fecit qui non erant, quomodo negavit eos qui erant? Meritorum scilicet condicione, non ex proximorum negatione, in semetipso docens qui patrem aut matrem aut fratres praeponeret verbo dei non esse dignum discipulum. Ceterum ex hoc magis matrem et fratres confitebatur quod illos nolebat agnoscere. [13] Quod alios adoptabat, confirmabat quos ex offensa negavit, quibus non ut veriores substituit sed ut digniores. Denique nihil magnum si fidem sanguini praeposuit quem non habebat.19. [1] The fact that certain rich women clave to Christ, "which ministered unto Him of their substance," amongst whom was the wife of the king's steward, is a subject of prophecy. By Isaiah the Lord called these wealthy ladies----"Rise up, ye women that are at ease, and hear my voice" ----that He might prove them first as disciples, and then as assistants and helpers: "Daughters, hear my words in hope; this day of the year cherish the memory of, in labour with hope." For it was "in labour" that they followed Him, and "with hope" did they minister to Him. [2] On the subject of parables, let it suffice that it has been once for all shown that this kind of language was with equal distinctness promised by the Creator. But there is that direct mode of His speaking to the people"Ye shall hear with the ear, but ye shall not understand" ----which now claims notice as having furnished to Christ that frequent form of His earnest instruction: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Not as if Christ, actuated with a diverse spirit, permitted a hearing which the Creator had refused; but because the exhortation followed the threatening. First came, "Ye shall hear with the ear, but shall not understand; "then followed, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." [3] For they wilfully refused to hear, although they had ears. He, however, was teaching them that it was the ears of the heart which were necessary; and with these the Creator had said that they would not hear. Therefore it is that He adds by His Christ, "Take heed how ye hear," and hear not,----meaning, of course, with the hearing of the heart, not of the ear. If you only attach a proper, sense to the Creator's admonition suitable to the meaning of Him who was rousing the people to hear by the words, "Take heed how ye hear," it amounted to a menace to such as would not hear. In fact, that most merciful god of yours, who judges not, neither is angry, is minatory. [4] This is proved even by the sentence which immediately follows: "Whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have." What shall be given? The increase of faith, or understanding, or even salvation. What shall be taken away? That, of course, which shall be, given. By whom shall the gift and the deprivation be made? If by the Creator it be taken away, by Him also shall it be given. If by Marcion's god it be given, by Marcion's god also will it be taken away. [5] Now, for whatever reason He threatens the "deprivation," it will not be the work of a god who knows not how to threaten, because incapable of anger. I am, moreover, astonished when he says that "a candle is not usually hidden," who had hidden himself----a greater and more needful light----during so long a time; and when he promises that "everything shall be brought out of its secrecy and made manifest," who hitherto has kept his god in obscurity, waiting (I suppose) until Marcion be born. [6] We now come to the most strenuously-plied argument of all those who call in question the Lord's nativity. They say that He testifies Himself to His not having been born, when He asks, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? " In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution, as in this passage. [7] We, for our part, say in reply, first, that it could not possibly have been told Him that His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to see Him, if He had had no mother and no brethren. They must have been known to him who announced them, either some time previously, or then at that very time, when they desired to see Him, or sent Him their message. To this our first position this answer is usually given by the other side. But suppose they sent Him the message for the purpose of tempting Him? Well, but the Scripture does not say so; and inasmuch as it is usual for it to indicate what is done in the way of temptation ("Behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him; " again, when inquiring about tribute, the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him ), so, when it makes no mention of temptation, it does not admit the interpretation of temptation. [8] However, although I do not allow this sense, I may as well ask, by way of a superfluous refutation, for the reasons of the alleged temptation, To what purpose could they have tempted Him by naming His mother and His brethren? If it was to ascertain whether He had been born or not----when was a question raised on this point, which they must resolve by tempting Him in this way? [9] Who could doubt His having 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 answered the trial than that to be obtained from mentioning those relatives which it was quite possible for Him, in spite of His true nativity, not at that moment to have had. [10] For tell me now, does a mother live on contemporaneously with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them? May a man rather not have fathers and sisters (living), or even no relatives at all? But there is historical proof that at this very time a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus, which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it and they "who were standing without" were really "His mother and His brethren." It remains for us to examine His meaning when He resorts to non-literal 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. [11] He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him" stood without," while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow them. And therefore, when to the previous question, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? 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. [12] Now no one transfers a thing except from him who possesses that which is transferred. If, therefore, He made them "His mother and His brethren" who were not so, how could He deny them these relationships who really had them? Surely only on the condition of their deserts, and not by any disavowal of His near relatives; teaching them by His own actual example, that "whosoever preferred father or mother or brethren to the Word of God, was not a disciple worthy of Him." Besides, His admission of His mother and His brethren was the more express, from the fact of His unwillingness to acknowledge them. [13] That He adopted others only confirmed those in their relationship to Him whom He refused because of their offence, and for whom He substituted the others, not as being truer relatives, but worthier ones. Finally, it was no great matter if He did prefer to kindred (that) faith which it did not possess.
20. [1] Quis autem iste est qui et ventis et mari imperat? nimirum novus dominator atque possessor elementorum subacti iam et exclusi creatoris? Non ita est. Sed agnorant substantiae auctorem suum, quae famulis quoque eius obaudire consueverant. Inspice Exodum, Marcion, aspice mari rubro, vastiori super omnia stagna Iudaeae, virgam Moysi imperantem, ut funditus proscissum et pari utrinque stupore discriminis fixum sicco populum pede intestino itinere transmitteret, rursusque sub eiusdem virgae nutu redeunte natura Aegyptium exercitum undarum concordia obrueret, in quod opus et austri servierunt. [2] Lege ex sorte familiae dirimendae in transitu eius Iordanis machaeram fuisse, cuius impetum atque decursum plane et Iesus docuerat prophetis transmeantibus stare. Quid ad haec? Si tuus Christus est, non erit potentior famulis creatoris. Sed his solis exemplis usus essem, si non etiam praedicatio marinae istius expeditionis Christum antecessisset. [3] Nam cum transfretat, psalmus expungitur: Dominus, inquit, super aquas multas. Cum undas freti discutit, Abacuc adimpletur: Dispargens, inquit, aquas itinere. Cum ad minas eius eliditur mare, Naum quoque absolvitur: Comminans, inquit, mari et arefaciens illud, utique cum ventis quibus inquietabatur. Unde vis meum vindicem Christum? de exemplis an de prophetis creatoris? [4] Age nunc, qui militarem et armatum bellatorem praedicari putas, non figurate nec allegorice, qui bellum spiritale adversus spiritales hostes spiritali militia et spiritalibus armis spiritaliter debellaturus esset, cum invenis in uno homine multitudinem daemonum, legionem se professam, utique spiritalem, disce et Christum expugnatorem spiritalium hostium spiritaliter armatum et spiritaliter bellicosum intellegendum, atque ita ipsum esse qui cum legione quoque daemonum erat dimicaturus; ut et de hoc bello psalmus possit videri pronuntiasse, Dominus validus, dominus potens in bello. [5] Nam cum ultimo hoste morte proeliatus per tropaeum crucis triumphavit. Cuius autem dei filium Iesum legio testata est? Sine dubio cuius tormenta et abyssum noverant et timebant. Nec enim videntur posse ignorasse adhuc quod novi et ignoti dei virtus operaretur in terris, quia verisimile non est creatorem ignorasse. Si enim alium supra se deum ignoraverat aliquando, tamen iam infra caelum suum agentem utique compererat. [6] Quod autem dominus comperisset, iam et universae familiae innotuisset in eodem mundo et intra eundem ambitum caeli quo peregrina divinitas conversaretur. In quantum ergo et creator scisset eam, et substantiae eius, si fuisset, in tantum, quia nulla fuit, non alium daemones sciebant quam dei sui Christum. Non enim depetunt ab alio quod meminissent petendum sibi a creatore, veniam scilicet abyssi creatoris. Denique impetraverunt. [7] Quo merito? Quia mentiti erant, quia saevi dei filium eum fecerant? Et qualis erit qui mentitos iuvabat, qui infamantes sustinebat? Sed enim quia mentiti non erant, quia deum abyssi et suum cognoverant, ita eum se et ipse confirmavit quem cognoverunt daemones, Iesum iudicem et ultoris dei filium. Ecce aliquid et de illis pusillitatibus et infirrnitatibus creatoris in Christo. Ignorantiam enim et ego adscribere ei volo. Permittite mihi adversus haereticum. Tangitur a femina quae sanguine fluitabat, et nescivit a qua. [8] Quis me, inquit, tetigit? Etiam excusantibus discipulis perseverat in ignorantiae voce: Tetigit me aliquis; idque de argumento affirmat: Sensi enim virtutem ex me profectam. Quid dicit haereticus? Sciebatne personam? Et cur quasi ignorans loquebatur? Ut confessionem certe provocaret, ut timorem probaret. Sic et Adam aliquando quaesierat quasi ignorans, Adam ubi es? Habes et creatorem cum Christo excusatum et Christum creatori adaequatum. [9] Sed et hoc qua adversarius legis, ut quia lex a contactu feminae sanguinantis summovet, idcirco gestierit non tantum contactum eius admittere, sed etiam sanitatem donare. O deum non natura beneficum, sed aemulatione! At enim, si fidem mulieris invenimus ita meruisse, cum dicit, Fides tua te salvam fecit, quis es, ut aemulationem legis interpreteris in isto facto, quod ipse dominus ex fidei remuneratione editum ostendit? [10] Sed hanc vis mulieris fidem constituere qua contempserat legem. Et cui credibile ut mulier nullius adhuc dei conscia, nullius adhuc novae legis initiata, legem inrumperet eam cui adhuc tenebatur? Qua denique fide inrupit? in quem deum credens? quem spernens? Creatorem? Certe enim ex fide tetigit. Si ex fide creatoris, quae alium deum ignorabat, ecquomodo legem eius inrupit? Tam enim inrupit, si inrupit, quam ex fide creatoris. [11] Quomodo enim utrumque conveniet, ut et inruperit, et ex fide eam inruperit propter quam inrupisse non debuit? Dicam. Fides haec fuit primo, qua deum suum confidebat misericordiam malle quam ipsum sacrificium, qua eum deum certa erat operari in Christo, qua sic eum tetigit, non ut hominem sanctum, nec ut prophetam, quem contaminabilem pro humana substantia sciret, sed ut ipsum deum, quem nulla spurcitia pollui posse praesumpserat. [12] Itaque non ternere interpretata est sibi legem, ea contaminari significantem quae essent contaminabilia, non deum, quem in Christo confidebat. Sed et illud recogitavit, ordinarium et sollemnem menstrui vel partualis sanguinis fluxum in lege taxari, qui veniat ex officio naturae non ex vitio valetudinis. Illa autem ex vitio valetudinis redundabat, cui non modum temporis, sed divinae misericordiae auxilium necessarium sciebat. [13] Atque ita potest videri legem non inrupisse, sed distinxisse. Haec erit fides quae contulerat etiam intellectum: Nisi credideritis, inquit, non intellegetis. Hanc fidem probans Christus eius feminae, quae solum credebat creatorem, eius fidei se deum respondit quam probavit. Nec illud omittam, quod dum tangitur vestimentum eius, utique corpori non phantasmati inditum, corpus quoque demonstrabatur; non quasi iam de hoc retractemus, sed quia ad praesentem conspirat quaestionem. [14] Si enim non erat veritas corporis, phantasma utique contaminari, qua res vacua, non posset. Qui ergo non potest contaminari prae inanitate substantiae, quomodo voluisset? Ut aemulus legis, mentiebatur qui non vere polluebatur.20. [1] 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 deposed, and excluded from their possession! Nothing of the kind. But the elements own their own Maker, just as they had been accustomed to obey His servants also. Examine well the Exodus, Marcion; look at the rod of Moses, as it waves His command to the Red Sea, ampler than all the lakes of 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 returns in its strength, and in the concourse of its waters the chivalry of Egypt is engulphed! To that consummation the very winds subserved! [2] 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! What will you say to this? If it be your Christ that is meant above, he will not be more potent than the servants of the Creator. But I should have been content with the examples I have adduced without addition, if a prediction of His present passage on the sea had not preceded Christ's coming. [3] 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 passage." When 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 vindicated? Shall it come from the examples, or from the prophecies, of the Creator? [4] You suppose that He is predicted as a military and armed warrior, instead of one who in a figurative and allegorical sense was to wage a spiritual warfare against spiritual enemies, in spiritual campaigns, and with spiritual weapons: come now, when in one man alone you discover a multitude of demons calling itself Legion, of course comprised of spirits, you should learn that Christ also must be understood to be an exterminator of spiritual foes, who wields spiritual arms and fights in spiritual strife; and that it was none other than He, who now had to contend with even a legion of demons. Therefore it is of such a war as this that the Psalm may evidently have spoken: "The Lord is strong, The Lord is mighty in battle." [5] 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 remained up to this time in ignorance of what the power of the recent and unknown god was working in the world, because it is very unlikely that the Creator was ignorant thereof. For if He had been at any time ignorant that there was another god above Himself, He had by this time at all events discovered that there was one at work below His heaven. [6] 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. [7] 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 acknowledged that the God of the abyss was also their God, so did He actually Himself affirm that He was the same whom these demons acknowledged----Jesus, the Judge and Son of the avenging God. Now, behold an inkling 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. [8] "Who touched me?" He asks, when His disciples alleged an excuse. He even persists in His assertion of ignorance: "Somebody hath touched me," He says, and advances some proof: "For I perceive that virtue is gone out of me." What says our heretic? Could Christ have known the person? And why did He speak as if He were ignorant? Why? Surely it was to challenge her faith, and to try her fear. Precisely as He had once questioned Adam, as if in ignorance: Adam, where art thou? " Thus you have both the Creator excused in the same way as Christ, and Christ acting similarly to the Creator. [9] 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 desired not only that this woman should touch Him, but that He should heal her. Here, then, is a God who is not merciful by nature, but in hostility! Yet, if we find that such was the merit of this woman's faith, that He said unto her, Thy faith hath saved thee." what are you, that you should detect an hostility to the law in that act, which the Lord Himself shows us to have been done as a reward of faith? [10] But will you have it that this faith of the woman consisted in the contempt which she had acquired for the law? Who can suppose, that a woman who had been. hitherto unconscious of any God, uninitiated as yet in any new law, should violently infringe that law by which she was up to this time bound? On what faith, indeed, was such an infringement hazarded? In what God believing? Whom despising? The Creator? Her touch at least was an act of faith. And if of faith in the Creator, how could she have violated His law, 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. [11] 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, nor as a holy man simply, nor as a prophet, whom she knew to be capable of contamination by reason of his human nature, but as very God, whom she assumed to be beyond all possibility of pollution by any uncleanness. [12] She therefore, not without reason, interpreted for herself the law, as meaning that such things as are susceptible of defilement become defiled, but not so God, whom she knew for certain to be in Christ. But she recollected this also, that what came under the prohibition of the law 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 natural relief of time. [13] 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 intelligence likewise. "If ye will not believe," says (the prophet), "ye shall not understand." 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 overlook 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. [14] For if it were not a veritable body, but only a fantastic one, it could not for certain have received contamination, as being an unsubstantial thing. He therefore, who, by reason of this vacuity of his substance, 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.
21. [1] Dimittit discipulos ad praedicandum dei regnum. Numquid vel hic edidit cuius? Prohibet eos victui aut vestitui quid in viam ferre. Quis hoc mandasset, nisi qui et corvos alit et flores agri vestit, qui bovi quoque terenti libertatem oris ad veniam pabuli ex opere summovendi ante praecepit, quia dignus operarius mercede sua? Haec Marcion deleat, dum sensui salva sint. At cum iubet pulverem excutere de pedibus in eos a quibus excepti non fuissent, et hoc in testimonium mandat fieri. [2] Nemo testatur quod non iudicio destinatur; inhumanitatem qui in testationem redigi iubet, iudicem comminatur. Nullum deum novum a Christo probatum illa etiam opinio omnium declaravit, qnia Christum Iesum alii Ioannem, alii Heliam, alii unum aliquem ex veteribus prophetis Herodi adseverabant. Ex quibus quicunque fuisset, non utique ob hoc est suscitatus ut alium deum post resurrectionem praedicaret. Pascit populum in solitudine, de pristino scilicet more. [3] Aut si non eadem et maiestas, ergo iam minor est creatore, qui non uno die sed annis quadraginta, nec de inferioribus materiis panis et piscis sed de manna caelesti, nec quinque circiter sed sexcenta milia hominum protelavit. [4] Adeo autem ea fuit maiestas ut et pabuli exiguitatem non tantum sufficere, veram etiam exuberare de pristino voluerit exemplo. Sic enim et in tempore famis sub Helia viduae Sareptensi modica et suprema alimenta ex prophetae benedictione per totum famis tempus redundaverant. Habes tertiam Basiliarum. [5] Si et quartam resolvas, invenies totum hunc ordinem Christi circa illum dei hominem qui oblatos sibi decem hordeaceos panes cum populo distribui iussisset, et minister eius proinde comparata multitudine et pabuli mediocritate respondisset, Quid ego hoc dem in conspectu centum hominum? Da, inquit, et manducabunt, quoniam haec dicit dominus, Manducabunt et relinquent reliquias secundum dictum domini. O Christum et in novis veterem! [6] Haec itaque qui viderat Petrus et cum pristinis compararat, et non tantum retro facta, sed et in futurum iam tunc prophetantia recognoverat, interroganti domino quisnam illis videretur, cum pro omnibus responderet, Tu es Christus, non potest novum eum sensisse Christum, nisi quem noverat in scripturis, quem iam recensebat in factis. Hoc et ipse confirmat usque adhuc patiens, immo et silentium indicens. Si enim Petrus quidem non poterat alium eum confiteri quam creatoris, ille autem praecepit ne cui hoc dicerent, utique id noluit provulgari quod Petrus senserat. [7] Immo, inquis, quia non recte senserat, noluit mendacium disseminari. Sed aliam silentii causam edixit, quia oporteret filium hominis multa pati, et reprobari a presbyteris et scribis et sacerdotibus, et interfici, et post tertium diem resurgere. Quae cum praedicata sint et ipsa in Christum creatoris, sicut suis locis implebimus, sic quoque ipsum se ostendit esse in quem praedicabantur. [8] Certe et si non essent praedicata, eam causam indicti silentii protulit quae non Petri errorem demonstraret, obeundarum passionum necessitatem. Qui voluerit, inquit, animam suam salvam facere, perdet illam, et qui perdiderit eam propter me, salvam faciet eam. Certe filius hominis hanc sententiam emisit. Perspice igitur et tu cum rege Babylonio fornacem eius ardentem, et invenies illic tanquam filium hominis (nondum enim vere erat, nondum scilicet natus ex homine) iam tunc istos exitus constituentem. Salvas facit animas trium fratrum, qui eas pro deo perdere conspiraverant, Chaldaeorum vero perdidit, quas illi per idololatriam salvas facere maluerant. Quae est ista nova doctrina cuius vetera documenta sunt? [9] Quamquam et praedicationes martyriorum tam futurorum quam a deo mercedem relaturorum decucurrerunt. Vide, inquit Esaias, quomodo perit iustus, et nemo excipit corde, et viri iusti auferuntur, et nemo considerat. Quando magis hoc fit quam in persecutione sanctorum eius? Utique non simplex, nec de naturae lege communis, sed illa insignis et pro fide militaris, in qua qui animam suam propter deum perdit, servat illam, ut et hic tamen iudicem cognoscas, qui malum animae lucrum perditione eius et bonum animae detrimentum salute eius remuneratur. [10] Sed et zeloten deum mihi exhibet, malum malo reddentem: Qui confusus, inquit, mei fuerit, et ego confundar eius. Quando nec confusionis materia conveniat nisi meo Christo, cuius ordo magis pudendus, ut etiam haereticorum conviciis pateat, omnem nativitatis et educationis foeditatem et ipsius etiam carnis indignitatem quanta amaritudine possunt perorantibus. [11] Ceterum quomodo ille erit obnoxius confusionis qui eam non capit? non vulva licet virginis, tamen feminae, coagulatus, et si non semine, tamen ex lege substantiae corporalis, ex feminae humore, non caro habitus ante formam, non pecus dictus post figuram, non decem mensium cruciatu deliberatus, non subita dolorum concussione cum tanti temporis coeno per corporis cloacam effusus ad terram, nec statim lucem lacrimis auspicatus et primo retinaculi sui vulnere, nec mulso ablutus, nec sale ac melle medicatus, nec pannis iam sepulturae involucrum initiatus, nec exinde per immunditias inter sinus volutatus, molestus uberibus, diu infans, vix puer, tarde homo, sed de caelo expositus, semel grandis, semel totus, statim Christus, spiritus et virtus et deus tantum. Ceterum ut non verus, qui non videbatur, ita nec de crucis maledicto erubescendus, cuius carebat veritate, carens corpore. [12] Non poterat itaque dixisse, Qui mei confusus fuerit. Noster hoc debuit pronuntiasse, minoratus a patre modico citra angelos, vermis et non homo, ignominia hominis et nullificamen populi, quatenus ita voluit ut livore eius sanaremur, ut dedecore eius salus nostra constaret. Et merito se pro suo homine deposuit, pro imagine et similitudine sua, non aliena, ut quoniam homo non erubuerat lapidem et lignum adorans, eadem constantia non confusus de Christo, pro impudentia idololatriae satis deo faceret per impudentiam fidei. Quid horum Christo tuo competit, Marcion, ad meritum confusionis? Plane pudere te debet quod illum ipse finxisti.21. [1] He sends forth His disciples to preach the kingdom of God. Does He here say of what God? He forbids their taking anything for their journey, by way of either food or raiment. Who would have given such a commandment as this, but He who feeds the ravens and clothes 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 precepts, but no matter, provided the sense of them survives. But when He charges them to shake off the dust of their feet against such as should refuse to receive them, He also bids that this be done as a witness. [2] Now no one bears witness except in a case which is decided by judicial process; and whoever orders inhuman conduct to be submitted to the trial by testimony, does really threaten as a judge. Again, that it was no new god which recommended by Christ, was dearly attested by the opinion of all men, because some maintained to Herod that Jesus was the Christ; others, that He was John; some, that He was Elias; and others, that He was one of the old prophetess. Now, whosoever of all these He might have been, He certainly was not raised up for the purpose of announcing another god after His resurrection. He feeds the multitude in the desert place; this, you must know was after the manner of the Old Testament. [3] 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. [4] However, such was the greatness of His miracle, that He willed the slender supply of food, not only to be enough, but even to prove superabundant; 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. [5] If you also turn to the fourth book, you will discover all this conduct of Christ pursued by that man of God, who ordered ten barley loaves which had been given him to be distributed among the people; and when his servitor, after contrasting the large number of the persons with the small supply of the food, answered, "What, shall I set this before a hundred men? "he said again, "Give them, and they shall eat: for thus saith the Lord, They shall eat, and shall leave thereof, according to the word of the Lord." O Christ, even in Thy novelties Thou art old! [6] Accordingly, when Peter, who had been an eye-witness of the miracle, and had compared it with the ancient precedents, and had discovered in them prophetic intimations of what should one day come to pass, answered (as the mouthpiece of them all) the Lord's inquiry, "Whom say ye that I am? " in the words, "Thou art the Christ," he could not but have perceived that He was that Christ, beside whom he knew of none else in the Scriptures, and whom he was now surveying in His wonderful deeds. This conclusion He even Himself confirms by thus far bearing with it, nay, even enjoining silence respecting it. For if Peter was unable to acknowledge Him to be any other than the Creator's Christ, while He commanded them "to tell no man that saying," surely He was unwilling to have the conclusion promulged which Peter had drawn. [7] No doubt of that, you say; but as Peter's conclusion was a wrong one, therefore He was unwilling to have a lie disseminated. It was, however, a different reason which He assigned for the silence, even because "the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and scribes, and priests, and be slain, and be raised again the third day." Now, inasmuch as these sufferings were actually foretold for the Creator's Christ (as we shall fully show in the proper place ), so by this application of them to His own case does He prove that it is He Himself of whom they were predicted. [8] At all events, even if they had not been predicted, the reason which He alleged for imposing silence (on the disciples) was such as made it clear enough that Peter had made no mistake, that reason being the necessity of His undergoing these sufferings. "Whosoever," says He, "will save his life, shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it." Surely it is the Son of man who uttered this sentence. Look carefully, then, along with the king of Babylon, into his burning fiery furnace, and there you will discover one "like the Son of man" (for He was not yet really Son of man, because not yet born of man), even as early as then appointing issues such as these. He saved the lives of the three brethren, who had agreed to lose them for God's sake; but He destroyed those of the Chaldaeans, when they had preferred to save them by the means of their idolatry. Where is that novelty, which you pretend in a doctrine which possesses these ancient proofs? [9] But all the predictions have been fulfilled concerning martyrdoms which were to happen, and were to receive the recompenses of their reward from God. "See," says Isaiah, "how the righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart; and just men are taken away, and no man considereth." When does this more frequently happen than in the persecution of His saints? This, indeed, is no ordinary matter, no common casualty of the law of nature; but it is that illustrious devotion, that fighting for the faith, wherein whosoever loses his life for God saves it, so that you may here again recognize the Judge who recompenses the evil gain of life with its destruction, and the good loss thereof with its salvation. [10] It is, however, a jealous God whom He here presents to me one who returns evil for evil. "For whosoever," says He, "shall be ashamed of me, of him will I also be ashamed." Now to none but my Christ can be assigned the occasion of such a shame as this. His whole course was so exposed to shame as to open a way for even the taunts of heretics, declaiming with all the bitterness in their power against the utter disgrace of His birth and bringing-up, and the unworthiness of His very flesh. [11] But how can that Christ of yours be liable to a shame, which it is impossible for him to experience? Since he was never condensed into human flesh in the womb of a woman, although a virgin; never grew from human seed, although only after the law of corporeal substance, from the fluids of a woman; was never deemed flesh before shaped in the womb; never called foetus after such shaping; was never delivered from a ten months' writhing in the womb; was never shed forth upon the ground, amidst the sudden pains of parturition, with the unclean issue which flows at such a time through the sewerage of the body, forthwith to inaugurate the light of life with tears, and with that primal wound which severs the child from her who bears him; never received the copious ablution, nor the meditation of salt and honey; nor did he initiate a shroud with swaddling clothes; nor afterwards did he ever wallow in his own uncleanness, in his mother's lap; nibbling at her breast; long an infant; gradually a boy; by slow degrees a man. But he was revealed from heaven, full-grown at once, at once complete; immediately Christ; simply spirit, and power, and god. But as withal he was not true, because not visible; therefore he was no object to be ashamed of from the curse of the cross, the real endurance of which he escaped, because wanting in bodily substance. [12] Never, therefore, could he have said, "Whosoever shall be ashamed of me." But as for our Christ, He could do no otherwise than make such a declaration; "made" by the Father "a little lower than the angels," "a worm and no man, a reproach of men, and despised of the people; " seeing that it was His will that "with His stripes we should be healed," that by His humiliation our salvation should be established. And justly did He humble Himself for His own creature man, for the image and likeness of Himself, and not of another, in order that man, since he had not felt ashamed when bowing down to a stone or a stock, might with similar courage give satisfaction to God for the shamelessness of his idolatry, by displaying an equal degree of shamelessness in his faith, in not being ashamed of Christ. Now, Marcion, which of these courses is better suited to your Christ, in respect of a meritorious shame? Plainly, you ought yourself to blush with shame for having given him a fictitious existence.

Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 6830
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: A collection of witnesses to the Marcionite texts.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:04 pm

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.22-24.

TERTVLLIANI ADVERSVS MARCIONEM LIBER QUARTUS
Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book IV
22. [1] Nam et hoc vel maxime erubescere debuisti, quod illum cum Moyse et Helia in secessu montis conspici pateris, quorum destructor advenerat. Hoc scilicet intellegi voluit vox illa de caelo: Hic est filius meus dilectus, hunc audite! id est non Moysen iam et Heliam. Ergo sufficiebat vox sola sine ostentatione Moysi et Heliae. Definiendo enim quem audirent quoscunque alios vetuisset audiri. [2] Aut numquid Esaiam et Hieremiam ceterosque quos non ostendit permisit audiri, si vetuit quos ostendit? Nunc et si praesentia illorum fuit necessaria, non utique in colloquio ostenderentur, quod familiaritatis indicium est, nec in consortio claritatis, quod dignationis et gratiae exemplum est, sed in sordibus aliquibus, quod destructionis argumentum est, immo in tenebris creatoris, quibus discutiendis erat missus, longe etiam discreti a claritate Christi, qui voces et litteras ipsas eorum ab evangelio suo erat separaturus. [3] Sicine alienos demonstrat illos, dum secum habet ? Sic relinquendos docet, quos sibi iungit? Sic destruit, quos de radiis suis exstruit? Quid faceret Christus ipsorum? Credo, secundum perversitatem tales eos revelasset quales Christus Marcionis debuisset, aut quoscunque alios secum quam prophetas suos. Sed quid tam Christus creatoris quam secum ostendere praedicatores suos? cum illis videri quibus in revelationibus erat visus? cum illis loqui qui eum fuerant locuti? cum eis gloriam suam communicare a quibus dominus gloriae nuncupabatur? cum principalibus suis, quorum alter populi informator aliquando, alter reformator quandoque, alter initiator veteris testamenti, alter consummator novi. [4] Igitur et Petrus merito contubernium Christi sui agnoscens individuitate eius suggerit consilium: Bonum est nos hic esse (bonum plane ubi Moyses scilicet et Helias), et faciamus hic tria tabernacula, unum tibi, et Moysi unum, et Heliae unum; sed nesciens quid diceret. Quomodo nesciens? Utrumne simplici errore, an ratione qua defendimus in causa novae prophetiae gratiae ecstasin, id est amentiam, convenire? [5] In spiritu enim homo constitutus, praesertim cum gloriam dei conspicit, vel cum per ipsum deus loquitur, necesse est excidat sensu, obumbratus scilicet virtute divina, de quo inter nos et psychicos quaestio est. Interim facile est amentiam Petri probare. Quomodo enim Moysen et Heliam cognovisset, nisi in spiritu (nec enim imagines eorum vel statuas populus habuisset, et similitudines lege prohibente) nisi quia in spiritu viderat? Et ita quod dixisset in spiritu non in sensu constitutus, scire non poterat. [6] Ceterum si sic nescit quasi errans, eo quod putaret illorum esse Christum, ergo iam constat et supra Petrum interrogatum a Christo quem se existimarent, ut de creatoris dixisse, Tu es Christus; quia si tunc alterius dei illum cognovisset, hic quoque non errasset. Quodsi ideo et hic erravit quia et supra, ergo certus es in illum diem quoque nullam novam divinitatem a Christo revelatam, et usque adhuc non errasse Petrum, Christo usque adhuc nihil eiusmodi revelante, et tamdiu non alterius deputandum Christum quam creatoris, cuius omnem et hic ordinem expressit. [7] Tres de discentibus arbitros futurae visionis et vocis assumit. Et hoc creatoris est. In tribus, inquit, testibus stabit omne verbum. In montem secedit. Agnosco formam loci. Nam et pristinum populum apud montem et visione et voce sua creator initiarat. Oportebat in eo suggestu consignari novum testamentum in quo conscriptum vetus fuerat, sub eodem etiam ambitu nubis, quam nemo dubitabit de aere creatoris conglobatam: nisi et nubes suas illo deduxerat, quia et ipse per caelum creatoris viam ruperat; aut proinde et nubilo creatoris precario usus est. [8] Itaque nec nunc muta nubes fuit, sed vox solita de caelo, et patris novum testimonium super filio, ut qui in primo psalmo: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te. De quo et per Esaiam: Quis deum metuens audiat vocem filii eius? [9] Itaque iam repraesentans eum, Hic est filius meus, utique subauditur, Quem repromisi. Si enim repromisit aliquando, et postea dicit, Hic est, eius est exhibentis voce uti in demonstratione promissi qui aliquando promisit, non eius cui possit responderi, Ipse enim tu quis es qui dicas, Hic est filius meus, de quo non magis praemisisti quam te ipsum quod prius eras revelasti? [10] Hunc igitur audite quem ab initio edixerat audiendum in nomine prophetae, quoniam et prophetes existimari habebat a populo. Prophetam, inquit Moyses, suscitabit vobis deus ex filiis vestris, secundum carnalem scilicet censum, tanquam me audietis illum: omnis autem qui illum non audierit, exterminabitur anima eius de populo suo. Sic et Esaias: Quis in vobis metuens <deum>? Exaudiat vocem filii eius. Quam et ipse pater commendaturus erat. Sistens enim, inquit, verba filii sui, dicendo scilicet, Hic est filius meus dilectus, hunc audite. [11] Itaque et si facta translatio sit auditionis a Moyse et Helia in Christo, sed non ut ab alio deo, nec ad alium Christum, sed a creatore in Christum eius, secundum decessionem veteris et successionem novi testamenti. Non legatus, inquit Esaias, nec nuntius, sed ipse deus salvos eos faciet, ipse iam praedicans et implens legem et prophetas. [12] Tradidit igitur pater filio discipulos novos, ostensis prius cum illo Moyse et Helia in claritatis praerogativa, atque ita dimissis, quasi iam et officio et honore dispunctis, ut hoc ipsum confirmaretur propter Marcionem, societatem esse etiam claritatis Christi cum Moyse et Helia. Totum autem habitum visionis istius habemus etiam apud Abacuc, ubi spiritus ex persona interdum apostolorum: Domine, audivi auditum tuum, et extimui. Quem magis quam vocis caelestis illius: Hic est filius meus dilectus, hunc audite? Consideravi opera tua, et excidi mente. Quando magis quam cum visa claritate eius nesciit quid diceret Petrus? In medio duorum animalium cognosceris, Moysi et Heliae. De quibus et Zacharias vidit in figura duarum olearum et duorum ramulorum oleae. [13] Nam hi sunt de quibus dictum est illi, Duo filii opimitatis adsistunt domino universae terrae. Et rursum idem Abacuc: Operuit caelos virtus, utique nubilo illo, et splendor eius ut lux erit, utique qua etiam vestitus eius refulsit. Et si commemoremur promissionis Moysi, hic invenietur expuncta. [14] Cum enim desiderasset conspectum domini Moyses dicens, Si ergo inveni gratiam coram te, manifesta te mihi, ut cognoscenter videam te, eum conspectum desiderans in quo hominem esset acturus, quod propheta sciebat. Ceterum, Dei faciem, iam audierat, nemo homo videbit et vivet. Et hunc, inquit, sermonem quem dixisti, faciam tibi. [15] Et rursus Moyses: Ostende mihi gloriam tuam. Et dominus similiter de futuro: Ego praecedam in gloria mea, et reliqua. Et in novissimo: Et tunc videbis posteriora mea. Non lumbos, nec suras, sed quam desideraverat gloriam in posterioribus temporibus revelandam. In qua facie ad faciem visibilem se ei repromiserat, etiam ad Aaronem dicens, Et si fuerit prophctes in vobis, in visione cognoscar illi, et in visione loquar ad eum, non quomodo ad Moysen: os ad os loquar ad eum in specie (utique hominis, quam erat gestaturus), non in aenigmate. [16] Nam et si Marcion noluit eum colloquentem domino ostensum, sed stantem, tamen et stans os ad os stabat et faciem ad faciem cum illo, inquit, non extra illum, in gloriam ipsius, nedum in conspectu. De qua gloria non aliter illustratus discessit a Christo quam solebat a creatore, proinde tunc oculos percutere filiorum Israelis quemadmodum et nunc excaecati Marcionis, qui hoc quoque argumentum adversus se facere non vidit.22. [1] You ought to be very much ashamed of yourself on this account too, for permitting him to appear on the retired mountain in the company of Moses and Elias, whom he had come to destroy. This, to be sure, was what he wished to be understood as the meaning of that voice from heaven: "This is my beloved Son, hear Him" ----Him, that is, not Moses or Elias any longer. The voice alone, therefore, was enough, without the display of Moses and Elias; for, by expressly mentioning whom they were to hear, he must have forbidden all others from being heard. [2] Or else, did he mean that Isaiah and Jeremiah and the others whom he did not exhibit were to be heard, since he prohibited those whom he did display? Now, even if their presence was necessary, they surely should not be represented as conversing together, which is a sign of familiarity; nor as associated in glory with him, for this indicates respect and graciousness; but they should be shown in some slough as a sure token of their ruin, or even in that darkness of the Creator which Christ was sent to disperse, far removed from the glory of Him who was about to sever their words and writings from His gospel. This, then, is the way how he demonstrates them to be aliens, even by keeping them in his own company! This is how he shows they ought to be relinquished: he associates them with himself instead! [3] This is how he destroys them: he irradiates them with his glory! How would their own Christ act? I suppose He would have imitated the frowardness (of heresy), and revealed them just as Marcion's Christ was bound to do, or at least as having with Him any others rather than His own prophets! But what could so well befit the Creator's Christ, as to manifest Him in the company of His own foreannouncers? ----to let Him be seen with those to whom He had appeared in revelations?----to let Him be speaking with those who had spoken of Him?----to share His glory with those by whom He used to be called the Lord of glory; even with those chief servants of His, one of whom was once the moulder of His people, the other afterwards the reformer thereof; one the initiator of the Old Testament, the other the consummator of the New? [4] Well therefore does Peter, when recognizing the companions of his Christ in their indissoluble connection with Him, suggest an expedient: "It is good for us to be here" (good: that evidently means to be where Moses and Elias are); "and let us make three tabernacles, one for Thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. But he knew not what he said." How knew not? Was his ignorance the result of simple error? Or was it on the principle which we maintain in the cause of the new prophecy, that to grace ecstasy or rapture is incident. [5] For when a man is rapt in the Spirit, especially when he beholds the glory of God, or when God speaks through him, he necessarily loses his sensation, because he is overshadowed with the power of God,----a point concerning which there is a question between us and the carnally-minded. Now, it is no difficult matter to prove the rapture of Peter. For how could he have known Moses and Elias, except (by being) in the Spirit? People could not have had their images, or statues, or likenesses; for that the law forbade. How, if it were not that he had seen them in the Spirit? And therefore, because it was in the Spirit that he had now spoken, and not in his natural senses, he could not know what he had said. [6] But if, on the other hand, he was thus ignorant, because he erroneously supposed that (Jesus) was their Christ, it is then evident that Peter, when previously asked by Christ, "Whom they thought Him to be," meant the Creator's Christ, when he answered, "Thou art the Christ; "because if he had been then aware that He belonged to the rival god, he would not have made a mistake here. But if he was in error here because of his previous erroneous opinion, then you may be sure that up to that very day no new divinity had been revealed by Christ, and that Peter had so far made no mistake, because hitherto Christ had revealed nothing of the kind; and that Christ accordingly was not to be regarded as belonging to any other than the Creator, whose entire dispensation he, in fact, here described. [7] He selects from His disciples three witnesses of the impending vision and voice. And this is just the way of the Creator. "In the mouth of three witnesses," says He, "shall every word be established." He withdraws to a mountain. In the nature of the place I see much meaning. For the Creator had originally formed His ancient people on a mountain both with visible glory and His voice. It was only right that the New Testament should be attested on such an elevated spot as that whereon the Old Testament had been composed; under a like covering of cloud also, which nobody will doubt, was condensed out of the Creator's air. Unless, indeed, he had brought down his own clouds thither, because he had himself forced his way through the Creator's heaven; or else it was only a precarious cloud, as it were, of the Creator which he used. [8] On the present (as also on the former) occasion, therefore, the cloud was not silent; but there was the accustomed voice from heaven, and the Father's testimony to the Son; precisely as in the first Psalm He had said, "Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee." By the mouth of Isaiah also He had asked concerning Him, "Who is there among you that feareth God? Let him hear the voice of His Son." [9] When therefore He here presents Him with the words, "This is my (beloved) Son," this clause is of course understood, "whom I have promised." For if He once promised, and then afterwards says, "This is He," it is suitable conduct for one who accomplishes His purpose that He should utter His voice in proof of the promise which He had formerly made; but unsuitable in one who is amenable to the retort, Can you, indeed, have a right to say, "This is my son," concerning whom you have given us no previous information, any more than you have favoured us with a revelation about your own prior existence? [10] "Hear ye Him," therefore, whom from the beginning (the Creator) had declared entitled to be heard in the name of a prophet, since it was as a prophet that He had to be regarded by the people. "A prophet," says Moses, "shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your sons" (that is, of course, after a carnal descent ); "unto Him shall ye hearken, as unto me." "Every one who will not hearken unto Him, his soul shall be cut off from amongst his people." , So also Isaiah: "Who is there among you that feareth God? Let him hear the voice of His Son." This voice the Father was going Himself to recommend. For, says he, He establishes the words of His Son, when He says, "This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him." [11] Therefore, even if there be made a transfer of the obedient "heating" from Moses and Elias to Christ, it is still not from another God, or to another Christ; but from" the Creator to His Christ, in consequence of the departure of the old covenant and the supervening of the new. "Not an ambassador, nor an angel, but He Himself," says Isaiah, "shall save them; " for it is He Himself who is now declaring and fulfilling the law and the prophets. [12] The Father gave to the Son new disciples, after that Moses and Elias had been exhibited along with Him in the honour of His glory, and had then been dismissed as having fully discharged their duty and office, for the express purpose of affirming for Marcion's information the fact that Moses and Elias had a share in even the glory of Christ. But we have the entire structure of this same vision in Habakkuk also, where the Spirit in the person of some of the apostles says, "O Lord, I have heard Thy speech, and was afraid." What speech was this, other than the words of the voice from heaven, This is my beloved Son, hear ye, Him? "I considered thy works, and was astonished." When could this have better happened than when Peter, on seeing His glory, knew not what he was saying? "In the midst of the two Thou shalt be known"----even Moses and Elias. These likewise did Zechariah see under the figure of the two olive trees and olive branches. [13] For these are they of whom he says, "They are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth." And again Habakkuk says, "His glory covered the heavens" (that is, with that cloud), "and His splendour shall be like the light----even the light, wherewith His very raiment glistened." And if we would make mention of the promise to Moses, we shall find it accomplished here. [14] For when Moses desired to see the Lord, saying, "If therefore I have found grace in Thy sight, manifest Thyself to me, that I may see Thee distinctly," the sight which he desired to have was of that condition which he was to assume as man, and which as a prophet he knew was to occur. Respecting the face of God, however, he had already heard, "No man shall see me, and live." "This thing," said He, "which thou hast spoken, will I do unto thee." [15] Then Moses said, "Show me Thy glory." And the Lord, with like reference to the future, replied, "I will pass before thee in my glory," etc. Then at the last He says, "And then thou shall see my back." Not loins, or calves of the legs, did he want to behold, but the glory which was to be revealed in the latter days. He had promised that He would make Himself thus face to face visible to him, when He said to Aaron, "If there shall be a prophet among you, I will make myself known to him by vision, and by vision will I speak with him; but not so is my manner to Moses; with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently" (that is to say, in the form of man which He was to assume), "and not in dark speeches." [16] Now, although Marcion has denied that he is here represented as speaking with the Lord, but only as standing, yet, inasmuch as he stood "mouth to mouth," he must also have stood "face to face" with him, to use his words, not far from him, in His very glory----not to say, in His presence. And with this glory he went away enlightened from Christ, just as he used to do from the Creator; as then to dazzle the eyes of the children of Israel, so now to smite those of the blinded Marcion, who has failed to see how this argument also makes against him.
23. [1] Suscipio in me personam Israelis. Stet Christus Marcionis et exclamet: O genitura incredula, quousque ero apud vos? quousque sustinebo vos? Statim a me audire debebit: Quisquis es, e0perxo&mene, prius ede quis sis, et a quo venias, et quod in nobis tibi ius. Usque adhuc creatoris est totum apud te. Plane si ab illo venis et illi agis, admittimus increpationem. [2] Si vero ab alio, dicas velim quid nobis unquam de tuo commisisti quod credere debuissemus, ut exprobres incredulitatem, qui nec te ipsum aliquando nobis revelasti? Quam olim apud nos agere coepisti, ut tempus queraris? In quibus nos sustinuisti, ut patientiam imputes? Asinus de Aesopi puteo modo venis, et iam exclamas. Suscipio adhuc et personam discipulorum, in quos insiliit. O natio incredula, quamdiu ero vobiscum, quamdiu vos sustinebo? Hanc eruptionem eius utique hoc modo iustissime repercuterem: Quisquis es, e0perxo&mene, prius ede qui sis, a quo venias, quod tibi ius sit in nobis. [3] Usque adhuc, puto, creatoris es, et ideo secuti sumus recognoscentes omnia illius in te. Quodsi ab illo venis, admittimus increpationem. Si vero alii agis, oro te dicas, quid nobis aliquando commisisti duntaxat de tuo quod iam credidisse debuissemus, ut exprobres incredulitatem, qui nec auctorem tuum usque adhuc edis? Quam olim autem apud nos agere coepisti, ut tempus quoque opponas? In quibus autem nos sustinuisti, ut et patientiam iactes? Asinus de Aesopi puteo modo huc apparuit, et iam exclamat. [4] Quis non ita iniustitiam increpationis retudisset, si eius eum credidisset qui nondum queri debuisset? Nisi quod nec ille eos insilisset, si non olim apud illos in lege, in prophetis, in virtutibus et beneficiis deversatus incredulos semper fuisset expertus. Sed ecce Christus diligit parvulos, tales esse docens debere qui semper maiores velint esse. Creator autem ursos pueris immisit, ulciscens Helisaeum propheten convicia ab eis passum. [5] Satis impudens antithesis, cum tam diversa committit, parvulos et pueros, innocentem adhuc aetatem, et iudicii iam capacem, quae conviciari poterat, ne dicam blasphemare. Qua ergo iustus deus, nec pueris impiis pepercit, exigens maiori aetati honorem, et utique magis a minore; qua vero bonus, adeo diligit parvulos, ut apud Aegyptum benefecerit obstetricibus, protegentibus partus Hebraeos periclitantes edicto Pharaonis. [6] Ita et haec affectio Christi cum creatore est. Iam nunc deus Marcionis, qui connubium adversatur, quomodo videri potest parvulorum dilector, quorum tota causa connubium est? Qui semen odit, fructum quoque exsecretur necesse est. Nae ille saevior habendus Aegyptio rege. [7] Nam Pharao educari non sinebat infantes, iste nec nasci, auferens vitam illis etiam decem mensium in utero. At enim quanto credibilius ut eius deputetur affectio in parvulos qui benedicendo connubium in propagationem generis humani ipsum quoque fructum connubii benedicendo promisit, qui de infantia primus est? [8] Repraesentat creator ignium plagam Helia postulante in illo pseudopropheta. Agnosco iudicis severitatem: e contrario Christi <lenitatem, increpantis> eandem animadversionem destinantes discipulos super illum viculum Samaritarum. Agnoscat et haereticus ab eodem severissimo iudice promitti hanc Christi lenitatem. Non contendet, inquit, nec vox eius in platea audietur: harundinem quassatam non comminuet, et linum fumigans non extinguet. [9] Talis utique multo magis homines non erat crematurus. Nam et tunc ad Heliam, Non in igni, inquit, dominus sed in spiritu miti. At enim humanissimus deus cur recusat eum qui se tam individuum illi comitem offert? Si quia superbe vel ex hypocrisi dixerat, Sequar te quocunque ieris, ergo aut superbiam aut hypocrisin recusandam iudicando iudicem gessit. [10] Et utique damnavit quem recusavit, non consecuturum scilicet salutem. Nam sicut ad salutem vocat quem non recusat, vel etiam quem ultro vocat, ita in perditionem damnat quem recusat. Illi autem causato patris sepulturam cum respondet, Sine mortui sepeliant mortuos suos, tu autem vade et annuntia regnum dei, utramque legem creatoris manifeste confirmavit, et de sacerdotio in Levitico prohibentem sacerdotes supremis etiam parentum interesse (Super omnem, inquit, animam defunctam sacerdos non introibit, et super patrem suum non contaminabitur), et de devotione in Arithmis; nam et illic qui se deo voverit inter cetera iubet ne super ullam animam introeat defunctam, ne super patris quidem aut matris aut fratris. [11] Puto autem et devotioni et sacerdotio destinabat quem praedicando regno dei imbuerat. Aut si non ita est, satis impius pronuntiandus qui nulla ratione legis intercedente sepulturas parentum despici a filiis imperabat. Cum vero et tertium illum prius suis valedicere parantem prohibet retro respectare, sectam creatoris exequitur. Hoc et ille noluerat fecisse quos ex Sodomis liberarat.23. [1] I take on myself the character of Israel. Let Marcion's Christ stand forth, and exclaim, "O faithless generation! how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? " He will immediately have to submit to this remonstrance from me: "Whoever you are, O stranger, first tell us who you are, from whom you come, and what right you have over us. Thus far, all you possess belongs to the Creator. Of course, if you come from Him, and are acting for Him, we will bear your reproof. [2] But if you come from some other god, I should wish you to tell us what you have ever committed to us belonging to yourself, which it was our duty to believe, seeing that you are upbraiding us with `faithlessness, 'who have never yet revealed to us your own self. How long ago did you begin to treat with us, that you should be complaining of the delay? On what points have you borne with us, that you should adduce your patience? Like aesop's ass, you are just come from the well, and are filling every place with your braying." I assume, besides, the person of the disciple, against whom he has inveighed: "O perverse nation! how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? "This outburst of his I might, of course, retort upon him most justly in such words as these: "Whoever you are, O stranger, first tell us who you are, from whom you come, what right you have over us. [3] Thus far, I suppose, you belong to the Creator, and so we have followed you, recognising in you all things which are His. Now, if you come from Him, we will bear your reproof. If, however, you are acting for another, pry thee tell us what you have ever conferred upon us that is simply your own, which it had become our duty to believe, seeing that you reproach us with 'faithlessness,' although up to this moment you show us no credentials. How long since did you begin to plead with us, that you are charging us with delay? Wherein have you borne with us, that you should even boast of your patience? The ass has only just arrived from Aesop's well, and he is already braying." [4] Now who would not thus have rebutted the unfairness of the rebuke, if he had supposed its author to belong to him who had had no right as yet to complain? Except that not even He would have inveighed against them, if He had not dwelt among them of old in the law and by the prophets, and with mighty deeds and many mercies, and had always experienced them to be "faithless." But, behold, Christ takes infants, and teaches how all ought to be like them, if they ever wish to be greater. The Creator, on the contrary, let loose bears against children, in order to avenge His prophet Elisha, who had been mocked by them. [5] This antithesis is impudent enough, since it throws together things so different as infants and children, ----an age still innocent, and one already capable of discretion----able to mock, if not to blaspheme. As therefore God is a just God, He spared not impious children, exacting as He does honour for every time of life, and especially, of course, from youth. And as God is good, He so loves infants as to have blessed the midwives in Egypt, when they protected the infants of the Hebrews which were in peril from Pharaoh's command. [6] Christ therefore shares this kindness with the Creator. As indeed for Marcion's god, who is an enemy to marriage, how can he possibly seem to be a lover of little children, which are simply the issue of marriage? He who hates the seed must needs also detest the fruit. Yea, he ought to be deemed more ruthless than the king of Egypt. [7] For whereas Pharaoh forbade infants to be brought up, he will not allow them even to be born, depriving them of their ten months' existence in the womb. And how much more credible it is, that kindness to little children should be attributed to Him who blessed matrimony for the procreation of mankind, and in such benediction included also the promise of connubial fruit itself, the first of which is that of infancy! [8] The Creator, at the request of Elias, inflicts the blow of fire from heaven in the case of that false prophet (of Baalzebub). I recognise herein the severity of the Judge. And I, on the contrary, the severe rebuke of Christ on His disciples, when they were for inflicting a like visitation on that obscure village of the Samaritans. The heretic, too, may discover that this gentleness of Christ was promised by the selfsame severest Judge. "He shall not contend," says He, "nor shall His voice be heard in the street; a bruised reed shall He not crush, and smoking flax shall He not quench." [9] Being of such a character, He was of course much the less disposed to burn men. For even at that time the Lord said to Elias, "He was not in the fire, but in the still small voice." Well, but why does this most humane and merciful God reject the man who offers himself to Him as an inseparable companion? If it were from pride or from hypocrisy that he had said, "I will follow Thee whithersoever Thou goest, ' then, by judicially reproving an act of either pride or hypocrisy as worthy of rejection, He performed the office of a Judge. [10] And, of course, him whom He rejected He condemned to the loss of not following the Saviour. For as He calls to salvation him whom He does not reject, or him whom He voluntarily invites, so does He consign to perdition him whom He rejects. When, however, He answers the man, who alleged as an excuse his father's burial, "Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God," He gave a clear confirmation to those two laws of the Creator----that in Leviticus, which concerns the sacerdotal office, and forbids the priests to be present at the funerals even of their parents. "The priest," says He, "shall not enter where there is any dead person; and for his father he shall not be defiled" ; as well as that in Numbers, which relates to the (Nazarite) vow of separation; for there he who devotes himself to God, among other things, is bidden "not to come at any dead body," not even of his father, or his mother, or his brother. [11] Now it was, I suppose, for the Nazarite and the priestly office that He intended this man whom He had been inspiring to preach the kingdom of God. Or else, if it be not so, he must be pronounced impious enough who, without the intervention of any precept of the law, commanded that burials of parents should be neglected by their sons. When, indeed, in the third case before us, (Christ) forbids the man "to look back" who wanted first "to bid his family farewell," He only follows out the rule of the Creator. For this (retrospection) He had been against their making, whom He had rescued out of Sodom.
24. [1] Adlegit et alios septuaginta apostolos super duodecim. Quo enim duodecim secundum totidem fontes in Elim, si non et septuaginta secundum totidem arbusta palmarum? Antitheses plurimum causarum diversitas fecit, non potestatum. Sed qui diversitatem causarum non respexit, facile eam potestatum existimavit. Profectionem filiorum Israelis creator etiam illis spoliis aureorum et argenteorum vasculorum et vestium praeter oneribus consparsionum ofFarcinatam educit ex Aegypto, Christus autem nec virgam discipulis in viam ferre praescripsit. [2] Illi enim in solitudinem promovebantur, hi autem in civitates mittebantur. Considera causarum offerentiam, et intelleges unam et eandem potestatem quae secundum penuriam et copiam expeditionem suorum disposuit, proinde per civitates abundaturam circumcidens sicut et egituram per solitudinem struxerat. Etiam calciamenta portare vetuit illos. Ipse enim erat sub quo nec in solitudine per tot annos populus calciamenta detriverat. Neminem, inquit, per viam salutaveritis. [3] O Christum destructorem prophetarum, a quibus hoc quoque accepit! Helisaeus, cum Giezin puerum suum mitteret in viam ad filium Sunamitidis resuscitandum de morte, puto sic ei praecepit: Accinge lumbos tuos et sume bacillum meum in manum et vade: quemcunque conveneris in via, ne benedixeris eum, id est ne salutaveris, et qui te benedixerit, ne responderis ei, id est ne resalutaveris. Quae est enim inter vias benedictio nisi ex occursu mutua salutatio? [4] Sic et dominus, in quam introissent domum, pacem ei dicere. Exemplo eodem est. Mandavit enim et hoc Helisaeus, cum introisset ad Sunamitin, diceret ei, Pax viro tuo, pax filio tuo. Haec erunt potius nostrae antitheses, quae comparant, non quae separant Christum. Dignus est autem operarius mercede sua, quis magis pronuntiarit quam deus iudex? quia et hoc ipsum iudicare est, dignum facere mercede operarium. Nulla retributio non ex iudicatione constitit. Iam nunc et hic lex consignatur creatoris, etiam boves operantes dignos operarios mercede iudicantis. Bovi, inquit, terenti os non colligabis. [5] Quis tam praestans in homines nisi qui et in pecudes? Quodsi et Christus dignos pronuntiat mercede operarios, excusavit praeceptum illud creatoris de vasis aureis et argenteis Aegyptiorum auferendis. Qui enim villas et urbes operati fuerant Aegyptiis, digni utique operarii mercede, non ad fraudem sunt instructi sed ad mercedis compensationem, quam alias a dominatoribus exigere non poterant. Regnum dei neque novum neque inauditum sic quoque confirmavit, dum illud iubet annuntiari appropinquasse. Quod enim longe fuerit aliquando, id potest dici appropinquasse. [6] Si autem nunquam retro fuisset antequam appropinquasset, nec dici potuisset appropinquasse quod nunquam longe fuisset. Omne quod novum et incognitum est, subitum est. Omne quod subitum est cum annuntiatur, tunc primum speciem inducens tunc primum accipit tempus. Ceterum nec retro tardasse poterit quamdiu non annuntiabatur, nec ex quo annuntiari coeperit appropinquasse. [7] Etiam adicit, ut eis qui illos non recepissent dicerent, Scitote tamen appropinquasse regnum dei. Si hoc non et comminationis gratia mandat, vanissime mandat. Quid enim ad illos si appropinquaret regnum, nisi quia cum iudicio appropinquat, in salutem scilicet eorum qui annuntiationem eius recepissent? Quomodo, si comminatio non potest sine executione, habes deum executorem in comminatore et iudicem in utroque. Sic et pulverem iubet excuti in illos in testificationem, et haerentia terrae eorum, nedum communicationis reliquae. [8] Si enim inhumanitas et inhospitalitas nullam ab eo relaturae sunt ultionem, cui rei praemittit testificationem, minas utique portendentem? Porro cum etiam creator in Deuteronomio Ammonitas et Moabitas prohibeat recipi in ecclesiam, quod populum Aegypto profectum inhumane et inhospitaliter copiis defraudassent, ergo in Christum inde manasse constabit communicationis interdictum ubi habet formam, Qui vos spernit, me spernit. Hoc et Moysi creator: Non te contempserunt, sed me. Tam enim apostolus Moyses quam et apostoli prophetae. [9] Aequanda erit auctoritas utriusque officii, ab uno eodemque domino apostolorum et prophetarum. Quis nunc dabit potestatem calcandi super colubros et scorpios? Utrumne omnium animalium dominus, an nec unius lacertae deus? Sed bene quod creator hanc potestatem etiam parvulis pueris per Esaiam repromisit, conicere manum in cavernam aspidum et in cubile natorum aspidum, nec omnino laedi. [10] Et utique scimus (salva simplicitate scripturae, nam nec et ipsae bestiae nocere potuerunt ubi fides fuerit) figurate scorpios et colubros portendi spiritalia malitiae, quorum ipse quoque princeps in serpentis et draconis et eminentissimae cuiusque bestiae nomine deputetur penes creatorem, largitum hanc potestatem priori Christo suo, sicut nonagesimus psalmus ad eum: Super aspidem et basiliscum incedes, et conculcabis leonem et draconem. Sicut etiam Esaias: Illa die superducet dominus deus machaeram sanctam, magnam et fortem, Christum scilicet suum, in draconem illum, colubrum magnum et tortuosum, et interficiet eum illa die. [11] Sed cum idem, Via munda et via sancta vocabitur, et non transibit illic immundum, nec erit illic via immunda, qui autem dispersi erunt vadent in ea et non errabunt, et non erit iam illic leo, nec ex bestiis pessimis quicquam ascendet in eam nec invenietur illic, cum via fidem demonstret per quam ad deum perveniemus, iam tunc eidem viae, id est fidei, hanc evacuationem et subiectionem bestiarum pollicetur. [12] Denique et tempora promissionis congruere invenias, si quae antecedunt legas: Invalescite manus dimissae et genua resoluta: tunc patefient oculi caecorum, et aures exaudient surdorum: tunc saliet claudus ut cervus, et clara erit lingua mutorum. Igitur ubi medicinarum edidit beneficia, tunc et scorpios et serpentes sanctis suis subdidit, ille scilicet qui hanc potestatem ut et aliis praestaret prior acceperat a patre, et secundum ordinem praedicationis exhibuit.24. [1] He chose also seventy other missionaries besides the twelve. Now why, if the twelve followed the number of the twelve fountains of Elim, should not the seventy correspond to the like number of the palms of that place? Whatever be the Antitheses of the comparison, it is a diversity in the causes, not in the powers, which has mainly produced them. But if one does not keep in view the diversity of the causes, he is very apt to infer a difference of powers. When the children of Israel went out of Egypt, the Creator brought them forth laden with their spoils of gold and silver vessels, and with loads besides of raiment and unleavened dough; whereas Christ commanded His disciples not to carry even a staff for their journey. [2] The former were thrust forth into a desert, but the latter were sent into cities. Consider the difference presented in the occasions, and you will understand how it was one and the same power which arranged the mission of His people according to their poverty in the one case, and their plenty in the other. He cut down their supplies when they could be replenished through the cities, just as He had accumulated them when exposed to the scantiness of the desert. Even shoes He forbade them to carry. For it was He under whose very protection the people wore not out a shoe, even in the wilderness for the space of so many years. "No one," says He, "shall ye salute by the way." [3] What a destroyer of the prophets, forsooth, is Christ, seeing it is from them that He received his precept also! When Elisha sent on his servant Gehazi before him to raise the Shunammite's son from death, I rather think he gave him these instructions: "Gird up thy loins, and take my staff in thine hand, and go thy way: if thou meet any man, salute him not; and if any salute thee, answer him not again." For what is a wayside blessing but a mutual salutation as men meet? [4] So also the Lord commands: "Into whatsoever house they enter, let them say, Peace be to it." Herein He follows the very same example. For Elisha enjoined upon his servant the same salutation when he met the Shunammite; he was to say to her: "Peace to thine husband, peace to thy child." Such will be rather our Antitheses; they compare Christ with, instead of sundering Him from, the Creator. "The labourer is worthy of his hire." Who could better pronounce such a sentence than the Judge? For to decide that the workman deserves his wages, is in itself a judicial act. There is no award which consists not in a process of judgment. The law of the Creator on this point also presents us with a corroboration, for He judges that labouring oxen are as labourers worthy of their hire: "Thou shall not muzzle," says He. "the ox when he treadeth out the corn." [5] Now, who is so good to man as He who is also merciful to cattle? Now, when Christ pronounced labourers to be worthy of their hire, He, in fact, exonerated from blame that precept of the Creator about depriving the Egyptians of their gold and silver vessels. For they who had built for the Egyptians their houses and cities, were surely workmen worthy of their hire, and were not instructed in a fraudulent act, but only set to claim compensation for their hire, which they were unable in any other way to exact from their masters. That the kingdom of God was neither new nor unheard of, He in this way affirmed, whilst at the same time He bids them announce that it was near at hand. Now it is that which was once far off, which can be properly said to have become near. [6] If, however, a thing had never existed previous to its becoming near, it could never have been said to have approached, because it had never existed at a distance. Everything which is new and unknown is also sudden. Everything which is sudden, then, first receives the accident of time when it is announced, for it then first puts on appearance of form. Besides it will be impossible for a thing either to have been tardy all the while it remained unannounced, or to have approached from the time it shall begin to be announced. [7] He likewise adds, that they should say to such as would not receive them: "Notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." If He does not enjoin this by way of a commination, the injunction is a most useless one. For what mattered it to them that the kingdom was at hand, unless its approach was accompanied with judgment?----even for the salvation of such as received the announcement thereof. How, if there can be a threat without its accomplishment, can you have in a threatening god, one that executes also, and in both, one that is a judicial being? So, again, He commands that the dust be shaken off against them, as a testimony,----the very particles of their ground which might cleave to the sandal, not to mention any other sort of communication with them. [8] But if their churlishness and inhospitality were to receive no vengeance from Him, for what purpose does He premise a testimony, which surely forbodes some threats? Furthermore, when the Creator also, in the book of Deuteronomy, forbids the reception of the Ammonites and the Moabites into the church, because, when His people came from Egypt, they fraudulently withheld provisions from them with inhumanity and inhospitality, it will be manifest that the prohibition of intercourse descended to Christ from Him. The form of it which He uses----"He that despiseth you, despiseth me" ----the Creator had also addressed to Moses: "Not against thee have they murmured, but against me." [9] Moses, indeed, was as much an apostle as the apostles were prophets. The authority of both offices will have to be equally divided, as it proceeds from one and the same Lord, (the God) of apostles and prophets. Who is He that shall bestow "the power of treading on serpents and scorpions? " Shall it be He who is the Lord of all living creatures or he who is not god over a single lizard? Happily the Creator has promised by Isaiah to give this power even to little children, of putting their hand in the cockatrice den and on the hole of the young asps without at all receiving hurt. [10] And, indeed, we are aware (without doing violence to the literal sense of the passage, since even these noxious animals have actually been unable to do hurt where there has been faith) that under the figure of scorpions and serpents are portended evil spirits, whose very prince is described by the name of serpent, dragon, and every other most conspicuous beast in the power of the Creator. This power the Creator conferred first of all upon His Christ, even as the ninetieth Psalm says to Him: "Upon the asp and the basilisk shall Thou tread; the lion and the dragon shall Thou trample under foot." So also Isaiah: "In that day the Lord God shall draw His sacred, great, and strong sword" (even His Christ) "against that dragon, that great and tortuous serpent; and He shall slay him in that day." [11] But when the same prophet says, "The way shall be called a clean and holy way; over it the unclean thing shall not pass, nor shall be there any unclean way; but the dispersed shall pass over it, and they shall not err therein; no lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon; it shall not be found there," he points out the way of faith, by which we shall reach to God; and then to this way of faith he promises this utter crippling and subjugation of all noxious animals. [12] Lastly, you may discover the suitable times of the promise, if you read what precedes the passage: "Be strong, ye weak hands and ye feeble knees: then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be articulate." When, therefore, He proclaimed the benefits of His cures, then also did He put the scorpions and the serpents under the feet of His saints----even He who had first received this power from the Father, in order to bestow it upon others and then manifested it forth conformably to the order of prophecy.

Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply