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. |