So if we are interested in figuring out who wrote or what context there is for the citation of 1 Corinthians 15 (because superficial people just 'cite' the material as if it was somehow indicative of an anti-Marcionite POV or worse yet reflects knowledge of Marcion). What people don't realize is that the section with this citation of 1 Corinthians (Adv Marc 3.8) is sandwiched between two reused translations of older texts. Before chapter 8 there is the aforementioned reusing of the section shared with Adversus Iudaeos (chapter 7) and afterwards their is recycling of commonly held material with De Carne Christi (chapter 3):
BEFORE CHAPTER EIGHT (Adv Iud 14/Adv Marc 3.7)
Adv Iud 14 Discite nunc ex abundantia erroris vestri ducatum. Duos dicimus Christi habitus a prophetis demonstratos, totidem adventus eius praenotatos: unum in humilitate, utique primum, cum tamquam ovis ad victimam deduci habebat et tamquam agnus ante tondentem sine voce sic non aperiens os, ne aspectu quidem honestus. [2] Adnuntiavimus enim, inquit, de illo: sicut puerulus, sicut radix in terra sitienti, et non erat ei species neque gloria, et vidimus eum et non habebat speciem neque decorem, sed species eius inhonorata, deficiens citra filios hominum, homo in plaga positus et sciens ferre infirmitatem, scilicet ut positus a patre in lapidem offensionis et minoratus ab eo modicum citra angelos,vermem se pronuntians et non hominem, ignominiam hominis et abiectionem populi. [3] Quae ignobilitatis argumenta primo adventui competuntsicut sublimitatis secundo, cum fiet iam non lapis offensionis nec petra scandali, sed lapis summus angularis post reprobationem adsumptus et sublimatus in consummationem et petra sane illa apud Danielem de monte praecisa quae imaginem saecularium regnorum comminuet et conteret. [4] De quo secundo adventu eius prophetes: Et ecce cum nubibus caeli tamquam filius hominis veniens venit usque ad veterem dierum et aderat in conspectu eius et qui adsistebant adduxerunt illum; et data est ei potestas regia et omnes nationes terrae secundum genus et omnis gloria serviens illi et potestas illius aeterna quae non auferetur et regnum eius quod non corrumpetur. [5] Tunc scilicet speciem honorabilem et decorem habiturus est indeficientem supra filios hominum - tempestivus enim decore ultra filios hominum; effusa est gratia in labiis tuis, propterea benedixit te deus in saecula; accingere ensem tuum circa femur tuum, potentissime tempestivitate et pulchritudine tua --, cum et pater, posteaquam diminuit illum modicum quid citra angelos, gloria et honore coronavit illum et subiecit omnia sub pedibus eius. [6] Et tunc cognoscent eum quem pupugerunt et caedent pectora sua tribus ad tribum, utique quod retro non agnoverint eum in humilitate condicionis humanae constitutum. Et homo est, inquit Hieremias, et quis cognoscet illum, quia et nativitatem eius, inquit Esaias, quis enarrabit? [7] Sic et apud Zachariam in persona Iesu, immo et in ipsius nominis sacramento verissimus sacerdos patris Christus ipsius duplici habitu in duos adventus deliniatur: primo sordibus indutus id est carnis passibilis et mortalis indignitate, cum et diabolus adversabatur ei, auctor scilicet Iudae traditoris qui eum etiam post baptismum temptaverat, dehinc spoliatus pristinas sordes, exornatus podere et mitra et cidari munda id est secundi adventus, quoniam gloriam et honorem adeptus demonstratur.
Nec poteritis eum Iosedech filium dicere qui nulla omnino veste sordida sed semper sacerdotali fuit exornatus nec umquam sacerdotali munere privatus, sed Iesus iste Christus dei patris summi sacerdos qui primo adventu suo humanae formae et passibilis venit in humilitate usque ad passionem, ipse effectus etiam hostia per omnia pro omnibus nobis, qui post resurrectionem suam indutus podere sacerdos in aeternum dei patris nuncupatur. Sic enim et duorum hircorum qui ieiunio offerebantur faciam interpretationem. Nonne et illi utrumque ordinem Christi qui iam venit ostendunt, pares quidem atque consimiles propter eundem domini conspectum, quia non in alia venturus est forma, ut qui agnosci habet a quibus et laesus est; unus autem eorum circumdatus coccino maledictus et consputatus et convulsus et compunctus a populo extra civitatem abiciebatur in perditionem,manifestis notatus insignibus Christi passionis qui coccinea circumdatus veste et consputatus et omnibus contumeliis adflictus extra civitatem crucifixus est; alter vero pro delictis oblatus et sacerdotibus tantum templi in pabulum datus secundae repraesentationis argumenta signabat, quia delictis omnibus expiatis sacerdotes templi spiritalis id est ecclesiae dominicae gratiae quasi visceratione quadam fruerentur ieiunantibus ceteris a salute. [10] Igitur quoniam primus adventus et plurimis figuris obscuratus et omni inhonestate prostratus canebatur, secundus vero et manifestus et deo dignus, idcirco quem facile et intellegere et credere potuerunt eum solum intuentes id est secundum qui est in honore et gloria non inmerito decepti sunt circa obscuriorem certe indigniorem id est primum. Atque ita in hodiernum negant venisse Christum suum, quia non in sublimitate venerit, dum ignorant in humilitate primum fuisse venturum.
[11] Sufficit hucusque de his interim ordinem Christi decucurrisse, quo talis probatur qualis adnuntiabatur, ut iam ex ista consonantia scripturarum divinarum [intellegamus] et quae post Christum futura praedicabantur ex dispositione divina credantur expuncta. Nisi enim ille venisset post quem habebant expungi, nullo modo evenissent quae in adventu eius futura praedicabantur. [12] Igitur si universas nationes de profundo erroris humani exinde emergentes ad deum creatorem et Christum eius cernitis, -- quod prophetatum non audetis negare, quia et si negaretis statim vobis in psalmis, sicuti iam praelocuti sumus, promissio patris occurreret dicentis:
Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te; pete a me et dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam et possessionem tuam terminos terrae. Nec poteritis in istam praedicationem magis David filium Solomonem vindicare quam Christum dei filium nec terminos terrae David filio
promissos qui intra unicam Iudaeam regnavit quam Christo filio dei qui totum iam orbem evangelii sui radiis inluminavit. [13] Denique et thronus in aevum magis Christo dei filio competit quam Solomoni, temporali scilicet regi qui solo Israeli regnavit. Christum enim hodie invocant nationes quae eum non sciebant et populi hodie ad Christum confugiunt quem retro ignorabant. Non potes futurum contendere quod vides fieri. [14] Haec aut prophetata nega, cum coram videntur, aut adimpleta, cum leguntur; aut si non negas utrumque, in eo erunt adimpleta in quem sunt prophetata.
Adv Marc 3.7 [1] Discat nunc haereticus ex abundanti cum ipso licebit Iudaeo rationem quoque errorum eius, a quo ducatum mutuatus in hac argumentatione caecus a caeco in eandem decidit foveam. Duos dicimus Christi habitus a prophetis demonstratos totidem adventus eius praenotasse: unum in humilitate, utique primum, cum tanquam ovis ad victimam deduci habebat, et tanquam agnus ante tondentem sine voce, ita non aperiens os suum, ne aspectu quidem honestus. [2] Annuntiavimus enim, inquit, de illo: sicut puerulus, sicut radix in terra sitienti, et non est species eius neque gloria, et vidimus eum, et non habebat speciem neque decorem, sed species eius inhonorata, deficiens citra filios hominum, homo in plaga, et sciens ferre infirmitatem, ut positus a patre in lapidem offensionis et petram scandali, minoratus ab eo modicum citra angelos, vermem se pronuntians et non hominem, ignominiam hominis et nullificamen populi. [3] Quae ignobilitatis argumenta primo adventui competunt, sicut sublimitatis secundo, cum fiet iam non lapis offensionis nec petra scandali, sed lapis summus angularis post reprobationem adsumptus et sublimatus in consummationem templi, ecclesiae scilicet, et petra sane illa apud Danielem de monte praecisa, quae imaginem saecularium regnorum comminuet et conteret. [4] De quo adventu idem prophetes, Et ecce cum nubibus caeli tanquam filius hominis veniens, venit usque ad veterem dierum, aderat in conspectu eius, et qui adsistebant adduxerunt illum, et data est ei potestas regia, et omnes nationes terrae secundum genera, et omnis gloria famulabunda, et potestas eius usque in aevum, quae non auferetur, et regnum eius quod non vitiabitur, [5] tunc scilicet habiturus et speciem honorabilem et decorem indeficientem super filios hominum. Tempestivus enim, inquit, decore citra filios hominum, effusa est gratia in labiis tuis, propterea benedixit te deus in aevum. Accingere ensem super femur tuum, potens tempestivitate tua et pulchritudine tua; cum et pater, posteaquam diminuit eum modicum quid citra angelos, gloria et honore coronabit illum et subiciet omnia pedibus eius.[6] Tunc et cognoscent eum qui compugerunt, et caedent pectora sua tribus ad tribum, utique quod retro non agnoverunt eum in humilitate condicionis humanae: Et homo est, inquit Hieremias, et quis cognoscet illum? Quia et, Nativitatem eius Esaias, quis,inquit, enarrabit? Sic et apud Zachariam in persona Iesu, immo et in ipso nominis sacramento, verus summus sacerdos patris, Christus Iesus, duplici habitu in duos adventus delineatur, primo sordidis indutus, id est carnis passibilis et mortalis indignitate, cum et diabolus adversabatur ei, auctor scilicet Iudae traditoris, ne dicam etiam post baptisma temptator, dehinc despoliatus pristinas sordes, et exornatus podere et mitra et cidari munda, id est secundi adventus gloria et honore.
[7] Si enim et duorum hircomm qui ieiunio offerebantur faciam interpretationem, nonne et illi utrumque ordinem Christi figurant? Pares quidem atque consimiles propter eundem dominum conspectum,quia non in alia venturus est fonna, ut qui agnosci habeat a quibus laesus est. Alter autem eorum circumdatus coccino, maledictus et consputus et convulsus et compunctus, a populo extra civitatem adiciebatur in perditionem, manifestis notatus insignibus dominicae passionis. Alter vero, pro delictis oblatus et sacerdotibus templi in pabulum datus, secundae repraesentationis argumenta signabat, qua delictis omnibus expiatis sacerdotes templi spiritalis, id est ecclesiae, dominicae gratiae quasi visceratione quadam fruerentur, ieiunantibus ceteris a salute. [8] Igitur quoniam primus adventus et plurimum figuris obscuratus et omni inhonestate prostratus canebatur, secundus vero et manifestus et deo condignus, idcirco quem facile et intellegere et credere potuerunt, eum solum intuentes, id est secundum, non immerito decepti sunt circa obscuriorem, certe indigniorem, id est primum. Atque ita in hodiernum negant venisse Christum suum, quia non in sublimitate venerit, dum ignorant etiam in humilitate fuisse venturum.
THE SECTION WITH THE CITATION OF 1 CORINTHIANS 15
Adv Marc 3.8 [1] Desinat nunc haereticus a Iudaeo, aspis quod aiunt a vipera, mutuari venenum, evomat iam hinc proprii ingenii virus, phantasma vindicans Christum. Nisi quod et ista sententia alios habebit auctores, praecoquos et abortivos quodammodo Marcionitas, quos apostolus Ioannes antichristos pronuntiavit, negantes Christum in carne venisse, et tamen non ut alterius dei ius constituerent, quia et de isto notati fuissent, sed quoniam incredibile praesumpserant deum carnem. [2] Quo magis antichristus Marcion sibi eam rapuit praesumptionem, aptior scilicet ad renuendam corporalem substantiam Christi, qui ipsum deum eius nec auctorem carnis induxerat nec resuscitatorem, optimum videlicet et in isto, et diversissimum a mendaciis et fallaciis creatoris. Et ideo Christus eius, ne mentiretur, ne falleret, et hoc modo creatoris forsitan deputaretur, non erat quod videbatur, et quod erat mentiebatur, caro nec caro, homo nec homo, proinde deus Christus nec deus. [3] Cur enim non etiam dei phantasma portaverit? An credam ei de interiore substantia qui sit de exteriore frustratus? Quomodo verax habebitur in occulto tam fallax repertus in aperto? Quomodo autem in semetipso veritatem spiritus fallacia carnis confundens, negatam ab apostolo lucis, id est veritatis, et fallaciae, id est tenebrarum, commisit communicationem? [4] Iam nunc cum mendacium deprehenditur Christus1 caro, sequitur ut et omnia quae per carnem Christi gesta sunt mendacio gesta sint, congressus, contactus, convictus, ipsae quoque virtutes. Si enim tangendo aliquem liberavit a vitio vel tactus ab aliquo, quod corporaliter actum est non potest vere actum credi sine corporis ipsius veritate. Nihil solidum ab inani, nihil plenum a vacuo perfici licuit. Putativus habitus, putativus actus: imaginarius operator, imaginariae operae. [5] Sic nec passiones Christi eius fidem merebuntur. Nihil enim passus est qui non vere est passus; vere autem pati phantasma non potuit. Eversum est igitur totum dei opus. Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors Christi negatur, quam tam impresse apostolus demandat, utique veram, summum eam fundamentum evangelii constituens et salutis nostrae et praedicationis suae. Tradidi enim, inquit, vobis inprimis, quod Christus mortuus sit pro peccatis nostris, et quod sepultus sit, et quod resurrexerit tertia die. [6] Porro si caro eius negatur, quomodo mors eius asseveratur, quae propria carnis est passio, per mortem devertentis in terram de qua est sumpta, secundum legem sui auctoris? Negata vero morte, dum caro negatur, nec de resurrectione constabit. Eadem enim ratione non resurrexit qua mortuus non est, non habendo substantiam scilicet carnis, cuius sicut et mors, ita et resurrectio est. Proinde resurrectione Christi infirmata etiam nostra subversa est. Nec ea enim valebit, propter quam Christus venit, si Christi non valebit. [7] Nam sicut illi, qui dicebant resurrectionem mortuorum non esse, revincuntur ab apostolo ex resurrectione Christi, ita resurrectione Christi non consistente aufertur et mortuorum resurrectio. Atque ita inanis est et fides nostra, inanis est praedicatio apostolorum. Inveniuntur autem etiam falsi testes dei, quod testimonium dixerint quasi resuscitaverit Christum quem non resuscitavit. Et sumus adhuc in delictis. Et qui in Christo dormierunt, perierunt; sane resurrecturi, sed phantasmate forsitan, sicut et Christus.
Let the heretic now give up borrowing poison from the Jew, the asp, as they say, from the viper: let him from now on belch forth the slime of his own particular devices, as he maintains that Christ was a phantasm: except that this opinion too will have had other inventors, those so to speak premature and abortive Marcionites whom the apostle John pronounced antichrists, who denied that Christ was come in the flesh,a yet not with the intention of setting up the law of a second god—else for this too they would have been censured <by the apostle>—but because they had assumed it incredible that God should have flesh. So Marcion, even more of an antichrist, seized upon this assumption, being better equipped in fact for denial of Christ's corporal substance, in that he had postulated that even Christ's god was neither the creator of flesh nor would raise it to life again—in this too supremely good, and entirely divergent from the lies and deceptions of the Creator. And that is why his Christ, so as not to tell lies, or to deceive, and in this fashion perhaps be accounted as belonging to the Creator, was not that which he appeared to be, and told lies about what he was—being flesh and not flesh, man and not man, and in consequence a Christ <who was> god and not god. For why should he not also have been clothed in a phantasm of god? Or can I believe what he says of his more recondite substance, when he has deceived me
about that which was more evident? How shall he be accounted truthful about the secret thing, who has been found so deceptive
about the obvious ? How can it have been that by confusing within himself truth of the spirit with deceit of the flesh, he conjoined
that fellowship of light, which is truth, and deception, which is darkness, that the apostle says is impossible?b Also, now that it
is found to be a lie that Christ <was made> flesh, it follows that all things that were done by means of Christ's flesh were done
by a lie, his meetings with people, his touching of them, his partaking of food, his miracles besides. For if by touching some-
one, or being touched by someone, he gave freedom from sickness, the act performed by the body cannot be credited as truly per-
formed apart from the verity of the body itself. It was not feasible for anything solid to be performed by that which is void, anything
full by that which is empty. Putative constitution, putative activity: imaginary operator, imaginary operations. Thus also the sufferings of Marcion's Christ will fail to find credence: one who has not truly suffered, has not suffered at all, and a phantasm cannot have truly suffered. Consequently God's whole operation is overthrown. There is a denial of Christ's death, the whole weight and value of the Christian name, that death which the apostle so firmly insists on, because it is true, declaring it the chief foundation of the gospel, of our salvation, and of his own preaching. For I delivered unto you, he says, fast of all, that Christ died for our sins, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day.c But if his flesh is denied, how can his death be affirmed? For death is the particular experience of flesh, which by means of death is turned downwards into the earth from which it was taken: such is the law of its own Creator. But if the death is denied, as it is when the flesh is denied, neither can there be assurance of the resurrection. By whatever reasoning he did not die, by the same reasoning he did not rise again: which was that he had not the substance of flesh, to which death appertains, and likewise resurrection. But further, if doubt is cast upon Christ's resurrection, ours also is overthrown: for if Christ's is not valid, neither can that be valid for the sake of which Christ came. For just as those who said there was no resurrection of the dead are confuted by the apostle from the resurrection of Christ, so also, if Christ's resurrection fails, the resurrection of the dead is also taken away. And so also our faith is vain, and vain is the apostles' preaching.d They are also found false witnesses of God, because they have borne witness that he has raised up Christ, whom he has not raised up. And we are yet in our sins. And those who are fallen asleep in Christ, have perished—no doubt they will rise again, but in a phantasm perhaps, as Christ did.
AFTER THE CITATION (Adv Marc 3.9/De Carne Christi 3)
Adv Marc 3.9 [1] In ista quaestione qui putaveris opponendos esse nobis angelos creatoris, quasi et illi in phantasmate, putativae utique carnis, egerint apud Abraham et Loth, et tamen vere sint et congressi et pasti et operati quod mandatum eis fuerat, primo non admitteris ad eius dei exempla quem destruis. Nam et quanto meliorem et perfectiorem deum inducis, tanto non competunt illi eius exempla quo nisi diversus in totum non erit omnino melior atque perfectior. [2] Dehinc scito nec illud concedi tibi, ut putativa fuerit in angelis caro, sed verae et solidae substantiae humanae. Si enim difficile non fuit illi putativae carnis veros et sensus et actus exhibere, multo facilius habuit veris et sensibus et actibus veram dedisse substantiam carnis, vel qua proprius auctor et artifex eius. [3] Tuus autem deus, eo quod carnem nullam omnino produxerit, merito fortasse phantasma eius intulerit cuius non valuerat veritatem. Meus autem deus, qui illam de limo sumptam in hac reformavit qualitate, nondum ex semine coniugali et tamen carnem, aeque potuit ex quacunque materia angelis quoque adstruxisse carnem, qui etiam mundum ex nihilo in tot ac talia corpora, et quidem verbo aedificavit. [4] Et utique, si deus tuus veram quandoque substantiam angelorum hominibus pollicetur, Erunt enim, inquit, sicut angeli, cur non et deus meus veram substantiam hominum angelis accommodarit undeunde1 sumptam? Quia nec tu mihi respondebis unde illa apud te angelica sumatur, sufficit mihi hoc definire quod deo congruit, veritatem scilicet eius rei quam tribus
testibus sensibus obiecit, visui, tactui, auditui. [5] Difficilius deo mentiri quam carnis veritatem undeunde1 producere, licet non natae. Ceterum et aliis haereticis, definientibus carnem illam in angelis ex carne nasci debuisse si vere fuisset humana, certa ratione respondemus, qua et humana vere fuerit et innata: humana vere propter dei veritatem a mendacio et fallacia extranei, et quia non
possent humanitus tractari ab hominibus nisi in substantia humana; innata autem, quia solus Christus in carnem ex carne nasci habebat, ut nativitatem nostram nativitate sua reformaret, atque ita etiam mortem nostram morte sua dissolveret resurgendo in carne in qua natus est ut et mori posset. [6] Ideoque et ipse cum angelis tunc apud Abraham in veritate quidem carnis apparuit,
sed nondum natae quia nondum moriturae, sed et discentis2 iam inter homines conversari. Quo magis angeli, neque ad moriendum
pro nobis dispositi, brevem carnis commeatum non debuerunt nascendo sumpsisse, quia nec moriendo deposituri eam fuerant; [7] sed undeunde1 sumptam et quoquo modo omnino dimissam, mentiti eam tamen non sunt. Si creator facit angelos spiritus et apparitores suos ignem flagrantem, tam vere spiritus quam et ignem, idem illos vere fecit et carnem, ut nunc recordemur et haereticis renuntiemus eius esse promissum homines in angelos reformandi quandoque qui angelos in homines formarit aliquando.
10. [1] Igitur non admissus ad consortium exemplorum creatoris, ut alienorum, et suas habentium causas, velim edas et ipse consilium
dei tui, quo Christum suum non in veritate carnis exhibuit. Si aspernatus est illam ut terrenam et, ut dicitis, stercoribus infersam, cur non et simulacrum eius proinde despexit? Nullius enim dedignandae rei imago dignanda est. Sequitur statum similitudo. [2] Sed quomodo inter homines conversaretur, nisi per imaginem substantiae humanae? Cur ergo non potius per veritatem, ut vere conversaretur, si necesse habebat conversari? Quanto dignius necessitas fidem quam stropham administrasset? [3] Satis miserum deum
instituis, hoc ipso quod Christum suum non potuit exhibere nisi in indignae rei effigie, et quidem alienae. Aliquantis1 enim indignis
conveniet uti, si nostris, sicut alienis non congruet uti, licet dignis. Cur enim non in aliqua alia digniore substantia venit, et inprimis sua, ne et indigna et aliena videretur eguisse? [4] Si creator meus per rubum quoque et ignem, idem postea per nubem et globum cum homine congressus est, et elementorum corporibus in repraesentationibus sui usus est, satis haec exempla divinae potestatis ostendunt deum non eguisse aut falsae aut etiam verae carnis paratura. Ceterum si ad certum spectamus, nulla substantia digna est quam deus induat. [5] Quodcunque induerit, ipse dignum facit, absque mendacio tamen. Et ideo quale est ut dedecus existimarit veritatem potius quam mendacium carnis ? Atquin honoravit illam fingendo. Quanta iam caro est cuius phantasma neces-
sarium fuit deo superiori?
9.1 If in this inquiry you think you can set against me the Creator's angels, alleging that they also, when in converse with Abraham and Lot,a were in a phantasm, evidently of putative flesh, and yet really met with them, and partook of food, and performed the task committed to them, first, that you have no claim upon the evidences of that God whom you are concerned to depose. For, the more superior and the more perfect the character of the god you are commending, the more unbecoming to him are evidences belonging to that other: for unless he is entirely diverse from him he cannot be in any sense better or more perfect. Secondly, take note besides that we do not admit your claim that in those angels the flesh was putative: it was of veritable and complete human substance. For if it was not difficult for God to display true perceptions and activities in putative flesh, much easier did he find it to provide true perceptions and activities with true substance of flesh, the more so as he is himself its particular creator and maker. Now your god, seeing that he has never produced any flesh at all, may quite reasonably perhaps have brought in a phantasm of something he had not the ability to make the truth of. But my God, who reshaped into the quality we know, that flesh which he had taken up out of clay— it was not yet conceived of conjugal seed, yet was already flesh— was no less able out of any material whatsoever to construct flesh for angels as well: he had even built up the world out of nothing into all these various bodies, and had done this with a Word. And truly, if your god promises to men some time the true substance of angels—They will, he says, be as the angels—why should not my God too have granted to angels the true substance of men, from wheresoever he may have taken it? Since you for your part will not answer me when I ask from whence that angelic <substance> you speak of is <to be> taken, no more is required of me than to affirm as a fact, which is in keeping with God's dignity, the truth of that object which he presented to three witnesses, the senses of sight, and touch, and hearing. God finds it more difficult to tell lies than to bring into existence veritable flesh, from whatsoever source, even without the process of birth. There are yet other heretics, who state that if in the angels that flesh had been truly human it would have needed to pass through human birth: to these we give in answer a firm reason why it was both truly human yet exempt from birth. It was truly human for the sake of the truth of God, who is a stranger to all lying and deceit, and because <the angels> could not have been received by men on human terms if they had not been in human substance: yet it had not passed through birth because Christ alone had the right to become incarnate of human flesh, so that he might reform our nativity by his own nativity, and thus also loose the bands of our death by his own death, by rising again in that flesh in which he was born with intent to be able to die. For this reason he too on that occasion appeared along with the angels in Abraham's presence, in flesh veritable indeed though not yet born, because it was not yet to die, though it was even then learning to hold converse among men. Even more so the angels, who were never by God's intention to die for us, had no need to receive their brief experience of flesh by means of birth, because they were not intending to lay it down by means of death: yet from wheresoever it was they acquired it, and in whatsoever manner they finally disposed of it, they certainly did not tell lies about it. If the Creator maketh his angels spirits and his attendants a flaming fire,c no less truly spirits than truly fire, he is the same who also made them truly flesh, so that we may now set it on record, and report back to the heretics, that the promise of some time reforming men into angels is made by that <God> who of old time formed angels into men.
10. So then, as you are not admitted to avail yourself, along with us, of the evidences the Creator provides, seeing these belong not
to you, and have their own explanations, I wish you for your part would state what your god had in mind when he produced his
Christ not in veritable flesh. If he held flesh in contempt,1 as being earthly and, as you people keep on saying, packed with dung,
why did he not for the same reason despise even the similitude of it? No dishonourable object can have an honourable copy made
of it: as the thing itself is, so will its likeness be. But, <you ask>, how could he hold converse among men except by means of a
copy of man's substance? Why then not rather by means of the truth of it, so that he might truly hold converse, seeing he thought
it necessary to hold converse ? With how much more dignity would necessity have made provision of good faith than of fraud? A sad sort of god is this you set up, in this very fact that he was incapable of bringing his Christ into view except in the likeness of some unworthy object, one which was not even his own. It may perhaps be permissible to make use of a certain number of unworthy objects, if they are our own: it cannot be right to use things not one's own, even though they are worthy. Why then did he not come in some other more worthy substance, something of his own for preference, so as not to show himself in need of unworthy things, which belonged to someone else? If my Creator entered into converse with a man by means of a bush and a flame, and afterwards by means of a cloud, and a ball <of fire>, and has made use of the bodies of the <four> elements in making himself present, these instances of divine power sufficiently prove that God stood in no need of any contrivance of false flesh, or even of true. Moreover, if we face the facts, no substance is worthy enough for God to clothe himself with it. Anything he does clothe himself with, he himself makes worthy—so long as no lie is involved. And in that case how can he have regarded as a dishonour the verity of flesh, any more than a lie about it? In fact he made it honourable by shaping it <with his hands>.2 How noble now is that flesh, the mere phantasm of which became indispensable to your superior god.
De Carne Christi 3 - III. [1] Necesse est, quatenus hoc putas arbitrio tuo licuisse, ut aut impossibilem aut inconvenientem deo existimaveris nativitatem sed deo nihil impossibile nisi quod non vult. an ergo voluerit nasci (quia si voluit, et potuit et natus est) consideremus. ad compendium decurro. si enim nasci se deus noluisset, quacunque de causa, nec hominem se videri praestitisset: nam quis, hominem videns eum, negaret natum? ita quod noluisset esse nec videri omnino voluisset. [2] omnis rei displicentis etiam opinio reprobatur, quia nihil interest utrum sit quid an non sit, si cum non sit esse praesumitur: plane interest illud ut falsum non patiatur quod vere non est. 'Sed satis erat illi, inquis, conscientia sua: viderint homines si natum putabant quia hominem videbant.' [3] quanto ergo dignius, quo constantius, humanam sustinuisset existimationem vere natus, eandem existimationem etiam non natus subiturus cum iniuria conscientiae suae. quantum ad fiduciam reputas ut non natus adversus conscientiam suam natum se existimari
sustineret? quid tanti fuit, edoce, quod sciens Christus quid esset id se quod non erat exhiberet? [4] non potes dicere, 'Ne si natus fuisset et hominem vere induisset deus esse desisset, amittens quod erat dum fit quod non erat': periculum enim status sui deo nullum
est. 'Sed ideo, inquis, nego deum in hominem vere conversum, ita ut et nasceretur et carne corporaretur, quia qui sine fine est etiam inconvertibilis sit necesse est: converti enim in aliud finis est pristini: [5] non competit ergo conversio cui non competit finis.' plane natura convertibilium ea lege est ne permaneant in eo quodconvertitur in eis, et ita non permanendo pereant dum perdunt convertendo quod fuerunt. sed nihil deo par est: natura eius ab omnium rerum conditione distat. si ergo quae a deo distant, a
quibus et deus distat, cum convertuntur amittunt quod fuerunt, ubi erit diversitas divinitatis a ceteris rebus nisi ut contrarium
obtineat, id est ut deus et in omnia converti possit et qualis est perseverare? [6] alioquin par erit eorum quae conversa amittunt quod
fuerunt, quorum utique deus in omnibus par non est: sic nec in exitu conversionis. angelos creatoris conversos in effigiem humanam aliquando legisti et credidisti, et tantam corporis gestasse veritatem ut et pedes eis laverit Abraham et manibus ipsorum ereptus sit Sodomitis Loth, conluctatus quoque homini angelus toto corporis pondere dimitti desideraverit, adeo detinebatur. [7] quod ergo angelis inferioris dei licuit conversis in corpulentiam humanam, ut angeli nihilominus permanerent, hoc tu potentiori deo auferes, quasi non valuerit Christus eius vere hominem indutus deus perseverare? aut numquid et angeli illi phantasma carnis apparuerunt? sed non audebis hoc dicere: nam si sic apud te angeli creatoris sicut et Christus, eius dei erit Christus cuius angeli tales qualis et Christus. [8] si scripturas opinioni tuae resistentes non de industria alias reiecisses alias corrupisses, confudisset te in hac specie evangelium Iohannis praedicans spiritum columbae corpore lapsum desedisse super dominum. qui spiritus cum [hoc] esset, tam vere erat et columba quam et spiritus, nec interfecerat substantiam propriam assumpta substantia extranea. [9] sed quaeris corpus columbae ubi sit, resumpto spiritu in caelum. aeque et angelorum, eadem ratione interceptum est qua et editum fuerat. si vidisses cum de nihilo proferebatur, scisses et cum in nihilum subducebatur. si non fuit initium visibile, nec fmis. tamen corporis soliditas erat quoquo momento corpus videbatur: non potest non fuisse quod scriptum est.
3 Inasmuch as you suppose this was within your competence to decide, it can only have been that your idea was that to God nativity is either impossible or unseemly. I answer, that to God nothing is impossible except what is against his will. So then we have to consider whether it was his will to be born: because, if it was, he both could be and was born. I betake myself to a short cut. If it had been God's will for himself not to be born--whatever his purpose might be--neither would he have permitted himself to have the appearance of being a man: for no one, seeing him a man, would refuse to admit that he had been born. Thus, what it had been his will not to be, it certainly would have been his will not to seem to be. Whenever any fact is objectionable, even the supposition of it is disapproved of: because it makes no matter whether a thing is or is not if, when it is not, there is a presumption that it is. But this certainly does matter, that God should not experience as a falsehood that which he is not in truth. 'But,' you say, 'his conscience was enough for him: it was men's fault if they thought him born because they saw him a man.' Well then, with how much more dignity, as well as consistency, would he have borne with men's estimate of him if really born, seeing that even though not born he would have had to bear with the same estimate, with wrong done to his own conscience besides. How much, think you, does it count towards our
confidence in him, if while not born he did against his conscience put up with the repute of having been born? Tell me, what made it
worth Christ's while, that when he knew what he was he should make himself visible as what he was not? Your answer cannot be, 'Lest if he had been born and had really clothed himself with man he might have ceased to be God, losing what he was while becoming what he was not.' For God runs no risk of ceasing to be what he is. ' But,' you say, ' the reason why I deny that God was really and truly changed into man, in the sense of being both born and corporated in flesh, is that he who is without end must of necessity also be unchangeable: for to be changed into something else is an ending of what originally was: therefore change is inapplicable to one to whom ending is inapplicable.' I admit that the nature of things changeable is bound by that law which precludes them from abiding in that which in them suffers change--the law which causes them to be destroyed by not abiding, seeing that by process of change they destroy that which they once were. But nothing is on equal terms with God: his nature is far removed from the circumstances of all things whatsoever. If then things far removed from God, things from which God is far removed, do in the process of being changed lose that which they once were, where will be the difference between divinity and the rest of things except that the contrary obtains, namely that God can be changed into anything whatsoever, and yet continue such as he is? Otherwise he will be on equal terms with the things which, when changed, lose that which they once were--things with which he is not on equal terms, as in all respects so also in the outcome of change. You have read at one time, and believed it, that the Creator's angels were changed into human shape, and that the bodies they were clothed with were of such verity that Abraham washed their feet, and that by their hands Lot was
snatched away from the men of Sodom, and an angel also having wrestled with a man with the whole weight of his body desired
to be let go, so fast was he held. Well then, that which was permitted to the angels of the inferior God when changed into human corporeity, the faculty of none the less remaining angels--will you deny this to the more mighty God, as though his Christ had not the power, when truly clothed with manhood, of continuing to be God? Or did perhaps those angels too become visible as a phantasm of flesh? No, this you will not dare to say. For if in your view the Creator's angels are as Christ is, Christ will belong to that God whose angels are such as Christ is. If you had not maliciously rejected some and corrupted others of the scriptures which oppose your views, the Gospel of John would in this matter have put you to rout when it proclaims that the Spirit in the body of a dove glided down and settled upon our Lord.1 Though he was spirit he was no less truly dove than spirit, yet had not put to death his own proper substance by the assumption of a substance not his own. But, you ask, where is the body of the dove, now that the Spirit has been withdrawn into heaven? Just like the bodies of the angels, it was suppressed on the same terms on which it had also been produced. If you had seen it when it was being brought out of non-existence, you would have been aware also when it was being withdrawn into non-existence. As its beginning was not visible, neither was its ending. Yet it was a body, a body in three dimensions, at whatever moment it was visible as a body.2 That which is written cannot possibly not have been so.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote