Chapter VI.—The Doctrine of Apelles Refuted, that Christ’s Body Was of Sidereal Substance, Not Born. Nativity and Mortality are Correlative Circumstances, and in Christ’s Case His Death Proves His Birth.

But certain disciples83    He has Appelles mainly in view. of the heretic of Pontus, compelled to be wiser than their teacher, concede to Christ real flesh, without effect, however, on84    Sine præjudicio tamen. “Without prejudice to their denial, etc.” their denial of His nativity. He might have had, they say, a flesh which was not at all born. So we have found our way “out of a frying-pan,” as the proverb runs, “into the fire,”85    The Roman version of the proverb is “out of the lime-kiln into the coal-furnace.”—from Marcion to Apelles. This man having first fallen from the principles of Marcion into (intercourse with) a woman, in the flesh, and afterwards shipwrecked himself, in the spirit, on the virgin Philumene,86    See Tertullian, de Præscr. Hæret. c. xxx. proceeded from that time87    Ab eo: or, “from that event of the carnal contact.”  A good reading, found in most of the old books, is ab ea, that is, Philumene. to preach that the body of Christ was of solid flesh, but without having been born. To this angel, indeed, of Philumene, the apostle will reply in tones like those in which he even then predicted him, saying, “Although an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”88    Gal. i. 8. To the arguments, however, which have been indicated just above, we have now to show our resistance. They allow that Christ really had a body. Whence was the material of it, if not from the same sort of thing as89    Ex ea qualitate in qua. that in which He appeared? Whence came His body, if His body were not flesh?  Whence came His flesh, if it were not born? Inasmuch as that which is born must undergo this nativity in order to become flesh.  He borrowed, they say, His flesh from the stars, and from the substances of the higher world. And they assert it for a certain principle, that a body without nativity is nothing to be astonished at, because it has been submitted to angels to appear even amongst ourselves in the flesh without the intervention of the womb.  We admit, of course, that such facts have been related. But then, how comes it to pass that a faith which holds to a different rule borrows materials for its own arguments from the faith which it impugns? What has it to do with Moses, who has rejected the God of Moses? Since the God is a different one, everything belonging to him must be different also.  But let the heretics always use the Scriptures of that God whose world they also enjoy. The fact will certainly recoil on them as a witness to judge them, that they maintain their own blasphemies from examples derived from Him.90    Ipsius: the Creator. But it is an easy task for the truth to prevail without raising any such demurrer against them. When, therefore, they set forth the flesh of Christ after the pattern of the angels, declaring it to be not born, and yet flesh for all that, I should wish them to compare the causes, both in Christ’s case and that of the angels, wherefore they came in the flesh. Never did any angel descend for the purpose of being crucified, of tasting death, and of rising again from the dead. Now, since there never was such a reason for angels becoming embodied, you have the cause why they assumed flesh without undergoing birth. They had not come to die, therefore they also (came not) to be born. Christ, however, having been sent to die, had necessarily to be also born, that He might be capable of death; for nothing is in the habit of dying but that which is born. Between nativity and mortality there is a mutual contrast. The law91    Forma. which makes us die is the cause of our being born. Now, since Christ died owing to the condition which undergoes death, but that undergoes death which is also born, the consequence was—nay, it was an antecedent necessity—that He must have been born also,92    Æque. by reason of the condition which undergoes birth; because He had to die in obedience to that very condition which, because it begins with birth, ends in death.93    Quod, quia nascitur, moritur. It was not fitting for Him not to be born under the pretence94    Pro. that it was fitting for Him to die. But the Lord Himself at that very time appeared to Abraham amongst those angels without being born, and yet in the flesh without doubt, in virtue of the before-mentioned diversity of cause.  You, however, cannot admit this, since you do not receive that Christ, who was even then rehearsing95    Ediscebat. Compare a fine passage of Tertullian on this subject in our Anti-Marcion, note 10, p. 112, Edin. how to converse with, and liberate, and judge the human race, in the habit of a flesh which as yet was not born, because it did not yet mean to die until both its nativity and mortality were previously (by prophecy) announced. Let them, then, prove to us that those angels derived their flesh from the stars. If they do not prove it because it is not written, neither will the flesh of Christ get its origin therefrom, for which they borrowed the precedent of the angels. It is plain that the angels bore a flesh which was not naturally their own; their nature being of a spiritual substance, although in some sense peculiar to themselves, corporeal; and yet they could be transfigured into human shape, and for the time be able to appear and have intercourse with men. Since, therefore, it has not been told us whence they obtained their flesh, it remains for us not to doubt in our minds that a property of angelic power is this, to assume to themselves bodily shape out of no material substance. How much more, you say, is it (within their competence to take a body) out of some material substance? That is true enough. But there is no evidence of this, because Scripture says nothing. Then, again,96    Ceterum. how should they who are able to form themselves into that which by nature they are not, be unable to do this out of no material substance? If they become that which they are not, why cannot they so become out of that which is not? But that which has not existence when it comes into existence, is made out of nothing. This is why it is unnecessary either to inquire or to demonstrate what has subsequently become of their97    The angels’. bodies. What came out of nothing, came to nothing. They, who were able to convert themselves into flesh have it in their power to convert nothing itself into flesh. It is a greater thing to change a nature than to make matter. But even if it were necessary to suppose that angels derived their flesh from some material substance, it is surely more credible that it was from some earthly matter than from any kind of celestial substances, since it was composed of so palpably terrene a quality that it fed on earthly ailments. Suppose that even now a celestial flesh98    Sidera. Drawn, as they thought, from the stars. had fed on earthly aliments, although it was not itself earthly, in the same way that earthly flesh actually fed on celestial aliments, although it had nothing of the celestial nature (for we read of manna having been food for the people: “Man,” says the Psalmist, “did eat angels’ bread,”99    Ps. lxxviii. 24.) yet this does not once infringe the separate condition of the Lord’s flesh, because of His different destination.  For One who was to be truly a man, even unto death, it was necessary that He should be clothed with that flesh to which death belongs. Now that flesh to which death belongs is preceded by birth.

CAPUT VI.

0762C Sed quidam discentes Pontici illius , supra magistrum sapere compulsi, concedunt Christo carnis 0763A veritatem, sine praejudicio tamen renuendae nativitatis. Habuerit, inquiunt, carnem, dum omnino non natam. Pervenimus igitur de calcaria, quod dici solet, in carbonariam, a Marcione ad Apellem, qui posteaquam a disciplina Marcionis in mulierem carne lapsus, et dehinc in virginem Philumenem spiritu eversus est, solidum Christi corpus, sed sine nativitate, suscepit ab ea praedicare . Et angelo quidem illi Philumenes eadem voce Apostolus respondebit, qua ipsum illum jam tunc praecinebat, dicens (Gal. I, 8): Etiamsi angelus de coelis aliter evangelizaverit vobis, quam nos evangelizavimus, anathema sit. His vero quae insuper argumentantur, nos resistemus . Confitentur 0763B vere corpus habuisse Christum. Unde materia, si non ex ea qualitate, in qua videbatur? unde corpus, si non caro corpus? unde caro, si non nata? quia nasci haberet, ea futura quae nascitur. De sideribus, inquiunt, et de substantiis superioris mundi mutuatus est carnem: et utique proponunt non esse mirandum corpus sine nativitate, cum et apud nos angelis licuerit nulla uteri opera in carnem processisse. Agnoscimus quidem ita relatum; sed tamen quale est, ut alterius regulae fides ab ea fide quam impugnat instrumentum argumentationibus suis mutuetur ? Quid illi cum Moyse, qui Deum Moysi rejicit? Si alius Deus est, aliter sint res ejus. Sed utantur haeretici 0763C omnes Scripturis ejus, cujus utuntur etiam mundo: erit illis hoc quoque in testimonium judicii, quod de exemplis ipsius blasphemias suas instruunt. Facile est veritati etiam nihil tale adversus eos praescribenti 0764A obtinere. Igitur, qui carnem Christi ad exemplum proponunt angelorum, non natum dicentes, licet carnem , comparent velim et caussas tam Christi quam angelorum, ob quas in carnem processerint . Nullus umquam Angelus ideo descendit, ut crucifigeretur, ut mortem experiretur, ut a morte resuscitaretur . Si numquam ejusmodi fuit caussa Angelorum corporandorum, habes caussam cur non nascendo acceperint carnem. Non venerant mori; ideo nec nasci. At vero Christus mori missus, nasci quoque necessario habuit, ut mori posset. Non enim mori solet, nisi quod nascitur. Mutuum debitum est inter se nativitati cum mortalitate. Forma moriendi, caussa nascendi est. Si 0764B propter id quod moritur mortuus est Christus, id autem moritur quod et nascitur, consequens erat, imo praecedens, ut aeque nasceretur propter id quod nascitur; quia propter idipsum mori habebat, quod, quia nascitur, moritur. Non competebat non nasci, pro quo mori competebat. «Atquin tunc quoque inter illos Angelos ipse Dominus apparuit Abrahae sine nativitate cum carne.» Scilicet, pro eadem caussae diversitate. Sed vos hoc non recipitis, non eum Christum recipientes, qui jam tunc et adloqui, et liberare, et judicare humanum genus ediscebat in carnis habitu, non natae adhuc, quia nondum moriturae, nisi prius et nativitas ejus et mortalitas adnuntiarentur. Igitur probent angelos 0764C illos de sideribus accepisse substantiam carnis . Si non probant, quia nec scriptum est, nec Christi caro inde erit, cui angelorum accommodant exemplum. Constat angelos carnem non propriam 0765A gestasse , utpote naturas substantiae spiritalis, et, si corporis alicujus, sui tamen generis; in carnem autem humanam transfigurabiles ad tempus, ut videri et congredi cum hominibus possent . Igitur, cum relatum non sit unde sumpserint carnem, relinquitur intellectui nostro non dubitare, hoc esse proprium angelicae potestatis, ex nulla materia corpus sibi sumere. «Quanto magis, inquis, ex aliqua certum est!» Sed nihil de eo constat, quia Scriptura non exhibet. Caeterum, qui valent facere semetipsos quod natura non sunt, cur non valeant etiam ex nulla substantia facere? Si fiunt quod non sunt, cur non ex eo fiant quod non est? Quod autem non est, cum sit, ex nihilo est. Propterea nec requiritur, nec ostenditur, 0765B quid postea factum sit corporibus illorum . Quod de nihilo fuit, nihil factum est. Possunt nihil ipsum convertere in carnem, qui semetipsos potuerunt convertere in carnem. Plus est naturam demutare, quam facere materiam. Sed et si de materia necesse fuisset angelos sumpsisse carnem, credibilius utique est de terrena materia, quam de ullo genere coelestium substantiarum; cum adeo terrenae qualitatis extiterit, ut terrenis pabulis pasta sit. Fuerit nunc quoque siderea eodem modo terrenis pabulis pasta, quando terrena non esset; quo terrena coelestibus pasta est, quando coelestis non esset (legimus enim manna esui populo fuisse: Panem, inquit (Ps. LXXVII), angelorum edit homo); non tamen infringitur semel separata conditio Dominicae 0765C carnis, ex caussa alterius dispositionis. Homo vere futurus usque ad mortem eam carnem oportebat ut indueret, cujus est mors: eam 0766A porro carnem, cujus est mors, nativitas antecedit.