Chapter IX.—Out of St. Luke’s Fifth Chapter are Found Proofs of Christ’s Belonging to the Creator, E.g. In the Call of Fishermen to the Apostolic Office, and in the Cleansing of the Leper. Christ Compared with the Prophet Elisha.

Out of so many kinds of occupations, why indeed had He such respect for that of fishermen, as to select from it for apostles Simon and the sons of Zebedee (for it cannot seem to be the mere fact itself for which the narrative was meant to be drawn out1390    Argumentum processurum erat.    He refers to his De Resurrect. Carnis. See chap. xlviii.), saying to Peter, when he trembled at the very large draught of the fishes, “Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men?”1391    See Luke v. 1–11.    1 Cor. xv. 29. By saying this, He suggested to them the meaning of the fulfilled prophecy, that it was even He who by Jeremiah had foretold, “Behold, I will send many fishers; and they shall fish them,”1392    Jer. xvi. 16.    Viderit. that is, men. Then at last they left their boats, and followed Him, understanding that it was He who had begun to accomplish what He had declared. It is quite another case, when he affected to choose from the college of shipmasters, intending one day to appoint the shipmaster Marcion his apostle. We have indeed already laid it down, in opposition to his Antitheses, that the position of Marcion derives no advantage from the diversity which he supposes to exist between the Law and the Gospel, inasmuch as even this was ordained by the Creator, and indeed predicted in the promise of the new Law, and the new Word, and the new Testament.  Since, however, he quotes with especial care,1393    Attentius argumentatur.    Kalendæ Februariæ. The great expiation or lustration, celebrated at Rome in the month which received its name from the festival, is described by Ovid, Fasti, book ii., lines 19–28, and 267–452, in which latter passage the same feast is called Lupercalia. Of course as the rites were held on the 15th of the month, the word kalendæ here has not its more usual meaning (Paley’s edition of the Fasti, pp. 52–76). Oehler refers also to Macrobius, Saturn. i. 13; Cicero, De Legibus, ii. 21; Plutarch, Numa, p. 132. He well remarks (note in loc.), that Tertullian, by intimating that the heathen rites of the Februa will afford quite as satisfactory an answer to the apostle’s question, as the Christian superstition alluded to, not only means no authorization of the said superstition for himself, but expresses his belief that St. Paul’s only object was to gather some evidence for the great doctrine of the resurrection from the faith which underlay the practice alluded to. In this respect, however, the heathen festival would afford a much less pointed illustration; for though it was indeed a lustration for the dead, περὶ νεκρῶν, and had for its object their happiness and welfare, it went no further than a vague notion of an indefinite immortality, and it touched not the recovery of the body. There is therefore force in Tertullian’s si forte. as a proof in his domain,1394    Apud illum, i.e., the Creator.    Si forte. a certain companion in misery (συνταλαίπωρον), and associate in hatred (συμμισούμενον ), with himself, for the cure of leprosy,1395    Luke v. 12–14.    τῷ εὔχεσθαι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν (Rigalt.). I shall not be sorry to meet him, and before anything else to point out to him the force of the law figuratively interpreted, which, in this example of a leper (who was not to be touched, but was rather to be removed from all intercourse with others), prohibited any communication with a person who was defiled with sins, with whom the apostle also forbids us even to eat food,1396    1 Cor. v. 11.    Eph. iv. 5. forasmuch as the taint of sins would be communicated as if contagious, wherever a man should mix himself with the sinner.  The Lord, therefore, wishing that the law should be more profoundly understood as signifying spiritual truths by carnal facts1397    Per carnalia, by material things.    Pro corporibus.—and thus1398    Hoc nomine.    Eph. iv. 5. not destroying, but rather building up, that law which He wanted to have more earnestly acknowledged—touched the leper, by whom (even although as man He might have been defiled) He could not be defiled as God, being of course incorruptible. The prescription, therefore, could not be meant for Him, that He was bound to observe the law and not touch the unclean person, seeing that contact with the unclean would not cause defilement to Him. I thus teach that this (immunity) is consistent in my Christ, the rather when I show that it is not consistent in yours. Now, if it was as an enemy1399    Æmulus.    Corpora. of the law that He touched the leper—disregarding the precept of the law by a contempt of the defilement—how could he be defiled, when he possessed not a body1400    Another allusion to Marcion’s Docetic doctrine.    Ut, with the subjunctive verb induxerit. which could be defiled? For a phantom is not susceptible of defilement. He therefore, who could not be defiled, as being a phantom, will not have an immunity from pollution by any divine power, but owing to his fantastic vacuity; nor can he be regarded as having despised pollution, who had not in fact any material capacity1401    Materiam.    1 Cor. xv. 35. for it; nor, in like manner, as having destroyed the law, who had escaped defilement from the occasion of his phantom nature, not from any display of virtue. If, however, the Creator’s prophet Elisha cleansed Naaman the Syrian alone,1402    Unicum.    Consequens erat. to the exclusion of1403    Ex., literally, “alone of.” So Luke iv. 27.    Porro. so many lepers in Israel,1404    Compare 2 Kings v. 9–14 with Luke iv. 27.    1 Cor. xv. 37, 38. this fact contributes nothing to the distinction of Christ, as if he were in this way the better one for cleansing this Israelite leper, although a stranger to him, whom his own Lord had been unable to cleanse. The cleansing of the Syrian rather1405    Facilius—rather than of Israelites.    1 Cor. xv. 38. was significant throughout the nations of the world1406    Per Nationes. [Bishop Andrewes thus classifies the “Sins of the Nations,” as Tertullian’s idea seems to have suggested: (1) Pride, Amorite; (2) Envy, Hittite; (3) Wrath, Perizzite; (4) Gluttony, Girgashite; (5) Lechery, Hivite; (6) Covetousness, Canaanite; (7) Sloth, Jebusite.]    Ut. of their own cleansing in Christ their light,1407    Compare, in Simeon’s song, Luke ii. 32, the designation, “A light to lighten the Gentiles.”    1 Cor. xv. 39–41. steeped as they were in the stains of the seven deadly sins:1408    [See Elucidation I.]    Portendit. idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false-witness, and fraud.1409    Such seems to be the meaning of the obscure passage in the original, “Syro facilius emundato significato per nationes emundationis in Christo lumine earum quæ septem maculis, capitalium delictorum inhorrerent, idoatria,” etc. We have treated significato as one member of an ablative absolute clause, from significatum, a noun occuring in Gloss. Lat. Gr. synonymous with δήλωσις. Rigault, in a note on the passage, imputes the obscurity to Tertullian’s arguing on the Marcionite hypothesis. “Marcion,” says he, “held that the prophets, like Elisha, belonged to the Creator, and Christ to the good God. To magnify Christ’s beneficence, he prominently dwells on the alleged fact, that Christ, although a stranger to the Creator’s world, yet vouchsafed to do good in it. This vain conceit Tertullian refutes from the Marcionite hypothesis itself. God the Creator, said they, had found Himself incapable of cleansing this Israelite; but He had more easily cleansed the Syrian.  Christ, however, cleansed the Israelite, and so showed himself the superior power. Tertullian denies both positions.”    1 Cor. xv. 42. Seven times, therefore, as if once for each,1410    Quasi per singulos titulos.    1 Cor. xv. 42, 43. did he wash in Jordan; both in order that he might celebrate the expiation of a perfect hebdomad;1411    There was a mystic completeness in the number seven.    1 Cor. xv. 44. and because the virtue and fulness of the one baptism was thus solemnly imputed1412    Dicabatur.    Anima: we will call it soul in the context. to Christ, alone, who was one day to establish on earth not only a revelation, but also a baptism, endued with compendious efficacy.1413    Sicut sermonem compendiatum, ita et lavacrum. In chap. i. of this book, the N.T. is called the compendiatum. This illustrates the present phrase.    Possit videri. Even Marcion finds here an antithesis:1414    Et hoc opponit.    Animam. how that Elisha indeed required a material resource, applied water, and that seven times; whereas Christ, by the employment of a word only, and that but once for all, instantly effected1415    Repræsentavit.    Non ideo. the cure. And surely I might venture1416    Quasi non audeam.    Animam. to claim1417    Vindicare in.    Animale. The terseness of his argument, by his use of the same radical terms Anima and Animale, is lost in the English. [See Cap. 15 infra. Also, Kaye p. 180. St. Augustine seems to tolerate our author’s views of a corporal spirit in his treatise de Hæresibus.] the Very Word also as of the Creator’s substance. There is nothing of which He who was the primitive Author is not also the more powerful one. Forsooth,1418    Plane. An ironical cavil from the Marcionite view.    1 Cor. xv. 46. it is incredible that that power of the Creator should have, by a word, produced a remedy for a single malady, which once by a word brought into being so vast a fabric as the world! From what can the Christ of the Creator be better discerned, than from the power of His word? But Christ is on this account another (Christ), because He acted differently from Elisha—because, in fact, the master is more powerful than his servant! Why, Marcion, do you lay down the rule, that things are done by servants just as they are by their very masters? Are you not afraid that it will turn to your discredit, if you deny that Christ belongs to the Creator, on the ground that He was once more powerful than a servant of the Creator—since, in comparison with the weakness of Elisha, He is acknowledged to be the greater, if indeed greater!1419    Si tamen major.    1 Cor. xv. 45. For the cure is the same, although there is a difference in the working of it. What has your Christ performed more than my Elisha?  Nay, what great thing has the word of your Christ performed, when it has simply done that which a river of the Creator effected? On the same principle occurs all the rest. So far as renouncing all human glory went, He forbade the man to publish abroad the cure; but so far as the honour of the law was concerned, He requested that the usual course should be followed: “Go, show thyself to the priest, and present the offering which Moses commanded.”1420    Luke v. 14.    ὁ ἔσχατος ᾽Αδάμ into ὁ ἔσχατος Κύριος. For the figurative signs of the law in its types He still would have observed, because of their prophetic import.1421    Utpote prophetatæ.    Vel auctoris. These types signified that a man, once a sinner, but afterwards purified1422    Emaculatum.    Par. from the stains thereof by the word of God, was bound to offer unto God in the temple a gift, even prayer and thanksgiving in the church through Christ Jesus, who is the Catholic Priest of the Father.1423    [i.e., the Great High Priest whose sacrifice is accepted of the Father, for the sins of the whole world.]    1 Cor. xv. 47. Accordingly He added: “that it may be for a testimony unto you”—one, no doubt, whereby He would testify that He was not destroying the law, but fulfilling it; whereby, too, He would testify that it was He Himself who was foretold as about to undertake1424    Suscepturus: to carry or take away.    Marcion seems to have changed man into Lord, or rather to have omitted the ἄνθρωπος of the second clause, letting the verse run thus: ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκὁς, ὁ δεύτερος Κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. Anything to cut off all connection with the Creator. their sicknesses and infirmities. This very consistent and becoming explanation of “the testimony,” that adulator of his own Christ, Marcion seeks to exclude under the cover of mercy and gentleness. For, being both good (such are his words), and knowing, besides, that every man who had been freed from leprosy would be sure to perform the solemnities of the law, therefore He gave this precept. Well, what then? Has He continued in his goodness (that is to say, in his permission of the law) or not?  For if he has persevered in his goodness, he will never become a destroyer of the law; nor will he ever be accounted as belonging to another god, because there would not exist that destruction of the law which would constitute his claim to belong to the other god. If, however, he has not continued good, by a subsequent destruction of the law, it is a false testimony which he has since imposed upon them in his cure of the leper; because he has forsaken his goodness, in destroying the law. If, therefore, he was good whilst upholding the law,1425    Legis indultor.    The οἱ ἐπουράνιοι, the “de cœlo homines,” of this ver. 48 are Christ’s risen people; comp. Phil. iii. 20, 21 (Alford). he has now become evil as a destroyer of the law. However, by the support which he gave to the law, he affirmed that the law was good.  For no one permits himself in the support of an evil thing. Therefore he is not only bad if he has permitted obedience to a bad law; but even worse still, if he has appeared1426    Advenit.    Secundum exitum. as the destroyer of a good law. So that if he commanded the offering of the gift because he knew that every cured leper would be sure to bring one; he possibly abstained from commanding what he knew would be spontaneously done. In vain, therefore, was his coming down, as if with the intention of destroying the law, when he makes concessions to the keepers of the law. And yet,1427    Atquin.    1 Cor. xv. 49. T. argues from the reading φορέσωμεν (instead of φορέσομεν), which indeed was read by many of the fathers, and (what is still more important) is found in the Codex Sinaiticus. We add the critical note of Dean Alford on this reading: “ACDFKL rel latt copt goth, Theodotus, Basil, Cæsarius, Cyril, Macarius, Methodius (who prefixes ἕνα), Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Ps. Athanasius, Damascene, Irenæus (int), Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Jerome.”  Alford retains the usual φορέσομεν, on the strength chiefly of the Codex Vaticanus. because he knew their disposition,1428    Formam.    1 Cor. xv. 50. he ought the more earnestly to have prevented their neglect of the law,1429    Ab ea avertendos.    Gal. v. 19–21. since he had come for this purpose. Why then did he not keep silent, that man might of his own simple will obey the law? For then might he have seemed to some extent1430    Aliquatenus.    Rom. viii. 8. to have persisted in his patience. But he adds also his own authority increased by the weight of this “testimony.” Of what testimony, I ask,1431    Jam.    Merebitur. if not that of the assertion of the law?  Surely it matters not in what way he asserted the law—whether as good, or as supererogatory,1432    Supervacuus.    1 Cor. xv. 52. or as patient, or as inconstant—provided, Marcion, I drive you from your position.1433    Gradu.    1 Cor. xv. 53. Observe,1434    Ecce.    Matt. xxii. 30 and Luke xx. 36. he commanded that the law should be fulfilled.  In whatever way he commanded it, in the same way might he also have first uttered that sentiment:1435    Sententiam.    Sed resuscitatæ. “I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it.”1436    Matt. v. 17.    Aut si. What business, therefore, had you to erase out of the Gospel that which was quite consistent in it?1437    Quod salvum est.    1 Cor. xv. 50. For you have confessed that, in his goodness, he did in act what you deny that he did in word.1438    That is, you retain the passage in St. Luke, which relates the act of honouring the law; but you reject that in St. Matthew, which contains Christ’s profession of honouring the law.    Demutationi. We have therefore good proof that He uttered the word, in the fact that He did the deed; and that you have rather expunged the Lord’s word, than that our (evangelists)1439    Nostros: or, perhaps, “our people,”—that is, the Catholics.    Suggested by the ἰσχυσας of Sept. in Isa. xxv. 8. have inserted it.

CAPUT IX.

De tot generibus operum, quid utique ad piscaturam respexit, ut ab illa in apostolos sumeret Simonem et filios Zebedaei? Non enim simplex factum videri potest, de quo argumentum processurum erat, dicens. (Luc., V, 10) Petro trepidanti de copiosa indagine piscium: Ne time, 0374Babhinc enim homines eris capiens. Hoc enim dicto, intellectum illis suggerebat adimpletae prophetiae, se eum esse, qui per Hieremiam pronuntiarat (Jerem., XVI, 16): Ecce ego mittam piscatores multos, et piscabuntur illos; homines scilicet. Denique relictis naviculis secuti sunt eum; ipsum intelligentes, qui coeperat facere quod edixerat. Aliud est, si adfectavit de naviculariorum collegio allegere, habiturus apostolum quandoque nauclerum Marcionem. Praestruximus quidem adversus Antitheses, nihil proficere proposito Marcionis, quam putat, diversitatem Legis et Evangelii, ut et hanc a Creatore dispositam, denique praedicatam in repromissione novae legis et novi sermonis et Novi Testamenti. Sed quoniam attentius argumentatur apud illum suum nescio 0374C quem συνταλαίπωρον, id est commiseronem, et συμμισούμενον, id est, coodibilem, in leprosi purgationem, non pigebit ei occurrere, et in primis figuratae legis vim ostendere; quae in exemplo leprosi non contingendi, imo ab omni commercio submovendi, communicationem prohibebat hominis delictis commaculati; cum qualibus et Apostolus (I Cor., V, 11) cibum quoque vetat sumere: participari enim stigmata delictorum, quasi ex contagione, si quis se cum peccatore miscuerit. Itaque Dominus volens altius intelligi Legem, per carnalia spiritalia significantem, et hoc nomine non destruens, sed magis exstruens quam pertinentius volebat agnosci, tetigit leprosum, a quo etsi homo inquinari potuisset, Deus utique non inquinaretur, incontaminabilis scilicet. Ita non praescribetur 0374D illi quod debuerit legem observare, et non contingere immundum, quem contactus immundi non erat inquinaturus. Hoc magis meo Christo competere sic doceo, dum tuo non competere demonstro. Si enim ut aemulus legis tetigit leprosum, nihil faciens praeceptum legis, per contemptum inquinamenti, quomodo posset inquinari, qui corpus non habebat quod inquinaretur? phantasma enim inquinari 0375A non posset. Qui ergo inquinari non poterat ut phantasma, jam non virtute divina incontaminabilis erit, sed phantasmatis inanitate: nec contempsisse videri potest inquinamentum, cujus materiam non habebat: ita nec legem destruxisse, qui inquinamentum ex occasione phantasmatis, non ex ostentatione virtutis evaserat. Si autem Helisaeus, prophetes Creatoris, unicum leprosum Naaman syrum ex tot leprosis israelitis emendavit (IV Reg., V, 14), nec hoc ad diversitatem facit Christi, quasi hoc modo melioris, dum israelitem leprosum emundavit extraneus, quem suus dominus emundare non valuerat; syro facilius emundato, significato per nationes emundationis in Christo lumine earum, quae septem maculis capitalium delictorum inhorrerent, idololatria, 0375B blasphemia, homicidio, adulterio, stupro, falso testimonio, fraude. Quapropter septies quasi per singulos titulos in Jordane lavit, simul et ut totius hebdomadis caperet expiationem ; quia unius lavacri vis et plenitudo Christo soli dicabatur, facturo in terris, sicut sermonem compendiatum, ita et lavacrum. Nam et hoc opponit Marcion, Helisaeum quidem materia eguisse, aquam adhibuisse, et eam septies; Christum vero verbo solo, et hoc semel functum , curationem statim repraesentasse. Quasi non audeam et verbum ipsum in substantiam Creatoris vindicare. Nullius rei non ille potior auctor, qui prior. Incredibile plane, ut potestas Creatoris verbo remedium vitii unius operata sit, quae verbo tantam mundi molem semel protulit. Unde magis dignoscitur 0375C Christus Creatoris, quam ex verbi potestate? Sed ideo alius Christus, quia aliter quam Helisaeus, quia potentior dominus famulo suo. Quid constituis, Marcion, proinde res agi a servis, quemadmodum ab ipsis dominis? Non times ne in dedecus tibi vertat, si ideo Christum negas Creatoris, quia potentior fuerit famulo Creatoris, qui ad Helisaei pusillitatem major agnoscitur, si tamen major? Par enim curatio, licet distet operatio. Quid amplius praestitit tuus Christus, quam meus Helisaeus? Imo, quid magnum praestitit tui Christi verbum? cum id praestiterit quod fluvius Creatoris. Secundum haec, caetera quoque occurrunt. Quantum enim ad gloriae humanae aversionem pertinebat, vetuit eum divulgare: quantum 0376A autem ad tutelam legis, jussit ordinem impleri: Vade, ostende te sacerdoti, et offer munus quod praecepit Moyses. Argumenta enim figurata utpote prophetatae legis adhuc in suis imaginibus tuebatur, quae significabant hominem quondam peccatorem, verbo mox Dei emaculatum, offerre debere munus Deo apud templum, orationem scilicet et actionem gratiarum apud Ecclesiam, per Christum Jesum catholicum Patris sacerdotem. Itaque adjecit: Ut sit vobis in testimonium; sine dubio, quo testabatur se legem non dissolvere, sed adimplere; quo testabatur seipsum esse, qui morbos et valetudines eorum suscepturus annuntiabatur. Hanc tam congruentem et debitam interpretationem testimonii adulator Christi sui Marcion, sub obtentu mansuetudinis 0376B et lenitatis quaerit excludere. Nam et bonus, inquit, praeterea sciens omnem, qui lepra esset liberatus, solemnia legis executurum, ideo ita praecepit. Quid tum? Perseveravitne in bonitate, id est, permissione legis, an non ? Si enim bonus perseveravit, nunquam destructor erit legis, nec Dei alterius habebitur, cessante legis destructione per quam alterius Dei vindicatur. Si non perseveravit bonus destruendo postea legem, falsum ergo testimonium postea collocavit apud illos in curatione leprosi: deservit enim bonitatem, dum destruit legem. Malus jam, quando legis eversor, si bonus, cum legis indultor. Sed et eo quod indulsit legi obsequium, bonam legem confirmavit. Nemo enim malo obsequi patitur. Ergo et sic malus, si obsequium malae legi 0376C indulsit; et sic deterior, si bonae legis destructor advenit. Proinde si ut sciens omnem qui lepra liberatus esset ita facturum, ideo praecepit munus offerre, potuit et non praecepisse quod sciebat ultro futurum. In vanum ergo descendit quasi legem destructurus, cum cedit obsecutoribus legis. Atquin quasi sciens formam eorum, magis ab ea avertendos praevenire debuerat, si in hoc venerat. Cur ergo non lacuit, ut homo solo suo arbitrio legi obediret? tunc enim aliquatenus posset videri patientiae suae praestitisse. Sed adjicit etiam auctoritatem suam exaggeratam testimonii pondere. Cujus jam testimonii, nisi legis assertae? Certe nihil interest quomodo firmaverit legem, sive qua bonus, sive qua supervacuus, sive 0377A qua patiens, sive qua inconstans, dum te, Marcion, de gradu pellam . Ecce praecepit legem impleri. Quocumque modo praecepit , eodem potuit etiam illam praemisisse (Matth., V, 17) sententiam: Non veni legem dissolvere, sed adimplere. Quid ergo tibi fuit de Evangelio erasisse quod salvum est? confessus es enim prae bonitate fecisse illum, quod negas dixisse. Constat ergo dixisse illum, quia et fecit; et te potius vocem Domini de Evangelio erasisse , quam nostros injecisse.