Chapter XI.—The Call of Levi the Publican. Christ in Relation to the Baptist. Christ as the Bridegroom. The Parable of the Old Wine and the New. Arguments Connecting Christ with the Creator.

The publican who was chosen by the Lord,1490    He means Levi or St. Matthew; see Luke v. 27–39. he adduces for a proof that he was chosen as a stranger to the law and uninitiated in1491    Profanum. 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.1492    Matt. xvi. 17. 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.”1493    Luke v. 31. 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 down1494    Male descendit. 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.” 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,1495    Homo a deo Marcionis. 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. Whence, too, does John come upon the scene? Christ, suddenly; and just as suddenly, John!1496    See chap. vii. of this book, and chap. ii. of book. iii. After this fashion occur all things in Marcion’s system. They have their own special and plenary course1497    Plenum ordinem. in the Creator’s dispensation. Of John, however, what else I have to say will be found in another passage.1498    See below, chap. xviii. To the several points which now come before us an answer must be given. This, then, I will take care to do1499    Tuebor.—demonstrate that, reciprocally, John is suitable to Christ, and Christ to John, 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. 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) Himself1500    Ipsum. 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 diversity1501    Marcion’s diversitas implied an utter incompatibility between John and Christ; for it assigned John to the Creator, from whom it took Christ away. 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. 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,1502    De disciplinis: or, “about discipleships.” having a prior difference about the authorities1503    De auctoritatibus; or, “about the authors thereof.” 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 modestly1504    Humiliter. 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,”1505    Luke v. 34, 35. 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 allowed1506    Concessit. it, referring it to the time of John, although destining it for His own time. Otherwise His purpose would have been to reject it,1507    Rejecturus alioquin. and to defend its opponents, if He had not Himself already belonged to it as then in force. 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.”1508    Ps. xix. 5, 6. 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.”1509    Isa. lxi. 10. To Himself likewise He appropriates1510    Deputat. the church, concerning which the same1511    The same, which spake again by Isaiah. Spirit says to Him: “Thou shalt clothe Thee with them all, as with a bridal ornament.”1512    Isa. xlix. 18. 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.”1513    Song of Sol. iv. 8. He elegantly makes mention of Lebanon (the mountain, of course) because it stands for the name of frankincense with the Greeks;1514    There is also in Hebrew an affinity between לֹבנה, “frankincense,” and לֹבִבוז, “Lebanon.” [Note this strange but reiterated and emphatic identification of incense with idolatry. In the Gentile church it was thoroughly identified with Paganism.] 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 cælebs or a eunuch; until death or divorce does he reserve baptism.1515    See also book i. chap. xxix. [On this reservation of Baptism see Elucidation II.] 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. 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.1516    Alter. When by Jeremiah He gave this precept, “Break up for yourselves new pastures,”1517    Jer. iv. 3. 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,”1518    His reading of (probably) Isa. xliii. 19; comp. 2 Cor. v. 17. does He not advert to a new state of things?  We have generally been of opinion1519    Olim statuimus. 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. 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 only1520    Ille. 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 condition1521    Novitas. of the gospel from the old state1522    Vetustas. of the law, He proved that that1523    That is, “the oldness of the law.” from which He was separating His own1524    That is, “the newness of the gospel.” ought not to have been branded1525    Notandam. as a separation1526    Separatione. The more general reading is separationem. of things which were alien to each other; for nobody ever unites his own things with things that are alien to them,1527    Alienis: i.e., “things not his own.” in order that he may afterwards be able to separate them from the alien things. 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,1528    Amplitudinem. 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 advances1529    Provehitur, “is developed.” from the law—a different thing1530    Aliud. from it, but not an alien one; diverse, but not contrary. 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).1531    See Ps. lxxviii. 2. 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.

CAPUT XI.

Publicanum allectum a Domino in argumentum deducit, quasi ab adversario legis allectum, extraneum Legis, et judaismi prophanum. Excidit ei vel de Petro, Legis homine, et tamen non tantum allecto, sed etiam testimonium consecuto agnitionis praestitae a Patre (Matth. XVI, 17). Nusquam legerat lumen, et spem, et expectationem nationum praedicari Christum. Atquin probavit potius Judaeos, dicendo 0381A (Luc. V, 31), medicum sanis non esse necessarium, sed male habentibus. Si enim male valentes voluit intelligi ethnicos et publicanos quos allegebat, sanos judaeos 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. 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 praejudicat, ab eo magis praestari medicum, ad quem pertinent qui languent. Unde autem 0381B et Joannes venit in medium? Subito Christus, subito et Joannes. Sic sunt omnia apud Marcionem, quae suum et plenum habent ordinem apud Creatorem. Sed de Joanne caetera alibi; ad praesentes enim quosque articulos respondendum est. Nunc illud tuebor, ut demonstrem et Joannem Christo, et Christum Joanni convenire, utique prophetae Creatoris, qua Christum Creatoris; atque ita erubescat haereticus, Joannis ordinem frustra frustratus. Si enim nihil omnino administrasset Joannes, secundum Esaiam (Is. XL, 3) vociferator in solitudinem, et praeparator viarum dominicarum, per denuntiationem et laudationem poenitentiae; si non etiam ipsum inter caeteros tinxisset, nemo discipulos Christi, manducantes et bibentes, ad formam discipulorum Joannis 0381C assidue jejunantium et orantium provocasset: quia si qua diversitas staret inter Christum et Joannem, et gregem utriusque, nulla esset comparationis exactio, vacaret provocationis intentio. 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 Joannis erat Christus, et Joannes Christi; ambo Creatoris, et ambo de Lege et Prophetis, praedicatores et magistri. Sed et Christus rejecisset Joannis 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 jejunare filii sponsi, quamdiu cum eis esset 0381D sponsus; postea vero jejunaturos promittens, cum ablatus ab eis sponsus esset; nec discipulos defendit, sed potius excusavit, quasi non sine ratione reprehensos; 0382A nec Joannis rejecit disciplinam, sed magis concessit, tempori Joannis eam praestans, ut tempori suo cam destinans; rejecturus alioquin eam et defensurus aemulos ejus , si non ipsius fuisset jam quae erat. Teneo meum Christum, etiam in nomine sponsi, de quo Psalmus (Ps. XVIII, 5): Ipse tanquam sponsus egrediens de thalamo suo: a summo coeli profectio ejus, et deversio ejus ad summum usque ejus. Qui etiam per Isaiam gaudens ad Patrem: Exultet, inquit (Is. LXI, 10), anima mea in Domino; induit enim me indumentum salutaris, et tunicam jucunditatis velut sponso: circumposuit mihi mitram velut sponsae . In se enim et Ecclesiam deputat, de qua idem Spiritus ad ipsum (Is. XLIX, 18): Et circumpones tibi omnes eos, velut ornamentum sponsae . 0382B Hanc sponsam Christus sibi etiam per Salomonem ex vocatione gentium accersit. Siquidem legisti (Cant. IV, 8): Veni, sponsa, de Libano. Eleganter Libani utique montis mentione injecta, qui thuris vocabulum est penes Graecos , de idololatria enim sibi sponsabit Ecclesiam. Nega te nunc dementissimum, Marcion. Ecce legem tui quoque Dei impugnas: Nuptias non conjungit, conjunctas non admittit, neminem tinguit nisi coelibem aut spadonem, morti aut repudio baptisma servat. Quid itaque Christum ejus sponsum facis? Illius hoc nomen est, qui masculum et foeminam conjunxit, non qui separavit. Errasti in illa etiam Domini pronuntiatione, qua videtur nova et vetera discernere. Inflatus es utribus veteribus, et excerebratus es 0382C novo vino; atque ita veteri, id est, priori Evangelio pannum haereticae novitatis assuisti. In quo, alter creator (velim discere) cum per Hieremiam (Jerem. IV, 4) praecepit: Novate vobis novamen novum; nonne a veteribus avertit? cum per Isaiam (Is. XLIII, 18) edicit: Vetera transierunt; ecce nova quae ego facio; nonne ad nova convertit? Olim hanc statuimus destinationem pristinorum a Creatore potius repromissam, a Christo exhiberi, sub unius et ejusdem Dei auctoritate, cujus sint et vetera et nova. Nam et vinum novum is non committit in veteres utres, qui et veteres utres non habuerit; et novum additamentum nemo injicit veteri vestimento, nisi cui non defuerit et vetus vestimentum. Ille non facit quid, si faciendum non est, qui non habeat unde faciat, si 0382D faciendum esset. Itaque si in hoc dirigebat similitudinem, ut ostenderet se Evangelii novitatem separare a Legis vetustate, suam demonstrabat, et illam a qua 0383A separabat, alienorum separatione non fuisse notandam, quia nemo alienis sua adjungit, ut ab alienis separare possit. Separatio per conjunctionem 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. Nec forma sermonis in Christo nova: cum similitudines objicit, 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 0383B alterius gentis probare voluisses, utique de proprietate loquelae probares.