Chapter XX.—Comparison of Christ’s Power Over Winds and Waves with Moses’ Command of the Waters of the Red Sea and the Jordan. Christ’s Power Over Unclean Spirits. The Case of the Legion. The Cure of the Issue of Blood. The Mosaic Uncleanness on This Point Explained.

But “what manner of man is this? for He commandeth even the winds and water!”1895    Luke viii. 25. Of course He is the new master and proprietor of the elements, now that the Creator is deposed, and excluded from their possession! Nothing of the kind. But the elements own1896    Agnorant. their own Maker, just as they had been accustomed to obey His servants also. Examine well the Exodus, Marcion; look at the rod of Moses, as it waves His command to the Red Sea, ampler than all the lakes of Judæa. How the sea yawns from its very depths, then fixes itself in two solidified masses, and so, out of the interval between them,1897    Et pari utrinque stupore discriminis fixum. makes a way for the people to pass dry-shod across; again does the same rod vibrate, the sea returns in its strength, and in the concourse of its waters the chivalry of Egypt is engulphed! To that consummation the very winds subserved!  Read, too, how that the Jordan was as a sword, to hinder the emigrant nation in their passage across its stream; how that its waters from above stood still, and its current below wholly ceased to run at the bidding of Joshua,1898    Josh. iii. 9–17. when his priests began to pass over!1899    This obscure passage is thus read by Oehler, from whom we have translated: “Lege extorri familiæ dirimendæ in transitu ejus Jordanis machæram fuisse, cujus impetum atque decursum plane et Jesus docuerat prophetis transmeantibus stare.” The machæram (“sword”) is a metaphor for the river. Rigaltius refers to Virgil’s figure, Æneid, viii. 62, 64, for a justification of the simile. Oehler has altered the reading from the “ex sortefamilæ,” etc., of the mss. to “extorrifamiliæ,” etc. The former reading would mean probably: “Read out of the story of the nation how that Jordan was as a sword to hinder their passage across its stream.” The sorte (or, as yet another variation has it, “et sortes,” “the accounts”) meant the national record, as we have it in the beginning of the book of Joshua. But the passage is almost hopelessly obscure.What will you say to this? If it be your Christ that is meant above, he will not be more potent than the servants of the Creator.  But I should have been content with the examples I have adduced without addition,1900    Solis. if a prediction of His present passage on the sea had not preceded Christ’s coming. As psalm is, in fact, accomplished by this1901    Istius. crossing over the lake. “The Lord,” says the psalmist, “is upon many waters.”1902    Ps. xxix. 3. When He disperses its waves, Habakkuk’s words are fulfilled, where he says, “Scattering the waters in His passage.”1903    Hab. iii. 10, according to the Septuagint. When at His rebuke the sea is calmed, Nahum is also verified: He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry,”1904    Nah. i. 4. including the winds indeed, whereby it was disquieted. With what evidence would you have my Christ vindicated? Shall it come from the examples, or from the prophecies, of the Creator? You suppose that He is predicted as a military and armed warrior,1905    See above, book iii. chap. xiii. instead of one who in a figurative and allegorical sense was to wage a spiritual warfare against spiritual enemies, in spiritual campaigns, and with spiritual weapons: come now, when in one man alone you discover a multitude of demons calling itself Legion,1906    Luke viii. 30. of course comprised of spirits, you should learn that Christ also must be understood to be an exterminator of spiritual foes, who wields spiritual arms and fights in spiritual strife; and that it was none other than He,1907    Atque ita ipsum esse. who now had to contend with even a legion of demons. Therefore it is of such a war as this that the Psalm may evidently have spoken:  “The Lord is strong, The Lord is mighty in battle.”1908    Ps. xxiv. 8. For with the last enemy death did He fight, and through the trophy of the cross He triumphed. Now of what God did the Legion testify that Jesus was the Son?1909    Luke viii. 28. No doubt, of that God whose torments and abyss they knew and dreaded. It seems impossible for them to have remained up to this time in ignorance of what the power of the recent and unknown god was working in the world, because it is very unlikely that the Creator was ignorant thereof. For if He had been at any time ignorant that there was another god above Himself, He had by this time at all events discovered that there was one at work1910    Agentem. below His heaven. Now, what their Lord had discovered had by this time become notorious to His entire family within the same world and the same circuit of heaven, in which the strange deity dwelt and acted.1911    Conversaretur. As therefore both the Creator and His creatures1912    Substantiæ: including these demons. must have had knowledge of him, if he had been in existence, so, inasmuch as he had no existence, the demons really knew none other than the Christ of their own God. They do not ask of the strange god, what they recollected they must beg of the Creator—not to be plunged into the Creator’s abyss. They at last had their request granted. On what ground? Because they had lied? Because they had proclaimed Him to be the Son of a ruthless God? And what sort of god will that be who helped the lying, and upheld his detractors? However, no need of this thought, for,1913    Sed enim: the ἀλλὰ γὰρ of the Greek. inasmuch as they had not lied, inasmuch as they had acknowledged that the God of the abyss was also their God, so did He actually Himself affirm that He was the same whom these demons acknowledged—Jesus, the Judge and Son of the avenging God. Now, behold an inkling1914    Aliquid. of the Creator’s failings1915    Pusillitatibus. and infirmities in Christ; for I on my side1916    Ego. mean to impute to Him ignorance. Allow me some indulgence in my effort against the heretic. Jesus is touched by the woman who had an issue of blood,1917    Luke viii. 43–46. He knew not by whom. “Who touched me?” He asks, when His disciples alleged an excuse.  He even persists in His assertion of ignorance: “Somebody hath touched me,” He says, and advances some proof: “For I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.” What says our heretic? Could Christ have known the person? And why did He speak as if He were ignorant? Why? Surely it was to challenge her faith, and to try her fear. Precisely as He had once questioned Adam, as if in ignorance:  Adam, where art thou?”1918    See above, book iii. chap. xxv. Thus you have both the Creator excused in the same way as Christ, and Christ acting similarly to1919    Adæquatum: on a par with. the Creator. But in this case He acted as an adversary of the law; and therefore, as the law forbids contact with a woman with an issue,1920    Lev. xv. 19. He desired not only that this woman should touch Him, but that He should heal her.1921    A Marcionite hypothesis. Here, then, is a God who is not merciful by nature, but in hostility!  Yet, if we find that such was the merit of this woman’s faith, that He said unto her, Thy faith hath saved thee,”1922    Luke viii. 48. what are you, that you should detect an hostility to the law in that act, which the Lord Himself shows us to have been done as a reward of faith? But will you have it that this faith of the woman consisted in the contempt which she had acquired for the law? Who can suppose, that a woman who had been. hitherto unconscious of any God, uninitiated as yet in any new law, should violently infringe that law by which she was up to this time bound? On what faith, indeed, was such an infringement hazarded? In what God believing? Whom despising? The Creator?  Her touch at least was an act of faith.  And if of faith in the Creator, how could she have violated His law,1923    Ecquomodo legem ejus irrupit. when she was ignorant of any other God?  Whatever her infringement of the law amounted to, it proceeded from and was proportionate to her faith in the Creator.  But how can these two things be compatible? That she violated the law, and violated it in faith, which ought to have restrained her from such violation? I will tell you how her faith was this above all:1924    Primo. it made her believe that her God preferred mercy even to sacrifice; she was certain that her God was working in Christ; she touched Him, therefore, nor as a holy man simply, nor as a prophet, whom she knew to be capable of contamination by reason of his human nature, but as very God, whom she assumed to be beyond all possibility of pollution by any uncleanness.1925    Spurcitia. She therefore, not without reason,1926    Non temere. interpreted for herself the law, as meaning that such things as are susceptible of defilement become defiled, but not so God, whom she knew for certain to be in Christ. But she recollected this also, that what came under the prohibition of the law1927    In lege taxari. was that ordinary and usual issue of blood which proceeds from natural functions every month, and in childbirth, not that which was the result of disordered health. Her case, however, was one of long abounding1928    Illa autem redundavit. ill health, for which she knew that the succour of God’s mercy was needed, and not the natural relief of time. And thus she may evidently be regarded as having discerned1929    Distinxisse. the law, instead of breaking it. This will prove to be the faith which was to confer intelligence likewise. “If ye will not believe,” says (the prophet), “ye shall not understand.”1930    Isa. vii. 9. When Christ approved of the faith of this woman, which simply rested in the Creator, He declared by His answer to her,1931    Luke viii. 48. that He was Himself the divine object of the faith of which He approved. Nor can I overlook the fact that His garment, by being touched, demonstrated also the truth of His body; for of course”1932    Utique. it was a body, and not a phantom, which the garment clothed.1933    Epiphanius, in Hæres. xlii. Refut. 14, has the same remark. This indeed is not our point now; but the remark has a natural bearing on the question we are discussing. For if it were not a veritable body, but only a fantastic one, it could not for certain have received contamination, as being an unsubstantial thing.1934    Qua res vacua. He therefore, who, by reason of this vacuity of his substance, was incapable of contamination, how could he possibly have desired this touch?1935    In allusion to the Marcionite hypothesis mentioned above. As an adversary of the law, his conduct was deceitful, for he was not susceptible of a real pollution.

CAPUT XX.

Quis autem iste est, qui et ventis et mari imperat (Luc, VIII)? Nimirum novus dominator atque possessor elementorum subacti jam et exclusi Creatoris. Non ita est. Sed agnorant substantiae auctorem suum, quae famulis quoque ejus obaudire consueverant. Inspice Exodum (Exod., XIV), Marcion, adspice Mari Rubro, vastiori super omnia stagna Judaeae, virgam Moysi imperantem, ut funditus proscissum, et pari utrimque stupore discriminis fixum, sicco populum 0406B pede, intestino itinere transmitteret, rursusque sub ejusdem virgae nutu, redeunte natura, Aegyptium exercitum undarum concordia obrueret: in quod opus et austri servierunt. Lege et (Jos., III, 4) sortes familiae dirimendae, in transitum ejus Jordanis machaeram fuisse, cujus impetum atque decursum plane et Jesus docuerat prophetis transmeantibus stare. Quid ad haec? Si tuus Christus est, non erit potentior famulis Creatoris. Sed his solis exemplis usus essem, si non etiam praedicatio marinae istius expeditionis Christum antecessisset. Nam cum transfretat, Psalmus (Ps. XXVIII, 3) expungitur: Dominus, inquit, super aquas multas: cum undas freti discutit, Habacuc adimpletur: Dispargens , inquit, (Habac., III, 9) aquas itinere: cum ad minas ejus eliditur 0406C mare, Nahum quoque absolvitur: Comminans, inquit (Nah., I, 4), mari, et arefaciens illud; utique cum ventis, quibus inquietabatur. Unde vis meum vindicem Christum? de exemplis, an de prophetis Creatoris? Age nunc, qui militarem et armatum bellatorem praedicari putas, non figurate, nec allegorice, qui bellum spiritale adversus spiritales 0407A hostes, spiritali militia et spiritalibus armis, spiritaliter debellaturus esset: cum invenis in uno homine multitudinem daemonum, legionem se professam, utique spiritalem, disce et Christum expugnatorem spiritalium hostium, spiritaliter armatum, et spiritaliter bellicosum intelligendum; atque ita ipsum esse, qui cum legione quoque daemonum erat dimicaturus; ut et de hoc bello Psalmus possit videri pronuntiasse (Ps. XXIII, 8): Dominus validus, Dominus potens in bello . Nam cum ultimo hoste morte praeliatus, per tropaeum crucis triumphavit. Cujus autem Dei Filium Jesum legio testata est? Sine dubio cujus tormenta et abyssum noverant, et timebant, nec enim videntur posse ignorasse adhuc quod novi et ignoti Dei virtus operaretur in terris; quia verisimile 0407B non est Creatorem ignorasse. Si enim alium supra se Deum ignoraverat aliquando, tamen jam infra coelum suum agentem, utique compererat. Quod autem Dominus comperisset, jam et universae familiae innocuisset in eodem mundo, et intra eumdem ambitum coeli, quo peregrina Divinitas conversaretur. In quantum ergo et Creator scisset eam, et substantiae ejus, si fuisset; in tantum quia nulla fuit, non alium daemones sciebant, quam Dei sui Christum. Non depetunt ab alio, quod meminissent petendum sibi a Creatore, veniam scilicet abyssi Creatoris. Denique impetraverunt. Quo merito? Quia mentiti erant? quia saevi Dei filium eum fecerant? Et qualis erit, qui mentitos juvabat, qui infamantes sustinebat? Sed enim, quia mentiti non erant, quia Deum abyssi et 0407C suum cognoverant, ita eum se et ipse confirmavit quem adcognoverunt daemones, Jesum judicem et ultoris Dei Filium. Ecce aliquid et de illis pusillitatibus et infirmitatibus Creatoris in Christo. Ignorantiam enim et ego adscibere ei volo. Permittite mihi adversus haereticum. Tangitur a foemina quae sanguine fluitabat, et nescivit a qua. Quis me, inquit tetigit? Etiam excusantibus discipulis, perseverat in ignorantiae voce, Tetigit me aliquis; idque de argumento affirmat: Sensi enim virtutem ex me profectam. Quid dicit haereticus? sciebatne personam? Et cur quasi ignorans loquebatur? Ut confessionem certe 0408A provocaret, ut timorem probaret. Sic et Adam aliquando quaesierat, quasi ignorans: Adam, ubi es? Habes et Creatorem cum Christo excusatum, et Christum Creatori adaequatum. Sed et hoc, qui adversarius legis; ut quia lex a contactu foeminae sanguinantis submovet, idcirco gestierit non tantum contactum ejus admittere, sed etiam sanitatem donare. O Deum non natura beneficum, sed aemulatione! At enim si fidem mulieris invenimus ita meruisse, cum dicit: Fides tua te salvam fecit, qui es ut aemulationem legis interpreteris in isto facto, quod ipse Dominus ex fidei remuneratione editum ostendit? Sed hanc vis mulieris fidem constituet, qua contempserat legem. Et cui credibile, ut mulier nullius adhuc Dei conscia, nullius adhuc novae legis initiata, 0408B legem inrumperet eam cui adhuc tenebatur? Qua denique fide inrupit? in quem Deum credens? quem spernens? Creatorem? Certe enim ex fide tetigit. Si ex fide Creatoris, quae alium Deum ignorabat, et quomodo legem ejus irrupit? Tam enim inrupit, si inrupit, quam ex fide Creatoris. Quomodo enim utrumque conveniet, ut et inruperit, et ex fide eam inruperit, propter quam inrupisse non debuit? Dicam. Fides haec fuit primo, qua Deum suum confidebat misericordiam malle quam ipsum sacrificium, qua eum Deum certa erat operari in Christo, qua sic eum tetigit, non ut hominem sanctum, nec ut prophetam, quem contaminabilem pro humana substantia sciret; sed ut ipsum Deum, quem nulla spurcitia pollui posse praesumpserat. Itaque non temere interpretata est 0408C sibi legem, ea contaminari significantem, quae essent contaminabilia, non Deum, quem in Christo confidebat. Sed et illud recogitavit, ordinarium et solemnem menstrui vel partualis sanguinis fluxum in lege taxari, qui veniat ex officio naturae, non ex vitio valetudinis. Illa autem ex vitio valetudinis redundabat, cui non modum temporis, sed divinae misericordiae auxilium necessarium sciebat. Atque ita potest videri legem non irrupisse, sed distinxisse. Haec erit fides, quae contulerat etiam intellectum. Nisi credideritis, inquit (Is. VII), non intelligetis. Hanc fidem probans Christus ejus foeminae, quae solum credebat Creatorem, ejus fidei se Deum respondit, quam probavit. Nec illud omittam, quod dum tangitur vestimentum ejus, utique corpori, non phantasmati, inditum corpus quoque demonstrabatur; non quasi jam de hoc retractemus, sed quia ad praesentem conspirat quaestionem. Si enim non erat veritas corporis, phantasma utique contaminari, qua res vacua, non posset. Qui ergo non potest contaminari prae inanitate substantiae, quomodo voluisset? Ut aemulus legis mentiebatur, qui non vere polluebatur.