The Five Books Against Marcion.
Book I. Wherein is described the god of Marcion. …
Chapter III.—The Unity of God. He is the Supreme Being, and There Cannot Be a Second Supreme.
Chapter XXVII.—Dangerous Effects to Religion and Morality of the Doctrine of So Weak a God.
Chapter XXVIII.—The Tables Turned Upon Marcion, by Contrasts, in Favour of the True God.
Chapter II.—Why Christ’s Coming Should Be Previously Announced.
Chapter III.—Miracles Alone, Without Prophecy, an Insufficient Evidence of Christ’s Mission.
Chapter V.—Sundry Features of the Prophetic Style: Principles of Its Interpretation.
Chapter VIII.—Absurdity of Marcion’s Docetic Opinions Reality of Christ’s Incarnation.
Chapter X.—The Truly Incarnate State More Worthy of God Than Marcion’s Fantastic Flesh.
Chapter XI.—Christ Was Truly Born Marcion’s Absurd Cavil in Defence of a Putative Nativity.
Chapter XII.—Isaiah’s Prophecy of Emmanuel. Christ Entitled to that Name.
Chapter XVI.—The Sacred Name Jesus Most Suited to the Christ of the Creator. Joshua a Type of Him.
Chapter XVII.—Prophecies in Isaiah and the Psalms Respecting Christ’s Humiliation.
Chapter XIX.—Prophecies of the Death of Christ.
Chapter XXI.—The Call of the Gentiles Under the Influence of the Gospel Foretold.
Chapter XXIV.—Christ’s Millennial and Heavenly Glory in Company with His Saints.
Book IV. In Which Tertullian Pursues His…
In the scheme of Marcion, on the contrary, the mystery edition the
Chapter XXXV.—The Judicial Severity of Christ and the Tenderness of the Creator, Asserted in Contradiction to Marcion. The Cure of the Ten Lepers. Old Testament Analogies. The Kingdom of God Within You; This Teaching Similar to that of Moses. Christ, the Stone Rejected by the Builders. Indications of Severity in the Coming of Christ. Proofs that He is Not the Impassible Being Marcion Imagined.
Then, turning to His disciples, He says: “Woe unto him through whom offences come! It were better for him if he had not been born, or if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones,”2539 Luke xvii. 1, 2. that is, one of His disciples. Judge, then, what the sort of punishment is which He so severely threatens. For it is no stranger who is to avenge the offence done to His disciples. Recognise also in Him the Judge, and one too, who expresses Himself on the safety of His followers with the same tenderness as that which the Creator long ago exhibited: “He that toucheth you toucheth the apple of my eye.”2540 Zech. ii. 8. Such identity of care proceeds from one and the same Being. A trespassing brother He will have rebuked.2541 Luke xvii. 3. If one failed in this duty of reproof, he in fact sinned, either because out of hatred he wished his brother to continue in sin, or else spared him from mistaken friendship,2542 Ex acceptione personæ. The Greek προσωποληψία, “respect of persons.” although possessing the injunction in Leviticus: “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart; thy neighbor thou shalt seriously rebuke, and on his account shalt not contract sin.”2543 Lev. xix. 17. The last clause in A.V. runs, “And not suffer sin upon him;” but the Sept gives this reading, καὶ οὐ λήψῃ δι᾽ αὐτὸν ἁμαρτίαν; nor need the Hebrew mean other than this. The prenominal particle עיֹיו may be well rendered δι᾽ αὐτόι on his account. Nor is it to be wondered at, if He thus teaches who forbids your refusing to bring back even your brother’s cattle, if you find them astray in the road; much more should you bring back your erring brother to himself. He commands you to forgive your brother, should he trespass against you even “seven times.”2544 Luke xvii. 4. But that surely, is a small matter; for with the Creator there is a larger grace, when He sets no limits to forgiveness, indefinitely charging you “not to bear any malice against your brother,”2545 Lev. xix. 18. and to give not merely to him who asks, but even to him who does not ask. For His will is, not that you should forgive2546 Dones. an offence, but forget it. The law about lepers had a profound meaning as respects2547 Erga: i.q. circa. the forms of the disease itself, and of the inspection by the high priest.2548 See Lev. xiii. and xiv. The interpretation of this sense it will be our task to ascertain. Marcion’s labour, however, is to object to us the strictness2549 Morositatem. of the law, with the view of maintaining that here also Christ is its enemy—forestalling2550 Prævenientem. its enactments even in His cure of the ten lepers. These He simply commanded to show themselves to the priest; “and as they went, He cleansed them”2551 Luke xvii. 11–19.—without a touch, and without a word, by His silent power and simple will. Well, but what necessity was there for Christ, who had been once for all announced as the healer of our sicknesses and sins, and had proved Himself such by His acts,2552 Or, perhaps, “had proved the prophecy true by His accomplishment of it.” to busy Himself with inquiries2553 Retractari. into the qualities and details of cures; or for the Creator to be summoned to the scrutiny of the law in the person of Christ? If any part of this healing was effected by Him in a way different from the law, He yet Himself did it to perfection; for surely the Lord may by Himself, or by His Son, produce after one manner, and after another manner by His servants the prophets, those proofs of His power and might especially, which (as excelling in glory and strength, because they are His own acts) rightly enough leave in the distance behind them the works which are done by His servants. But enough has been already said on this point in a former passage.2554 See above in chap. ix. Now, although He said in a preceding chapter,2555 Præfatus est: see Luke iv. 27. that “there were many lepers in Israel in the days of Eliseus the prophet, and none of them was cleansed saving Naaman the Syrian,” yet of course the mere number proves nothing towards a difference in the gods, as tending to the abasement2556 Destructionem. of the Creator in curing only one, and the pre-eminence of Him who healed ten. For who can doubt that many might have been cured by Him who cured one more easily than ten by him who had never healed one before? But His main purpose in this declaration was to strike at the unbelief or the pride of Israel, in that (although there were many lepers amongst them, and a prophet was not wanting to them) not one had been moved even by so conspicuous an example to betake himself to God who was working in His prophets. Forasmuch, then, as He was Himself the veritable2557 Authenticus. “He was the true, the original Priest, of whom the priests under the Mosaic law were only copies” (Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian, pp. 293, 294, and note 8). High Priest of God the Father, He inspected them according to the hidden purport of the law, which signified that Christ was the true distinguisher and extinguisher of the defilements of mankind. However, what was obviously required by the law He commanded should be done: “Go,” said He, “show yourselves to the priests.”2558 Luke xvii. 14. Yet why this, if He meant to cleanse them first? Was it as a despiser of the law, in order to prove to them that, having been cured already on the road, the law was now nothing to them, nor even the priests? Well, the matter must of course pass as it best may,2559 Et utique viderit. if anybody supposes that Christ had such views as these!2560 Tam opiniosus. But there are certainly better interpretations to be found of the passage, and more deserving of belief: how that they were cleansed on this account, because2561 Qua: “I should prefer quia” (Oehler). they were obedient, and went as the law required, when they were commanded to go to the priests; and it is not to be believed that persons who observed the law could have found a cure from a god that was destroying the law. Why, however, did He not give such a command to the leper who first returned?2562 Pristino leproso: but doubtful. Because Elisha did not in the case of Naaman the Syrian, and yet was not on that account less the Creator’s agent? This is a sufficient answer. But the believer knows that there is a profounder reason. Consider, therefore, the true motives.2563 Causas. The miracle was performed in the district of Samaria, to which country also belonged one of the lepers.2564 Luke xvii. 17. Samaria, however, had revolted from Israel, carrying with it the disaffected nine tribes,2565 Schisma illud ex novem tribubus. There is another reading which substitutes the word decem. “It is, however, immaterial; either number will do roundly. If ‘ten’ be the number, it must be understood that the tenth is divided, accurately making nine and a half tribes. If ‘nine’ be read, the same amount is still made up, for Simeon was reckoned with Judah, and half of the tribe of Benjamin remained loyal” (Fr. Junius). which, having been alienated2566 Avulsas. by the prophet Ahijah,2567 1 Kings xi. 29–39 and xii. 15. Jeroboam settled in Samaria. Besides, the Samaritans were always pleased with the mountains and the wells of their ancestors. Thus, in the Gospel of John, the woman of Samaria, when conversing with the Lord at the well, says, “No doubt2568 Næ. Thou art greater,” etc.; and again, “Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; but ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”2569 John iv. 12, 20. Accordingly, He who said, “Woe unto them that trust in the mountain of Samaria,”2570 Amos vi. 1. vouchsafing now to restore that very region, purposely requests the men “to go and show themselves to the priests,” because these were to be found only there where the temple was; submitting2571 Subiciens: or “subjecting.” the Samaritan to the Jew, inasmuch as “salvation was of the Jews,”2572 John iv. 22. whether to the Israelite or the Samaritan. To the tribe of Judah, indeed, wholly appertained the promised Christ,2573 Tota promissio Christus. in order that men might know that at Jerusalem were both the priests and the temple; that there also was the womb2574 Matricem. of religion, and its living fountain, not its mere “well.”2575 Fontem non puteum salutis. Seeing, therefore, that they recognised2576 Agnovisse. the truth that at Jerusalem the law was to be fulfilled, He healed them, whose salvation was to come2577 Justificandos. of faith2578 Luke xvii. 19. without the ceremony of the law. Whence also, astonished that one only out of the ten was thankful for his release to the divine grace, He does not command him to offer a gift according to the law, because he had already paid his tribute of gratitude when “he glorified God”;2579 Luke xvii. 15. for thus did the Lord will that the law’s requirement should be interpreted. And yet who was the God to whom the Samaritan gave thanks, because thus far not even had an Israelite heard of another god? Who else but He by whom all had hitherto been healed through Christ? And therefore it was said to him, “Thy faith hath made thee whole,”2580 Luke xvii. 19. because he had discovered that it was his duty to render the true oblation to Almighty God—even thanksgiving—in His true temple, and before His true High Priest Jesus Christ. But it is impossible either that the Pharisees should seem to have inquired of the Lord about the coming of the kingdom of the rival god, when no other god has ever yet been announced by Christ; or that He should have answered them concerning the kingdom of any other god than Him of whom they were in the habit of asking Him. “The kingdom of God,” He says, “cometh not with observation; neither do they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”2581 Luke xvii. 20, 21. Now, who will not interpret the words “within you” to mean in your hand, within your power, if you hear, and do the commandment of God? If, however, the kingdom of God lies in His commandment, set before your mind Moses on the other side, according to our antitheses, and you will find the self-same view of the case.2582 Una sententia. “The commandment is not a lofty one,2583 Excelsum: Sept. ὑπέρογχος. neither is it far off from thee. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, ‘Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?’ nor is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, ‘Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?’ But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, and in thy hands, to do it.”2584 Deut. xxx. 11–13. This means, “Neither in this place nor that place is the kingdom of God; for, behold, it is within you.”2585 Luke xvii. 21. And if the heretics, in their audacity, should contend that the Lord did not give an answer about His own kingdom, but only about the Creator’s kingdom, concerning which they had inquired, then the following words are against them. For He tells them that “the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected,” before His coming,2586 Luke xvii. 25. at which His kingdom will be really2587 Substantialiter. revealed. In this statement He shows that it was His own kingdom which His answer to them had contemplated, and which was now awaiting His own sufferings and rejection. But having to be rejected and afterwards to be acknowledged, and taken up2588 Assumi. and glorified, He borrowed the very word “rejected” from the passage, where, under the figure of a stone, His twofold manifestation was celebrated by David—the first in rejection, the second in honour: “The stone,” says He, “which the builders rejected, is become the head-stone of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing.”2589 Ps. cxviii. 21. Now it would be idle, if we believed that God had predicted the humiliation, or even the glory, of any Christ at all, that He could have signed His prophecy for any but Him whom He had foretold under the figure of a stone, and a rock, and a mountain.2590 See Isa. viii. 14 and 1 Cor. x. 4. If, however, He speaks of His own coming, why does He compare it with the days of Noe and of Lot,2591 Luke xvii. 26–30. which were dark and terrible—a mild and gentle God as He is? Why does He bid us “remember Lot’s wife,”2592 Luke xvii. 32. who despised the Creator’s command, and was punished for her contempt, if He does not come with judgment to avenge the infraction of His precepts? If He really does punish, like the Creator,2593 Ut ille. if He is my Judge, He ought not to have adduced examples for the purpose of instructing me from Him whom He yet destroys, that He2594 Ille: emphatic. might not seem to be my instructor. But if He does not even here speak of His own coming, but of the coming of the Hebrew Christ,2595 That is, the Creator’s Christ from the Marcionite point of view. let us still wait in expectation that He will vouchsafe to us some prophecy of His own advent; meanwhile we will continue to believe that He is none other than He whom He reminds us of in every passage.
CAPUT XXXV.
Conversus ibidem ad discipulos (Luc. XVII), vae dicit auctori scandalorum: expedisseei si natus non fuisset, aut si molino saxo ad collum deligato praecipitatus esset in profundum, quam unum ex illis modicis, utique discipulis ejus, scandalizasset.0445D Aestima quale supplicium comminetur illi . Nec enim alius ulciscetur scandalum discipulorum ejus. Agnosce igitur et judicem, et illo affectu pronuntiantem de cura suorum, quo et Creator retro 0446A (Zach., II, 8): Qui tetigerit vos, ac si pupillam oculi mei tangat. Idem sensus ejusdem est: peccantem fratrem jubet corripi; quod qui non fecerit, utique deliquit, aut ex odio volens fratrem in delicto perseverare, aut ex acceptione personae, parcens ei; habens Liviticum (Levit., XIX, 17): Non odies fratrem tuum in animo tuo, traductione traducensproximum tuum; utique et fratrem; et non sumes propter illum delictum. Nec mirum si ita docet, qui pecora quoque fratris tui, si errantia in via inveneris, prohibet despicias (Exod. XXIII, 4), quo minus ea reducas fratri tuo ; nedum ipsum sibi. Sed et veniam des fratri in te delinquenti jubet, etiam septies. Parum plane. Plus est enim apud Creatorem, qui nec modum statuit, in infinitum pronuntians (Levit. XIX, 0446B 18): Fratris malitiae memor ne sis; Nec petenti eam praestes mandat, sed et non petenti. Non enim dones offensam vult, sed obliviscaris. Lex leprosorum (Levit. XIII et XIV) quantae sit interpretationis erga species ipsius vitii, et inspectationis summi sacerdotis, nostrum erit scire; Marcionis, morositatem legis opponere, ut et hic Christum aemulum ejus affirmet praevenientem solemnia legis etiam in curatione decem leprosorum, quos tantummodo ire jussos ut se ostenderent sacerdotibus (Luc. XVII), in itinere purgavit, sine tactu jam et sine verbo, tacita potestate, et sola voluntate; quasi necesse sit, semel remediatore languorum et vitiorum annuntiato Christo, et de effectibus probato, de qualitatibus curationum retractari: aut Creatorem in Christo ad legem provocari: si 0446C quid aliter quam lege distinxit, ipse perfecit: cum aliter utique Dominus per semetipsum operetur, sive per Filium, aliter per prophetas famulos suos maximae documenta virtutis et potestatis; quae ut clariora et validiora, qua propria, distare a vicariis fas est. Sed ejusmodi et alibi jam dicta sunt, in documento superiore. Nunc etsi praefatus est, multos tunc fuisse leprosos apud Israelem in diebus Helisaei prophetae, et neminem eorum purgatum nisi Naaman Syrum (Luc. IV, 27): non utique numerus faciet ad differentiam deorum, in destructionem Creatoris, unum remediantis, et praelationem ejus qui decem emundarit. Quis enim dubitabit plures potuisse curari ab eo, qui unum curasset, quam ab illo decem, qui numquam retro unum? Sed hac cum maxime 0446D pronuntiatione diffidentiam Israelis vel superbiam pulsat; quod cum multi essent illic leprosi, et prophetes non deesset, etiam edito documento, nemo decucurrisset ad Deum operantem in prophetis. Igitur, 0447A quoniam ipse erat authenticus pontifex Dei Patris, inspexit illos secundum legis arcanum, significantis Christum esse verum disceptatorem et elimatorem humanarum macularum. Sed et quod in manifesto fuit legis, praecepit; Iste ostendite vos sacerdotibus. Cur, si illos ante erat emundaturus? An quasi legis illusor, ut in itinere curatis ostenderet, nihil esse legem cum ipsis sacerdotibus? Et utique viderit, si cui tam opiniosus videbitur Christus. Imo digniora sunt interpretanda, et fidei justiora. Ideo illos remediatos, qua secundum legem jussi abire ad sacerdotes, obaudierant: neque enim credibile est, emeruisse medicinam a destructore legis, observatores legis. Sed cur pristino leproso nihil tale praecepit? quia nec Elisaeus Syro Naaman; et tamen non idcirco non erat Creatoris. Satis respondi; sed qui credidit, intelligit etiam altius aliquid. Disce igitur et causas. In Samariae regionibus res agebatur, unde erat et unus interim ex leprosis. Samaria autem desciverat ab Israele, habens schisma illud ex decem tribubus, quas avulsas per Achiam prophetam, collocaverat apud Samariam Jeroboam (III Reg. XI et XVI). Sed et alias semper sibi placentes erant Samaritani de montibus et puteis patrum; sicut in Evangelio Joannis (Joan. IV) Samaritana illa in colloquio Domini apud puteum: Naetu major sis, et caetera. Et rursus: Patres nostri in isto monte adoraverunt, et vos dicitis quia Hierosolymis oportet adorare. Itaque, qui et per Amos (Amos, VI, 1), Vae dixerit eis,qui confiderentin monte Samariae; jam et 0447C ipsam restituere dignatus, de industria, jubet ostendere se sacerdotibus, utique qui non erant, nisi ubi et templum; subjiciens Samaritam Judaeo, quoniam ex Judaeis salus Israelitae et Samaritae . Tota enim promissio tribui Judae Christus fuit; ut scirent Hierosolymis esse et sacerdotes et templum, et matricem religionis, et fontem, non puteum, salutis. Et ideo, ut vidit agnovisse illos legem Hierosolymis expungendam, ex fide jam justificandos sine legis ordine remediavit. Unde et unum illum solutum ex decem, memorem divinae gratiae Samariten miratus, non mandat offerre munus ex Lege; quia satis jam obtulerat, gloriam Deo reddens, hoc et Domino volente interpretari legem. Et tamen cui Deo gratiam reddidit Samarites, quando nec Israelites 0447D alium Deum usque adhuc didicisset? Cui alii, quam cui omnes remediati retro a Christo? Ideo, Fides 0448Atua te salvum fecit, audit; quia intellexerat veram se Deo omnipotenti oblationem, gratiarum scilicet actionem, apud verum templum et verum pontificem ejus Christum facere debere. Sed nec Pharisaei possunt videri de alterius Dei regno consuluisse Dominum, quando venturum sit, quamdiu alius a Christo editus Deus non erat, nec ille de alterius regno respondisse, quam de cujus consulebatur. Non venit, inquit, regnum Dei cum observatione; nec dicunt, Ecce hic, ecce illic; Ecce enim regnum Dei intra vos est (Luc. XVII, 20, 21). Quis non ita interpretabitur, intra vos est, id est in manu, in potestate vestra, si audiatis si faciatis Dei praeceptum? Quod si in praecepto est Dei regnum, propone igitur contra, secundum nostras antitheses, Moysen, et una sententia est. Praeceptum,0448B inquit (Deut. XXX, 11-14), excelsum non est, nec longe a te. Non est in coelo, ut dicas: Quis ascendetin coelum, et deponetnobis illud, et auditum illud faciemus? nec ultra mare est, ut dicas: Quis transfretabit et sumet illud nobis, et auditum illud faciemus? Prope te est verbum, in ore tuo, et in corde tuo, et in manibus tuis facere illud. Hoc erit, Non hic, nec illic; ecce enim intra vos est regnum Dei. Et ne argumentetur audacia haeretica, de regno Creatoris, de quo consulebatur, non de suo respondisse eis Dominum, sequentia obsistunt. Dicens enim, Filium hominis ante multa pati, et reprobari oportere, ante adventum suum, in quo et regnum substantialiter revelabitur, suum ostendit et regnum de quo responderat, quod passiones et reprobationes ipsius exspectabat. Reprobari 0448C autem habens et postea agnosci et assumi et extolli, etiam ipsum verbum reprobari, inde decerpsit , ubi in lapidis aenigmate utraque revelatio ejus apud David (Ps. CXVII, 21) canebatur; prima recusabilis, secunda honorabilis: Lapis, inquit, quem reprobaverunt aedificantes, iste factus est in caput anguli. A Domino factum est hoc. Vanum enim, si credidimus Deum de contumelia aut gloria scilicet alicujus praedicasse, ut non eum portenderet, quem et in lapidis, et in petrae, et in montis figura (Is. VIII, 4) portenderet . Sed si de suo loquitur adventu, cur eum diebus Noe et Loth comparat tetris et atrocibus Deus et lenis et mitis? Cur admonet meminisse uxoris Loth, quae praeceptum Creatoris non impune contempsit, si non cum judicio 0448D venit vindicandorum praeceptorum suorum? Etiam si vindicat ut et ille, si judicat me, non debuit per 0449A ejus documenta formare quem destruit, ne ille me formare videatur. Si vero et hic non de suo loquitur adventu, sed de judaei Christi, exspectemus etiam nunc ne quid de suo praedicet, illum interim esse credentes, quem omni loco praedicat.