Chapter XV.—The Title Christ Suitable as a Name of the Creator’s Son, But Unsuited to Marcion’s Christ.

Touching then the discussion of His flesh, and (through that) of His nativity, and incidentally980    Interim. of His name Emmanuel, let this suffice.  Concerning His other names, however, and especially that of Christ, what has the other side to say in reply? If the name of Christ is as common with you as is the name of God—so that as the Son of both Gods may be fitly called Christ, so each of the Fathers may be called Lord—reason will certainly be opposed to this argument. For the name of God, as being the natural designation of Deity, may be ascribed to all those beings for whom a divine nature is claimed,—as, for instance, even to idols. The apostle says: “For there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth.”981    1 Cor. viii. 5. The name of Christ, however, does not arise from nature, but from dispensation;982    Ex dispositione. This word seems to mean what is implied in the phrases, “Christian dispensation,” “Mosaic dispensation,” etc. and so becomes the proper name of Him to whom it accrues in consequence of the dispensation. Nor is it subject to be shared in by any other God, especially a rival, and one that has a dispensation of His own, to whom it will be also necessary that He should possess names apart from all others. For how happens it that, after they have devised different dispensations for two Gods they admit into this diversity of dispensation a community of names; whereas no proof could be more useful of two Gods being rival ones, than if there should be found coincident with their (diverse) dispensations a diversity also of names? For that is not a state of diverse qualities, which is not distinctly indicated983    Consignatur. in the specific meanings984    Proprietatibus. of their designations. Whenever these are wanting, there occurs what the Greeks call the katachresis985    Quintilian, Inst. viii. 6, defines this as a figure “which lends a name to things which have it not.”of a term, by its improper application to what does not belong to it.986    De alieno abutendo. In God, however, there ought, I suppose, to be no defect, no setting up of His dispensations by katachrestic abuse of words. Who is this god, that claims for his son names from the Creator? I say not names which do not belong to him, but ancient and well-known names, which even in this view of them would be unsuitable for a novel and unknown god.  How is it, again, that he tells us that “a piece of new cloth is not sewed on to an old garment,” or that “new wine is not trusted to old bottles,”987    Matt. ix. 16, 17. when he is himself patched and clad in an old suit988    Senio. of names? How is it he has rent off the gospel from the law, when he is wholly invested with the law,—in the name, forsooth, of Christ? What hindered his calling himself by some other name, seeing that he preached another (gospel), came from another source, and refused to take on him a real body, for the very purpose that he might not be supposed to be the Creator’s Christ? Vain, however, was his unwillingness to seem to be He whose name he was willing to assume; since, even if he had been truly corporeal, he would more certainly escape being taken for the Christ of the Creator, if he had not taken on him His name.  But, as it is, he rejects the substantial verity of Him whose name he has assumed, even though he should give a proof of that verity by his name. For Christ means anointed, and to be anointed is certainly an affair989    Passio. of the body. He who had not a body, could not by any possibility have been anointed; he who could not by any possibility have been anointed, could not in any wise have been called Christ. It is a different thing (quite), if he only assumed the phantom of a name too. But how, he asks, was he to insinuate himself into being believed by the Jews, except through a name which was usual and familiar amongst them? Then ’tis a fickle and tricksty God whom you describe! To promote any plan by deception, is the resource of either distrust or of maliciousness. Much more frank and simple was the conduct of the false prophets against the Creator, when they came in His name as their own God.990    Adversus Creatorem, in sui Dei nomine venientes. But I do not find that any good came of this proceeding,991    i.e., to the Marcionite position. since they were more apt to suppose either that Christ was their own, or rather was some deceiver, than that He was the Christ of the other god; and this the gospel will show.

CAPUT XV.

De quaestione carnis, et per eam nativitatis, et unius interim nominis Emmanuelis hucusque. De caeteris vero nominibus, et in primis Christi, quid pars diversa respondebit? Si proinde commune est apud vos Christi nomen, quemadmodum et Dei, ut sicut utriusque Dei filium Christum competat dici, sic utrumque patrem Dominum, certe ratio huic argumentationi 0341C refragabitur. Dei enim nomen, quasi naturale divinitatis, potest in omnes communicari quibus divinitas vindicatur, sicut et idolis, dicente Apostolo (I Cor. VIII, 5). Nam et sunt qui dicuntur dii, sive in coelo, sive in terris. Christi vero nomen, non ex natura veniens, sed ex dispositione, proprium ejus efficitur, a quo dispositum invenitur. Nec in communicationem alii deo subjacet, maxime aemulo, et habenti suam dispositionem, cui et nomina privata debebit. Quale est enim quod diversas dispositiones duorum commentati deorum, societatem nominum admittunt in discordiam dispositionum? quando nulla magis probatio assisteret duorum et aemulorum deorum, quam si in dispositione eorum etiam diversitas nominum inveniretur. Nullus 0341D enim status differentiarum nonnisi proprietatibus 0342A appellationum consignatur: quibus deficientibus si quando, tunc graeca catachresis de alieno abutendo succurrit. Apud Deum autem deficere puto nihil debet, nec de alieno instrui dispositiones ejus. Quis hic Deus est, qui filio quoque suo nomina a Creatore vindicat? non dico aliena, sed vetera et vulgata, quae vel sic non competerent deo novo et incognito. Quomodo denique docet, novam plagulam non assui Veteri Testamento , nec vinum novum veteribus utribus credi , adsutus ipse et indutus nominum senio? Quomodo abscidit Evangelium a Lege, tota Lege vestitus? In nomine scilicet Christi. Quis illum prohibuit aliud vocari, aliud praedicantem, aliunde venientem? cum propterea nec corporis susceperit veritatem, ne Christus Creatoris crederetur? 0342B Vane autem noluit eum se videri, quem voluit vocari: quando, etsi vere corporeus fuisset, magis Christus Creatoris non videretur, si non vocaretur. At nunc substantiam respuit, cujus nomen accepit, etiam substantiam probaturus ex nomine. Si enim Christus unctus est, ungui utique corporis passio est. Qui corpus non habuit, ungui omnino non potuit: qui ungui omnino non potuit, Christus vocari nullo modo potuit. Aliud est, si et nominis phantasma affectavit. Sed quomodo, inquit, irreperet in Judaeorum fidem, nisi per solenne apud eos et familiare nomen? Inconstantem aut subdolum deum narras, aut diffidentiae, aut malitiositatis consilium, fallendo quid, promovere. Multo liberius atque simplicius egerunt Pseudoprophetae, adversus Creatorem 0342C in sui dei nomine venientes. Sed nec effectum consilii hujus invenio, cum facilius ant suum crediderint Christum, aut planum potius aliquem, quam alterius dei Christum, sicut Evangelium probabit.