Chapter VII.—Marcion Rejected the Preceding Portion of St. Luke’s Gospel. Therefore This Review Opens with an Examination of the Case of the Evil Spirit in the Synagogue of Capernaum. He Whom the Demon Acknowledged Was the Creator’s Christ.

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius1313    Luke iii. 1 and iv. 31. (for such is Marcion’s proposition) he “came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum,” of course meaning1314    Utique. from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own. What then had been his course,1315    Ecquid ordinis. for him to be described as first descending from his own heaven to the Creator’s? For why should I abstain from censuring those parts of the statement which do not satisfy the requirement of an ordinary narrative, but always end in a falsehood? To be sure, our censure has been once for all expressed in the question, which we have already1316    See above, book i. chap. xxiii. [Comp. i. cap. xix.] suggested: Whether, when descending through the Creator’s domain, and indeed in hostility to him, he could possibly have been admitted by him, and by him been transmitted to the earth, which was equally his territory? Now, however, I want also to know the remainder of his course down, assuming that he came down. For we must not be too nice in inquiring1317    This is here the force of viderit, our author’s very favourite idiom. whether it is supposed that he was seen in any place. To come into view1318    Apparere. indicates1319    Sapit. a sudden unexpected glance, which for a moment fixed1320    Impegerit. the eye upon the object that passed before the view, without staying. But when it happens that a descent has been effected, it is apparent, and comes under the notice of the eyes.1321    Descendisse autem, dum fit, videtur et subit oculos. Probably this bit of characteristic Latinity had better be rendered thus: “The accomplishment of a descent, however, is, whilst happening, a visible process, and one that meets the eye.” Of the various readings, “dum sit,” “dum it,” “dum fit,” we take the last with Oehler, only understanding the clause as a parenthesis. Moreover, it takes account of fact, and thus obliges one to examine in what condition with what preparation,1322    Suggestu. with how much violence or moderation, and further, at what time of the day or night, the descent was made; who, again, saw the descent, who reported it, who seriously avouched the fact, which certainly was not easy to be believed, even after the asseveration. It is, in short, too bad1323    Indignum. that Romulus should have had in Proculus an avoucher of his ascent to heaven, when the Christ of (this) god could not find any one to announce his descent from heaven; just as if the ascent of the one and the descent of the other were not effected on one and the same ladder of falsehood! Then, what had he to do with Galilee, if he did not belong to the Creator by whom1324    Cui. that region was destined (for His Christ) when about to enter on His ministry?1325    Ingressuro prædicationem. As Isaiah says: “Drink in this first, and be prompt, O region of Zabulon and land of Nephthalim, and ye others who (inhabit) the sea-coast, and that of Jordan, Galilee of the nations, ye people who sit in darkness, behold a great light; upon you, who inhabit (that) land, sitting in the shadow of death, the light hath arisen.”1326    This is the literal rendering of Tertullian’s version of the prophet’s words, which occur chap. ix. 1, 2. The first clause closely follows the LXX. (ed. Tisch.): Τοῦτο πρῶτον πίε, ταχύ ποίει. This curious passage is explained by Grotius (on Matt. iv. 14) as a mistake of ancient copyists; as if what the Seventy had originally rendered ταχὺ ποίει, from the hiphil of קלל, had been faultily written ταχὺ πίε, and the latter had crept into the text with the marginal note πρῶτον, instead of a repetition of ταχὺ. However this be, Tertullian’s old Latin Bible had the passage thus: “Hoc primum bibito, cito facito, regio Zabulon,” etc. It is, however, well that Marcion’s god does claim to be the enlightener of the nations, that so he might have the better reason for coming down from heaven; only, if it must needs be,1327    Si utique. he should rather have made Pontus his place of descent than Galilee. But since both the place and the work of illumination according to the prophecy are compatible with Christ, we begin to discern1328    Agnoscere. that He is the subject of the prophecy, which shows that at the very outset of His ministry, He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but rather to fulfil them;1329    Matt. v. 17. for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation.1330    Additum. It will, however, be vain for him to deny that Christ uttered in word what He forthwith did partially indeed. For the prophecy about place He at once fulfilled. From heaven straight to the synagogue. As the adage runs: “The business on which we are come, do at once.” Marcion must even expunge from the Gospel, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel;”1331    Matt. xv. 24. and, “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs,”1332    Matt. xv. 26.—in order, forsooth, that Christ may not appear to be an Israelite. But facts will satisfy me instead of words. Withdraw all the sayings of my Christ, His acts shall speak. Lo, He enters the synagogue; surely (this is going) to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Behold, it is to Israelites first that He offers the “bread” of His doctrine; surely it is because they are “children” that He shows them this priority.1333    Præfert. Observe, He does not yet impart it to others; surely He passes them by as “dogs.” For to whom else could He better have imparted it, than to such as were strangers to the Creator, if He especially belonged not to the Creator? And yet how could He have been admitted into the synagogue—one so abruptly appearing,1334    Tam repentinus. so unknown; one, of whom no one had as yet been apprised of His tribe, His nation, His family, and lastly, His enrolment in the census of Augustus—that most faithful witness of the Lord’s nativity, kept in the archives of Rome? They certainly would have remembered, if they did not know Him to be circumcised, that He must not be admitted into their most holy places.  And even if He had the general right of entering1335    Etsi passim adiretur. the synagogue (like other Jews), yet the function of giving instruction was allowed only to a man who was extremely well known, and examined and tried, and for some time invested with the privilege after experience duly attested elsewhere. But “they were all astonished at His doctrine.” Of course they were; “for, says (St. Luke), “His word was with power1336    Luke iv. 32.—not because He taught in opposition to the law and the prophets. No doubt, His divine discourse1337    Eloquium. gave forth both power and grace, building up rather than pulling down the substance of the law and the prophets.  Otherwise, instead of “astonishment, they would feel horror. It would not be admiration, but aversion, prompt and sure, which they would bestow on one who was the destroyer of law and prophets, and the especial propounder as a natural consequence of a rival god; for he would have been unable to teach anything to the disparagement of the law and the prophets, and so far of the Creator also, without premising the doctrine of a different and rival divinity.  Inasmuch, then, as the Scripture makes no other statement on the matter than that the simple force and power of His word produced astonishment, it more naturally1338    Facilius. shows that His teaching was in accordance with the Creator by not denying (that it was so), than that it was in opposition to the Creator, by not asserting (such a fact). And thus He will either have to be acknowledged as belonging to Him,1339    That is, the Creator. in accordance with whom He taught; or else will have to be adjudged a deceiver since He taught in accordance with One whom He had come to oppose. In the same passage, “the spirit of an unclean devil” exclaims: “What have we to do with Thee, Thou Jesus? Art Thou come to destroy us? I know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God.”1340    Luke iv. 33, 34. I do not here raise the question whether this appellation was suitable to one who ought not to be called Christ, unless he were sent by the Creator.1341    Si non Creatoris. Elsewhere1342    See above, in book iii. chap. xii., on the name Emmanuel; in chap. xv., on the name Christ; and in chap. xvi., on the name Jesus. there has been already given a full consideration of His titles.

My present discussion is, how the evil spirit could have known that He was called by such a name, when there had never at any time been uttered about Him a single prophecy by a god who was unknown, and up to that time silent, of whom it was not possible for Him to be attested as “the Holy One,” as (of a god) unknown even to his own Creator. What similar event could he then have published1343    Quid tale ediderit. of a new deity, whereby he might betoken for “the holy one” of the rival god?  Simply that he went into the synagogue, and did nothing even in word against the Creator? As therefore he could not by any means acknowledge him, whom he was ignorant of, to be Jesus and the Holy One of God; so did he acknowledge Him whom he knew (to be both). For he remembered how that the prophet had prophesied1344    Ps. xvi. 10, and probably Dan. ix. 24. of “the Holy One” of God, and how that God’s name of “Jesus” was in the son of Nun.1345    Compare what was said above in book iii., chap. xvi. p. 335. These facts he had also received1346    Exceperat. from the angel, according to our Gospel:  “Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called the Holy One, the Son of God;”1347    Such is our author’s reading of Luke i. 35. and, “Thou shalt call his name Jesus.”1348    Matt. i. 21. Thus he actually had (although only an evil spirit) some idea of the Lord’s dispensation, rather than of any strange and heretofore imperfectly understood one.  Because he also premised this question:  “What have we to do with Thee?”—not as if referring to a strange Jesus, to whom pertain the evil spirits of the Creator. Nor did he say, What hast Thou to do with us? but, “What have we to do with Thee?” as if deploring himself, and deprecating his own calamity; at the prospect of which he adds: “Art Thou come to destroy us?” So completely did he acknowledge in Jesus the Son of that God who was judicial and avenging, and (so to speak) severe,1349    Sævi. and not of him who was simply good,1350    Optimi. and knew not how to destroy or how to punish!  Now for what purpose have we adduced his passage first?1351    Præmisimus. In order to show that Jesus was neither acknowledged by the evil spirit, nor affirmed by Himself, to be any other than the Creator’s. Well, but Jesus rebuked him, you say. To be sure he did, as being an envious (spirit), and in his very confession only petulant, and evil in adulation—just as if it had been Christ’s highest glory to have come for the destruction of demons, and not for the salvation of mankind; whereas His wish really was that His disciples should not glory in the subjection of evil spirits but in the fair beauty of salvation.1352    De candida salutis: see Luke x. 20. Why else1353    Aut cur. did He rebuke him? If it was because he was entirely wrong (in his invocation), then He was neither Jesus nor the Holy One of God; if it was because he was partially wrong—for having supposed him to be, rightly enough,1354    Quidem. Jesus and the Holy One of God, but also as belonging to the Creator—most unjustly would He have rebuked him for thinking what he knew he ought to think (about Him), and for not supposing that of Him which he knew not that he ought to suppose—that he was another Jesus, and the holy one of the other god. If, however, the rebuke has not a more probable meaning1355    Verisimiliorem statum. than that which we ascribe to it, it follows that the evil spirit made no mistake, and was not rebuked for lying; for it was Jesus Himself, besides whom it was impossible for the evil spirit to have acknowledged any other, whilst Jesus affirmed that He was He whom the evil spirit had acknowledged, by not rebuking him for uttering a lie.

CAPUT VII.

Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani (Luc. III, 1), proponit eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae, Capharnaum (Luc. IV, 31); utique de coelo Creatoris, in quod de suo ante descenderat. Ecquid ergo ordinis fuerat, ut prius de suo coelo in Creatoris descendens describeretur? Cur enim non et ista reprehendam, quae non implent fidem ordinariae narrationis, deficientis in mendacio semper? Plane semel dicta sint, per quae jam alibi retractavimus, an descendens per Creatorem, et quidem adversus ipsum potuerit ab eo admitti, et inde tramitti in terram aeque ipsius. Nunc autem et reliquum ordinem descensionis 0369B expostulo tenens descendisse illum. Viderit enim sicubi apparuisse positum est. Apparere, subitum ex inopinato sapit conspectum, qui semel impegerit oculos in id quod sine mora apparuit. Descendisse autem, dum sit , videtur, et subit oculos; de facto etiam ordinem facit. Atque ita cogit exigere, quali habitu, quali suggestu, quonam impetu vel temperamento, etiam quo in tempore diei noctisve descenderit; praeterea quis viderit descendentem, quis retulerit, quis asseveraverit rem utique nec asseveranti facile credendam. Indignum denique ut Romulus quidem ascensus sui in coelum habuerit Proculum affirmatorem, Christus vero Dei descensus de coelo suo sui non invenerit annuntiatorem; quasi non sic et ille ascenderit iisdem mendacii scalis, 0369C sicut et iste descendit. Quid autem illi cum Galilaea, si non erat Creatoris? cui ista regio destinabatur ingressuro praedicationem, dicente Isaia (Is., IX, 1-2): Hoc primum bibito , cito facito, regio Zabulon, et terra Nepthalim, et caeteri qui maritimam ad Jordanem , Galilaea nationum, populus 0370A qui sedetis in tenebris, videte lumen magnum; qui habitatis terram, sedentes in umbra mortis, lumen ortum est super vos. Bene autem quod et Deus Marcionis, illuminator vindicatur nationum: quo magis debuerit vel de coelo descendere, etsi utique in Pontum potius descendere, quam in Galilaeam. Caeterum, et loco et illuminationis opere secundum praedicationem occurrentibus Christo, jam eum prophetatum incipimus agnoscere, ostendentem in primo ingressu (Matth., V, 17) venisse se non ut Legem et Prophetas dissolveret , sed ut potius adimpleret. Hoc enim Marcion, ut additum, erasit. Sed frustra negabit Christum dixisse, quod statim fecit ex parte. Prophetiam enim interim de loco adimplevit, de coelo statim ad synagogam, ut dici solet, AD QUOD VENIMUS 0370B HOC AGE. Marcion, aufer etiam illud de Evangelio: Non sum missus nisi ad oves perditas domus Israel (Matt., XV, 24), et: Non est auferre panem filiis, et dare eum canibus (Matt., VII, 27); ne scilicet Christus Israelis videretur. Sufficiunt mihi facta pro dictis. Detrahe voces Christi mei, res loquentur. Ecce venit in synagogam; certe ad oves perditas domus Israelis. Ecce doctrinae suae panem prioribus offert Israelitis; certe ut filios praefert. Ecce aliis eum nondum impertit; certe ut canes praeterit. Quibus autem magis impertisset, quam extraneis Creatoris, si ipse in primis non fuisset Creatoris? Et tamen quomodo in synagogam potuit admitti tam repentinus, tam ignotus; cujus nemo adhuc certus de tribu, de populo, de domo, de censu denique 0370C Augusti, quem testem fidelissimum dominicae nativitatis romana archiva custodiunt? Meminerant certe, nisi circumcisum scirent, non admittendum in sancta sanctorum. Sed etsi passim synagoga adiretur, non tamen ad docendum, nisi ab optime cognito et explorato et probato, jam pridem in hoc ipsum, vel 0371A aliunde commendato cum hoc munere. Stupebant autem omnes ad doctrinam ejus; plane: quoniam, inquit, in potestate erat sermo ejus (Luc., IV, 32): non quoniam adversus Legem et Prophetas docebat. Utique enim eloquium divinum et vim et gratiam praestabat, magis exstruens quam destruens substantiam Legis et Prophetarum. Alioquin non stuperent, sed horrerent; nec mirarentur, sed statim aversarentur destructorem Legis et Prophetarum; et utique in primis alterius Dei praedicatorem: quia nec potuisset adversus Legem et Prophetas docere. et hoc nomine adversus Creatorem, non praemissa diversae atque aemulae divinitatis professione. Cum ergo nihil tale Scriptura significet, nisi solam vim et potestatem sermonis admirationi fuisse, facilius 0371B ostendit, secundum Creatorem docuisse illum, quia non negavit, quam adversus Creatorem, quia non significavit. Atque ita aut ejus erit agnoscendus, secundum quem docuit; aut praevaricator judicandus, si secundum eum, adversus quem venerat, docuit. Exclamat ibidem spiritus daemonis (Luc. IV, 34): Quid nobis et tibi est, Jesu? venisti perdere nos? scio qui scis, sanctus Dei. Hic ego non retractabo, an et hoc cognomentum competierit ei, quem nec Christum vocari oporteret, si non Creatoris. Alibi jam de nominibus ex postulatum est. At nunc discepto, quomodo hoc eum vocari cognoverit daemon, nulla unquam retro emissa praedicatione in illum a Deo ignoto, et in id temporis muto, cujus nec sanctum eum contestari potuit, ut ignoti etiam ipsi suo Creatori. 0371C Quid autem jam tale ediderat novae divinitatis, per quod posset alterius Dei sanctus intelligi? tantum quod synagogam introgressus, et nec sermone operatus aliquid adversus Creatorem? Sicut ergo quem ignorabat, nullo modo poterat Jesum et sanctum Dei agnoscere; ita, quem norat, agnovit. Nam et Prophetam meminerat sanctum Dei praedicasse, et Jesum nomen Dei esse in filio Nave. Haec et ab angelo exceperat secundum nostrum Evangelium (Luc. I, 35): Propterea, quod in te nascetur vocabitur sanctum, Filius Dei, et vocabis nomen ejus Jesum. Sed et habebat utique sensum aliquem dominicae dispositionis (licet daemon tamen) magis quam alienae, et nondum satis cognitae. Nam et praemisit: Quid nobis et tibi ? non quasi in extraneum Jesu, ad quem pertinent 0371D spiritus Creatoris. Nec enim dixit: «quid tibi et nobis?» sed: Quid nobis et tibi? se deplorans, et sorti suae exprobrans: quam jam videns, adjicit: Venisti perdere nos. Adeo judicis et ultoris, et ut 0372A ita dixerim, saevi Dei Filium agnoverat Jesum, non optimi illius et perdere et punire nescientis. Quorsum hunc locum praemisimus? ut Jesum et a daemone non alium doceamus agnitum, et a semetipso non alium conformatum quam Creatoris. Atquin, inquis, increpuit illum Jesus. Plane ut invidiosum, et in ipsa confessione petulantem, et male adulantem; quasi haec esset summa gloria Christi, si ad perditionem daemonum venisset, et non potius ad hominum salutem; qui nec discipulos de subactione spirituum, sed de candida salutis gloriari volebat. Aut cur eum increpuit? Si quasi mentitum in totum, ergo non fuit Jesus, nec Dei sanctus omnino. Si quasi ex parte mentitum, quod cum Jesum quidem et sanctum Dei, sed Creatoris existimasset, injustissime 0372B increpuit hoc sentientem, quod sciebat sentiendum, et hoc non existimantem, quod ignorabat existimandum , alium Jesum, et alterius Dei sanctum. Quod si verisimiliorem statum non habet increpatio, nisi quem nos interpretamur, jam ergo et daemon nihil mentitus est, non ob mendacium increpitus: ipse enim erat Jesus, praeter quem alium daemon agnovisse non poterat; et Jesus eum confirmavit, quem agnoverat daemon, dum non ob mendacium increpat daemonem.