Chapter XXII.—The Same Conclusion Supported by the Transfiguration. Marcion Inconsistent in Associating with Christ in Glory Two Such Eminent Servants of the Creator as Moses and Elijah. St. Peter’s Ignorance Accounted for on Montanist Principle.

You ought to be very much ashamed of yourself on this account too, for permitting him to appear on the retired mountain in the company of Moses and Elias,1998    Luke ix. 28–36. whom he had come to destroy. This, to be sure,1999    Scilicet, in ironical allusion to a Marcionite opinion. was what he wished to be understood as the meaning of that voice from heaven: “This is my beloved Son, hear Him”2000    Luke ix. 35.—Him, that is, not Moses or Elias any longer. The voice alone, therefore, was enough, without the display of Moses and Elias; for, by expressly mentioning whom they were to hear, he must have forbidden all2001    Quoscunque. others from being heard. Or else, did he mean that Isaiah and Jeremiah and the others whom he did not exhibit were to be heard, since he prohibited those whom he did display? Now, even if their presence was necessary, they surely should not be represented as conversing together, which is a sign of familiarity; nor as associated in glory with him, for this indicates respect and graciousness; but they should be shown in some slough2002    In sordibus aliquibus. as a sure token of their ruin, or even in that darkness of the Creator which Christ was sent to disperse, far removed from the glory of Him who was about to sever their words and writings from His gospel.  This, then, is the way2003    Sic. how he demonstrates them to be aliens,2004    To belong to another god. even by keeping them in his own company!  This is how he shows they ought to be relinquished: he associates them with himself instead! This is how he destroys them: he irradiates them with his glory! How would their own Christ act? I suppose He would have imitated the frowardness (of heresy),2005    Secundum perversitatem. and revealed them just as Marcion’s Christ was bound to do, or at least as having with Him any others rather than His own prophets! But what could so well befit the Creator’s Christ, as to manifest Him in the company of His own foreannouncers?2006    Prædicatores.—to let Him be seen with those to whom He had appeared in revelations?—to let Him be speaking with those who had spoken of Him?—to share His glory with those by whom He used to be called the Lord of glory; even with those chief servants of His, one of whom was once the moulder2007    Informator, Moses, as having organized the nation. of His people, the other afterwards the reformer2008    Reformator, Elias, the great prophet. thereof; one the initiator of the Old Testament, the other the consummator2009    It was a primitive opinion in the Church that Elijah was to come, with Enoch, at the end of the world. See De Anima, chap. xxxv. and l.; also Irenæus, De Hæres. v. 5. [Vol. I. 530.] of the New? Well therefore does Peter, when recognizing the companions of his Christ in their indissoluble connection with Him, suggest an expedient: “It is good for us to be here” (good: that evidently means to be where Moses and Elias are); “and let us make three tabernacles, one for Thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. But he knew not what he said.”2010    Luke ix. 33. How knew not?  Was his ignorance the result of simple error? Or was it on the principle which we maintain2011    This Tertullian seems to have done in his treatise De Ecstasi, which is mentioned by St. Jerome—see his Catalogus Scriptt. Eccles. (in Tertulliano); and by Nicephorus, Hist. Eccles. iv. 22, 34.  On this subject of ecstasy, Tertullian has some observations in De Anima, chap. xxi. and xlv. (Rigalt. and Oehler.) in the cause of the new prophecy,2012    [Elucidation VII.] that to grace ecstasy or rapture2013    Amentiam. is incident. For when a man is rapt in the Spirit, especially when he beholds the glory of God, or when God speaks through him, he necessarily loses his sensation,2014    Excidat sensu. because he is overshadowed with the power of God,—a point concerning which there is a question between us and the carnally-minded.2015    He calls those the carnally-minded (“psychicos”) who thought that ecstatic raptures and revelations had ceased in the church.  The term arises from a perverse application of 1 Cor. ii. 14: ψυχικὸς δὲ ἄνθρωπος οὐ δέχεται τὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Θεοῦ. In opposition to the wild fanaticism of Montanus, into which Tertullian strangely fell, the Catholics believed that the true prophets, who were filled with the Spirit of God, discharged their prophetic functions with a quiet and tranquil mind. See the anonymous author, Contra Cataphrygas, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. v. 17; Epiphanius, Hæres. 48. See also Routh, Rell. Sacræ, i. p. 100; and Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian, edit. 3, pp. 27–36.  (Munter’s Primord. Eccles. Afric. p. 138, quoted by Oehler.) Now, it is no difficult matter to prove the rapture2016    Amentiam. of Peter. For how could he have known Moses and Elias, except (by being) in the Spirit? People could not have had their images, or statues, or likenesses; for that the law forbade. How, if it were not that he had seen them in the Spirit? And therefore, because it was in the Spirit that he had now spoken, and not in his natural senses, he could not know what he had said. But if, on the other hand,2017    Ceterum. he was thus ignorant, because he erroneously supposed that (Jesus) was their Christ, it is then evident that Peter, when previously asked by Christ, “Whom they thought Him to be,” meant the Creator’s Christ, when he answered, “Thou art the Christ;” because if he had been then aware that He belonged to the rival god, he would not have made a mistake here. But if he was in error here because of his previous erroneous opinion,2018    According to the hypothesis. then you may be sure that up to that very day no new divinity had been revealed by Christ, and that Peter had so far made no mistake, because hitherto Christ had revealed nothing of the kind; and that Christ accordingly was not to be regarded as belonging to any other than the Creator, whose entire dispensation2019    Totum ordinem, in the three periods represented by Moses, and Elijah, and Christ. he, in fact, here described. He selects from His disciples three witnesses of the impending vision and voice. And this is just the way of the Creator. “In the mouth of three witnesses,” says He, “shall every word be established.”2020    Compare Deut. xix. 15 with Luke ix. 28. He withdraws to a mountain. In the nature of the place I see much meaning. For the Creator had originally formed His ancient people on a mountain both with visible glory and His voice. It was only right that the New Testament should be attested2021    Consignari. on such an elevated spot2022    In eo suggestu. as that whereon the Old Testament had been composed;2023    Conscriptum fuerat. under a like covering of cloud also, which nobody will doubt, was condensed out of the Creator’s air. Unless, indeed, he2024    Marcion’s god. had brought down his own clouds thither, because he had himself forced his way through the Creator’s heaven;2025    Compare above, book i. chap. 15, and book iv. chap. 7. or else it was only a precarious cloud,2026    Precario. This word is used in book v. chap. xii. to describe the transitoriness of the Creator’s paradise and world. as it were, of the Creator which he used.  On the present (as also on the former)2027    Nec nunc. occasion, therefore, the cloud was not silent; but there was the accustomed voice from heaven, and the Father’s testimony to the Son; precisely as in the first Psalm He had said, “Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee.”2028    Ps. ii. 7. By the mouth of Isaiah also He had asked concerning Him, “Who is there among you that feareth God? Let him hear the voice of His Son.”2029    Isa. l. 10, according to the Septuagint. When therefore He here presents Him with the words, “This is my (beloved) Son,” this clause is of course understood, “whom I have promised.” For if He once promised, and then afterwards says, “This is He,” it is suitable conduct for one who accomplishes His purpose2030    Ejus est exhibentis. that He should utter His voice in proof of the promise which He had formerly made; but unsuitable in one who is amenable to the retort, Can you, indeed, have a right to say, “This is my son,” concerning whom you have given us no previous information,2031    Non præmisisti. Oehler suggests promisisti, “have given us no promise.” any more than you have favoured us with a revelation about your own prior existence? “Hear ye Him,” therefore, whom from the beginning (the Creator) had declared entitled to be heard in the name of a prophet, since it was as a prophet that He had to be regarded by the people. “A prophet,” says Moses, “shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your sons” (that is, of course, after a carnal descent2032    Censum: Some read sensum, “sense.”); “unto Him shall ye hearken, as unto me.”2033    Deut. xviii. 15. “Every one who will not hearken unto Him, his soul2034    Anima: life. shall be cut off from amongst his people.”2035    Deut. xviii. 19. So also Isaiah: “Who is there among you that feareth God? Let him hear the voice of His Son.”2036    Isa. l. 10. This voice the Father was going Himself to recommend. For, says he,2037    Tertullian, by introducing this statement with an “inquit,” seems to make a quotation of it; but it is only a comment on the actual quotations. Tertullian’s invariable object in this argument is to match some event or word pertaining to the Christ of the New Testament with some declaration of the Old Testament. In this instance the approving words of God upon the mount are in Heb. i. 5 applied to the Son, while in Ps. ii. 7 the Son applies them to Himself. Compare the Adversus Praxean, chap. xix. (Fr. Junius and Oehler). It is, however, more likely that Tertullian really means to quote Isa. xliv. 26, “that confirmeth the word of His servant,” which Tertullian reads, “Sistens verba filii sui,” the Septuagint being, Καὶ ἰστῶν ῥῆμα παιδὸς αὐτοῦ. He establishes the words of His Son, when He says, “This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him.” Therefore, even if there be made a transfer of the obedient “hearing” from Moses and Elias to2038    In Christo. In with an ablative is often used by our author for in with an accusative. Christ, it is still not from another God, or to another Christ; but from2039    Or perhaps “by the Creator.” the Creator to His Christ, in consequence of the departure of the old covenant and the supervening of the new. “Not an ambassador, nor an angel, but He Himself,” says Isaiah, “shall save them;”2040    Isa. lxiii. 9, according to the Septuagint; only he reads faciet for aorist ἔσωσεν. for it is He Himself who is now declaring and fulfilling the law and the prophets. The Father gave to the Son new disciples,2041    A Marcionite position. after that Moses and Elias had been exhibited along with Him in the honour of His glory, and had then been dismissed as having fully discharged their duty and office, for the express purpose of affirming for Marcion’s information the fact that Moses and Elias had a share in even the glory of Christ. But we have the entire structure2042    Habitum. of this same vision in Habakkuk also, where the Spirit in the person of some2043    Interdum. of the apostles says, “O Lord, I have heard Thy speech, and was afraid.” What speech was this, other than the words of the voice from heaven, This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him? “I considered thy works, and was astonished.” When could this have better happened than when Peter, on seeing His glory, knew not what he was saying? “In the midst of the two Thou shalt be known”—even Moses and Elias.2044    Hab. iii. 2, according to the Septuagint. St. Augustine similarly applied this passage, De Civit. Dei, xviii. 32. These likewise did Zechariah see under the figure of the two olive trees and olive branches.2045    Zech. iv. 3, 14. For these are they of whom he says, “They are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” And again Habakkuk says, “His glory covered the heavens” (that is, with that cloud), “and His splendour shall be like the light—even the light, wherewith His very raiment glistened.” And if we would make mention of2046    Commemoremur: be reminded, or call to mind. the promise to Moses, we shall find it accomplished here. For when Moses desired to see the Lord, saying, “If therefore I have found grace in Thy sight, manifest Thyself to me, that I may see Thee distinctly,”2047    Cognoscenter: γνωστῶς, “so as to know Thee.” the sight which he desired to have was of that condition which he was to assume as man, and which as a prophet he knew was to occur. Respecting the face of God, however, he had already heard, “No man shall see me, and live.” “This thing,” said He, “which thou hast spoken, will I do unto thee.”  Then Moses said, “Show me Thy glory.”  And the Lord, with like reference to the future, replied, “I will pass before thee in my glory,” etc. Then at the last He says, “And then thou shalt see my back.”2048    See Ex. xxxiii. 13–23. Not loins, or calves of the legs, did he want to behold, but the glory which was to be revealed in the latter days.2049    Posterioribus temporibus. [The awful ribaldry of Voltaire upon this glorious revelation is based upon the Vulgate reading of Exod. xxxiii. 23, needlessly transferred to our Version, but corrected by the late Revisers.] He had promised that He would make Himself thus face to face visible to him, when He said to Aaron, “If there shall be a prophet among you, I will make myself known to him by vision, and by vision will I speak with him; but not so is my manner to Moses; with him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently” (that is to say, in the form of man which He was to assume), “and not in dark speeches.”2050    Num. xii. 6–8. Now, although Marcion has denied2051    Noluit. that he is here represented as speaking with the Lord, but only as standing, yet, inasmuch as he stood “mouth to mouth,” he must also have stood “face to face” with him, to use his words,2052    It is difficult to see what this inquit means. not far from him, in His very glory—not to say,2053    Nedum. in His presence. And with this glory he went away enlightened from Christ, just as he used to do from the Creator; as then to dazzle the eyes of the children of Israel, so now to smite those of the blinded Marcion, who has failed to see how this argument also makes against him.

CAPUT XXII.

Nam et hoc vel maxime erubescere debuisti, quod illum cum Moyse et Helia in secessu montis conspici pateris, quorum destructor advenerat. Hoc scilicet 0412C intelligi voluit vox illa de coelo: Hic est filius meus 0413A dilectus, hunc audite: id est, non Moysen jam et Heliam. Ergo sufficiebat vox sola sine ostentatione Moysi et Heliae. Definiendo enim quem audirent, quoscumque alios vetuisset audiri. Aut numquid Esaiam et Hieremiam, caeterosque quos non ostendit, permisit audiri, si vetuit quos ostendit? Nunc et si praesentia illorum fuit necessaria, non utique in colloquio ostenderentur, quod familiaritatis indicium est: nec in consortio claritatis, quod dignationis et gratiae exemplum est: sed in sordibus aliquibus, quod destructionis argumentum est, imo in tenebris Creatoris, quibus discutiendis erat missus. Longe etiam discreti a claritate Christi, qui voces et literas ipsas eorum ab Evangelio suo erat separaturus. Siccin alienos demonstrat illos, dum secum habet? sic relinquendos 0413B docet, quos sibi jungit? sic destruit, quos de radiis suis exstruit? Quid faceret christus ipsorum? Credo secundum perversitatem, tales eos revelasset, quales christus Marcionis debuisset; aut quoscumque alios secum, quam prophetas suos. Sed quid tam Christus Creatoris, quam secum ostendere praedicatores suos? cum illis videri, quibus in revelationibus erat visus: cum illis loqui, qui eum fuerant locuti: cum eis gloriam suam communicare, a quibus Dominus gloriae nuncupabantur: cum principalibus suis, quorum alter populi informator aliquando, alter reformator quandoque; alter initiator Veteris Testamenti, alter consummator Novi? Igitur et Petrus merito contubernium Christi sui agnoscens individuitate ejus, suggerit consilium: Bonum 0413C est nos hic esse. Bonum plane, ubi Moyses scilicet et Helias. Et: Faciamus hic tria tabernacula, unum tibi, et Moysi unum, et Heliae unum: sed nesciens quid diceret. Quomodo nesciens? utrumne simplici errore, an ratione quam defendimus in caussa novae prophetiae, gratiae ecstasin, id est, amentiam convenire? In spiritu enim homo constitutus, praesertim cum gloriam Dei conspicit; vel cum per ipsum Deus loquitur, necesse est excidat censu, obumbratus scilicet virtute divina; de quo inter nos et psychicos quaestio est. Interim facile est amentiam Petri probare. Quomodo enim Moysen et Heliam cognovisset, nisi in spiritu? Nec enim imagines eorum vel statuas populus habuisset et similitudines, lege 0414A prohibente, nisi quia in spiritu viderat; et ita quod dixisset, in spiritu, non in sensu constitutus, scire non poterat. Caeterum, si sic nescit quasi errans, eo quod putaret illorum esse Christum: ergo jam constat et supra Petrum interrogatum a Christo, quem se existimarent ut de Creatoris dixisse, Tu es Christus; quia si tunc alterius Dei illum cognovisset, hic quoque non errasset. Quod si ideo et hic erravit, quia et supra; ergo certus est in illum diem quoque nullam novam divinitatem a Christo revelatam, et usque adhuc non errasse Petrum, Christo usque adhuc nihil ejusmodi revelante; et tamdiu non alterius deputandum Christum, quam Creatoris, cujus omnem et hic ordinem expressit. Tres de discentibus arbitros futurae visionis et vocis assumit; et hoc Creatoris est, In 0414B tribus, inquit (Deut., XIX, 15), testibus stabit omne verbum. In montem secedit; agnosco formam loci. Nam et pristinum populum apud montem et visione et voce sua Creator initiarat. Oportebat in eo suggestu consignari Novum Testamentum, in quo conscriptum Vetus fuerat; sub eodem etiam ambitu nubis, quam nemo dubitavit de aere Creatoris conglobatam, nisi et nubes suas illo deduxerat, quia et ipse per coelum Creatoris viam ruperat, aut proinde et nubilo Creatoris precario usus est. Itaque nec nunc muta nubes fuit, sed vox salita de coelo, et Patris novum testimonium super Filio: atque in secundo Psalmo, Filius meus es tu: ego hodie genui te. De quo et per Isaiam (Is., L, 10): Quis Deum metuens, audiat vocem filii ejus? Itaque jam repraesentans cum: 0414C Hic est filius meus; utique subauditur, quem repromisi . Si enim repromisit aliquando, et postea dicit, Hic est; ejus est exhibentis voce uti in demonstratione promissi, qui aliquando promisit; non ejus cui possit responderi, «Ipse enim tu quis es qui dicas, Hic est filius meus, de quo non magis praemisisti, quam teipsum quod prius eras revelasti?» Hunc igitur audite, quem ab initio edixerat audiendum in nomine prophetae, quoniam et prophetes existimari habebat a populo. Prophetam, inquit Moyses (Deut. XVIII, 15), suscitabit vobis Deus ex filiis vestris (secundum carnalem scilicet censum) tamquam me: audietis illum. Omnis autem qui illum non audierit, exterminabitur anima ejus de populo suo. Sic 0415A et Isaias (Is., L, 10): Quis in vobis metuens, exaudiat vocem filii ejus? Quam et ipse Pater commendaturus erat. Sistens enim verba filii sui, dicendo scilicet: Hic est filius meus dilectus; hunc audite, inquit . Itaque etsi facta translatio sit auditionis a Moyse et Helia in Christo , sed non ut ab alio deo, nec ad alium christum, sed a Creatore in Christum ejus, secundum decessionem Veteris, et successionem Novi Testamenti. Non legatus, inquit Isaias (Is., LXIII, 9), nec nuntius, sed ipse Dominus salvos eos fecit ; ipse jam praedicans et implens Legem et prophetas. Tradidit igitur Pater Filio discipulos novos, ostensis prius cum illo Moyse et Helia in claritatis praerogativa, atque ita dimissis, quasi jam et officio et honore dispunctis; ut hoc 0415B ipsum confirmaretur propter Marcionem, societatem esse etiam claritatis Christi cum Moyse et Helia. Totum autem habitum visionis istius habemus etiam apud Habacuc, ubi Spiritus ex persona interdum apostolorum (Habac., III, 2): Domine, audivi auditum tuum, et extimui. Quem magis quam vocis coelestis illius, Hic est filius meus dilectus, hunc audite? Consideravi opera tua , et excidi mente. Quando magis, quam cum visa claritate ejus, nescit quid diceret Petrus? In medio duorum animalium cognosceris, Moysi et Heliae. De quibus et Zacharias (Zach., IV, 3 et 14) vidit in figura duarum olearum, et duorum ramulorum oleae. Nam hi sunt, de quibus dictum est illi: Duo filii opimitatis adsistunt Domino universae terrae. Et rursum idem Habacuc (Habac., III, 0415C 3): Operuit coelos virtus; utique nubilo illo. Et splendor ejus ut lux erit; utique qua etiam vestitus ejus refulsit. Et si commemoremur promissionis Moysi, hic invenietur expuncta. Cum enim desiderasset conspectum Domini Moyses dicens: Si ergo inveni gratiam coram te, manifesta te mihi, ut cognoscenter videam te; eum conspectum desiderans, in quo hominem esset acturus, quod propheta sciebat. Caeterum, Dei faciem (jam audierat) nemo homo videbit me , et vivet (Exod., XXXIII). Et hunc, inquit, sermonem quem dixisti, faciam tibi. Et rursus Moyses: Ostende mihi gloriam tuam. Et Dominus similiter de futuro: Ego praecedam in gloria mea; et reliqua. Et in novissimo: Et tunc videbis posteriora mea. Non lumbos, nec suras; sed quam desideraverat gloriam in posterioribus 0415D temporibus revelandam. In qua, facie ad faciem 0416A visibilem se ei repromittit , etiam ad Aaronem dicens (Num., XII, 6): Si fuerit prophetes in vobis, in visione cognoscar illi, et in visione loquar ad eum, non quomodo ad Moysen: os ad os loquar ad eum in specie (utique hominis, quam erat gestaturus), non in aenigmate. Nam etsi Marcion noluit eum colloquentem Domino ostensum, sed stantem; tamen et stans os ad os stabat, et faciem ad faciem cum illo, inquit, non extra illum, in gloriam ipsius, nedum in conspectum . De qua gloria non aliter illustratus discessit a Christo, quam solebat a Creatore: proinde tunc oculos percutiens filiorum Israelis, quemadmodum et nunc excaecati Marcionis, qui hoc quoque argumentum adversus se facere non vidit. Suscipio in me personam 0416B Israelis.