Chapter XLI.—The Woe Pronounced on the Traitor a Judicial Act, Which Disproves Christ to Be Such as Marcion Would Have Him to Be. Christ’s Conduct Before the Council Explained. Christ Even Then Directs the Minds of His Judges to the Prophetic Evidences of His Own Mission. The Moral Responsibility of These Men Asserted.

“Woe,” says He, “to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed!”2773    Luke xxii. 22. Now it is certain that in this woe must be understood the imprecation and threat of an angry and incensed Master, unless Judas was to escape with impunity after so vast a sin. If he were meant to escape with impunity, the “woe” was an idle word; if not, he was of course to be punished by Him against whom he had committed the sin of treachery.  Now, if He knowingly permitted the man, whom He2774    Ipse. deliberately elected to be one of His companions, to plunge into so great a crime, you must no longer use an argument against the Creator in Adam’s case, which may now recoil on your own God:2775    This is an argumentum ad hominem against Marcion for his cavil, which was considered above in book ii. chap. v.–viii. p. 300. either that he was ignorant, and had no foresight to hinder the future sinner;2776    Obstitit peccaturo. or that he was unable to hinder him, even if he was ignorant;2777    Si ignorabat. One would have expected “si non ignorabat,” like the “si sciebat” of the next step in the argument. or else that he was unwilling, even if he had the foreknowledge and the ability; and so deserved the stigma of maliciousness, in having permitted the man of his own choice to perish in his sin. I advise you therefore (willingly) to acknowledge the Creator in that god of yours, rather than against your will to be assimilating your excellent god to Him.  For in the case of Peter,2778    The original of this not very clear sentence is: “Nam et Petrum præsumptorie aliquid elocutum negationi potius destinando zeloten deum tibi ostendit.” too, he gives you proof that he is a jealous God, when he destined the apostle, after his presumptuous protestations of zeal, to a flat denial of him, rather than prevent his fall.2779    Luke xxii. 34 and 54–62. The Christ of the prophets was destined, moreover, to be betrayed with a kiss,2780    Luke xxii. 47–49. for He was the Son indeed of Him who was “honoured with the lips” by the people.2781    Isa. xxix. 13. When led before the council, He is asked whether He is the Christ.2782    Luke xxii. 66, 67. Of what Christ could the Jews have inquired2783    Oehler’s admirable edition is also carefully printed for the most part, but surely his quæsisset must here be quæsissent. but their own? Why, therefore, did He not, even at that moment, declare to them the rival (Christ)? You reply, In order that He might be able to suffer. In other words, that this most excellent god might plunge men into crime, whom he was still keeping in ignorance. But even if he had told them, he would yet have to suffer. For he said, “If I tell you, ye will not believe.”2784    Luke xxii. 67. And refusing to believe, they would have continued to insist on his death. And would he not even more probably still have had to suffer, if had announced himself as sent by the rival god, and as being, therefore, the enemy of the Creator? It was not, then, in order that He might suffer, that He at that critical moment refrained from proclaiming2785    Supersedit ostendere. Himself the other Christ, but because they wanted to extort a confession from His mouth, which they did not mean to believe even if He had given it to them, whereas it was their bounden duty to have acknowledged Him in consequence of His works, which were fulfilling their Scriptures. It was thus plainly His course to keep Himself at that moment unrevealed,2786    i.e., not to answer that question of theirs. This seems to be the force of the perfect tense, “occultasse se.” because a spontaneous recognition was due to Him. But yet for all this, He with a solemn gesture2787    He makes Jesus stretch forth His hand, porrigens manum inquit. says, “Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.”2788    Luke xxii. 69. For it was on the authority of the prophecy of Daniel that He intimated to them that He was “the Son of man,”2789    Dan. vii. 13. and of David’s Psalm, that He would “sit at the right hand of God.”2790    Ps. cx. 1. Accordingly, after He had said this, and so suggested a comparison of the Scripture, a ray of light did seem to show them whom He would have them understand Him to be; for they say: “Art thou then the Son of God?”2791    Luke xxii. 70. Of what God, but of Him whom alone they knew? Of what God but of Him whom they remembered in the Psalm as having said to His Son, “Sit Thou on my right hand?” Then He answered, “Ye say that I am;”2792    Luke xxii. 70. as if He meant: It is ye who say this—not I. But at the same time He allowed Himself to be all that they had said, in this their second question.2793    Or does he suppose that they repeated this same question twice? His words are, “dum rursus interrogant.” By what means, however, are you going to prove to us that they pronounced the sentence “Ergo tu filius Dei es” interrogatively, and not affirmatively?2794    Either, “Art thou,” or, “Thou art, then, the Son of God.” Just as, (on the one hand,) because He had shown them in an indirect manner,2795    Oblique. by passages of Scripture, that they ought to regard Him as the Son of God, they therefore meant their own words, “Thou art then the Son of God,” to be taken in a like (indirect) sense,2796    Ut, quia…sic senserunt. as much as to say, “You do not wish to say this of yourself plainly,”2797    Aperte. so, (on the other hand,) He likewise answered them, “Ye say that I am,” in a sense equally free from doubt, even affirmatively;2798    Æque ita et ille confirmative respondit. and so completely was His statement to this effect, that they insisted on accepting that sense which His statement indicated.2799    Ut perseveraverint in eo quod pronuntiatio sapiebat.…See Luke xxii. 71.

CAPUT XLI.

Vae, ait, per quem traditur filius hominis. Ergo jam Vae constat imprecationis et comminationis inclamationem intelligendam, et irato et offenso deputandam: 0462B nisi si Judas impune erat tantum sceleris relaturus. Aut si impune, vacat Vae. Si non impune, utique ab eo puniendus, in quem scelus traditionis admisit. Porro, si sciens passus est hominem, quem ipse comitatui suo adsciverat, in tantum scelus ruere, noli jam de Creatore circa Adam retractare, quae in tuum quoque Deum retorquentur, aut ignorasse illum qui non ex providentia obstitit peccaturo, aut obsistere non potuisse, si ignorabat; aut noluisse, si et sciebat et poterat; atque ita malitiosum judicandum, qui passus sit hominem suum ex delicto perire. Suadeo igitur agnoscas potius et in isto Creatorem, quam parem illi Deum optimum adversus sententiam tuam facias. Nam et Petrum praesumptorie aliquid elocutum, 0463A negationi potius destinando, zelotem Deum tibi ostendit. Debuit etiam osculo tradi propheticus scilicet Christus, ut ejus scilicet filius, qui labiis a populo diligebatur (Is. XXIX). Perductus in consessum, an ipse esset Christus interrogatur. De quo Christo Judaei quaesissent, nisi de suo? Cur ergo non vel tunc alium eis prodidit? Ut pati posset, inquis. Id est, ut ille optimus ignorantes adhuc in scelus mergeret. Atquin et si dixisset, passurus esset. Si dixero enim, inquit, vobis, non credetis . Porro non credituri, perseverassent in necem ejus. Et cur non magis passurus esset, si alterius Dei, ac per hoc, adversarium Creatoris manifestasset? Ergo non pateretur, alium se tunc quoque supersedit ostendere: ut sed quoniam ex ore ejus confessionem extorquere 0463B cupiebant, nec confesso tamen credituri, qui eum ex operibus Scripturas adimplentibus agnovisse debuerant; ita ejus fuit occultasse se, cui ultro debebatur agnitio. Et tamen adhuc eis manum porrigens: Abhinc, inquit, erit Filius hominis sedens ad dexteram virtutis Dei. Suggerebat enim se ex Danielis (Dan., VII) prophetia Filium hominis, et e psalmo (Ps. CIX) David, sedentem ad dexteram Dei. Itaque ex isto dicto et Scripturae comparatione illuminati quem se vellet intelligi: Ergo, inquiunt, tu Dei Filius es? Cujus Dei, nisi quem solum noverant? Cujus Dei, nisi quem in psalmo meminerant dixisse filio suo: Sede ad dextram meam? Sed respondit: Vos dicitis quia ego sum . Atquin confirmavit id se esse quod illi dixerant, dum rursus 0463C interrogant. Unde autem probabis interrogative, et non ipsos confirmative pronuntiasse: Ergo tu Filius Dei es? Ut quia oblique ostenderat se per Scripturas Filium Dei intelligendum, sic senserint , Ergo tu Dei es Filius, quod te non vis aperte dicere; aeque ita et ille, Vos dicitis, confirmative respondit; et adeo sic fuit pronuntiatio ejus, ut perseveraverint in eo, quod pronuntiatio sapiebat.