Each Side Claims to Possess the True Gospel. Antiquity the Criterion of Truth in Such a Matter. Marcion's Pretensions as an Amender of the Gospel

We must follow, then, the clue³⁵⁶¹ of our discussion, meeting every effort of our opponents with reciprocal vigor. I say that my Gospel is the true one; Marcion, that his is. I affirm that Marcion's Gospel is adulterated; Marcion, that mine is. Now what is to settle the point for us, except it be that principle³⁵⁶² of time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an elemental truth,³⁵⁶³ that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin.³⁵⁶⁴ For, inasmuch as error³⁵⁶⁵ is falsification of truth, it must needs be that truth therefore precede error. A thing must exist prior to its suffering any casualty;³⁵⁶⁶ and an object³⁵⁶⁷ must precede all rivalry to itself. Else how absurd it would be, that, when we have proved our position to be the older one, and Marcion's the later, ours should yet appear to be the false one, before it had even received from truth its objective existence;³⁵⁶⁸ and Marcion's should also be supposed to have experienced rivalry at our hands, even before its publication; and, in fine, that that should be thought to be the truer position which is the later one—a century³⁵⁶⁹ later than the publication of all the many and great facts and records of the Christian religion, which certainly could not have been published without, that is to say, before, the truth of the gospel. With regard, then, to the pending³⁵⁷⁰ question, of Luke's Gospel (so far as its being the common property³⁵⁷¹ of ourselves and Marcion enables it to be decisive of the truth,³⁵⁷² ) that portion of it which we alone receive³⁵⁷³ is so much older than Marcion, that Marcion himself once believed it, when in the first warmth of faith he contributed money to the Catholic church, which along with himself was afterwards rejected,³⁵⁷⁴ when he fell away from our truth into his own heresy. What if the Marcionites have denied that he held the primitive faith amongst ourselves, in the face even of his own letter? What, if they do not acknowledge the letter? They, at any rate, receive his Antitheses; and more than that, they make ostentatious use³⁵⁷⁵ of them. Proof out of these is enough for me. For if the Gospel, said to be Luke's which is current amongst us³⁵⁷⁶ (we shall see whether it be also current with Marcion), is the very one which, as Marcion argues in his Antitheses, was interpolated by the defenders of Judaism, for the purpose of such a conglomeration with it of the law and the prophets as should enable them out of it to fashion their Christ, surely he could not have so argued about it, unless he had found it (in such a form). No one censures things before they exist,³⁵⁷⁷ when he knows not whether they will come to pass. Emendation never precedes the fault. To be sure,³⁵⁷⁸ an amender of that Gospel, which had been all topsy-turvy³⁵⁷⁹ from the days of Tiberius to those of Antoninus, first presented himself in Marcion alone—so long looked for by Christ, who was all along regretting that he had been in so great a hurry to send out his apostles without the support of Marcion! But for all that,³⁵⁸⁰ heresy, which is for ever mending the Gospels, and corrupting them in the act, is an affair of man's audacity, not of God's authority; and if Marcion be even a disciple, he is yet not "above his master;"³⁵⁸¹ if Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, "Whether it be I or they, so we preach;"³⁵⁸² if Marcion be a prophet, even "the spirits of the prophets will be subject to the prophets,"³⁵⁸³ for they are not the authors of confusion, but of peace; or if Marcion be actually an angel, he must rather be designated "as anathema than as a preacher of the gospel,"³⁵⁸⁴ because it is a strange gospel which he has preached. So that, whilst he amends, he only confirms both positions: both that our Gospel is the prior one, for he amends that which he has previously fallen in with; and that that is the later one, which, by putting it together out of the emendations of ours, he has made his own Gospel, and a novel one too.

Chapter V.—By the Rule of Antiquity, the Catholic Gospels are Found to Be True, Including the Real St. Luke's. Marcion's Only a Mutilated Edition. The Heretic's Weakness and Inconsistency in Ignoring the Other Gospels.³⁵⁸⁵

On the whole, then, if that is evidently more true which is earlier, if that is earlier which is from the very beginning, if that is from the beginning which has the apostles for its authors, then it will certainly be quite as evident, that that comes down from the apostles, which has been kept as a sacred deposit³⁵⁸⁶ in the churches of the apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule of faith the Galatians were brought for correction; what the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians read by it; what utterance also the Romans give, so very near³⁵⁸⁷ (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly³⁵⁸⁸ bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. We have also St. John's foster churches.³⁵⁸⁹ For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order³⁵⁹⁰ of the bishops (thereof), when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John as their author. In the same manner is recognised the excellent source³⁵⁹¹ of the other churches. I say, therefore, that in them (and not simply such of them as were founded by apostles, but in all those which are united with them in the fellowship of the mystery of the gospel of Christ³⁵⁹² ) that Gospel of Luke which we are defending with all our might has stood its ground from its very first publication; whereas Marcion's Gospel is not known to most people, and to none whatever is it known without being at the same time³⁵⁹³ condemned. It too, of course,³⁵⁹⁴ has its churches, but specially its own—as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their original,³⁵⁹⁵ you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or some one of Marcion's swarm.³⁵⁹⁶ Even wasps make combs;³⁵⁹⁷ so also these Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence³⁵⁹⁸ to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means,³⁵⁹⁹ and according to their usage—I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew—whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's³⁶⁰⁰ whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke's form³⁶⁰¹ of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.³⁶⁰² And it may well seem³⁶⁰³ that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account³⁶⁰⁴ concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference³⁶⁰⁵ on Luke; as if they, too, had not had free course in the churches, as well as Luke's Gospel, from the beginning. Nay, it is even more credible that they³⁶⁰⁶ existed from the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they were prior, and coeval in origin with³⁶⁰⁷ the churches themselves. But how comes it to pass, if the apostles published nothing, that their disciples were more forward in such a work; for they could not have been disciples, without any instruction from their masters? If, then, it be evident that these (Gospels) also were current in the churches, why did not Marcion touch them—either to amend them if they were adulterated, or to acknowledge them if they were uncorrupt? For it is but natural³⁶⁰⁸ that they who were perverting the gospel, should be more solicitous about the perversion of those things whose authority they knew to be more generally received. Even the false apostles (were so called) on this very account, because they imitated the apostles by means of their falsification. In as far, then, as he might have amended what there was to amend, if found corrupt, in so far did he firmly imply³⁶⁰⁹ that all was free from corruption which he did not think required amendment. In short,³⁶¹⁰ he simply amended what he thought was corrupt; though, indeed, not even this justly, because it was not really corrupt. For if the (Gospels) of the apostles³⁶¹¹ have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke's, which is received amongst us,³⁶¹² so far accords with their rule as to be on a par with them in permanency of reception in the churches, it clearly follows that Luke's Gospel also has come down to us in like integrity until the sacrilegious treatment of Marcion. In short, when Marcion laid hands on it, it then became diverse and hostile to the Gospels of the apostles. I will therefore advise his followers, that they either change these Gospels, however late to do so, into a conformity with their own, whereby they may seem to be in agreement with the apostolic writings (for they are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us); or else that they blush for their master, who stands self-condemned³⁶¹³ either way—when once³⁶¹⁴ he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again³⁶¹⁵ subverts it by shameless tampering. Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms³⁶¹⁶ against heretics for the faith³⁶¹⁷ of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers,³⁶¹⁸ and that authority of churches³⁶¹⁹ which lends support to the tradition of the apostles; because truth must needs precede the forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on.

Chapter VI.—Marcion's Object in Adulterating the Gospel. No Difference Between the Christ of the Creator and the Christ of the Gospel. No Rival Christ Admissible. The Connection of the True Christ with the Dispensation of the Old Testament Asserted.

But we now advance a step further on, and challenge (as we promised to do) the very Gospel of Marcion, with the intention of thus proving that it has been adulterated. For it is certain³⁶²⁰ that the whole aim at which he has strenuously laboured even in the drawing up of his Antitheses, centres in this, that he may establish a diversity between the Old and the New Testaments, so that his own Christ may be separate from the Creator, as belonging to this rival god, and as alien from the law and the prophets. It is certain, also, that with this view³⁶²¹ he has erased everything that was contrary to his own opinion and made for the Creator, as if it had been interpolated by His advocates, whilst everything which agreed with his own opinion he has retained. The latter statements we shall strictly examine;³⁶²² and if they shall turn out rather for our side, and shatter the assumption of Marcion, we shall embrace them. It will then become evident, that in retaining them he has shown no less of the defect of blindness, which characterizes heresy, than he displayed when he erased all the former class of subjects. Such, then, is to be³⁶²³ the drift and form of my little treatise; subject, of course, to whatever condition may have become requisite on both sides of the question.³⁶²⁴ Marcion has laid down the position, that Christ who in the days of Tiberius was, by a previously unknown god, revealed for the salvation of all nations, is a different being from Him who was ordained by God the Creator for the restoration of the Jewish state, and who is yet to come. Between these he interposes the separation of³⁶²⁵ a great and absolute difference—as great as lies between what is just and what is good;³⁶²⁶ as great as lies between the law and the gospel; as great, (in short,) as is the difference between Judaism and Christianity. Hence will arise also our rule,³⁶²⁷ by which we determine³⁶²⁸ that there ought to be nothing in common between the Christ of the rival god and the Creator; but that (Christ) must be pronounced to belong to the Creator,³⁶²⁹ if He has administered His dispensations, fulfilled His prophecies, promoted³⁶³⁰ His laws, given reality to³⁶³¹ His promises, revived His mighty power,³⁶³² remoulded His determinations,³⁶³³ expressed His attributes, His properties. This law and this rule I earnestly request the reader to have ever in his mind, and so let him begin to investigate whether Christ be Marcion's or the Creator's.

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 Tiberius³⁶³⁴ (for such is Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum," of course meaning³⁶³⁵ from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own. What then had been his course,³⁶³⁶ 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 already³⁶³⁷ 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 inquiring³⁶³⁸ whether it is supposed that he was seen in any place. To come into view³⁶³⁹ indicates³⁶⁴⁰ a sudden unexpected glance, which for a moment fixed³⁶⁴¹ 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.³⁶⁴² Moreover, it takes account of fact, and thus obliges one to examine in what condition with what preparation,³⁶⁴³ 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 bad³⁶⁴⁴ 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 whom³⁶⁴⁵ that region was destined (for His Christ) when about to enter on His ministry?³⁶⁴⁶ 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."³⁶⁴⁷ 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,³⁶⁴⁸ 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 discern³⁶⁴⁹ 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;³⁶⁵⁰ for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation.³⁶⁵¹ 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;"³⁶⁵² and, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs,"³⁶⁵³—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.³⁶⁵⁴ 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,³⁶⁵⁵ 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 entering³⁶⁵⁶ 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 power³⁶⁵⁷—not because He taught in opposition to the law and the prophets. No doubt, His divine discourse³⁶⁵⁸ 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 naturally³⁶⁵⁹ 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,³⁶⁶⁰ 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."³⁶⁶¹ 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.³⁶⁶² Elsewhere³⁶⁶³ 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 published³⁶⁶⁴ 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 prophesied³⁶⁶⁵ of "the Holy One" of God, and how that God's name of "Jesus" was in the son of Nun.³⁶⁶⁶ These facts he had also received³⁶⁶⁷ 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;"³⁶⁶⁸ and, "Thou shalt call his name Jesus."³⁶⁶⁹ 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,³⁶⁷⁰ and not of him who was simply good,³⁶⁷¹ and knew not how to destroy or how to punish! Now for what purpose have we adduced his passage first?³⁶⁷² 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.³⁶⁷³ Why else³⁶⁷⁴ 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,³⁶⁷⁵ 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 meaning³⁶⁷⁶ 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.

Chapter VIII.—Other Proofs from the Same Chapter, that Jesus, Who Preached at Nazareth, and Was Acknowledged by Certain Demons as Christ the Son of God, Was the Creator's Christ. As Occasion Offers, the Docetic Errors of Marcion are Exposed.

The Christ of the Creator had³⁶⁷⁷ to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account,³⁶⁷⁸ Nazerenes³⁶⁷⁹ after Him. For we are they of whom it is written, "Her Nazarites were whiter than snow;"³⁶⁸⁰ even they who were once defiled with the stains of sin, and darkened with the clouds of ignorance. But to Christ the title Nazarene was destined to become a suitable one, from the hiding-place of His infancy, for which He went down and dwelt at Nazareth,³⁶⁸¹ to escape from Archelaus the son of Herod. This fact I have not refrained from mentioning on this account, because it behoved Marcion's Christ to have forborne all connection whatever with the domestic localities of the Creator's Christ, when he had so many towns in Judæa which had not been by the prophets thus assigned³⁶⁸² to the Creator's Christ. But Christ will be (the Christ) of the prophets, wheresoever He is found in accordance with the prophets. And yet even at Nazareth He is not remarked as having preached anything new,³⁶⁸³ whilst in another verse He is said to have been rejected³⁶⁸⁴ by reason of a simple proverb.³⁶⁸⁵ Here at once, when I observe that they laid their hands on Him, I cannot help drawing a conclusion respecting His bodily substance, which cannot be believed to have been a phantom,³⁶⁸⁶ since it was capable of being touched and even violently handled, when He was seized and taken and led to the very brink of a precipice. For although He escaped through the midst of them, He had already experienced their rough treatment, and afterwards went His way, no doubt³⁶⁸⁷ because the crowd (as usually happens) gave way, or was even broken through; but not because it was eluded as by an impalpable disguise,³⁶⁸⁸ which, if there had been such, would not at all have submitted to any touch.

"Tangere enim et tangi, nisi corpus, nulla potest res,"³⁶⁸⁹

is even a sentence worthy of a place in the world's wisdom. In short, He did himself touch others, upon whom He laid His hands, which were capable of being felt, and conferred the blessings of healing,³⁶⁹⁰ which were not less true, not less unimaginary, than were the hands wherewith He bestowed them. He was therefore the very Christ of Isaiah, the healer of our sicknesses.³⁶⁹¹ "Surely," says he, "He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows." Now the Greeks are accustomed to use for carry a word which also signifies to take away. A general promise is enough for me in passing.³⁶⁹² Whatever were the cures which Jesus effected, He is mine. We will come, however, to the kinds of cures. To liberate men, then, from evil spirits, is a cure of sickness. Accordingly, wicked spirits (just in the manner of our former example) used to go forth with a testimony, exclaiming, "Thou art the Son of God,"³⁶⁹³—of what God, is clear enough from the case itself. But they were rebuked, and ordered not to speak; precisely because³⁶⁹⁴ Christ willed Himself to be proclaimed by men, not by unclean spirits, as the Son of God—even that Christ alone to whom this was befitting, because He had sent beforehand men through whom He might become known, and who were assuredly worthier preachers. It was natural to Him³⁶⁹⁵ to refuse the proclamation of an unclean spirit, at whose command there was an abundance of saints. He, however,³⁶⁹⁶ who had never been foretold (if, indeed, he wished to be acknowledged; for if he did not wish so much, his coming was in vain), would not have spurned the testimony of an alien or any sort of substance, who did not happen to have a substance of his own,³⁶⁹⁷ but had descended in an alien one. And now, too, as the destroyer also of the Creator, he would have desired nothing better than to be acknowledged by His spirits, and to be divulged for the sake of being feared:³⁶⁹⁸ only that Marcion says³⁶⁹⁹ that his god is not feared; maintaining that a good being is not an object of fear, but only a judicial being, in whom reside the grounds³⁷⁰⁰ of fear—anger, severity, judgments, vengeance, condemnation. But it was from fear, undoubtedly, that the evil spirits were cowed.³⁷⁰¹ Therefore they confessed that (Christ) was the Son of a God who was to be feared, because they would have an occasion of not submitting if there were none for fearing. Besides, He showed that He was to be feared, because He drave them out, not by persuasion like a good being, but by command and reproof. Or else did he³⁷⁰² reprove them, because they were making him an object of fear, when all the while he did not want to be feared? And in what manner did he wish them to go forth, when they could not do so except with fear? So that he fell into the dilemma³⁷⁰³ of having to conduct himself contrary to his nature, whereas he might in his simple goodness have at once treated them with leniency. He fell, too, into another false position³⁷⁰⁴—of prevarication, when he permitted himself to be feared by the demons as the Son of the Creator, that he might drive them out, not indeed by his own power, but by the authority of the Creator. "He departed, and went into a desert place."³⁷⁰⁵ This was, indeed, the Creator's customary region. It was proper that the Word³⁷⁰⁶ should there appear in body, where He had aforetime, wrought in a cloud. To the gospel also was suitable that condition of place³⁷⁰⁷ which had once been determined on for the law.³⁷⁰⁸ "Let the wilderness and the solitary place, therefore, be glad and rejoice;" so had Isaiah promised.³⁷⁰⁹ When "stayed" by the crowds, He said, "I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also."³⁷¹⁰ Had He displayed His God anywhere yet? I suppose as yet nowhere. But was He speaking of those who knew of another god also? I do not believe so. If, therefore, neither He had preached, nor they had known, any other God but the Creator, He was announcing the kingdom of that God whom He knew to be the only God known to those who were listening to Him.

Chapter IX.—Out of St. Luke's Fifth Chapter are Found Proofs of Christ's Belonging to the Creator, E.g. In the Call of Fishermen to the Apostolic Office, and in the Cleansing of the Leper. Christ Compared with the Prophet Elisha.

Out of so many kinds of occupations, why indeed had He such respect for that of fishermen, as to select from it for apostles Simon and the sons of Zebedee (for it cannot seem to be the mere fact itself for which the narrative was meant to be drawn out³⁷¹¹ ), saying to Peter, when he trembled at the very large draught of the fishes, "Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men?"³⁷¹² By saying this, He suggested to them the meaning of the fulfilled prophecy, that it was even He who by Jeremiah had foretold, "Behold, I will send many fishers; and they shall fish them,"³⁷¹³ that is, men. Then at last they left their boats, and followed Him, understanding that it was He who had begun to accomplish what He had declared. It is quite another case, when he affected to choose from the college of shipmasters, intending one day to appoint the shipmaster Marcion his apostle. We have indeed already laid it down, in opposition to his Antitheses, that the position of Marcion derives no advantage from the diversity which he supposes to exist between the Law and the Gospel, inasmuch as even this was ordained by the Creator, and indeed predicted in the promise of the new Law, and the new Word, and the new Testament. Since, however, he quotes with especial care,³⁷¹⁴ as a proof in his domain,³⁷¹⁵ a certain companion in misery (suntalaiporon), and associate in hatred (summisoumenon ), with himself, for the cure of leprosy,³⁷¹⁶ I shall not be sorry to meet him, and before anything else to point out to him the force of the law figuratively interpreted, which, in this example of a leper (who was not to be touched, but was rather to be removed from all intercourse with others), prohibited any communication with a person who was defiled with sins, with whom the apostle also forbids us even to eat food,³⁷¹⁷ forasmuch as the taint of sins would be communicated as if contagious, wherever a man should mix himself with the sinner. The Lord, therefore, wishing that the law should be more profoundly understood as signifying spiritual truths by carnal facts³⁷¹⁸—and thus³⁷¹⁹ not destroying, but rather building up, that law which He wanted to have more earnestly acknowledged—touched the leper, by whom (even although as man He might have been defiled) He could not be defiled as God, being of course incorruptible. The prescription, therefore, could not be meant for Him, that He was bound to observe the law and not touch the unclean person, seeing that contact with the unclean would not cause defilement to Him. I thus teach that this (immunity) is consistent in my Christ, the rather when I show that it is not consistent in yours. Now, if it was as an enemy³⁷²⁰ of the law that He touched the leper—disregarding the precept of the law by a contempt of the defilement—how could he be defiled, when he possessed not a body³⁷²¹ which could be defiled? For a phantom is not susceptible of defilement. He therefore, who could not be defiled, as being a phantom, will not have an immunity from pollution by any divine power, but owing to his fantastic vacuity; nor can he be regarded as having despised pollution, who had not in fact any material capacity³⁷²² for it; nor, in like manner, as having destroyed the law, who had escaped defilement from the occasion of his phantom nature, not from any display of virtue. If, however, the Creator's prophet Elisha cleansed Naaman the Syrian alone,³⁷²³ to the exclusion of³⁷²⁴ so many lepers in Israel,³⁷²⁵ this fact contributes nothing to the distinction of Christ, as if he were in this way the better one for cleansing this Israelite leper, although a stranger to him, whom his own Lord had been unable to cleanse. The cleansing of the Syrian rather³⁷²⁶ was significant throughout the nations of the world³⁷²⁷ of their own cleansing in Christ their light,³⁷²⁸ steeped as they were in the stains of the seven deadly sins:³⁷²⁹ idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, fornication, false-witness, and fraud.³⁷³⁰ Seven times, therefore, as if once for each,³⁷³¹ did he wash in Jordan; both in order that he might celebrate the expiation of a perfect hebdomad;³⁷³² and because the virtue and fulness of the one baptism was thus solemnly imputed³⁷³³ to Christ, alone, who was one day to establish on earth not only a revelation, but also a baptism, endued with compendious efficacy.³⁷³⁴ Even Marcion finds here an antithesis:³⁷³⁵ how that Elisha indeed required a material resource, applied water, and that seven times; whereas Christ, by the employment of a word only, and that but once for all, instantly effected³⁷³⁶ the cure. And surely I might venture³⁷³⁷ to claim³⁷³⁸ the Very Word also as of the Creator's substance. There is nothing of which He who was the primitive Author is not also the more powerful one. Forsooth,³⁷³⁹ it is incredible that that power of the Creator should have, by a word, produced a remedy for a single malady, which once by a word brought into being so vast a fabric as the world! From what can the Christ of the Creator be better discerned, than from the power of His word? But Christ is on this account another (Christ), because He acted differently from Elisha—because, in fact, the master is more powerful than his servant! Why, Marcion, do you lay down the rule, that things are done by servants just as they are by their very masters? Are you not afraid that it will turn to your discredit, if you deny that Christ belongs to the Creator, on the ground that He was once more powerful than a servant of the Creator—since, in comparison with the weakness of Elisha, He is acknowledged to be the greater, if indeed greater!³⁷⁴⁰ For the cure is the same, although there is a difference in the working of it. What has your Christ performed more than my Elisha? Nay, what great thing has the word of your Christ performed, when it has simply done that which a river of the Creator effected? On the same principle occurs all the rest. So far as renouncing all human glory went, He forbade the man to publish abroad the cure; but so far as the honour of the law was concerned, He requested that the usual course should be followed: "Go, show thyself to the priest, and present the offering which Moses commanded."³⁷⁴¹ For the figurative signs of the law in its types He still would have observed, because of their prophetic import.³⁷⁴² These types signified that a man, once a sinner, but afterwards purified³⁷⁴³ from the stains thereof by the word of God, was bound to offer unto God in the temple a gift, even prayer and thanksgiving in the church through Christ Jesus, who is the Catholic Priest of the Father.³⁷⁴⁴ Accordingly He added: "that it may be for a testimony unto you"—one, no doubt, whereby He would testify that He was not destroying the law, but fulfilling it; whereby, too, He would testify that it was He Himself who was foretold as about to undertake³⁷⁴⁵ their sicknesses and infirmities. This very consistent and becoming explanation of "the testimony," that adulator of his own Christ, Marcion seeks to exclude under the cover of mercy and gentleness. For, being both good (such are his words), and knowing, besides, that every man who had been freed from leprosy would be sure to perform the solemnities of the law, therefore He gave this precept. Well, what then? Has He continued in his goodness (that is to say, in his permission of the law) or not? For if he has persevered in his goodness, he will never become a destroyer of the law; nor will he ever be accounted as belonging to another god, because there would not exist that destruction of the law which would constitute his claim to belong to the other god. If, however, he has not continued good, by a subsequent destruction of the law, it is a false testimony which he has since imposed upon them in his cure of the leper; because he has forsaken his goodness, in destroying the law. If, therefore, he was good whilst upholding the law,³⁷⁴⁶ he has now become evil as a destroyer of the law. However, by the support which he gave to the law, he affirmed that the law was good. For no one permits himself in the support of an evil thing. Therefore he is not only bad if he has permitted obedience to a bad law; but even worse still, if he has appeared³⁷⁴⁷ as the destroyer of a good law. So that if he commanded the offering of the gift because he knew that every cured leper would be sure to bring one; he possibly abstained from commanding what he knew would be spontaneously done. In vain, therefore, was his coming down, as if with the intention of destroying the law, when he makes concessions to the keepers of the law. And yet,³⁷⁴⁸ because he knew their disposition,³⁷⁴⁹ he ought the more earnestly to have prevented their neglect of the law,³⁷⁵⁰ since he had come for this purpose. Why then did he not keep silent, that man might of his own simple will obey the law? For then might he have seemed to some extent³⁷⁵¹ to have persisted in his patience. But he adds also his own authority increased by the weight of this "testimony." Of what testimony, I ask,³⁷⁵² if not that of the assertion of the law? Surely it matters not in what way he asserted the law—whether as good, or as supererogatory,³⁷⁵³ or as patient, or as inconstant—provided, Marcion, I drive you from your position.³⁷⁵⁴ Observe,³⁷⁵⁵ he commanded that the law should be fulfilled. In whatever way he commanded it, in the same way might he also have first uttered that sentiment:³⁷⁵⁶ "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it."³⁷⁵⁷ What business, therefore, had you to erase out of the Gospel that which was quite consistent in it?³⁷⁵⁸ For you have confessed that, in his goodness, he did in act what you deny that he did in word.³⁷⁵⁹ We have therefore good proof that He uttered the word, in the fact that He did the deed; and that you have rather expunged the Lord's word, than that our (evangelists)³⁷⁶⁰ have inserted it.

Chapter X.—Further Proofs of the Same Truth in the Same Chapter, from the Healing of the Paralytic, and from the Designation Son of Man Which Jesus Gives Himself. Tertullian Sustains His Argument by Several Quotations from the Prophets.

The sick of the palsy is healed,³⁷⁶¹ and that in public, in the sight of the people. For, says Isaiah, "they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God."³⁷⁶² What glory, and what excellency? "Be strong, ye weak hands, and ye feeble knees:"³⁷⁶³ this refers to the palsy. "Be strong; fear not."³⁷⁶⁴ Be strong is not vainly repeated, nor is fear not vainly added; because with the renewal of the limbs there was to be, according to the promise, a restoration also of bodily energies: "Arise, and take up thy couch;" and likewise moral courage³⁷⁶⁵ not to be afraid of those who should say, "Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" So that you have here not only the fulfilment of the prophecy which promised a particular kind of healing, but also of the symptoms which followed the cure. In like manner, you should also recognise Christ in the same prophet as the forgiver of sins. "For," he says, "He shall remit to many their sins, and shall Himself take away our sins."³⁷⁶⁶ For in an earlier passage, speaking in the person of the Lord himself, he had said: "Even though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them as white as snow; even though they be like crimson, I will whiten them as wool."³⁷⁶⁷ In the scarlet colour He indicates the blood of the prophets; in the crimson, that of the Lord, as the brighter. Concerning the forgiveness of sins, Micah also says: "Who is a God like unto Thee? pardoning iniquity, and passing by the transgressions of the remnant of Thine heritage. He retaineth not His anger as a testimony against them, because He delighteth in mercy. He will turn again, and will have compassion upon us; He wipeth away our iniquities, and casteth our sins into the depths of the sea."³⁷⁶⁸ Now, if nothing of this sort had been predicted of Christ, I should find in the Creator examples of such a benignity as would hold out to me the promise of similar affections also in the Son of whom He is the Father. I see how the Ninevites obtained forgiveness of their sins from the Creator³⁷⁶⁹—not to say from Christ, even then, because from the beginning He acted in the Father's name. I read, too, how that, when David acknowledged his sin against Uriah, the prophet Nathan said unto him, "The Lord hath cancelled³⁷⁷⁰ thy sin, and thou shalt not die;"³⁷⁷¹ how king Ahab in like manner, the husband of Jezebel, guilty of idolatry and of the blood of Naboth, obtained pardon because of his repentance;³⁷⁷² and how Jonathan the son of Saul blotted out by his deprecation the guilt of a violated fast.³⁷⁷³ Why should I recount the frequent restoration of the nation itself after the forgiveness of their sins?—by that God, indeed, who will have mercy rather than sacrifice, and a sinner's repentance rather than his death.³⁷⁷⁴ You will first have to deny that the Creator ever forgave sins; then you must in reason show³⁷⁷⁵ that He never ordained any such prerogative for His Christ; and so you will prove how novel is that boasted³⁷⁷⁶ benevolence of the, of course, novel Christ when you shall have proved that it is neither compatible with³⁷⁷⁷ the Creator nor predicted by the Creator. But whether to remit sins can appertain to one who is said to be unable to retain them, and whether to absolve can belong to him who is incompetent even to condemn, and whether to forgive is suitable to him against whom no offence can be committed, are questions which we have encountered elsewhere,³⁷⁷⁸ when we preferred to drop suggestions³⁷⁷⁹ rather than treat them anew.³⁷⁸⁰ Concerning the Son of man our rule³⁷⁸¹ is a twofold one: that Christ cannot lie, so as to declare Himself the Son of man, if He be not truly so; nor can He be constituted the Son of man, unless He be born of a human parent, either father or mother. And then the discussion will turn on the point, of which human parent He ought to be accounted the son—of the father or the mother? Since He is (begotten) of God the Father, He is not, of course, (the son) of a human father. If He is not of a human father, it follows that He must be (the son) of a human mother. If of a human mother, it is evident that she must be a virgin. For to whom a human father is not ascribed, to his mother a husband will not be reckoned; and then to what mother a husband is not reckoned, the condition of virginity belongs.³⁷⁸² But if His mother be not a virgin, two fathers will have to be reckoned to Him—a divine and a human one. For she must have a husband, not to be a virgin; and by having a husband, she would cause two fathers—one divine, the other human—to accrue to Him, who would thus be Son both of God and of a man. Such a nativity (if one may call it so)³⁷⁸³ the mythic stories assign to Castor or to Hercules. Now, if this distinction be observed, that is to say, if He be Son of man as born of His mother, because not begotten of a father, and His mother be a virgin, because His father is not human—He will be that Christ whom Isaiah foretold that a virgin should conceive,³⁷⁸⁴ on what principle you, Marcion, can admit Him Son of man, I cannot possibly see. If through a human father, then you deny him to be Son of God; if through a divine one also,³⁷⁸⁵ then you make Christ the Hercules of fable; if through a human mother only, then you concede my point; if not through a human father also,³⁷⁸⁶ then He is not the son of any man,³⁷⁸⁷ and He must have been guilty of a lie for having declared Himself to be what He was not. One thing alone can help you in your difficulty: boldness on your part either to surname your God as actually the human father of Christ, as Valentinus did³⁷⁸⁸ with his Æon; or else to deny that the Virgin was human, which even Valentinus did not do. What now, if Christ be described³⁷⁸⁹ in Daniel by this very title of "Son of man?" Is not this enough to prove that He is the Christ of prophecy? For if He gives Himself that appellation which was provided in the prophecy for the Christ of the Creator, He undoubtedly offers Himself to be understood as Him to whom (the appellation) was assigned by the prophet. But perhaps³⁷⁹⁰ it can be regarded as a simple identity of names;³⁷⁹¹ and yet we have maintained³⁷⁹² that neither Christ nor Jesus ought to have been called by these names, if they possessed any condition of diversity. But as regards the appellation "Son of man," in as far as it occurs by accident,³⁷⁹³ in so far there is a difficulty in its occurrence along with³⁷⁹⁴ a casual identity of names. For it is of pure³⁷⁹⁵ accident, especially when the same cause does not appear³⁷⁹⁶ whereby the identity may be occasioned. And therefore, if Marcion's Christ be also said to be born of man, then he too would receive an identical appellation, and there would be two Sons of man, as also two Christs and two Jesuses. Therefore, since the appellation is the sole right of Him in whom it has a suitable reason,³⁷⁹⁷ if it be claimed for another in whom there is an identity of name, but not of appellation,³⁷⁹⁸ then the identity of name even looks suspicious in him for whom is claimed without reason the identity of appellation. And it follows that He must be believed to be One and the Same, who is found to be the more fit to receive both the name and the appellation; while the other is excluded, who has no right to the appellation, because he has no reason to show for it. Nor will any other be better entitled to both than He who is the earlier, and has had allotted to Him the name of Christ and the appellation of Son of man, even the Jesus of the Creator. It was He who was seen by the king of Babylon in the furnace with His martyrs: "the fourth, who was like the Son of man."³⁷⁹⁹ He also was revealed to Daniel himself expressly as "the Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven" as a Judge, as also the Scripture shows.³⁸⁰⁰ What I have advanced might have been sufficient concerning the designation in prophecy of the Son of man. But the Scripture offers me further information, even in the interpretation of the Lord Himself. For when the Jews, who looked at Him as merely man, and were not yet sure that He was God also, as being likewise the Son of God, rightly enough said that a man could not forgive sins, but God alone, why did He not, following up their point³⁸⁰¹ about man, answer them, that He³⁸⁰² had power to remit sins; inasmuch as, when He mentioned the Son of man, He also named a human being? except it were because He wanted, by help of the very designation "Son of man" from the book of Daniel, so to induce them to reflect³⁸⁰³ as to show them that He who remitted sins was God and man—that only Son of man, indeed, in the prophecy of Daniel, who had obtained the power of judging, and thereby, of course, of forgiving sins likewise (for He who judges also absolves); so that, when once that objection of theirs³⁸⁰⁴ was shattered to pieces by their recollection of Scripture, they might the more easily acknowledge Him to be the Son of man Himself by His own actual forgiveness of sins. I make one more observation,³⁸⁰⁵ how that He has nowhere as yet professed Himself to be the Son of God—but for the first time in this passage, in which for the first time He has remitted sins; that is, in which for the first time He has used His function of judgment, by the absolution. All that the opposite side has to allege in argument against these things, (I beg you) carefully weigh³⁸⁰⁶ what it amounts to. For it must needs strain itself to such a pitch of infatuation as, on the one hand, to maintain that (their Christ) is also Son of man, in order to save Him from the charge of falsehood; and, on the other hand, to deny that He was born of woman, lest they grant that He was the Virgin's son. Since, however, the divine authority and the nature of the case, and common sense, do not admit this insane position of the heretics, we have here the opportunity of putting in a veto³⁸⁰⁷ in the briefest possible terms, on the substance of Christ's body, against Marcion's phantoms. Since He is born of man, being the Son of man. He is body derived from body.³⁸⁰⁸ You may, I assure you,³⁸⁰⁹ more easily find a man born without a heart or without brains, like Marcion himself, than without a body, like Marcion's Christ. And let this be the limit to your examination of the heart, or, at any rate, the brains of the heretic of Pontus.³⁸¹⁰