Book IV.1, Which Tertullian Pursues His Argument. Jesus Is the Christ of the Creator. He Derives His Proofs from St. Luke’s Gospel; That Being the Only Historical Portion of the New Testament Partially Accepted by Marcion. This Book May Also Be Regarded as a Commentary on St. Luke. It Gives Remarkable Proof of Tertullian’s Grasp of Scripture, and Proves That “The Old Testament Is Not Contrary to the New.” It Also Abounds in Striking Expositions of Scriptural Passages, Embracing Profound Views of Revelation, in Connection with the Nature of Man.
Chap. I. - Examination of the Antitheses of Marcion, Bringing Them to the Test of Marcion’s Own Gospel. Certain True Antitheses in the Dispensations of the Old and the New Testaments. These Variations Quite Compatible with One and the Same God, who Ordered Them.
Every opinion and the whole scheme2 of the impious and sacrilegious Marcion we now bring to the test3 of that very Gospel which, by his process of interpolation, he has made his own. To encourage a belief of this Gospel he has actually4 devised for it a sort of dower,5 in a work composed of contrary statements set in opposition, thence entitled Antitheses, and compiled with a view to such a severance of the law from the gospel as should divide the Deity into two, nay, diverse, gods - one for each Instrument, or Testament [see cap. 2, infra.] as it is more usual to call it; that by such means he might also patronize6 belief in “the Gospel according to the Antitheses.” These, however, I would have attacked in special combat, hand to hand; that is to say, I would have encountered singly the several devices Of the Pontic heretic, if it were not much more convenient to refute them in and with that very gospel to which they contribute their support. Although it is so easy to meet them at once with a peremptory demurrer,7 yet, in order that I may both make them admissible in argument, and account them valid expressions of opinion, and even contend that they make for our side, that so there may be all the redder shame for the blindness of their author, we have now drawn out some antitheses of our own in opposition to Marcion. And indeed8 I do allow that one order did run its course in the old dispensation under the Creator,9 and that another is on its way in the new under Christ. I do not deny that there is a difference in the language of their documents, in their precepts of virtue, and in their 346 teachings of the law; but yet all this diversity is consistent with one and the same God, even Him by whom it was arranged and also foretold. Long ago10 did Isaiah declare that “out of Sion should go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isa_2:3) - some other law, that is, and another word. In short, says he, “He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people;” (Isa_2:4) meaning not those of the Jewish people only, but of the nations which are judged by the new law of the gospel and the new word of the apostles, and are amongst themselves rebuked of their old error as soon as they have believed. And as the result of this, “they beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears (which are a kind of hunting instruments) into pruning-hooks;” (Isa_2:4) that is to say, minds, which once were fierce and cruel, are changed by them into good dispositions productive of good fruit. And again: “Hearken unto me, hearken unto me, my people, and ye kings, give ear unto me; for a law shall proceed from me, and my judgment for a light to the nations;” (Isaiah 51:1, LXX) wherefore He had determined and decreed that the nations also were to be enlightened by the law and the word of the gospel. This will be that law which (according to David also) is unblameable, because “perfect, converting the soul” (Psa_19:7) from idols unto God. This likewise will be the word concerning which the same Isaiah says, “For the Lord will make a decisive word in the land.”11 Because the New Testament is compendiously short,12 and freed from the minute and perplexing13 burdens of the law. But why enlarge, when the Creator by the same prophet foretells the renovation more manifestly and clearly than the light itself? “Remember not the former things, neither consider the things of old” (the old things have passed away, and new things are arising). “Behold, I will do new things, which shall now spring forth.” (Isa_43:18-19) So by Jeremiah: “Break up for yourselves new pastures,14 and sow not among thorns, and circumcise yourselves in the foreskin of your heart.” (Altered version of Jer_4:3-4) And in another passage: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Jacob, and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I arrested their dispensation, in order to bring them out of the land of Egypt.” (Jer_31:31-32, with slight change) He thus shows that the ancient covenant is temporary only, when He indicates its change; also when He promises that it shall be followed by an eternal one. For by Isaiah He says: “Hear me, and ye shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you,” adding “the sure mercies of David,” (Isa_55:3) in order that He might show that that covenant was to run its course in Christ. That He was of the family of David, according to the genealogy of Mary,15 He declared in a figurative way even by the rod which was to proceed out of the stem of Jesse. (Isa_11:1) Forasmuch then as he said, that from the Creator there would come other laws, and other words, and new dispensations of covenants, indicating also that the very sacrifices were to receive higher offices, and that amongst all nations, by Malachi when he says: “I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord, neither will I accept your sacrifices at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place a sacrifice is offered unto my name, even a pure offering” (Mal_1:10-11) - meaning simple prayer from a pure conscience, - it is of necessity that every change which comes as the result of innovation, introduces a diversity in those things of which the change is made, from which diversity arises also a contrariety. For as there is nothing, after it has undergone a change, which does not become different, so there is nothing different which is not contrary.16 Of that very thing, therefore, there will be predicated a contrariety in consequence of its diversity, to which there accrued a change of condition after an innovation. He who brought about the change, the same instituted the diversity also; He who foretold the innovation, the same announced beforehand the contrariety likewise. Why, in your interpretation, do you impute a difference in the state of things to a difference of powers? Why do you wrest to the Creator’s prejudice those examples from which you draw your antitheses, when you may recognise them all in His sensations and affections? “I will wound,” He says, “and I will heal;” “I will kill,” He says again, “and I will make alive” (Deu_32:39) - even 347 the same “who createth evil and maketh peace;” (Isa_45:7) from which you are used even to censure Him with the imputation of fickleness and inconstancy, as if He forbade what He commanded, and commanded what He forbade. Why, then, have you not reckoned up the Antitheses also which occur in the natural works of the Creator, who is for ever contrary to Himself? You have not been able, unless I am misinformed, to recognise the fact,17 that the world, at all events,18 even amongst your people of Pontus, is made up of a diversity of elements which are hostile to one another.19 It was therefore your bounden duty first to have determined that the god of the light was one being, and the god of darkness was another, in such wise that you might have been able to have distinctly asserted one of them to be the god of the law and the other the god of the gospel. It is, however, the settled conviction already20 of my mind from manifest proofs, that, as His works and plans21 exist in the way of Antitheses, so also by the same rule exist the mysteries of His religion.22
Chap. II. - St. Luke’s Gospel, Selected by Marcion as His Authority, and Mutilated by Him. The Other Gospels Equally Authoritative. Marcion’s Terms of Discussion, However, Accepted, and Grappled with on the Footing of St. Luke’s Gospel Alone.
You have now our answer to the Antitheses compendiously indicated by us.23 I pass on to give a proof of the Gospel24 - not, to be sure, of Jewry, but of Pontus - having become meanwhile25 adulterated; and this shall indicate26 the order by which we proceed. We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament27 has apostles for its authors,28 to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic29 men also,30 they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it31 the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ,32 for it was that which made the apostles their masters. Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil33 faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards.34 These all start with the same principles of the faith,35 so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil36 the law and the prophets. Never mind37 if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter38 of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion. Marcion, on the other hand, you must know,39 ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert40 the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognised, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fulness of its title and the just profession of its author. But we prefer to join issue41 on every point; nor shall we leave unnoticed42 what may fairly be understood to be on our side.43 Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke44 for his mutilating process.45 Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master - at least as far subsequent to46 him as the apostle whom he followed (and that, no doubt, was Paul47) was subsequent to the others; so that, had Marcion even published his Gospel in the name of St. Paul himself, the single authority of the document,48 destitute of all support from preceding authorities, would not be a sufficient basis for our faith. There would be still wanted that Gospel which St. Paul found in existence, to which he yielded 348 his belief, and with which he so earnestly wished his own to agree, that he actually on that account went up to Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles, “lest he should run, or had been running in vain;” (Gal_2:2) in other words, that the faith which he had learned, and the gospel which he was preaching, might be in accordance with theirs. Then, at last, having conferred with the (primitive) authors, and having agreed with them touching the rule of faith, they joined their hands in fellowship, and divided their labours thenceforth in the office of preaching the gospel, so that they were to go to the Jews, and St. Paul to the Jews and the Gentiles. Inasmuch, therefore, as the enlightener of St. Luke himself desired the authority of his predecessors for both his own faith and preaching, how much more may not I require for Luke’s Gospel that which was necessary for the Gospel of his master.49
Chap. III.50 - Marcion Insinuated the Untrustworthiness of Certain Apostles whom St. Paul Rebuked. The Rebuke Shows that It Cannot Be Regarded as Derogating from Their Authority. The Apostolic Gospels Perfectly Authentic.
In the scheme of Marcion, on the contrary,51 the mystery52 of the Christian religion begins from the discipleship of Luke. Since, however, it was on its course previous to that point, it must have had53 its own authentic materials,54 by means of which it found its own way down to St. Luke; and by the assistance of the testimony which it bore, Luke himself becomes admissible. Well, but55 Marcion, finding the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (wherein he rebukes even apostles (see Gal_2:13-14)) for “not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel,”56 as well as accuses certain false apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ), labours very hard to destroy the character57 of those Gospels which are published as genuine58 and under the name of apostles, in order, forsooth, to secure for his own Gospel the credit which he takes away from them. But then, even if he censures Peter and John and James, who were thought to be pillars, it is for a manifest reason. They seemed to be changing their company59 from respect of persons. And yet as Paul himself “became all things to all men,” (1Co_9:22) that he might gain all, it was possible that Peter also might have betaken himself to the same plan of practising somewhat different from what he taught. And, in like manner, if false apostles also crept in, their character too showed itself in their insisting upon circumcision and the Jewish ceremonies. So that it was not on account of their preaching, but of their conversation, that they were marked by St. Paul, who would with equal impartiality have marked them with censure, if they had erred at all with respect to God the Creator or His Christ. Each several case will therefore have to be distinguished. When Marcion complains that apostles are suspected (for their prevarication and dissimulation) of having even depraved the gospel, he thereby accuses Christ, by accusing those whom Christ chose. If, then, the apostles, who are censured simply for inconsistency of walk, composed the Gospel in a pure form,60 but false apostles interpolated their true record; and if our own copies have been made from these,61 where will that genuine text62 of the apostle’s writings be found which has not suffered adulteration? Which was it that enlightened Paul, and through him Luke? It is either completely blotted out, as if by some deluge - being obliterated by the inundation of falsifiers - in which case even Marcion does not possess the true Gospel; or else, is that very edition which Marcion alone possesses the true one, that is, of the apostles? How, then, does that agree with ours, which is said not to be (the work) of apostles, but of Luke? Or else, again, if that which Marcion uses is not to be attributed to Luke simply because it does agree with ours (which, of course,63 is, also adulterated in its title), then it is the work of apostles. Our Gospel, therefore, which is in agreement with it, is equally the work of apostles, but also adulterated in its title.64
Chap. IV. - 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 clue65 of our discussion, meeting every effort of our opponents 349 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 principle66 of time, which rules that the authority lies with that which shall be found to be more ancient; and assumes as an elemental truth,67 that corruption (of doctrine) belongs to the side which shall be convicted of comparative lateness in its origin.68 For, inasmuch as error69 is falsification of truth, it must needs be that truth therefore precede error. A thing must exist prior to its suffering any casualty;70 and an object71 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;72 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 century73 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 pending74 question, of Luke’s Gospel (so far as its being the common property75 of ourselves and Marcion enables it to be decisive of the truth,76) that portion of it which we alone receive77 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,78 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 use79 of them. Proof out of these is enough for me. For if the Gospel, said to be Luke’s which is current amongst us80 (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,81 when he knows not whether they will come to pass. Emendation never precedes the fault. To be sure,82 an amender of that Gospel, which had been all topsy-turvy83 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,84 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;” (Mat_10:24) if Marcion be an apostle, still as Paul says, “Whether it be I or they, so we preach;” (1Co_15:11) if Marcion be a prophet, even “the spirits of the prophets will be subject to the prophets,” (1Co_14:32) 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,” (Gal_1:8) 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.
Chap. 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.85
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, 350 which has been kept as a sacred deposit86 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 near87 (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly88 bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood. We have also St. John’s foster churches.89 For although Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, the order90 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 source91 of the other churches. I say, therefore, that in them (and not simply such of them as were rounded by apostles, but in all those which are united with them in the fellowship of the mystery of the gospel of Christ92) 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 time93 condemned. It too, of course,94 has its churches, but specially its own - as late as they are spurious; and should you want to know their original,95 you will more easily discover apostasy in it than apostolicity, with Marcion forsooth as their founder, or some one of Marcion’s swarm.96 Even wasps make combs;97 so also these Marcionites make churches. The same authority of the apostolic churches will afford evidence98 to the other Gospels also, which we possess equally through their means,99 and according to their usage - I mean the Gospels of John and Matthew - whilst that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s100 whose interpreter Mark was. For even Luke’s form101 of the Gospel men unsually ascribe to Paul. (see above, chap. 2. p. 347) And it may well seem102 that the works which disciples publish belong to their masters. Well, then, Marcion ought to be called to a strict account103 concerning these (other Gospels) also, for having omitted them, and insisted in preference104 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 they105 existed from the very beginning; for, being the work of apostles, they were prior, and coeval in origin with106 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 natural107 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 imply108 that all was free from corruption which he did not think required amendment. In short,109 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 apostles110 have come down to us in their integrity, whilst Luke’s, which is received amongst us,111 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-condemned112 either way - when once113 he hands on the truth of the gospel conscience smitten, or again113 subverts it by shameless tampering. 351
Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms114 against heretics for the faith115 of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers,116 and that authority of churches117 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.
Chap. 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 certain118 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 view119 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;120 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 be121 the drift and form of my little treatise; subject, of course, to whatever condition may have become requisite on both sides of the question.122 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 of123 a great and absolute difference - as great as lies between what is just and what is good;124 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,125 by which we determine126 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,127 if He has administered His dispensations, fulfilled His prophecies, promoted128 His laws, given reality to129 His promises, revived His mighty power,130 remoulded His determinations131 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.[see Dr. Holmes’ Note]
Chap. 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 Tiberius (Luk_3:1 and Luk_4:31) (for such is Marcion’s proposition) he “came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum,” of course meaning132 from the heaven of the Creator, to which he had previously descended from his own. What then had been his Course,133 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 already (see above, book i. chap. xxiii.) [compare 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 352 that he came down. For we must not be too nice in inquiring134 whether it is supposed that he was seen in any place. To come into view135 indicates136 a sudden unexpected glance, which for a moment fixed137 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.138 Moreover, it takes account of fact, and thus obliges one to examine in what condition with what preparation,139 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 bad140 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 whom141 that region was destined (for His Christ) when about to enter on His ministry?142 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.”143 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,ub 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 discern145 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; (Mat_5:17) for Marcion has erased the passage as an interpolation.146 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;” (Mat_15:24) and, “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs,” (Mat_15:26) - 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.147 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,148 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 entering149 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 power (Luk_4:32) - not because He taught in opposition to the law and the prophets. 353
No doubt, His divine discourse150 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 naturally151 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,152 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.” (Luk_4:33-34) 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.153 Elsewhere154 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 published155 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 prophesied (Psa_16:10 and probably Dan_9:24) of “the Holy One” of God, and how that God’s name of “Jesus” was in the son of Nun. (compare what was said above in book iii., chap. xvi. p. 335.) These facts he had also received156 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;” (such is the author’s reading of Luk_1:35) and, “Thou shalt call his name Jesus.” (Mat_1:21) 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,157 and not of him who was simply good,158 and knew not how to destroy or how to punish! Now for what purpose have we adduced his passage first?159 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.160 Why else161 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,162 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, 354 however, the rebuke has not a more probable meaning163 than that which we ascribe to 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.
Chap. 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 had164 to be called a Nazarene according to prophecy; whence the Jews also designate us, on that very account,165 Nazerenes166 after Him. For we are they of whom it is written, “Her Nazarites were whiter than snow;” (Lam_4:7) 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,167 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 Judaea which had not been by the prophets thus assigned168 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, (Luk_4:23) whilst in another verse He is said to have been rejected (Luk_4:29) by reason of a simple proverb. (Luk_4:24) 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,169 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 doubt170 because the crowd (as usually happens) gave way, or was even broken through; but not because it was eluded as by an impalpable disguise,171 which, if there had been such, would not at all have submitted to any touch.
“Tangere enim et tangi, nisi corpus, nulla potest res,”172
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, (Luk_4:40) 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. (see Isa_53:4) “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.173 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,” (Luk_4:41) - of what God, is clear enough from the case itself. But they were rebuked, and ordered not to speak; precisely because174 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 Him175 to refuse the proclamation of an unclean spirit, at whose command there was an abundance of saints. He, however,176 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,177 but had descended in an alien one. And now, too, as the destroyer also of the Creator, he would have desired nothing better 355 than to be acknowledged by His spirits, and to be divulged for the sake of being feared:178 only that Marcion says (see above, book i. chap. vii., xxvi., and xxvii.) 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 grounds179 of fear - anger, severity, judgments, vengeance, condemnation. But it was from fear, undoubtedly, that the evil spirits were cowed.180 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 he181 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 dilemma182 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 position183 - 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.” (Luk_4:42) This was, indeed, the Creator’s customary region. It was proper that the Word184 [Nota Bene, Act_7:39] should there appear in body, where He had aforetime, wrought in a cloud. To the gospel also was suitable that condition of place185 which had once been determined on for the law.186 “Let the wilderness and the solitary place, therefore, be glad and rejoice;” so had Isaiah promised. (Isa_35:1) When “stayed” by the crowds, He said,” I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also.” (Luk_4:42-43) 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.
FOOTNOTES
1 [The remarks of Bishop Kaye on our author’s Marcion are simply invaluable, and the student cannot dispense with what is said more particularly of this Book. See Kaye, pp. 450-480.]
2 Paraturam.
3 Provocamus ad. [Kaye, p. 469, refers to Schleiermacher’s Critical Essay on St. Luke and to a learned note of Mr. Andrews Norton of Harvard (vol iii. Appendix C.) for valuable remarks on Marcion’s Gospel.]
4 Et, emphatic.
5 Dotem quandam.
6 Patrocinaretur.
7 Præscriptive occurrere. This law term (the Greek παραγραφή) seems to refer to the Church’s “rule of faith” (præscriptio), which he might at once put in against Marcion’s heresy; only he prefers to refute him on his own ground.
8 Atque adeo.
9 Apud Creatorem.
10 Olim.
11 T.’s version of Isa_10:23. “Decisus Sermo” = “determined” of A.V.
12 Compendiatum.
13 Laciniosis.
14 Novate novamen novum. Agricultural words.
15 Secundum Mariæ censum. See Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature (third edition), in the article “Genealogy of Jesus Christ,” where the translator of this work has largely given reasons for believing that St. Luke in his genealogy, (Luk_3:1-38.) has traced the descent of the Virgin Mary. To the authorities there given may be added this passage of Tertullian, and a fuller one, Adversus Judæos, ix., towards the end. [p. 164, supra.]
