Chap. IX. - Out of St. Luke’s Fifth Chapter (Luk_5:1-39) 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.
“In the like manner,” says He, (Luk_6:26) “did their fathers unto the prophets.” What a turncoat362 is Marcion’s Christ! Now the destroyer, now the advocate of the prophets! He destroyed them as their rival, by converting their disciples; he took up their cause as their friend, by stigmatizing363 their persecutors. But,364 in as far as the defence of the prophets could not be consistent in the Christ of Marcion, who came to destroy them; in so far is it becoming to the Creator’s Christ that He should stigmatize those who persecuted the prophets, for He in all things accomplished their predictions. Again, it is more characteristic of the Creator to upbraid sons with their fathers’ sins, than it is of that god who chastizes no man for even his own misdeeds. But you will say, He cannot be regarded as defending the prophets simply because He wished to affirm the iniquity of the Jews for their impious dealings with their own prophets. Well, then, in this case,365 no sin ought to have been charged against the Jews: they were rather deserving of praise and approbation when they maltreated366 those whom 368 the absolutely good god of Marcion, after so long a time, bestirred himself367 to destroy. I suppose, however, that by this time he had ceased to be the absolutely good god;368 he had now sojourned a considerable while even with the Creator, and was no longer (like) the god of Epicurus369 purely and simply. For see how he condescends370 to curse, and proves himself capable of taking offence and feeling anger! He actually pronounces a woe! But a doubt is raised against us as to the import of this word, as if it carried with it less the sense of a curse than of an admonition. Where, however, is the difference, since even an admonition is not given without the sting of a threat, especially when it is embittered with a woe? Moreover, both admonition and threatening will be the resources of him371 who knows how to feel angry, For no one will forbid the doing of a thing with an admonition or a threat, except him who will inflict punishment for the doing of it. No one would inflict punishment, except him who was susceptible of anger. Others, again, admit that the word implies a curse; but they will have it that Christ pronounced the woe, not as if it were His own genuine feeling, but because the woe is from the Creator, and He wanted to set forth to them the severity of the Creator in order that He might the more commend His own long-suffering372 in His beatitudes Just as if it were not competent to the Creator, in the pre-eminence of both His attributes as the good God and Judge, that, as He had made clemency373 the preamble of His benediction so He should place severity in the sequel of His curses; thus fully developing His discipline in both directions, both in following out the blessing and in providing against the curse.374 He had already said of old, “Behold, I have set before you blessing and cursing.” (Deu_30:19) Which statement was really a presage of375 this temper of the gospel. Besides, what sort of being is that who, to insinuate a belief in his own goodness, invidiously contrasted376 with it the Creator’s severity? Of little worth is the recommendation which has for its prop the defamation of another. And yet by thus setting forth the severity of the Creator, he, in fact, affirmed Him to be an object of fear.377 Now if He be an object of fear, He is of course more worthy of being obeyed than slighted; and thus Marcion’s Christ begins to teach favourably to the Creator’s interests.378 Then, on the admission above mentioned, since the woe which has regard to the rich is the Creator’s, it follows that it is not Christ, but the Creator, who is angry with the rich; while Christ approves of379 the incentives of the rich380 - I mean, their pride, their pomp,381 their love of the world, and their contempt of God, owing to which they deserve the woe of the Creator. But how happens it that the reprobation of the rich does not proceed from the same God who had just before expressed approbation of the poor? There is nobody but reprobates the opposite of that which he has approved. If, therefore, there be imputed to the Creator the woe pronounced against the rich, there must be claimed for Him also the promise of the blessing upon the poor; and thus the entire work of the Creator devolves on Christ. - If to Marcion’s god there be ascribed the blessing of the poor, he must also have imputed to him the malediction of the rich; and thus will he become the Creator’s equal,382 both good and judicial; nor will there be left any room for that distinction whereby two gods are made; and when this distinction is removed, there will remain the verity which pronounces the Creator to be the one only God. Since, therefore, “woe” is a word indicative of malediction, or of some unusually austere383 exclamation; and since it is by Christ uttered against the rich, I shall have to show that the Creator is also a despiser384 of the rich, as I have shown Him to be the defender of the poor, in order that I may prove Christ to be on the Creator’s side in this matter, even when He enriched Solomon. (1Ki_3:5-13) But with respect to this man, since, when a choice was left to him, he preferred asking for what he knew to be well-pleasing to God - even wisdom - he further merited the attainment of the riches, which he did not prefer. The endowing of a man indeed with riches, is not an incongruity to God, for by the help of riches even rich men are comforted and assisted; moreover, by them many a work of justice and charity is carried out. But yet there are serious faults385 which accompany riches; and it is because of these that woes are denounced on the rich, even in the Gospel. “Ye have received,” says He, “your consolation;” (Luk_6:24)386 that is, of course, from 369 their riches, in the pomps and vanities of the world which these purchase for them. Accordingly, in Deuteronomy, Moses says: “Lest, when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, as well as thy silver and thy gold, thine heart be then lifted up, and thou forget the Lord thy God.” (Deu_8:12-14) in similar terms, when king Hezekiah became proud of his treasures, and gloried in them rather than in God before those who had come on an embassy from Babylon,387 (the Creator) breaks forth388 against him by the mouth of Isaiah: “Behold, the days come when all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store, shall be carried to Babylon.” (Isa_34:6) So by Jeremiah likewise did He say: “Let not the rich man glory in his riches but let him that glorieth even glory in the Lord.” (Jer_9:23, Jer_9:24) Similarly against the daughters of Sion does He inveigh by Isaiah, when they were haughty through their pomp and the abundance of their riches, (Isa_3:16-24) just as in another passage He utters His threats against the proud and noble: “Hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth, and down to it shall descend the illustrious, and the great, and the rich (this shall be Christ’s ‘woe to the rich’); and man389 shall be humbled,” even he that exalts himself with riches; “and the mighty man390 shall be dishonoured,” even he who is mighty from his wealth. (Isa_5:14) Concerning whom He says again: “Behold, the Lord of hosts shall confound the pompous together with their strength: those that are lifted up shall be hewn down, and such as are lofty shall fall by the sword.” (Isa_10:33) And who are these but the rich? Because they have indeed received their consolation, glory, and honour and a lofty position from their wealth. In Psa_48:1-14 He also turns off our care from these and says: “Be not thou afraid when one is made rich, and when his glory is increased: for when he shall die, he shall carry nothing away; nor shall his glory descend along with him.” (Psa_49:16-17) So also in Psa_61:1-8: “Do not desire riches; and if they do yield you their lustre,391 do not set your heart upon them.” (Psa_62:11) Lastly, this very same woe is pronounced of old by Amos against the rich, who also abounded in delights. “Woe unto them,” says he, “who sleep upon beds of ivory, and deliciously stretch themselves upon their couches; who eat the kids from the flocks of the goats, and sucking calves from the flocks of the heifers, while they chant to the sound of the viol; as if they thought they should continue long, and were not fleeting; who drink their refined wines, and anoint themselves with the costliest ointments.” (Amo_6:1-6) Therefore, even if I could do nothing else than show that the Creator dissuades men from riches, without at the same time first condemning the rich, in the very same terms in which Christ also did, no one could doubt that, from the same authority, there was added a commination against the rich in that woe of Christ, from whom also had first proceeded the dissuasion against the material sin of these persons, that is, their riches. For such commination is the necessary sequel to such a dissuasive. He inflicts a woe also on “the full, because they shall hunger; on those too which laugh now, because they shall mourn.” (Luk_6:25) To these will correspond these opposites which occur, as we have seen above, in the benedictions of the Creator: “Behold, my servants shall be full, but ye shall be hungry “ - even because ye have been filled; “behold, my servants shall rejoice, but ye shall be ashamed” (Isa_65:13) - even ye who shall mourn, who now are laughing. For as it is written in the psalm, “They who sow in tears shall reap in joy,” (Psa_126:5) so does it run in the Gospel: They who sow in laughter, that is, in joy, shall reap in tears. These principles did the Creator lay down of old; and Christ has renewed them, by simply bringing them into prominent view,392 not by making any change in them. “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.” (Luk_6:26) With equal stress does the Creator, by His prophet Isaiah, censure those who seek after human flattery and praise: “O my people, they who call you happy mislead you, and disturb the paths of your feet.” (Isa_3:12) In another passage He forbids all implicit trust in man, and likewise in the applause of man; as by the prophet Jeremiah: “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man.” (Jer_27:5) Whereas in Psa_117:1-2 it is said: “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man; it is better to trust in the Lord than to place hope in princes.” (Psa_118:8-9) Thus everything which is caught at by men is adjured by the Creator, down to their good 370 words.393 It is as much His property to condemn the praise and flattering words bestowed on the false prophets by their fathers, as to condemn their vexatious and persecuting treatment of the (true) prophets. As the injuries suffered by the prophets could not be imputed394 to their own God, so the applause bestowed on the false prophets could not have been displeasing to any other god but the God of the true prophets.
Chap. XVI. - The Precept of Loving One’s Enemies. It Is as Much Taught in the Creator’s Scriptures of the Old Testament as in Christ’s Sermon. The Lex Talionis of Moses Admirably Explained in Consistency with the Kindness and Love Which Jesus Christ Came to Proclaim and Enforce in Behalf of the Creator. Sundry Precepts of Charity Explained.
“But I say unto you which hear” (displaying here that old injunction, of the Creator: “Speak to the ears of those who lend them to you” (2 Esdras 15:1; compare Luk_6:27-28)), “Love your enemies, and bless395 those which hate you, and pray for them which calumniate you.”396 These commands the Creator included in one precept by His prophet Isaiah: “Say, Ye are our brethren, to those who hate you.” (Isa_66:5) For if they who are our enemies, and hate us, and speak evil of us, and calumniate us, are to be called our brethren, surely He did in effect bid us bless them that hate us, and pray for them who calumniate us, when He instructed us to reckon them as brethren. Well, but Christ plainly teaches a new kind of patience,397 when He actually prohibits the reprisals which the Creator permitted in requiring “an eye for an eye,398 and a tooth for a tooth,” (Exo_21:24) and bids us, on the contrary, “to him who smiteth us on the one cheek, to offer the other also, and to give up our coat to him that taketh away our cloak.” (Luk_6:29) No doubt these are supplementary additions by Christ, but they are quite in keeping with the teaching of the Creator. And therefore this question must at once be determined,399 Whether the discipline of patience be enjoined by400 the Creator? When by Zechariah He commanded, “Let none of you imagine evil against his brother,” (Zec_7:10) He did not expressly include his neighbour; but then in another passage He says, “Let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour.” (Zec_8:17) He who counselled that an injury should be forgotten, was still more likely to counsel the patient endurance of it. But then, when He said, “Vengeance is mine, and I will repay,” (Deu_32:35; compare Rom_12:19; Heb_10:30) He thereby teaches that patience calmly waits for the infliction of vengeance. Therefore, inasmuch as it is incredible401 that the same (God) should seem to require “a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye,” in return for an injury, who forbids not only all reprisals, but even a revengeful thought or recollection of an injury, in so far does it become plain to us in what sense He required “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” - not, indeed, for the purpose of permitting the repetition of the injury by retaliating it, which it virtually prohibited when it forbade vengeance; but for the purpose of restraining the injury in the first instance, which it had forbidden on pain of retaliation or reciprocity;402 so that every man, in view of the permission to inflict a second (or retaliatory) injury, might abstain from the commission of the first (or provocative) wrong. For He knows how much more easy it is to repress violence by the prospect of retaliation, than by the promise of (indefinite) vengeance. Both results, however, it was necessary to provide, in consideration of the nature and the faith of men, that the man who believed in God might expect vengeance from God, while he who had no faith (to restrain him) might fear the laws which prescribed retaliation.403 This purpose404 of the law, which it was difficult to understand, Christ, as the Lord of the Sabbath and of the law, and of all the dispensations of the Father, both revealed and made intelligible,405 when He commanded that “the other cheek should be offered (to the smiter),” in order that He might the more effectually extinguish all reprisals of an injury, which the law had wished to prevent by the method of retaliation, (and) which most certainly revelation406 had manifestly restricted, both by prohibiting the memory of the wrong, and referring the vengeance thereof to God. Thus, whatever (new 371 provision) Christ introduced, He did it not in opposition to the law, but rather in furtherance of it, without at all impairing the prescription407 of the Creator. If, therefore,408 one looks carefully409 into the very grounds for which patience is enjoined (and that to such a full and complete extent), one finds that it cannot stand if it is not the precept of the Creator, who promises vengeance, who presents Himself as the judge (in the case). If it were not so,410 - if so vast a weight of patience - which is to refrain from giving blow for blow; which is to offer the other cheek; which is not only not to return railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing; and which, so far from keeping the coat, is to give up the cloak also - is laid upon me by one who means not to help me, - (then all I can say is,) he has taught me patience to no purpose,411 because he shows me no reward to his precept - I mean no fruit of such patience. There is revenge which he ought to have permitted me to take, if he meant not to inflict it himself; if he did not give me that permission, then he should himself have inflicted it;412 since it is for the interest of discipline itself that an injury should be avenged. For by the fear of vengeance all iniquity is curbed. But if licence is allowed to it without discrimination,413 it will get the mastery - it will put out (a man’s) both eyes; it will knock out414 every tooth in the safety of its impunity. This, however, is (the principle) of your good and simply beneficent god - to do a wrong to patience, to open the door to violence, to leave the righteous undefended, and the wicked unrestrained! “Give to every one that asketh of thee” (Luk_6:30) - to the indigent of course, or rather to the indigent more especially, although to the affluent likewise. But in order that no man may be indigent, you have in Deuteronomy a provision commanded by the Creator to the creditor.415 “There shall not be in thine hand an indigent man; so that the Lord thy God shall bless thee with blessings,” (the author’s reading of Deu_15:4) - thee meaning the creditor to whom it was owing that the man was not indigent. But more than this. To one who does not ask, He bids a gift to be given. “Let there be, not,” He says, “a poor man in thine hand;” in other words, see that there be not, so far as thy will can prevent;416 by which command, too, He all the more strongly by inference requires417 men to give to him that asks, as in the following words also: “If there be among you a poor man of thy brethren, thou shalt not turn away thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother. But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him as much as he wanteth,” (Deu_15:7-8) Loans are not usually given, except to such as ask for them. On this subject of lending,418 however, more hereafter. (below, in the next chapter) Now, should any one wish to argue that the Creator’s precepts extended only to a man’s brethren, but Christ’s to all that ask, so as to make the latter a new and different precept, (I have to reply) that one rule only can be made out of those principles, which show the law of the Creator to be repeated in Christ.419 For that is not a different thing which Christ enjoined to be done towards all men, from that which the Creator prescribed in favour of a man’s brethren. For although that is a greater charity, which is shown to strangers, it is yet not preferable to that420 which was previously due to one’s neighbours. For what man will be able to bestow the love (which proceeds from knowledge of character,421 upon strangers? Since, however, the second step422 in charity is towards strangers, while the first is towards one’s neighbours, the second step will belong to him to whom the first also belongs, more fitly than the second will belong to him who owned no first.423 Accordingly, the Creator, when following the course of nature, taught in the first instance kindness to neighbours,424 intending afterwards to enjoin it towards strangers; and when following the method of His dispensation, He limited charity first to the Jews, but afterwards extended it to the whole race of mankind. So long, therefore, as the mystery of His government425 was confined to Israel, He properly commanded that pity should be shown only to a man’s brethren; but when Christ had given to Him “the Gentiles for His heritage, and the ends of the earth for His possession,” then began to be accomplished what was said by Hosea: “Ye are not my people, who were my people; ye have not obtained mercy, who 372 once obtained mercy” (the sense rather than the words of Hos_1:6, Hos_1:9) - that is, the (Jewish) nation. Thenceforth Christ extended to all men the law of His Father’s compassion, excepting none from His mercy, as He omitted none in His invitation. So that, whatever was the ampler scope of His teaching, He received it all in His heritage of the nations. “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.” (Luk_6:31) In this command is no doubt implied its counterpart: “And as ye would not that men should do to you, so should ye also not do to them likewise.” Now, if this were the teaching of the new and previously unknown and not yet fully proclaimed deity, who had favoured me with no instruction beforehand, whereby I might first learn what I ought to choose or to refuse for myself, and to do to others what I would wish done to myself, not doing to them what I should be unwilling to have done to myself, it would certainly be nothing else than the chance-medley of my own sentiments426 which he would have left to me, binding me to no proper rule of wish or action, in order that I might do to others what I would like for myself, or refrain from doing to others what I should dislike to have done to myself. For he has not, in fact, defined what I ought to wish or not to wish for myself as well as for others, so that I shape my conduct427 according to the law of my own will, and have it in my power428 not to render429 to another what I would like to have rendered to myself - love, obedience, consolation, protection, and such like blessings; and in like manner to do to another what I should be unwilling to have done to myself - violence, wrong, insult, deceit, and evils of like sort. Indeed, the heathen who have not been instructed by God act on this incongruous liberty of the will and the conduct.430 For although good and evil are severally known by nature, yet life is not thereby spent431 under the discipline of God, which alone at last teaches men the proper liberty of their will and action in faith, as in the fear of God. The god of Marcion, therefore, although specially revealed, was, in spite of his revelation, unable to publish any summary of the precept in question, which had hitherto been so confined,432 and obscure, and dark, and admitting of no ready interpretation, except according to my own arbitrary thought,433 because he had provided no previous discrimination in the matter of such a precept. This, however, was not the case with my God, for434 He always and everywhere enjoined that the poor, and the orphan, and the widow should be protected, assisted, refreshed; thus by Isaiah He says: “Deal thy bread to the hungry, and them that are houseless bring into thine house; when thou seest the naked, cover him.” (Isa_58:7) By Ezekiel also He thus describes the just man: “His bread will he give to the hungry, and the naked will he cover with a garment.” (Eze_18:7) That teaching was even then a sufficient inducement to me to do to others what I would that they should do unto me. Accordingly, when He uttered such denunciations as, “Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness,” (Exo_20:13-16) - He taught me to refrain from doing to others what I should be unwilling to have done to myself; and therefore the precept developed in the Gospel will belong to Him alone, who anciently drew it up, and gave it distinctive point, and arranged it after the decision of His own teaching, and has now reduced it, suitably to its importance,435 to a compendious formula, because (as it was predicted in another passage) the Lord - that is, Christ” was to make (or utter) a concise word on earth.”436 [Rom_9:28]
Chap. XVII. - Concerning Loans. Prohibition of Usury and the Usurious Spirit. The Law Preparatory to the Gospel in Its Provisions; so in the Present Instance. On Reprisals. Christ’s Teaching Throughout Proves Him to Be Sent by the Creator.
And now, on the subject of a loan, when He asks, “And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye?” (Luk_6:34)437 compare with this the following words of Ezekiel, in which He says of the before-mentioned just man, “He hath not given his money upon usury, nor will he take any increase” (Eze_18:8)438 - meaning the redundance of interest,439 which is usury. The first step was to eradicate the fruit of the money lent,440 the more easily to accustom a man to the loss, should it happen, of the money itself, the interest 373 of which he had learnt to lose. Now this, we affirm, was the function of the law as preparatory to the gospel. It was engaged in forming the faith of such as would learn,441 by gradual stages, for the perfect light of the Christian discipline, through the best precepts of which it was capable,442 inculcating a benevolence which as yet expressed itself but falteringly.443 [Elucidation IV.] For in the passage of Ezekiel quoted above He says, “And thou shalt restore the pledge of the loan”444 - to him, certainly, who is incapable of repayment, because, as a matter of course, He would not anyhow prescribe the restoration of a pledge to one who was solvent. Much more clearly is it enjoined in Deuteronomy: “Thou shalt not sleep upon his pledge; thou shalt be sure to return to him his garment about sunset, and he shall sleep in his own garment.” (Deu_24:12-13) Clearer still is a former passage: “Thou shalt remit every debt which thy neighbour oweth thee; and of thy brother thou shalt not require it, because it is called the release of the Lord thy God.” (Deu_15:2) Now, when He commands that a debt be remitted to a man who shall be unable to pay it (for it is a still stronger argument when He forbids its being asked for from a man who is even able to repay it), what else does He teach than that we should lend to those of whom we cannot receive again, inasmuch as He has imposed so great a loss on lending? “And ye shall be the children of God.” (Luk_6:35) What can be more shameless, than for him to be making us his children, who has not permitted us to make children for ourselves by forbidding marriage?445 How does he propose to invest his followers with a name which he has already erased? I cannot be the son of a eunuch Especially when I have for my Father the same great Being whom the universe claims for its! For is not the Founder of the universe as much a Father, even of all men, as (Marcion’s) castrated deity,446 who is the maker of no existing thing? Even if the Creator had not united male and female, and if He had not allowed any living creature whatever to have children, I yet had this relation to Him447 before Paradise, before the fall, before the expulsion, before the two became one.448 I became His son a second time,449 as soon as He fashioned me450 with His hands, and gave me motion with His inbreathing. Now again He names me His son, not begetting me into natural life, but into spiritual life.451 “Because,” says He, “He is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.” (Luk_6:35) Well done,452 Marcion! how cleverly have you withdrawn from Him the showers and the sunshine, that He might not seem to be a Creator! But who is this kind being453 which hitherto has not been even known? How can he be kind who had previously shown no evidences of such a kindness as this, which consists of the loan to us of sunshine and rain? - who is not destined to receive from the human race (the homage due to that) Creator, - who, up to this very moment, in return for His vast liberality in the gift of the elements, bears with men while they offer to idols, more readily than Himself, the due returns of His graciousness. But God is truly kind even in spiritual blessings. “The utterances454 of the Lord are sweeter than honey and honeycombs.” (Psa_19:11) He then has taunted455 men as ungrateful who deserved to have their gratitude - even He, whose sunshine and rain even you, O Marcion, have enjoyed, but without gratitude! Your god, however, had no right to complain of man’s ingratitude, because he had used no means to make them grateful. Compassion also does He teach: “Be ye merciful,” says He, “as your Father also that had mercy upon you.” (Reading of Luk_6:36) This injunction will be of a piece with, “Deal thy bread to the hungry; and if he be houseless, bring him into thine house; and if thou seest the naked, cover him;” (Isa_58:7) also with, “Judge the fatherless, plead with the widow.” (Isa_1:17) I recognise here that ancient doctrine of Him who “prefers mercy to sacrifice.” (Hos_6:6) If, however, it be now some other being which teaches mercy, on the ground of his own mercifulness, how happens it that he has been wanting in mercy to me for so vast an age? “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; give, and it shall be given unto you: good measure, pressed down, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye measure 374 withal, it shall be measured to you again.” (Luk_6:37-38) As it seems to me, this passage announces a retribution proportioned to the merits. But from whom shall come the retribution? If only from men, in that case he teaches a merely human discipline and recompense; and in everything we shall have to obey man: if from the Creator, as the Judge and the Recompenser of merits, then He compels our submission to Him, in whose hands456 He has placed a retribution which will be acceptable or terrible according as every man shall have judged or condemned, acquitted or dealt with,457 his neighbour; if from (Marcion’s god) himself, he will then exercise a judicial function which Marcion denies. Let the Marcionites therefore make their choice: Will it not be just the same inconsistency to desert the prescription of their master, as to have Christ teaching in the interest of men or of the Creator? But “a blind man will lead a blind man into the ditch.” (Luk_6:39) Some persons believe Marcion. But “the disciple is not above his master.” (Luk_6:40) Apelles ought to have remembered this - a corrector of Marcion, although his disciple.458 The heretic ought to take the beam out of his own eye, and then he may convict459 the Christian, should he suspect a mote to be in his eye. Just as a good tree cannot produce evil fruit, so neither can truth generate heresy; and as a corrupt tree cannot yield good fruit, so heresy will not produce truth. Thus, Marcion brought nothing good out of Cerdon’s evil treasure; nor Apelles out of Marcion’s.460 For in applying to these heretics the figurative words which Christ used of men in general, we shall make a much more suitable interpretation of them than if we were to deduce out of them two gods, according to Marcion’s grievous exposition.461 I think that I have the best reason possible for insisting still upon the position which I have all along occupied, that in no passage to be anywhere found has another God been revealed by Christ. I wonder that in this place alone Marcion’s hands should have felt benumbed in their adulterating labour.462 But even robbers have their qualms now and then. There is no wrong-doing without fear, because there is none without a guilty conscience. So long, then, were the Jews cognisant of no other god but Him, beside whom they knew none else; nor did they call upon any other than Him whom alone they knew. This being the case, who will He clearly be463 that said, “Why tallest thou me Lord, Lord?” (Luk_6:46) Will it be he who had as yet never been called on, because never yet revealed;464 or He who was ever regarded as the Lord, because known from the beginning - even the God of the Jews? Who, again, could possibly have added, “and do not the things which I say?” Could it have been he who was only then doing his best465 to teach them? Or He who from the beginning had addressed to them His messages466 both by the law and the prophets? He could then upbraid them with disobedience, even if He had no ground at any time else for His reproof. The fact is, that He who was then imputing to them their ancient obstinacy was none other than He who, before the coming of Christ, had addressed to them these words, “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart standeth far off from me.” (Isa_24:13) Otherwise, how absurd it were that a new god, a new Christ, the revealer of a new and so grand a religion should denounce as obstinate and disobedient those whom he had never had it in his power to make trial of!
Chap. XVIII. - Concerning the Centurion’s Faith. The Raising of the Widow’s Son. John Baptist, and His Message to Christ; and the Woman who Was a Sinner. Proofs Extracted from All of the Relation of Christ to the Creator.
Likewise, when extolling the centurion’s faith, how incredible a thing it is, that He should confess that He had “found so great a faith not even in Israel.” (Luk_7:1-10) to whom Israel’s faith was in no way interesting!467 But not from the fact (here stated by Christ)468 could it have been of any interest to Him to approve and compare what was hitherto crude, nay, I might say, hitherto naught. Why, however, might He not have used the example of faith in another469 god? Because, 375 if He had done so, He would have said that no such faith had ever had existence in Israel; but as the case stands,470 He intimates that He ought to have found so great a faith in Israel, inasmuch as He had indeed come for the purpose of finding it, being in truth the God and Christ of Israel, and had now stigmatized471 it, only as one who would enforce and Uphold it. If, indeed, He had been its antagonist,472 He would have preferred finding it to be such faith,473 having come to weaken and destroy it rather than to approve of it. He raised also the widow’s son from death. (Luk_7:11-17) This was not a strange miracle.474 The Creator’s prophets had wrought such; then why not His Son much rather? Now, so evidently had the Lord Christ introduced no other god for the working of so momentous a miracle as this, that all who were present gave glory to the Creator, saying: “A great prophet is risen up among us, and God hath visited His people.” (Luk_7:16) What God? He, of course, whose people they were, and from whom had come their prophets. But if they glorified the Creator, and Christ (on hearing them, and knowing their meaning) refrained from correcting them even in their very act of invoking475 the Creator in that vast manifestation of His glory in this raising of the dead, undoubtedly He either announced no other God but Him, whom He thus permitted to be honoured in His own beneficent acts and miracles, or else how happens it that He quietly permitted these persons to remain so long in their error, especially as He came for the very purpose to cure them of their error? But John is offended476 when he hears of the miracles of Christ, as of an alien god.477 Well, I on my side478 will first explain the reason of his offence, that I may the more easily explode the scandal479 of our heretic. Now, that the very Lord Himself of all might, the Word and Spirit of the Father,480 was operating and preaching on earth, it was necessary that the portion of the Holy Spirit which, in the form of the prophetic gift,481 had been through John preparing the ways of the Lord, should now depart from John,482 [Elucidation V.] and return back again of course to the Lord, as to its all-embracing original.483 Therefore John, being now an ordinary person, and only one of the many,484 was offended indeed as a man, but not because he expected or thought of another Christ as teaching or doing nothing new, for he was not even expecting such a one.485 Nobody will entertain doubts about any one whom (since he knows him not to exist) he has no expectation or thought of. Now John was quite sure that there was no other God but the Creator, even as a Jew, especially as a prophet.486 Whatever doubt he felt was evidently rather487 entertained about Him488 whom he knew indeed to exist but knew not whether He were the very Christ. With this fear, therefore, even John asks the question, “Art thou He that should come, or look we for another?” (Luk_7:20) - simply inquiring whether He was come as He whom he was looking for. “Art thou He that should come?” i.e., Art thou the coming One? “or look we for another?” i.e., Is He whom we are expecting some other than Thou, if Thou art not He whom we expect to come? For he was supposing,489 as all men then thought, from the similarity of the miraculous evidences,490 that a prophet might possibly have been meanwhile sent, from whom the Lord Himself, whose coming was then expected, was different, and to whom He was superior.491 And there lay John’s difficulty.492 He was in doubt whether He was actually come whom all men were looking for; whom, moreover, they ought to have recognised by His predicted works, even as the Lord sent word to John, that it was by means of these very works that He was to be recognised. (Luk_7:21-22) Now, inasmuch as these predictions evidently related to the Creator’s Christ - as we have proved in the examination of each of them - it was perverse enough, if he gave himself 376 out to be not the Christ of the Creator, and rested the proof of his statement on those very evidences whereby he was urging his claims to be received as the Creator’s Christ. Far greater still is his perverseness when, not being the Christ of John,493 he yet bestows on John his testimony, affirming him to be a prophet, nay more, his messenger,494 applying to him the Scripture, “Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.” (Luk_7:26-27 and Mal_3:1-3) He graciously495 adduced the prophecy in the superior sense of the alternative mentioned by the perplexed John, in order that, by affirming that His own precursor was already come in the person of John, He might quench the doubt496 which lurked in his question: “Art thou He that, should come, or look we for another?” Now that the forerunner had fulfilled his mission, and the way of the Lord was prepared, He ought now to be acknowledged as that (Christ) for whom the forerunner had made ready the way. That forerunner was indeed “greater than all of women born;” (Luk_7:28) but for all that, He who was least in the kingdom of God497 was not subject to him;498 as if the kingdom in which the least person was greater than John belonged to one God, while John, who was greater than all of women born, belonged himself to another God. For whether He speaks of any “least person” by reason of his humble position, or of Himself, as being thought to be less than John - since all were running into the wilderness after John rather than after Christ (“What went ye out into the wilderness to see?” (Luk_7:25)) - the Creator has equal right499 to claim as His own both John, greater than any born of women, and Christ, or every “least person in the kingdom of heaven,” who was destined to be greater than John in that kingdom, although equally pertaining to the Creator, and who would be so much greater than the prophet,500 because he would not have been offended at Christ, as infirmity which then lessened the greatness John. We have already spoken of the forgiveness501 of sins. The behaviour of “the woman which was a sinner,” when she covered the Lord’s feet with her kisses, bathed them with her tears, wiped them with the hairs of her head, anointed them with ointment, (Luk_7:36-50) produced an evidence that what she handled was not an empty phantom,502 but a really solid body, and that her repentance as a sinner deserved forgiveness according to the mind of the Creator, who is accustomed to prefer mercy to sacrifice. (Hos_6:6) But even if the stimulus of her repentance proceeded from her faith, she heard her justification by faith through her repentance pronounced in the words, “Thy faith hath saved thee,” by Him who had declared by Habakkuk, “The just shall live by his faith.” (Hab_2:4)
Chap. XIX. - The Rich Women of Piety who Followed Jesus Christ’s Teaching by Parables. The Marcionite Cavil Derived from Christ’s Remark, when Told of His Mother and His Brethren. Explanation of Christ’s Apparent Rejection Them.
The fact that certain rich women clave to Christ, “which ministered unto Him of their substance,” amongst whom was the wife of the king’s steward, is a subject of prophecy. By Isaiah the Lord called these wealthy ladies - “Rise up, ye women that are at ease, and hear my voice”503 - that He might prove504 them first as disciples, and then as assistants and helpers: “Daughters, hear my words in hope; this day of the year cherish the memory of, in labour with hope.” For it was “in labour” that they followed Him, and “with hope” did they minister to Him. On the subject of parables, let it suffice that it has been once for all shown that this kind of language505 was with equal distinctness promised by the Creator. But there is that direct mode of His speaking506 to the people” Ye shall hear with the ear, but ye shall not understand” (Isa_6:9) - which now claims notice as 377 having furnished to Christ that frequent form of His earnest instruction: “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Luk_8:8) Not as if Christ, actuated with a diverse spirit, permitted a hearing which the Creator had refused; but because the exhortation followed the threatening. First came, “Ye shall hear with the ear, but shall not understand;” then followed, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” For they wilfully refused to hear, although they had ears. He, however, was teaching them that it was the ears of the heart which were necessary; and with these the Creator had said that they would not hear. Therefore it is that He adds by His Christ, “Take heed how ye hear,” (Luk_8:18) and hear not, - meaning, of course, with the hearing of the heart, not of the ear. If you only attach a proper, sense to the Creator’s admonition507 suitable to the meaning of Him who was rousing the people to hear by the words, “Take heed how ye hear,” it amounted to a menace to such as would not hear. In fact,508 that most merciful god of yours, who judges not, neither is angry, is minatory. This is proved even by the sentence which immediately follows: “Whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.” (Luk_8:18) What shall be given? The increase of faith, or understanding, or even salvation. What shall be taken away? That, of course, which shall be, given. By whom shall the gift and the deprivation be made? If by the Creator it be taken away, by Him also shall it be given. If by Marcion’s god it be given, by Marcion’s god also will it be taken away. Now, for whatever reason He threatens the “deprivation,” it will not be the work of a god who knows not how to threaten, because incapable of anger. I am, moreover, astonished when he says that “a candle is not usually hidden,” (Luk_8:16) who had hidden himself - a greater and more needful light - during so long a time; and when he promises that “everything shall be brought out of its secrecy and made manifest,” (Luk_8:17) who hitherto has kept his god in obscurity, waiting (I suppose) until Marcion be born. We now come to the most strenuously-plied argument of all those who call in question the Lord’s nativity. They say that He testifies Himself to His not having been born, when He asks, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” (Mat_12:48) In this manner heretics either wrest plain and simple words to any sense they choose by their conjectures, or else they violently resolve by a literal interpretation words which imply a conditional sense and are incapable of a simple solution,509 as in this passage. We, for our part, say in reply, first, that it could not possibly have been told Him that His mother and His brethren stood without, desiring to see Him, if He had had no mother and no brethren. They must have been known to him who announced them, either some time previously, or then at that very time, when they desired to see Him, or sent Him their message. To this our first position this answer is usually given by the other side. But suppose they sent Him the message for the purpose of tempting Him? Well, but the Scripture does not say so; and inasmuch as it is usual for it to indicate what is done in the way of temptation (“Behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him;” (Luk_10:25) again, when inquiring about tribute, the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him (Luk_20:20)), so, when it makes no mention of temptation, it does not admit the interpretation of temptation. However, although I do not allow this sense, I may as well ask, by way of a superfluous refutation, for the reasons of the alleged temptation, To what purpose could they have tempted Him by naming His mother and His brethren? If it was to ascertain whether He had been born or not - when was a question raised on this point, which they must resolve by tempting Him in this way? Who could doubt His having been born, when they510 saw Him before them a veritable man? - whom they had heard call Himself “Son of man?” - of whom they doubted whether He were God or Son of God, from seeing Him, as they did, in the perfect garb of human quality? - supposing Him rather to be a prophet, a great one indeed, (an illusion to Luk_7:16. See above, chap. xviii.) but still one who had been born as man? Even if it had been necessary that He should thus be tried in the investigation of His birth, surely any other proof would have better answered the trial than that to be obtained from mentioning those relatives which it was quite possible for Him, in spite of His true nativity, not at that moment to have had. For tell me now, does a mother live on contemporaneously511 with her sons in every case? Have all sons brothers born for them?512 May a man rather not have fathers and sisters (living), 378 or even no relatives at all? But there is historical proof513 that at this very time514 a census had been taken in Judaea by Sentius Saturninus,515 which might have satisfied their inquiry respecting the family and descent of Christ. Such a method of testing the point had therefore no consistency whatever in it and they “who were standing without” were really “His mother and His brethren.” It remains for us to examine His meaning when He resorts to non-literal516 words, saying “Who is my mother or my brethren?” It seems as if His language amounted to a denial of His family and His birth; but it arose actually from the absolute nature of the case, and the conditional sense in which His words were to be explained.517 He was justly indignant, that persons so very near to Him” stood without,” while strangers were within hanging on His words, especially as they wanted to call Him away from the solemn work He had in hand. He did not so much deny as disavow518 [Elucidation VI.] them. And therefore, when to th
