[4939] Notitiam.
[4940] Luke xviii. 38.
[4941] Non temere.
[4942] Luke xviii. 39.
[4943] Luke xviii. 40.
[4944] Atquin.
[4945] Infameretis.
[4946] Luke xviii. 42.
[4947] Remunerator.
[4948] That is, in the sound only, and phantom of the word; an allusion to the Docetic absurdity of Marcion.
[4949] That is, that He was "Son of David," etc.
[4950] Censum: that is, must believe Him born of her.
[4951] This, perhaps, is the meaning in a clause which is itself more antithetical than clear: "Ruens in antithesim, ruentem et ipsam antithesim."
[4952] In book iii. chap. vii. (at the beginning), occurs the same proverb of Marcion and the Jews. See p. 327.
[4953] See 2 Sam. v. 6-8.
[4954] The Marcionites.
[4955] See 2 Sam. v. 8.
[4956] Fidei equidem pravæ: see preceding page, note 3.
[4957] Atquin.
[4958] Et hoc filius David: i.e., præstitit, "showed Himself good," perhaps.
[4959] De suo retundendam. Instead of contrast, he shows the similarity of the cases.
[4960] Ejusdem carnis: i.e., infirmæ (Oehler).
[4961] Exorandum sibi.
Chapter XXXVII.--Christ and Zacchæus. The Salvation of the Body as Denied by Marcion. The Parable of the Ten Servants Entrusted with Ten Pounds. Christ a Judge, Who is to Administer the Will of the Austere Man, I.e. The Creator.
"Salvation comes to the house" of Zacchæus even. [4962] For what reason? Was it because he also believed that Christ came by Marcion? But the blind man's cry was still sounding in the ears of all: "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me." And "all the people gave praise unto God"--not Marcion's, but David's. Now, although Zacchæus was probably a Gentile, [4963] he yet from his intercourse with Jews had obtained a smattering [4964] of their Scriptures, and, more than this, had, without knowing it, fulfilled the precepts of Isaiah: "Deal thy bread," said the prophet, "to the hungry, and bring the poor that are cast out into thine house." [4965] This he did in the best possible way, by receiving the Lord, and entertaining Him in his house. "When thou seest the naked cover him." [4966] This he promised to do, in an equally satisfactory way, when he offered the half of his goods for all works of mercy. [4967] So also "he loosened the bands of wickedness, undid the heavy burdens, let the oppressed go free, and broke every yoke," [4968] when he said, "If I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold." [4969] Therefore the Lord said, "This day is salvation come to this house." [4970] Thus did He give His testimony, that the precepts of the Creator spoken by the prophet tended to salvation. [4971] But when He adds, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost," [4972] my present contention is not whether He was come to save what was lost, to whom it had once belonged, and from whom what He came to save had fallen away; but I approach a different question. Man, there can be no doubt of it, is here the subject of consideration. Now, since he consists of two parts, [4973] body and soul, the point to be inquired into is, in which of these two man would seem to have been lost? If in his body, then it is his body, not his soul, which is lost. What, however, is lost, the Son of man saves. The body, [4974] therefore, has the salvation. If, (on the other hand,) it is in his soul that man is lost, salvation is designed for the lost soul; and the body which is not lost is safe. If, (to take the only other supposition,) man is wholly lost, in both his natures, then it necessarily follows that salvation is appointed for the entire man; and then the opinion of the heretics is shivered to pieces, [4975] who say that there is no salvation of the flesh. And this affords a confirmation that Christ belongs to the Creator, who followed the Creator in promising the salvation of the whole man. The parable also of the (ten) servants, who received their several recompenses according to the manner in which they had increased their lord's money by trading [4976] proves Him to be a God of judgment--even a God who, in strict account, [4977] not only bestows honour, but also takes away what a man seems to have. [4978] Else, if it is the Creator whom He has here delineated as the "austere man," who "takes up what he laid not down, and reaps what he did not sow," [4979] my instructor even here is He, (whoever He may be,) to whom belongs the money He teaches me fruitfully to expend. [4980]
[4962] Luke xix. 9.
[4963] The older reading, which we here follow, is: "Enimvero Zacchæus etsi allophylus fortasse," etc. Oehler, however, points the passage thus: "Enimvero Zacchæus etsi allophylus, fortasse," etc., removing the doubt, and making Zacchæus "of another race" than the Jewish, for certain. This is probably more than Tertullian meant to say.
[4964] Aliqua notitia afflatus.
[4965] Isa. lviii. 7.
[4966] In the same passage.
[4967] For the history of Zacchæus, see Luke xix. 1-10.
[4968] Isa. lviii. 6.
[4969] Luke xix. 8.
[4970] Luke xix. 9.
[4971] Salutaria esse.
[4972] Luke xix. 10.
[4973] Substantiis.
[4974] Caro: "the flesh," here a synonym with the corpus of the previous clauses.
[4975] Elisa est.
[4976] Secundum rationem feneratæ.
[4977] Ex parte severitatis.
[4978] This phrase comes not from the present passage, but from Luke viii. 18, where the words are ho dokei echein; here the expression is ho echei only.
[4979] Luke xix. 22.
[4980] The original of this obscure sentence is as follows: "Aut si et hic Creatorem finxerit austerum.....hic quoque me ille instruit eujus pecuniam ut fenerem edocet.
Chapter XXXVIII.--Christ's Refutations of the Pharisees. Rendering Dues to Cæsar and to God. Next of the Sadducees, Respecting Marriage in the Resurrection. These Prove Him Not to Be Marcion's But the Creator's Christ. Marcion's Tamperings in Order to Make Room for His Second God, Exposed and Confuted.
Christ knew "the baptism of John, whence it was." [4981] Then why did He ask them, as if He knew not? He knew that the Pharisees would not give Him an answer; then why did He ask in vain? Was it that He might judge them out of their own mouth, or their own heart? Suppose you refer these points to an excuse of the Creator, or to His comparison with Christ; then consider what would have happened if the Pharisees had replied to His question. Suppose their answer to have been, that John's baptism was "of men," they would have been immediately stoned to death. [4982] Some Marcion, in rivalry to Marcion, would have stood up [4983] and said: O most excellent God; how different are his ways from the Creator's! Knowing that men would rush down headlong over it, He placed them actually [4984] on the very precipice. For thus do men treat of the Creator respecting His law of the tree. [4985] But John's baptism was "from heaven." "Why, therefore," asks Christ, "did ye not believe him?" [4986] He therefore who had wished men to believe John, purposing to censure [4987] them because they had not believed him, belonged to Him whose sacrament John was administering. But, at any rate, [4988] when He actually met their refusal to say what they thought, with such reprisals as, "Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things," [4989] He returned evil for evil! "Render unto Cæsar the things which be Cæsar's, and unto God the things which be God's." [4990] What will be "the things which are God's?" Such things as are like Cæsar's denarius--that is to say, His image and similitude. That, therefore, which he commands to be "rendered unto God," the Creator, is man, who has been stamped with His image, likeness, name, and substance. [4991] Let Marcion's god look after his own mint. [4992] Christ bids the denarius of man's imprint to be rendered to His Cæsar, (His Cæsar I say,) not the Cæsar of a strange god. [4993] The truth, however, must be confessed, this god has not a denarius to call his own! In every question the just and proper rule is, that the meaning of the answer ought to be adapted to the proposed inquiry. But it is nothing short of madness to return an answer altogether different from the question submitted to you. God forbid, then, that we should expect from Christ [4994] conduct which would be unfit even to an ordinary man! The Sadducees, who said there was no resurrection, in a discussion on that subject, had proposed to the Lord a case of law touching a certain woman, who, in accordance with the legal prescription, had been married to seven brothers who had died one after the other. The question therefore was, to which husband must she be reckoned to belong in the resurrection? [4995] This, (observe,) was the gist of the inquiry, this was the sum and substance of the dispute. And to it Christ was obliged to return a direct answer. He had nobody to fear; that it should seem advisable [4996] for Him either to evade their questions, or to make them the occasion of indirectly mooting [4997] a subject which He was not in the habit of teaching publicly at any other time. He therefore gave His answer, that "the children of this world marry." [4998] You see how pertinent it was to the case in point. Because the question concerned the next world, and He was going to declare that no one marries there, He opens the way by laying down the principles that here, where there is death, there is also marriage. "But they whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; forasmuch as they cannot die any more, since they become equal to the angels, being made the children of God and of the resurrection." [4999] If, then, the meaning of the answer must not turn on any other point than on the proposed question, and since the question proposed is fully understood from this sense of the answer, [5000] then the Lord's reply admits of no other interpretation than that by which the question is clearly understood. [5001] You have both the time in which marriage is permitted, and the time in which it is said to be unsuitable, laid before you, not on their own account, but in consequence of an inquiry about the resurrection. You have likewise a confirmation of the resurrection itself, and the whole question which the Sadducees mooted, who asked no question about another god, nor inquired about the proper law of marriage. Now, if you make Christ answer questions which were not submitted to Him, you, in fact, represent Him as having been unable to solve the points on which He was really consulted, and entrapped of course by the cunning of the Sadducees. I shall now proceed, by way of supererogation, [5002] and after the rule (I have laid down about questions and answers), [5003] to deal with the arguments which have any consistency in them. [5004] They procured then a copy of the Scripture, and made short work with its text, by reading it thus: [5005] "Those whom the god of that world shall account worthy." They add the phrase "of that world" to the word "god," whereby they make another god "the god of that world;" whereas the passage ought to be read thus: "Those whom God shall account worthy of the possession of that world" (removing the distinguishing phrase "of this world" to the end of the clause, [5006] in other words, "Those whom God shall account worthy of obtaining and rising to that world." For the question submitted to Christ had nothing to do with the god, but only with the state, of that world. It was: "Whose wife should this woman be in that world after the resurrection?" [5007] They thus subvert His answer respecting the essential question of marriage, and apply His words, "The children of this world marry and are given in marriage," as if they referred to the Creator's men, and His permission to them to marry; whilst they themselves whom the god of that world--that is, the rival god--accounted worthy of the resurrection, do not marry even here, because they are not children of this world. But the fact is, that, having been consulted about marriage in that world, not in this present one, He had simply declared the non-existence of that to which the question related. They, indeed, who had caught the very force of His voice, and pronunciation, and expression, discovered no other sense than what had reference to the matter of the question. Accordingly, the Scribes exclaimed, "Master, Thou hast well said." [5008] For He had affirmed the resurrection, by describing the form [5009] thereof in opposition to the opinion of the Sadducees. Now, He did not reject the attestation of those who had assumed His answer to bear this meaning. If, however, the Scribes thought Christ was David's Son, whereas (David) himself calls Him Lord, [5010] what relation has this to Christ? David did not literally confute [5011] an error of the Scribes, yet David asserted the honour of Christ, when he more prominently affirmed that He was his Lord than his Son,--an attribute which was hardly suitable to the destroyer of the Creator. But how consistent is the interpretation on our side of the question! For He, who had been a little while ago invoked by the blind man as "the Son of David," [5012] then made no remark on the subject, not having the Scribes in His presence; whereas He now purposely moots the point before them, and that of His own accord, [5013] in order that He might show Himself whom the blind man, following the doctrine of the Scribes, had simply declared to be the Son of David, to be also his Lord. He thus honoured the blind man's faith which had acknowledged His Sonship to David; but at the same time He struck a blow at the tradition of the Scribes, which prevented them from knowing that He was also (David's) Lord. Whatever had relation to the glory of the Creator's Christ, no other would thus guard and maintain [5014] but Himself the Creator's Christ.