Having thus proved that it was neither impossible for God to be born, nor dangerous to His divinity, he shews that all the sufferings and weaknesses of a newborn infant were not unworthy of God, because the men, whom he came to redeem, must all have passed through those sufferings and weaknesses. He quotes the words of St. Paul, God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, (1 Cor. i. 27.) and observes that there can be nothing imagined, which would appear so foolish to the world, as the idea" that God should "be born, and of a virgin, and that he should be66 come flesh m” He then very justly reproaches Marcion for denying the nativity of Christ, but allowing his crucifixion, as if the latter was not as unworthy of God as the former. noluisset quacumque de causa, nec hominem se videri præstitisset. Nam quis hominem videns eum negaret natum? Ita quod noluisset esse, nec videri omnino voluisset.- -Non potes dicere, ne si natus fuisset et hominem vere induisset, Deus esse desisset, amittens quod erat, dum fit quod non erat. Periculum enim status sui Deo nullum est. Sed ideo, inquis, nego Deum in hominem vere conversum, ita ut et nasceretur et carne corporaretur: quia qui sine fine est, etiam inconvertibilis sit necesse est converti enim in aliud, finis est pristini: non competit ergo conversio ejus, cui non competit finis. Sed nihil Deo par est: natura ejus ab omnium rerum conditione distat. Si ergo quæ a Deo distant, a quibus Deus distat, cum convertuntur, amit "There are other tunt quod fuerunt: ubi erit diversitas divinitatis a cæteris rebus, nisi ut contrarium obtineat? id est, ut Deus et in omnia converti possit, et qualis est perseverare? Angelos Creatoris conversos in effigiem humanam aliquando legisti et credidisti, et tantam corporis gestasse veritatem, ut et pedes eis laverit Abraham, et manibus ipsorum ereptus sit Sodomitis Loth Quod ergo Angelis inferioribus Deo licuit, uti conversi in corpulentiam humanam angeli nihilominus permanerent, hoc tu potentiori Deo auferes, quasi non valuerit Christus vere hominem indutus Deus perseverare? 66 66 66 66 66 things [which the world think] equally foolish, which relate to the indignities and sufferings of "God. Or perhaps it might seem wisdom to the world, that God should be crucified! Deny this, Marcion, even rather than the other. For which "is more unworthy of God? which would He be more ashamed of, to be born or to die? to bear 66 our flesh or the cross?- But answer me this, "Was not God really crucified? was He not really dead, as He was really crucified? Our faith "therefore is vain; and all that we hope in Christ "is a phantom. Thou most wicked of men! who "furnishest excuses to the murderers of God"! For "Christ suffered nothing from them, if he did not really suffer Christ would not be called man, "without flesh; nor the Son of man, without some "human parent: as he would not be called God, "without the Spirit of God; nor the Son of God, "without God for his Father. Thus his affinity to "each substance rendered him God and man; on 66 66 66 one side born, on the other not born: on one side fleshly, on the other spiritual: on one side weak, "on the other passing strong: on one side dying, "on the other living. Which peculiarity of condi tions, the divine and human, with an equal reality "of each nature, is proved by the same test of 66 spirit and flesh. His miracles proved the Spirit of "God: his sufferings proved the flesh of man. If "the miracles were not without the Spirit, the sufferings were not without the flesh. If the flesh "with the sufferings was feigned, therefore the Spi 66 This strong expression is also used by Dionysius of Alex "rit with the miracles was false. Why do you halve "Christ by a lie? He was altogether reality 66 if not, he was a phantom even after his resur"rection he tricks, and deceives, and deludes "the eyes of all, the senses of all, the approach and “touch of all. You ought not to have made Christ "come from heaven, but from some company of jugglers and not a God beside being man, but a “ mere man and a conjuror°.” 66 I have been obliged to give this long extract, because it contains so many and such positive assertions of the divinity of Christ. Tertullian speaks of God being born and crucified in the same manner that we should speak of Jesus or Christ being born • Sunt plane et alia tam stulta, quæ pertinent ad contumelias et passiones Dei: aut Prudentiam dicant, Deum crucifixum. Aufer hoc quoque, Marcion, immo hoc potius. Quid enim indignius Deo? quid magis erubescendum, nasci an mori? carnem gestare, an crucem? Sed jam hinc responde, interfector veritatis, Nonne vere crucifixus est Deus? nonne vere mortuus, ut vere crucifixus ? Falsa est igitur et fides nostra et phantasma erit totum quod speramus a Christo. Scelestissime hominum, qui interemptores excusas Dei. Nihil enim ab eis passus est Christus, si nihil vere est passus. Aliter non diceretur homo Christus sine carne: nec hominis filius, sine aliquo parente homine: sicut nec Deus sine Spiritu Dei: nec Dei filius sine Deo patre. Ita utriusque substantiæ census hominem et Deum ex hibuit: hinc natum, inde non natum : hinc carneum, inde spiritalem: hinc infirmum, inde præfortem: hinc morientem, inde viventem. Quæ proprietas conditionum, divinæ et humanæ, æqua utique naturæ utriusque veritate dispuncta est eadem fide, et spiritus, et carnis. Virtutes Spiritum Dei, passiones carnem hominis probaverunt. Si virtutes non sine Spiritu, perinde et passiones non sine carne. Si caro cum passionibus ficta, et Spiritus ergo cum virtutibus falsus. Quid dimidias mendacio Christum? Totus veritas fuit. Fuit itaque phantasma etiam post resurrectionem Ecce fallit, et decipit, et circumvenit omnium oculos, omnium sensus, omnium accessus et contactus. Ergo jam Christum non de cælo deferre debueras, sed de aliquo circulatorio cœtu: nec Deum præter hominem, sed magum hominem. and crucified. It is plain also that he meant the one only God, uncreated and unchangeable. We learn further, that Marcion never thought of disputing the divinity of Christ. It is true that he made a difference between Christ and the God of the Old Testament; but that does not affect the present argument. No person would now defend the absurd notions of Marcion concerning the two or the three principles: it is sufficient for our purpose, that Marcion considered Christ to be God: and so convinced was he of his divinity, that he even ran into the wild hypothesis of Christ having an unsubstantial and only apparent body. The Gospel history compelled him to acknowledge, that the attributes of God and man were given to Christ: but he chose to imagine, that the human functions were discharged by him not really, but only in appearance. 110. Tertull. de Carne Christi, c. 14. p. 319. He goes on to shew, in opposition to Marcion, that there was a reason why Christ should assume the body of a man, viz. because it was man who had fallen, and it was man who was to be saved. But there was not the same reason why he should assume an angelic body, as Marcion supposed: for though some angels have fallen, yet no promise of restitution was made to them. It might perhaps be said, that Christ assumed an angelic body in order to accomplish the salvation of man. Tertullian therefore asks, Why then did he descend to do "that, which he meant to perform by an angel? "If it was to be done by an angel, why did he do it "himself? and if he did it by himself, why was the 66 66 angel also employed? It is true indeed that he "nature. 66 "the Messenger, which title he had by office, not by For it was he, who was to announce to "the world the great intent of his Father, concerning the restoration of man. Not that it is there"fore to be understood, that he is such an angel as "Gabriel or Michael. For the Son is also sent to "the husbandmen by the Lord of the vineyard, like "the servants were, to ask for the fruits. But the "Son will not on that account be reckoned one of "the servants, because he succeeded the servants in "their office. I could therefore bring myself more 66 easily to speak of the Son himself as an angel, that is, a messenger of his Father, than of an angel in "the Son. But when it is said of the Son himself, "Thou hast made him a little lower than the 66 angels, (Psalm viii. 5. Heb. ii. 7, 9.) how can it "seem that he assumed the person of an angel, who "was made so much lower than the angels, while “he was man, inasmuch as he was flesh and soul "and the Son of man? But inasmuch as he is the Spirit of God, and the Power of the Most High, he "cannot be reckoned lower than angels, because he " is God and the Son of God P." 66 P Cur ergo descendit ad id quod per angelum erat expediturus? Si per Angelum, quid et ipse? Si per se, quid et Angelus? Dictus est quidem magni consilii Angelus, id est, Nuntius, officii non naturæ vocabulo. Magnum enim cogitatum Patris, super hominis scilicet restitutione, annuntiaturus sæculo erat. Non ideo tamen sic angelus intelligendus, ut aliqui Gabriel aut Michael. Nam et Filius a Domino vineæ mittitur ad cultores, sicut et famuli, de Sed non fructibus petitum. |