Tertullian — Against Marcion 4.27
Elsewhere I prefer to clear what Marcionites blame in the Creator; here it is enough if they are also found in Christ. See—he too is unequal, inconstant, light: teaching one thing and doing another. He orders to give to every asker, and himself gives no sign to those asking; for so long an age he hid his light from humans, and denies a lamp should be shoved away but confirms it should be set on a lampstand to shine for all; he forbids cursing back, much more cursing, and yet piles woes on Pharisees and teachers of the law. Who is a Christ so like my God unless his own?
We have often fixed that he could in no way be branded destroyer of the law if he had published another god. So then also the Pharisee who had called him to lunch was turning over privately why he who carried around the law’s God had not first been washed before reclining according to the law. But Jesus even interpreted the law to him, saying they clean the outside of cup and dish while their insides are full of plunder and iniquity—so as to signify that vessels’ cleansings are to be understood as humans’ with God.
And because the Pharisee had been thinking about an unwashed human, not cup, therefore, he says, you wash the outside of the cup—that is the flesh—but have not cleaned your insides—that is the soul—adding: did not he who made the outside (flesh) also make the inside (soul)? By which saying he openly showed that cleansings of outer and inner human belong to the same God whose each is, preferring mercy not only to human washing but even to sacrifice: Give alms of what you have, and all will be clean for you.
So also, while they tithe herbs but pass by God’s calling and love, he rebukes—whose God’s calling and love unless his whose rue and mint they were offering from the law’s form of tithes? The whole of the reproach was that they cared for small things for him to whom they were not showing the greater, who says: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart… who called you from Egypt. Time itself would not have allowed Christ to demand so early—indeed still so bitter—love for a new and recent god, not to say not yet openly made.
When he also blames those snatching first places and honor of greetings he administers the Creator’s sect, who calls such princes of Sodom, forbids trusting in rulers, and pronounces most wretched the human who has hope in a human. He inveighs also against the law’s teachers for loading others with unbearable burdens they would not touch with a finger—not mocking the law’s burdens as its detester, but taxing what they piled of their own, teaching human precepts. What key did the law’s teachers have unless interpretation of the law? To whose understanding they neither approached—unless you believe you will not understand—nor admitted others. Who then rebuked both those not entering and those not granting entry to others—is he to be held the law’s detractor or patron? If detractor, the law’s blockers ought to please him; if patron, he is already not also the law’s rival. So Christ of the Creator had to teach earning favor with him whom he pressed as to be feared.
Latin
Alibi malo purgare quae reprehendunt Marcionitae in creatore. hic enim sufficit, si et in Christo repperiuntur. ecce inaequalis et ipse, inconstans leuis aliud docens aliud faciens: iubet omni petenti dare, et ipse signum petentibus non dat; tanto aeuo lucem suam ab hominibus abscondit, et negat lucernam abstrudendam, sed confirmat super candelabrum proponendam, ut omnibus luceat; uetat remaledicere, multo magis utique maledicere, et (uae) ingerit Pharisaeis et doctoribus legis. quis (is) est tam similis dei mei Christus nisi ipsius? Saepe iam fiximus nullo modo potuisse illum destructorem legis denotari, si alium deum prouulgasset. ideo et tunc Pharisaeus, qui illum uocarat ad prandium, retractabat penes se, cur non prius tinctus esset quam recubuisset secundum legem qui deum legis circumferret. Iesus autem etiam interpretatus est ei legem, dicens illos calicis et catini exteriora emundare, interiora autem ipsorum plena esse rapina et iniquitate, ut significaret uasculorum munditias hominum esse intellegendas apud deum; (et) quia et Pharisaeus de homine, non de calice inloto apud se tractauerat, ideo exteriora, inquit, calicis lauatis, id est carnem, interiora autem uestra non emundastis, id est animam, adiciens: nonne qui exteriora fecit, id est carnem, et interiora fecit, id est animam? quo dicto aperte demonstrauit ad eundem deum pertinere munditias hominis exterioris et interioris, cuius uterque sit, praeponentis misericordiam non modo lauacro hominis sed etiam sacrificio. subiungit enim: date quae habetis elemosynam, et omnia munda erunt uobis. quodsi et alius potest deus misericordiam mandasse, non tamen ante quam cognitus. porro et hic apparet illos non de deo increpitos, sed de eius disciplina, a quo illis et figurate uasculorum munditiae et manifeste misericordiarum opera imperabantur. Sic et holuscula decimantes, uocationem autem et dilectionem dei praetereuntes obiurgat. cuius dei uocationem et dilectionem, nisi cuius et rutam et mentam ex forma legis ex decimis offerebant? totum enim exprobrationis hoc erat, quod modica curabant, ei utique, cui maiora non exhibebant, dicenti: diliges dominum deum tuum ex toto corde (tuo) et ex tota anima tua et ex totis uiribus tuis, qui te uocauit ex Aegypto. ceterum nec tempus admisisset, ut Christus tam praecocam, immo tam acerbam adhuc dilectionem expostularet nouo et recenti deo, ne dixerim nondum palam facto. Primatum quoque captantes locorum et honorem salutationum cum incusat, sectam creatoris administrat, eiusmodi principes Sodomorum archontas appellantis, prohibentis etiam confidere in praepositos, immo et in totum miserrimum hominem pronuntiantis, qui spem habet in homine. quodsi propterea quis adfectat principatum, ut de officiis aliorum glorietur, qui officia uetuit eiusmodi (interdictione) sperandi et confidendi in hominem, idem et adfectatores principatuum increpuit. Inuebitur et in doctores ipsos legis, quod onerarent alios importabilibus oneribus, quae ipsi ne digito quidem adgredi auderent, non legis onera suggillans quasi detestator eius. quomodo enim detestator, qui cum maxime potiora legis praetereuntes incusabat, elemosynam et uocationem et dilectionem dei, ne haec quidem grauia, nedum decimas rutarum et munditias catinorum? ceterum excusandos potius censuisset, si importabilia portare non possent. sed quae onera taxat? quae ipsi de suo exaggerabant, docentes doctrinas praecepta hominum commodorum suorum causa, iungentes domum ad domum, ut quae proximi sunt auferrent, calcantes populum, amantes munera, sectantes retributionem, diripientes iudicata pauperum, uti esset illis uidua in rapinam et pupillus in praedam. de quibus idem Esaias: uae qui ualent in Israhele, et rursus: qui uos postulant dominantur uestri. qui magis quam doctores legis? hi si et Christo displicebant, ut sui displicebant. alienae enim legis doctores non omnino pulsasset. Cur autem (uae) audiunt etiam, quod aedificarent prophetis monimenta interemptis a patribus eorum, laude potius digni, qui ex isto opere pietatis testabantur se non consentire factis patrum, si non erat zelotes, qualem arguunt Marcionitae, delicta patrum de filiis exigentem usque in quartam natiuitatem? Quam uero clauem habebant legis doctores nisi interpretationem legis? ad cuius intellectum neque ipsi adibant, non credentes scilicet, - nisi enim credideritis, non intellegetis — neque alios admittebant, uti qui docebant praecepta potius et doctrinas hominum. qui ergo nec ipsos introeuntes nec aliis aditum praestantes increpabat, obtrectator habendus est legis an fautor? si obtrectator, placere debebant ei praeclusores legis, si fautor, iam non et aemulus legis. sed \'haec omnia ad infuscandum creatorem ingerebat, ut saeuum, erga quem delinquentes (uae) habituri essent.\' et quis saeuum non potius timeret prouocare deficiendo ab eo? tanto magis ergo demerendum docebat quem timendum ingerebat. sic oportebat Christum creatoris.