Anf-03 v.iv.v.xxiii Pg 23
Ex. ii. 15–21.
Christ therefore shares this kindness with the Creator. As indeed for Marcion’s god, who is an enemy to marriage, how can he possibly seem to be a lover of little children, which are simply the issue of marriage? He who hates the seed must needs also detest the fruit. Yea, he ought to be deemed more ruthless than the king of Egypt.4396 4396 See a like comparison in book i. chap. xxix. p. 294.
For whereas Pharaoh forbade infants to be brought up, he will not allow them even to be born, depriving them of their ten months’ existence in the womb. And how much more credible it is, that kindness to little children should be attributed to Him who blessed matrimony for the procreation of mankind, and in such benediction included also the promise of connubial fruit itself, the first of which is that of infancy!4397 4397 Qui de infantia primus est: i.e., cujus qui de infantia, etc. [Elucidation VIII.]
The Creator, at the request of Elias, inflicts the blow4398 4398 Repræsentat plagam.
of fire from heaven in the case of that false prophet (of Baalzebub).4399 4399
Anf-03 iv.ix.ix Pg 48
See Josh. v. 2–9, especially in LXX. Comp. the margin in the Eng. ver. in ver. 2, “flint knives,” and Wordsworth in loc., who refers to Ex. iv. 25, for which see ch. iii. above.
(that is, with Christ’s precepts, for Christ is in many ways and figures predicted as a rock1292 1292
Anf-03 iv.ix.iii Pg 6
Tertullian writes Seffora; the LXX. in loco, Σεπφώρα Ex. iv. 24–26, where the Eng. ver. says, “the Lord met him,” etc.; the LXX ἄγγελος Κυρίου.
had not circumcised the foreskin of the infant with a pebble; whence, “there is the greatest peril if any fail to circumcise the foreskin of his flesh.” Nay, but if circumcision altogether brought salvation, even Moses himself, in the case of his own son, would not have omitted to circumcise him on the eighth day; whereas it is agreed that Zipporah did it on the journey, at the compulsion of the angel. Consider we, accordingly, that one single infant’s compulsory circumcision cannot have prescribed to every people, and founded, as it were, a law for keeping this precept. For God, foreseeing that He was about to give this circumcision to the people of Israel for “a sign,” not for salvation, urges the circumcision of the son of Moses, their future leader, for this reason; that, since He had begun, through him, to give the People the precept of circumcision, the people should not despise it, from seeing this example (of neglect) already exhibited conspicuously in their leader’s son. For circumcision had to be given; but as “a sign,” whence Israel in the last time would have to be distinguished, when, in accordance with their deserts, they should be prohibited from entering the holy city, as we see through the words of the prophets, saying, “Your land is desert; your cities utterly burnt with fire; your country, in your sight, strangers shall eat up; and, deserted and subverted by strange peoples, the daughter of Zion shall be derelict, like a shed in a vineyard, and like a watchhouse in a cucumber-field, and as it were a city which is being stormed.”1166 1166
Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, Chapter 18
VERSE (2) - Ex 2:21; 4:25,26
