Against Marcion 1.24
Summary: Marcion's god saves only a few, and saves only their souls, abandoning the flesh that bears baptism, celibacy, and martyrdom; and he leaves his followers suffering under the Creator's hand, so his goodness is not perfect.
Textual problem in this passage: the printed text is uncertain or disputed here. See the notes.
Latin text · CSEL 47:322–325
Sed deus sicut aeternus et rationalis, ita, opinor, et perfectus in omnibus: eritis enim perfecti quemadmodum pater uester, qui in caelis est. exhibe perfectam quoque bonitatem eius, etsi de imperfecta satis constat, quae neque naturalis inuenitur neque rationalis. nunc et alio ordine traducetur: nec iam imperfecta, immo et defecta, exigua et exhausta, quae, minor numero materiarum suarum, non in omnibus exhibetur. non enim omnes salui fiunt, sed pauciores omnibus et Iudaeis et Christianis creatoris. pluribus uero pereuntibus quomodo perfecta defenditur bonitas ex maiore parte cessatrix, paucis aliqua, pluribus nulla, cedens perditioni, partiaria exitii? quodsi plures salui non erunt, erit iam non bonitas, sed malitia perfectior. sicut enim bonitatis operatio est, quae facit saluos, ita malignitatis, quae non facit saluos. magis autem non faciens saluos, dum paucos facit, perfectior erit in non iuuando quam (in) iuuando. non poteris et in creatorem referre bonitatis in omnes defectionem. quem enim iudicem tenes, dispensatorem, si forte, bonitatis ostendis intellegendum, non profusorem, quod tuo deo uindicas. usque adeo hac sola eum praefers bonitate creatori. quam si solam profitetur et totam, nulli deesse debuerat. sed nolo iam de parte maiore pereuntium imperfectae bonitatis arguere deum Marcionis: sufficit ipsos, quos saluos facit, imperfectae salutis inuentos imperfectam bonitatem eius ostendere, scilicet anima tenus saluos, carne deperditos, quae apud illum non resurgit. unde haec dimidiatio salutis nisi ex defectione bonitatis? quid erat perfectae bonitatis quam totum hominem redigere in salutem, totum damnatum a creatore, totum a deo optimo adlectum? quod sciam, et caro tingitur apud illum, et caro de nuptiis tollitur, et caro in confessione nominis desaeuitur. sed et si carni delicta reputantur, praecedit animae reatus et culpae principatus animae potius adscribendus. cui caro ministri nomine occurrit. carens denique anima caro hactenus peccat. ita et in hoc iniusta bonitas et sic quoque imperfecta, innocentiorem substantiam relinquens in exitium, obsequio, non arbitrio delinquentem. cuius Christus etsi non induit ueritatem. ut tuae haeresi uisum est, imaginem tamen eius subire dignatus est. ipsum quod mentitus est illam, aliquid ei t debuit debuisse quid est autem homo aliud quam caro, siquidem nomen hominis materia corporalis, non animalis, ab auctore sortita est? et fecit hominem deus, inquit, limum de terra, non animam; anima enim de afflatu: et factus est homo in animam uiuam; quis? utique qui de limo: et posuit deus hominem in paradiso; quod finxit, non quod flauit: qui caro nunc, non qui anima. itaque si ita est. quo ore contendes perfectum bonitatis titulum, quae non iam a partitione speciali hominis liberandi defecit, sed a proprietate generali? si plena est gratia et solida misericordia, quae soli animae salutaris est, plus praestat haec uita, qua toti et integri fruimur. ceterum ex parte resurgere multari erit, non liberari. erat et illud perfectae bonitatis, ut homo, liberatus in fidem dei optimi, statim eximeretur de domicilio atque dominatu dei saeui. at nunc et febriculas, o Marcionita, et ceteros tribulos et spinas dolor carnis tuae tibi edit; nec fulminibus tantum aut bellis et pestibus aliisque plagis creatoris sed et scorpiis eius obiectus, in quo te putas liberatum de regno eius, cuius te muscae adhuc calcant? si de futuro erutus es, cur non et de praesenti, ut perfecte? alia est nostra condicio apud auctorem, apud iudicem, apud offensum principem generis. tu tantummodo bonum deum praefers. non potes autem perfecte bonum ostendere a quo non perfecte liberaris.
English · Claude translation
But God, as he is eternal and rational, is also, I think, perfect in all things: “For you shall be perfect, as your Father who is in heaven.” Show that his goodness too is perfect — though it is sufficiently established that it is imperfect, since it is found to be neither natural nor rational. Now it will be exposed in another way as well: no longer merely imperfect but deficient, scanty and exhausted, since it falls short of the number of its objects and is not shown to all. For not all are saved, but fewer than all the Creator's Jews and Christians. And since more perish, how can a goodness be defended as perfect which is idle for the greater part — something for a few, nothing for the many, yielding to perdition, a partner in destruction? If more are not saved, then it will be not goodness but malice that is the more perfect. For as it is the work of goodness to save, so it is the work of malice not to save. And indeed, not saving while it saves a few, it will be more perfect in not helping than in helping. You cannot turn back on the Creator the failure of goodness toward all; for the one you hold to be a judge you show must be understood as a dispenser of goodness, if you like, not a lavisher of it, as you claim yours to be. So much do you prefer your god to the Creator on the ground of this goodness alone. If he professes this alone and wholly, it ought to have been lacking to no one.
But I do not now wish to convict Marcion's god of imperfect goodness from the greater number of those who perish: it is enough that the very ones whom he saves, being found to have an imperfect salvation, show his goodness imperfect — saved, that is, as far as the soul, lost in the flesh, which with him does not rise again. Where does this halving of salvation come from, if not from a failure of goodness? What would have befitted perfect goodness more than to bring the whole man back to salvation — the whole man condemned by the Creator, the whole man chosen by the supremely good god? As far as I know, with him too it is the flesh that is baptized, the flesh that is taken away from marriage, the flesh that is butchered for confessing the name. And even if sins are imputed to the flesh, the soul's guilt comes first, and the leadership in fault is to be ascribed rather to the soul, which the flesh attends in the role of servant. In short, flesh without a soul does not sin at all. So in this too his goodness is unjust and thereby imperfect, abandoning to destruction the more innocent substance, which offends by obedience, not by choice. Though his Christ did not put on its reality, as your heresy has decided, he nevertheless deigned to take on its likeness; the very fact that he feigned it shows that he owed it something. And what is man but flesh, since it was the bodily material, not the soul, that received the name of man from its author? “And God made man,” it says, “clay from the earth” — not soul, for the soul came from the breath — “and man became a living soul.” Who? Surely the one made of clay. “And God placed man in paradise”: what he formed, not what he breathed; he who is now flesh, not he who is soul.
If this is so, with what face will you claim the title of perfect goodness for one whose goodness has failed not merely in a particular part of the man to be freed but in what belongs to him as a whole? If that is full grace and solid mercy which saves the soul alone, this present life gives more, which we enjoy whole and entire. Besides, to rise in part will be to be penalized, not freed. This too belonged to perfect goodness: that man, once freed into faith in the supremely good god, should at once be taken out of the dwelling and dominion of the fierce god. But as it is, O Marcionite, the pain of your flesh brings forth for you both little fevers and all the other thistles and thorns; and exposed not only to the Creator's thunderbolts, wars, plagues, and other blows but even to his scorpions, in what respect do you think yourself freed from his kingdom, when his flies still walk all over you? If you have been rescued for the future, why not from the present too, so as to be perfectly rescued? Our condition is different: we are with our author, our judge, the offended head of our race. You put forward only a good god; but you cannot show to be perfectly good one by whom you are not perfectly freed.
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- The quotations are Matt 5:48 and Gen 2:7–8; thistles and thorns, Gen 3:18. Marcion denied the resurrection of the flesh, held that Christ's body was only apparent, and admitted to baptism only the unmarried or those who renounced marriage. The words “aliquid ei t debuit debuisse” are corrupt (the “t” is probably the editor's crux mark †); the rendering gives the likely sense.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (OCR: d read as l and word split.): iuuan lo → iuuando.
Cite this passage
Tertullian, Marc. 1.24 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-marcionem/1/24/).
Plain text
Tertullian, Marc. 1.24 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-marcionem/1/24/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text