Against Marcion 1.6
Summary: Marcion's two gods are in fact unequal (a harsh judge and a merely good god), but if both are truly God, neither can be less than the other, so inequality between them is impossible too.
Latin text · CSEL 47:297–298
Sic adhuc uidemur disputare, quasi Marcion duos pares constituat. nam dum defendimus deum, summum magnum, unicum credi oportere, excludentes ab eo parilitatem, tamquam de duobus paribus de his retractauimus, nihilominus tamen docendo pares esse non posse secundum summi magni formam satis confirmauimus duos esse non posse, alioquin certi Marcionem dispares deos constituere, alterum iudicem, ferum, bellipotentem, alterum mitem, placidum et tantummodo bonum atque optimum. dispiciamus aeque et hanc partem, an diuersitas saltim duos capiat, si parilitas capere non potuit. porro et hic eadem regula summi magni patrocinabitur nobis, utpote quae totum statum uindicet diuinitatis. conueniens enim et quodammodo iniecta manu detinens aduersarii sensum non negantis creatorem deum, iustissime praescribo illi diuersitati locum non esse inter eos, quos ex aequo deos confessus non potest facere diuersos. non quia non et homines licet sub eadem appellatione diuersissimos esse, sed quia deus non erit dicendus, quia nec credendus, nisi summum magnum. cum ergo summum magnum cogatur agnoscere quem deum non negat, non potest admitti, ut summo magno aliquam adscribat diminutionem, qua subiciatur alii summo magno. desinit enim, si subiciatur. non est autem dei desinere de statu suo, id est de summo magno. nam et in illo deo potiore periclitari poterit summum magnum, si depretiari capit in creatore. ita cum duo dii pronuntiantur duo summa magna, necesse est neutrum altero aut maius sit aut minus, neutrum altero aut sublimius aut deiectius. nega deum quem dicis deteriorem; nega summum magnum quem credis minorem. deum uero confessus utrumque duo summa magna confessus es. nihil alteri adimes aut alteri adscribes. agnoscens diuinitatem negasti diuersitatem.
English · Claude translation
So far we seem to have argued as though Marcion set up two equal gods. For while maintaining that God, the supreme great, must be believed unique, and excluding equality from him, we have treated them as two equals; nevertheless, by teaching that they cannot be equal according to the form of the supreme great, we have sufficiently established that there cannot be two. Otherwise, we know well that Marcion sets up unequal gods: the one a judge, fierce, mighty in war; the other gentle, mild, and simply good and supremely good. Let us examine this side too: whether difference at least can accommodate two, if equality could not. Here again the same rule of the supreme great will be our advocate, since it lays claim to the whole state of divinity. For, meeting my opponent and, as it were, laying hands on him to hold his view fast — since he does not deny that the Creator is God — I most justly plead in bar against him that there is no room for difference between those whom, having confessed them equally to be gods, he cannot make different. Not that even human beings may not be very different under the same name; but because nothing is to be called God, since nothing is to be believed God, except the supreme great. Since, then, he is compelled to acknowledge as the supreme great the one whom he does not deny to be God, it cannot be allowed that he should ascribe to the supreme great any diminution by which it would be made subject to another supreme great. For it ceases to be, if it is made subject. But it is not God's part to fall from his state, that is, from being the supreme great. For even in that more powerful god the supreme great could be endangered, if it can be depreciated in the Creator. So when two gods are declared to be two supreme greats, neither can be greater or less than the other, neither loftier or lower than the other. Deny that he is God whom you call inferior; deny that he is the supreme great whom you believe less. But if you have confessed both to be God, you have confessed two supreme greats. You will take nothing away from the one, nor add anything to the other. By acknowledging the divinity you have denied the difference.
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- “Plead in bar” renders “praescribo”, the legal term behind Tertullian's argument from prescription.
Cite this passage
Tertullian, Marc. 1.6 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-marcionem/1/6/).
Plain text
Tertullian, Marc. 1.6 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-marcionem/1/6/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text