Against Marcion 4.2

You have this reply to the Antitheses, dispatched by us. I now pass on to the demonstration of the gospel, not the Jewish one, of course, but the Pontic one, adulterated in the meantime, laying down beforehand the order we are taking up. We lay down first that the gospel instrument has apostles as its authors, on whom this task of promulgating the gospel was laid by the Lord himself; and if also apostolic men, then not alone but with the apostles, since the preaching of disciples could be made suspect of seeking glory if the authority of the masters did not stand by it, or rather the authority of Christ, which made the apostles masters. In short, of the apostles, John and Matthew instill faith in us; of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it, beginning from the same rules as regards the one God the Creator and his Christ, born of a virgin, the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. Never mind if the arrangement of their narratives varied, provided there is agreement on the essential of the faith, on which there is no agreement with Marcion. Marcion, on the other hand, ascribes no author to his gospel, his own, that is; as if he might not have been allowed to forge a title too, he who thought it no crime to overturn the body of the work itself. And I could plant my foot here at once, contending that a work should not be acknowledged which does not lift up its head, which displays no constancy, which promises no credit through a full title and the due declaration of its author. But we prefer to engage on every point, and we do not conceal what can be understood from our own side. For of those commentators whom we have, Marcion seems to have chosen Luke to cut up. Now Luke was not an apostle but an apostolic man, not a master but a disciple, certainly less than a master, and certainly later by as much as he was the follower of a later apostle, Paul without doubt; so that even if Marcion had brought in his gospel under the name of Paul himself, the single instrument, without the support of those who went before, would not suffice for belief. For that gospel too would be required which Paul found, to which he gave his faith, with which he was soon eager that his own should agree; since it was for this reason that he went up to Jerusalem to know and consult the apostles, lest perhaps he had run in vain, that is, lest he had not believed and was not preaching the gospel in agreement with them. Finally, when he had conferred with the authorities and agreed about the rule of faith, they joined right hands and from then on divided the duties of preaching, they to the Jews, Paul to the Jews and to the nations. If, then, Luke's very enlightener desired the authority of those who went before for his faith and preaching, how much more may I demand for Luke's gospel the authority that was necessary for his master's gospel?