Opening the library…

Search the Bible

The Five Books Against Marcion

Tertullian

Book 1 · Chapter 4

About this work

A sustained refutation of Marcion’s theology and edited Scriptures, defending the unity of the Creator and Christ’s Father and reading the Gospel and Pauline letters against Marcionite claims.

Author: Tertullian
Date: Early 3rd century
Origin: Carthage, North Africa
Genre: Heresiology

Chapter IV.—Defence of the Divine Unity Against Objection. No Analogy Between Human Powers and God’s Sovereignty. The Objection Otherwise Untenable, for Why Stop at Two Gods?

But some one may contend that two great

‹ Book 1 · Chapter 3 Book 1 · Chapter 5 ›

Supremes

may

exist

,

distinct

and

separate

in

their

own

departments

;

and

may

even

adduce

,

as

an

example

,

the

kingdoms

of

the

world

,

which

,

though

they

are

so

many

in

number

,

are

yet

supreme

in

their

several

regions

.

Such

a

man

will

suppose

that

human

circumstances

are

always

comparable

with

divine

ones

.

Now

,

if

this

mode

of

reasoning

be

at

all

tolerable

,

what

is

to

prevent

our

introducing

,

I

will

not

say

a

third

god

or

a

fourth

,

but

as

many

as

there

are

kings

of

the

earth

?

Now

it

is

God

that

is

in

question

,

whose

main

property

it

is

to

admit

of

no

comparison

with

Himself

.

Nature

itself

,

therefore

,

if

not

an

Isaiah

,

or

rather

God

speaking

by

Isaiah

,

will

deprecatingly

ask

,

“

To

whom

will

ye

liken

me

?

”

Human

circumstances

may

perhaps

be

compared

with

divine

ones

,

but

they

may

not

be

with

God

.

God

is

one

thing

,

and

what

belongs

to

God

is

another

thing

.

Once

more

:

you

who

apply

the

example

of

a

king

,

as

a

great

supreme

,

take

care

that

you

can

use

it

properly

.

For

although

a

king

is

supreme

on

his

throne

God

,

he

is

still

inferior

to

God

;

and

when

he

is

compared

with

God

,

he

will

be

dislodged

from

that

great

supremacy

which

is

transferred

to

God

.

Now

,

this

being

the

case

,

how

will

you

employ

in

a

comparison

with

God

an

object

as

your

example

,

which

fails

in

all

the

purposes

which

belong

to

a

comparison

?

Why

,

when

supreme

power

among

kings

cannot

evidently

be

multifarious

,

but

only

unique

and

singular

,

is

an

exception

made

in

the

case

of

Him

(

of

all

others

)

who

is

King

of

kings

,

and

(

from

the

exceeding

greatness

of

His

power

,

and

the

subjection

of

all

other

ranks

to

Him

)

the

very

summit

,

as

it

were

,

of

dominion

?

But

even

in

the

case

of

rulers

of

that

other

form

of

government

,

where

they

one

by

one

preside

in

a

union

of

authority

,

if

with

their

petty

prerogatives

of

royalty

,

so

to

say

,

they

be

brought

on

all

points

into

such

a

comparison

with

one

another

as

shall

make

it

clear

which

of

them

is

superior

in

the

essential

features

and

powers

of

royalty

,

it

must

needs

follow

that

the

supreme

majesty

will

redound

to

one

alone

,

—

all

the

others

being

gradually

,

by

the

issue

of

the

comparison

,

removed

and

excluded

from

the

supreme

authority

.

Thus

,

although

,

when

spread

out

in

several

hands

,

supreme

authority

seems

to

be

multifarious

,

yet

in

its

own

powers

,

nature

,

and

condition

,

it

is

unique

.

It

follows

,

then

,

that

if

two

gods

are

compared

,

as

two

kings

and

two

supreme

authorities

,

the

concentration

of

authority

must

necessarily

,

according

to

the

meaning

of

the

comparison

,

be

conceded

to

one

of

the

two

;

because

it

is

clear

from

his

own

superiority

that

he

is

the

supreme

,

his

rival

being

now

vanquished

,

and

proved

to

be

not

the

greater

,

however

great

.

Now

,

from

this

failure

of

his

rival

,

the

other

is

unique

in

power

,

possessing

a

certain

solitude

,

as

it

were

,

in

his

singular

pre

-

eminence

.

The

inevitable

conclusion

at

which

we

arrive

,

then

,

on

this

point

is

this

:

either

we

must

deny

that

God

is

the

great

Supreme

,

which

no

wise

man

will

allow

himself

to

do

;

or

say

that

God

has

no

one

else

with

whom

to

share

His

power

.

Notes

1
Isa. xl. 18, 25.
2
Denique.
3
Excidet.
4
Amittitur. “Tertullian” (who thinks lightly of the analogy of earthly monarchs) “ought rather to have contended that the illustration strengthened his argument. In each kingdom there is only one supreme power; but the universe is God’s kingdom: there is therefore only one supreme power in the universe.”— Bp. Kaye, On the Writings of Tertullian, Third edition, p. 453, note 2.
5
Scilicet.
6
Graduum.
7
Culmen.
8
Minutalibus regnis.
9
Undique.
10
Substantiis.
11
Eliquetur.