Opening the library…

Search the Bible

The Five Books Against Marcion

Tertullian

Book 1 · Chapter 9

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 IX.—Marcion’s Gnostic Pretensions Vain, for the True God is Neither Unknown Nor Uncertain. The Creator, Whom He Owns to Be God, Alone Supplies an Induction, by Which to Judge of the True God.

Now I know full well by what perceptive

‹ Book 1 · Chapter 8 Book 1 · Chapter 10 ›

faculty

they

boast

of

their

new

god

;

even

their

knowledge

.

It

is

,

however

,

this

very

discovery

of

a

novel

thing

—

so

striking

to

common

minds

—

as

well

as

the

natural

gratification

which

is

inherent

in

novelty

,

that

I

wanted

to

refute

,

and

thence

further

to

challenge

a

proof

of

this

unknown

god

.

For

him

whom

by

their

knowledge

they

present

to

us

as

new

,

they

prove

to

have

been

unknown

that

knowledge

.

Let

us

keep

within

the

strict

limits

and

measure

of

our

argument

.

Convince

me

there

could

have

been

an

unknown

god

.

I

find

,

no

doubt

,

that

altars

have

been

lavished

on

unknown

gods

;

that

,

however

,

is

the

idolatry

of

Athens

.

And

on

uncertain

gods

;

but

that

,

too

,

is

only

Roman

superstition

.

Furthermore

,

uncertain

gods

are

not

well

known

,

because

no

certainty

about

them

exists

;

and

because

of

this

uncertainty

they

are

therefore

unknown

.

Now

,

which

of

these

two

titles

shall

we

carve

for

Marcion’s

god

?

Both

,

I

suppose

,

as

for

a

being

who

is

still

uncertain

,

and

was

formerly

unknown

.

For

inasmuch

as

the

Creator

,

being

a

known

God

,

caused

him

to

be

unknown

;

so

,

as

being

a

certain

God

,

he

made

him

to

be

uncertain

.

But

I

will

not

go

so

far

out

of

my

way

,

as

to

say

:

If

God

was

unknown

and

concealed

,

He

was

overshadowed

in

such

a

region

of

darkness

,

as

must

have

been

itself

new

and

unknown

,

and

be

even

now

likewise

uncertain

—

some

immense

region

indeed

,

one

undoubtedly

greater

than

the

God

whom

it

concealed

.

But

I

will

briefly

state

my

subject

,

and

afterwards

most

fully

pursue

it

,

promising

that

God

neither

could

have

been

,

nor

ought

to

have

been

,

unknown

.

Could

not

have

been

,

because

of

His

greatness

;

ought

not

to

have

been

,

because

of

His

goodness

,

especially

as

He

is

(

supposed

,

by

Marcion

)

more

excellent

in

both

these

attributes

than

our

Creator

.

Since

,

however

,

I

observe

that

in

some

points

the

proof

of

every

new

and

heretofore

unknown

god

ought

,

for

its

test

,

to

be

compared

to

the

form

of

the

Creator

,

it

will

be

my

duty

first

of

all

to

show

that

this

very

course

is

adopted

by

me

in

a

settled

plan

,

such

as

I

might

with

greater

confidence

use

in

support

of

my

argument

.

Before

every

other

consideration

,

(

let

me

ask

)

how

it

happens

that

you

,

who

acknowledge

the

Creator

to

be

God

,

and

from

your

knowledge

confess

Him

to

be

prior

in

existence

,

do

not

know

that

the

other

god

should

be

examined

by

you

in

exactly

the

same

course

of

investigation

which

has

taught

you

how

to

find

out

a

god

in

the

first

case

?

Every

prior

thing

has

furnished

the

rule

for

the

latter

.

In

the

present

question

two

gods

are

propounded

,

the

unknown

and

the

known

.

Concerning

the

known

there

is

no

question

.

It

is

plain

that

He

exists

,

else

He

would

not

be

known

.

The

dispute

is

concerning

the

unknown

god

.

Possibly

he

has

no

existence

;

because

,

if

he

had

,

he

would

have

been

known

.

Now

that

which

,

so

long

as

it

is

unknown

,

is

an

object

to

be

questioned

,

is

an

uncertainty

so

long

as

it

remains

thus

questionable

;

and

all

the

while

it

is

in

this

state

of

uncertainty

,

it

possibly

has

no

existence

at

all

.

You

have

a

god

who

is

so

far

certain

,

as

he

is

known

;

and

uncertain

,

as

unknown

.

This

being

the

case

,

does

it

appear

to

you

to

be

justly

defensible

,

that

uncertainties

should

be

submitted

for

proof

to

the

rule

,

and

form

,

and

standard

of

certainties

?

Now

,

if

to

the

subject

before

us

,

which

is

in

itself

full

of

uncertainty

thus

far

,

there

be

applied

also

arguments

derived

from

uncertainties

,

we

shall

be

involved

in

such

a

series

of

questions

arising

out

of

our

treatment

of

these

same

uncertain

arguments

,

as

shall

by

reason

of

their

uncertainty

be

dangerous

to

the

faith

,

and

we

shall

drift

into

those

insoluble

questions

which

the

apostle

has

no

affection

for

.

If

,

again

,

in

things

wherein

there

is

found

a

diversity

of

condition

,

they

shall

prejudge

,

as

no

doubt

they

will

,

uncertain

,

doubtful

,

and

intricate

points

,

by

the

certain

,

undoubted

,

and

clear

sides

of

their

rule

,

it

will

probably

happen

that

(

those

points

)

will

not

be

submitted

to

the

standard

of

certainties

for

determination

,

as

being

freed

by

the

diversity

of

their

essential

condition

from

the

application

of

such

a

standard

in

all

other

respects

.

As

,

therefore

,

it

is

two

gods

which

are

the

subject

of

our

proposition

,

their

essential

condition

must

be

the

same

in

both

.

For

,

as

concerns

their

divinity

,

they

are

both

unbegotten

,

unmade

,

eternal

.

This

will

be

their

essential

condition

.

All

other

points

Marcion

himself

seems

to

have

made

light

of

,

for

he

has

placed

them

in

a

different

Notes

1
Agnitione. The distinctive term of the Gnostic pretension was the Greek equivalent Γνῶσις.
2
Agnitione.
3
Plane.
4
Non evagabor, ut dicam.
5
Provocari.
6
Debebo.
7
Ratione.
8
Constantius.
9
Quale est ut.
10
Agnoscis.
11
Vacat.
12
Argumenta ="proofs.”
13
Sin.
14
Plane.
15
Regulæ partibus.
16
Fortasse an.
17
Status principalis.
18
Viderit.
19
In diversitate.
20
Nec admittentur.
21
Sub eo.
22
Formam.
23
Dirigam.