Opening the library…

Search the Bible

The Five Books Against Marcion

Tertullian

Book 4 · Chapter 25

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 XXV.—Christ Thanks the Father for Revealing to Babes What He Had Concealed from the Wise. This Concealment Judiciously Effected by the Creator. Other Points in St. Luke’s Chap. X. Shown to Be Only Possible to the Creator’s Christ.

Who shall be invoked as the Lord of

‹ Book 4 · Chapter 24 Book 4 · Chapter 26 ›

heaven

,

that

does

not

first

show

Himself

to

have

been

the

maker

thereof

?

For

He

says

,

“

I

thank

thee

,

(

O

Father

,

)

and

own

Thee

,

Lord

of

heaven

,

because

those

things

which

had

been

hidden

from

the

wise

and

prudent

,

Thou

has

revealed

unto

babes

.

”

What

things

are

these

?

And

whose

?

And

by

whom

hidden

?

And

by

whom

revealed

?

If

it

was

by

Marcion’s

god

that

they

were

hidden

and

revealed

,

it

was

an

extremely

iniquitous

proceeding

;

for

nothing

at

all

had

he

ever

produced

in

which

anything

could

have

been

hidden

—

no

prophecies

,

no

parables

,

no

visions

,

no

evidences

of

things

,

or

words

,

or

names

,

obscured

by

allegories

and

figures

,

or

cloudy

enigmas

,

but

he

had

concealed

the

greatness

even

of

himself

,

which

he

was

with

all

his

might

revealing

by

his

Christ

.

Now

in

what

respect

had

the

wise

and

prudent

done

wrong

,

that

God

should

be

hidden

from

them

,

when

their

wisdom

and

prudence

had

been

insufficient

to

come

to

the

knowledge

of

Him

?

No

way

had

been

provided

by

himself

,

by

any

declaration

of

his

works

,

or

any

vestiges

whereby

they

might

become

wise

and

prudent

.

However

,

if

they

had

even

failed

in

any

duty

towards

a

god

whom

they

knew

not

,

suppose

him

now

at

last

to

be

known

still

they

ought

not

to

have

found

a

jealous

god

in

him

who

is

introduced

as

unlike

the

Creator

.

Therefore

,

since

he

had

neither

provided

any

materials

in

which

he

could

have

hidden

anything

,

nor

had

any

offenders

from

whom

he

could

have

hidden

himself

:

since

,

again

,

even

if

he

had

any

,

he

ought

not

to

have

hidden

himself

from

them

,

he

will

not

now

be

himself

the

revealer

,

who

was

not

previously

the

concealer

;

so

neither

will

any

be

the

Lord

of

heaven

nor

the

Father

of

Christ

but

He

in

whom

all

these

attributes

consistently

meet

.

For

He

conceals

by

His

preparatory

apparatus

of

prophetic

obscurity

,

the

understanding

of

which

is

open

to

faith

(

for

“

if

ye

will

not

believe

,

ye

shall

not

understand

”

)

;

and

He

had

offenders

in

those

wise

and

prudent

ones

who

would

not

seek

after

God

,

although

He

was

to

be

discovered

in

His

so

many

and

mighty

works

,

or

who

rashly

philosophized

about

Him

,

and

thereby

furnished

to

heretics

their

arts

;

and

lastly

,

He

is

a

jealous

God

.

Accordingly

,

that

which

Christ

thanks

God

for

doing

,

He

long

ago

announced

by

Isaiah

:

“

I

will

destroy

the

wisdom

of

the

wise

,

and

the

understanding

of

the

prudent

will

I

hide

.

”

So

in

another

passage

He

intimates

both

that

He

has

concealed

,

and

that

He

will

also

reveal

:

“

I

will

give

unto

them

treasures

that

have

been

hidden

,

and

secret

ones

will

I

discover

to

them

.

”

And

again

:

“

Who

else

shall

scatter

the

tokens

of

ventriloquists

,

and

the

devices

of

those

who

divine

out

of

their

own

heart

;

turning

wise

men

backward

,

and

making

their

counsels

foolish

?

”

Now

,

if

He

has

designated

His

Christ

as

an

enlightener

of

the

Gentiles

,

saying

,

“

I

have

set

thee

for

a

light

of

the

Gentiles

;

”

and

if

we

understand

these

to

be

meant

in

the

word

babes

—

as

having

been

once

dwarfs

in

knowledge

and

infants

in

prudence

,

and

even

now

also

babes

in

their

lowliness

of

faith

—

we

shall

of

course

more

easily

understand

how

He

who

had

once

hidden

“

these

things

,

”

and

promised

a

revelation

of

them

through

Christ

,

was

the

same

God

as

He

who

had

now

revealed

them

unto

babes

.

Else

,

if

it

was

Marcion’s

god

who

revealed

the

things

which

had

been

formerly

hidden

by

the

Creator

,

it

follows

that

he

did

the

Creator’s

work

by

setting

forth

His

deeds

.

But

he

did

it

,

say

you

,

for

His

destruction

,

that

he

might

refute

them

.

Therefore

he

ought

to

have

refuted

them

to

those

from

whom

the

Creator

had

hidden

them

,

even

the

wise

and

prudent

.

For

if

he

had

a

kind

intention

in

what

he

did

,

the

gift

of

knowledge

was

due

to

those

from

whom

the

Creator

had

detained

it

,

instead

of

the

babes

,

to

whom

the

Creator

had

grudged

no

gift

.

But

after

all

,

it

is

,

I

presume

,

the

edification

rather

than

the

demolition

of

the

law

and

the

prophets

which

we

have

thus

far

found

effected

in

Christ

.

“

All

things

,

”

He

says

,

“

are

delivered

unto

me

of

my

Father

.

”

You

may

believe

Him

,

if

He

is

the

Christ

of

the

Creator

to

whom

all

things

belong

;

because

the

Creator

has

not

delivered

to

a

Son

who

is

less

than

Himself

all

things

,

which

He

created

by

Him

,

that

is

to

say

,

by

His

Word

.

If

,

on

the

contrary

,

he

is

the

notorious

stranger

,

what

are

the

“

all

things

”

which

have

been

delivered

to

him

by

the

Father

?

Are

they

the

Creator’s

?

Then

the

things

which

the

Father

delivered

to

the

Son

are

good

,

and

the

Creator

is

therefore

good

,

since

all

His

“

things

”

are

good

;

whereas

he

is

no

longer

good

who

has

invaded

another’s

good

(

domains

)

to

deliver

it

to

his

son

,

thus

teaching

robbery

of

another’s

goods

.

Surely

he

must

be

a

most

mendacious

being

,

who

had

no

other

means

of

enriching

his

son

than

by

helping

himself

to

another’s

property

!

Or

else

,

if

nothing

of

the

Creator’s

has

been

delivered

to

him

by

the

Father

,

by

what

right

does

he

claim

for

himself

(

authority

over

)

man

?

Or

again

,

if

man

has

been

delivered

to

him

,

and

man

alone

,

then

man

is

not

“

all

things

.

”

But

Scripture

clearly

says

that

a

transfer

of

all

things

has

been

made

to

the

Son

.

If

,

however

,

you

should

interpret

this

“

all

”

of

the

whole

human

race

,

that

is

,

all

nations

,

then

the

delivery

of

even

these

to

the

Son

is

within

the

purpose

of

the

Creator

:

“

I

will

give

Thee

the

heathen

for

Thine

inheritance

,

and

the

uttermost

parts

of

the

earth

for

Thy

possession

.

”

If

,

indeed

,

he

has

some

things

of

his

own

,

the

whole

of

which

he

might

give

to

his

son

,

along

with

the

man

of

the

Creator

,

then

show

some

one

thing

of

them

all

,

as

a

sample

,

that

I

may

believe

;

lest

I

should

have

as

much

reason

not

to

believe

that

all

things

belong

to

him

,

of

whom

I

see

nothing

,

as

I

have

ground

for

believing

that

even

the

things

which

I

see

not

are

His

,

to

whom

belongs

the

universe

,

which

I

see

.

But

“

no

man

knoweth

who

the

Father

is

,

but

the

Son

;

and

who

the

Son

is

,

but

the

Father

,

and

he

to

whom

the

Son

will

reveal

Him

.

”

And

so

it

was

an

unknown

god

that

Christ

preached

!

And

other

heretics

,

too

,

prop

themselves

up

by

this

passage

;

alleging

in

opposition

to

it

that

the

Creator

was

known

to

all

,

both

to

Israel

by

familiar

intercourse

,

and

to

the

Gentiles

by

nature

.

Well

,

how

is

it

He

Himself

testifies

that

He

was

not

known

to

Israel

?

“

But

Israel

doth

not

know

me

,

and

my

people

doth

not

consider

me

;

”

nor

to

the

Gentiles

:

“

For

,

behold

,

”

says

He

,

“

of

the

nations

I

have

no

man

.

”

Therefore

He

reckoned

them

“

as

the

drop

of

a

bucket

,

”

while

“

Sion

He

left

as

a

look

-

out

in

a

vineyard

.

”

See

,

then

,

whether

there

be

not

here

a

confirmation

of

the

prophet’s

word

,

when

he

rebukes

that

ignorance

of

man

toward

God

which

continued

to

the

days

of

the

Son

of

man

.

For

it

was

on

this

account

that

he

inserted

the

clause

that

the

Father

is

known

by

him

to

whom

the

Son

has

revealed

Him

,

because

it

was

even

He

who

was

announced

as

set

by

the

Father

to

be

a

light

to

the

Gentiles

,

who

of

course

required

to

be

enlightened

concerning

God

,

as

well

as

to

Israel

,

even

by

imparting

to

it

a

fuller

knowledge

of

God

.

Arguments

,

therefore

,

will

be

of

no

use

for

belief

in

the

rival

god

which

may

be

suitable

for

the

Creator

,

because

it

is

only

such

as

are

unfit

for

the

Creator

which

will

be

able

to

advance

belief

in

His

rival

.

If

you

look

also

into

the

,

“

Blessed

are

the

eyes

which

see

the

things

which

ye

see

,

for

I

tell

you

that

prophets

have

not

seen

the

things

which

ye

see

,

”

you

will

find

that

they

follow

from

the

sense

above

,

that

no

man

indeed

had

come

to

the

knowledge

of

God

as

he

ought

to

have

done

,

since

even

the

prophets

had

not

seen

the

things

which

were

being

seen

under

Christ

.

Now

if

He

had

not

been

my

Christ

,

He

would

not

have

made

any

mention

of

the

prophets

in

this

passage

.

For

what

was

there

to

wonder

at

,

if

they

had

not

seen

the

things

of

a

god

who

had

been

unknown

to

them

,

and

was

only

revealed

a

long

time

after

them

?

What

blessedness

,

however

,

could

theirs

have

been

,

who

were

then

seeing

what

others

were

naturally

unable

to

see

,

since

it

was

of

things

which

they

had

never

predicted

that

they

had

not

obtained

the

sight

;

if

it

were

not

because

they

might

justly

have

seen

the

things

pertaining

to

their

God

,

which

they

had

even

predicted

,

but

which

they

at

the

same

time

had

not

seen

?

This

,

however

,

will

be

the

blessedness

of

others

,

even

of

such

as

were

seeing

the

things

which

others

had

only

foretold

.

We

shall

by

and

by

show

,

nay

,

we

have

already

shown

,

that

in

Christ

those

things

were

seen

which

had

been

foretold

,

but

yet

had

been

hidden

from

the

very

prophets

who

foretold

them

,

in

order

that

they

might

be

hidden

also

from

the

wise

and

the

prudent

.

In

the

true

Gospel

,

a

certain

doctor

of

the

law

comes

to

the

Lord

and

asks

,

“

What

shall

I

do

to

inherit

eternal

life

?

”

In

the

heretical

gospel

life

only

is

mentioned

,

without

the

attribute

eternal

;

so

that

the

lawyer

seems

to

have

consulted

Christ

simply

about

the

life

which

the

Creator

in

the

law

promises

to

prolong

,

and

the

Lord

to

have

therefore

answered

him

according

to

the

law

,

“

Thou

shalt

love

the

Lord

thy

God

with

all

thy

heart

,

and

with

all

thy

soul

,

and

with

all

thy

strength

,

”

since

the

question

was

concerning

the

conditions

of

mere

life

.

But

the

lawyer

of

course

knew

very

well

in

what

way

the

life

which

the

law

meant

was

to

be

obtained

,

so

that

his

question

could

have

had

no

relation

to

the

life

whose

rules

he

was

himself

in

the

habit

of

teaching

.

But

seeing

that

even

the

dead

were

now

raised

by

Christ

,

and

being

himself

excited

to

the

hope

of

an

eternal

life

by

these

examples

of

a

restored

one

,

he

would

lose

no

more

time

in

merely

looking

on

(

at

the

wonderful

things

which

had

made

him

)

so

high

in

hope

.

He

therefore

consulted

him

about

the

attainment

of

eternal

life

.

Accordingly

,

the

Lord

,

being

Himself

the

same

,

and

introducing

no

new

precept

other

than

that

which

relates

above

all

others

to

(

man’s

)

entire

salvation

,

even

including

the

present

and

the

future

life

,

places

before

him

the

very

essence

of

the

law

—

that

he

should

in

every

possible

way

love

the

Lord

his

God

.

If

,

indeed

,

it

were

only

about

a

lengthened

life

,

such

as

is

at

the

Creator’s

disposal

,

that

he

inquired

and

Christ

answered

,

and

not

about

the

eternal

life

,

which

is

at

the

disposal

of

Marcion’s

god

,

how

is

he

to

obtain

the

eternal

one

?

Surely

not

in

the

same

manner

as

the

prolonged

life

.

For

in

proportion

to

the

difference

of

the

reward

must

be

supposed

to

be

also

the

diversity

of

the

services

.

Therefore

your

disciple

,

Marcion

,

will

not

obtain

his

eternal

life

in

consequence

of

loving

your

God

,

in

the

same

way

as

the

man

who

loves

the

Creator

will

secure

the

lengthened

life

.

But

how

happens

it

that

,

if

He

is

to

be

loved

who

promises

the

prolonged

life

,

He

is

not

much

more

to

be

loved

who

offers

the

eternal

life

?

Therefore

both

one

and

the

other

life

will

be

at

the

disposal

of

one

and

the

same

Lord

;

because

one

and

the

same

discipline

is

to

be

followed

for

one

and

the

other

life

.

What

the

Creator

teaches

to

be

loved

,

that

must

He

necessarily

maintain

also

by

Christ

,

for

that

rule

holds

good

here

,

which

prescribes

that

greater

things

ought

to

be

believed

of

Him

who

has

first

lesser

proofs

to

show

,

than

of

him

for

whom

no

preceding

smaller

presumptions

have

secured

a

claim

to

be

believed

in

things

of

higher

import

.

It

matters

not

then

,

whether

the

word

eternal

has

been

interpolated

by

us

.

It

is

enough

for

me

,

that

the

Christ

who

invited

men

to

the

eternal

—

not

the

lengthened

—

life

,

when

consulted

about

the

temporal

life

which

he

was

destroying

,

did

not

choose

to

exhort

the

man

rather

to

that

eternal

life

which

he

was

introducing

.

Pray

,

what

would

the

Creator’s

Christ

have

done

,

if

He

who

had

made

man

for

loving

the

Creator

did

not

belong

to

the

Creator

?

I

suppose

He

would

have

said

that

the

Creator

was

not

to

be

loved

!

Notes

1
Ostenditur.
2
Luke x. 21.
3
Satis inique.
4
Præmiserat.
5
Argumenta.
6
Deliquerant.
7
On the Marcionite hypothesis.
8
Deducerentur.
9
In quem competunt omnia.
10
Isa. vii. 9.
11
Rom. i. 20–23.
12
Ingenia.
13
Denique.
14
Olim.
15
Isa. xxix. 14, Sept.
16
Isa. xlv. 3, Sept.
17
Ventriloquorum, Greek ἐγγαστριμύθων.
18
Isa. xliv. 25, Sept.
19
Isa. xlii. 6 and xlix. 6.
20
Luke x. 21.
21
Ergo.
22
Res ejus edisserens.
23
Uti traduceret eas.
24
Constructionem.
25
Destructionem.
26
Luke x. 22.
27
Per.
28
ἐπερχόμενος ille; on which see above, chap. xxiii. p. 385.
29
Marcion’s god.
30
Alieno abstinere.
31
Aut si.
32
Ecquomodo.
33
Creatoris est.
34
Ps. ii. 8.
35
Luke x. 22.
36
Isa. i. 3.
37
This passage it is not easy to identify. [See Is. lxiii. 3.] The books point to Isa. lxv. 5, but there is there no trace of it.
38
Isa. xl. 15. [Compare Is. lxiii. 3. Sept.]
39
Speculam.
40
When the vintage was gathered, Isa. i. 8.
41
Quæ competere possunt.
42
Luke x. 23, 24.
43
Ut decuit.
44
Merito.
45
Repræsentationem.
46
Æque.
47
Tamen.
48
Ex. xx. 12 and Deut. vi. 2.
49
Luke x. 27.
50
Legalem.
51
Recidivæ.
52
This is perhaps the meaning of “ne plus aliquid observationis exigeret sublimior spe.”
53
Nec alius.
54
Principaliter.
55
Et utramque vitam.
56
Ei opponit.
57
Caput.
58
Dei tui…Marcionites.
59
Captanda.
60
Præstet.
61
i.e., he must needs have it taught and recommended by Christ.
62
Viderit.
63
As Marcion pretended.