Opening the library…

Search the Bible

The Five Books Against Marcion

Tertullian

Book 2 · Chapter 2

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 II.—The True Doctrine of God the Creator. The Heretics Pretended to a Knowledge of the Divine Being, Opposed to and Subversive of Revelation. God’s Nature and Ways Past Human Discovery. Adam’s Heresy.

We have now, then, cleared our

‹ Book 2 · Chapter 1 Book 2 · Chapter 3 ›

way

to

the

contemplation

of

the

Almighty

God

,

the

Lord

and

Maker

of

the

universe

.

His

greatness

,

as

I

think

,

is

shown

in

this

,

that

from

the

beginning

He

made

Himself

known

:

He

never

hid

Himself

,

but

always

shone

out

brightly

,

even

before

the

time

of

Romulus

,

to

say

nothing

of

that

of

Tiberius

;

with

the

exception

indeed

that

the

heretics

,

and

they

alone

,

know

Him

not

,

although

they

take

such

pains

about

Him

.

They

on

this

account

suppose

that

another

god

must

be

assumed

to

exist

,

because

they

are

more

able

to

censure

than

deny

Him

whose

existence

is

so

evident

,

deriving

all

their

thoughts

about

God

from

the

deductions

of

sense

;

just

as

if

some

blind

man

,

or

a

man

of

imperfect

vision

,

chose

to

assume

some

other

sun

of

milder

and

healthier

ray

,

because

he

sees

not

that

which

is

the

object

of

sight

.

There

is

,

O

man

,

but

one

sun

which

rules

this

world

and

even

when

you

think

otherwise

of

him

,

he

is

best

and

useful

;

and

although

to

you

he

may

seem

too

fierce

and

baneful

,

or

else

,

it

may

be

,

too

sordid

and

corrupt

,

he

yet

is

true

to

the

laws

of

his

own

existence

.

Unable

as

you

are

to

see

through

those

laws

,

you

would

be

equally

impotent

to

bear

the

rays

of

any

other

sun

,

were

there

one

,

however

great

and

good

.

Now

,

you

whose

sight

is

defective

in

respect

of

the

inferior

god

,

what

is

your

view

of

the

sublimer

One

?

Really

you

are

too

lenient

to

your

weakness

;

and

set

not

yourself

to

the

proof

of

things

,

holding

God

to

be

certainly

,

undoubtedly

,

and

therefore

sufficiently

known

,

the

very

moment

you

have

discovered

Him

to

exist

,

though

you

know

Him

not

except

on

the

side

where

He

has

willed

His

proofs

to

lie

.

But

you

do

not

even

deny

God

intelligently

,

you

treat

of

Him

ignorantly

;

nay

,

you

accuse

Him

with

a

semblance

of

intelligence

,

whom

if

you

did

but

know

Him

,

you

would

never

accuse

,

nay

,

never

treat

of

.

You

give

Him

His

name

indeed

,

but

you

deny

the

essential

truth

of

that

name

,

that

is

,

the

greatness

which

is

called

God

;

not

acknowledging

it

to

be

such

as

,

were

it

possible

for

it

to

have

been

known

to

man

in

every

respect

,

would

not

be

greatness

.

Isaiah

even

so

early

,

with

the

clearness

of

an

apostle

,

foreseeing

the

thoughts

of

heretical

hearts

,

asked

,

“

Who

hath

known

the

mind

of

the

Lord

?

For

who

hath

been

His

counsellor

?

With

whom

took

He

counsel

?

…

or

who

taught

Him

knowledge

,

and

showed

to

Him

the

way

of

understanding

?

”

With

whom

the

apostle

agreeing

exclaims

,

“

Oh

the

depth

of

the

riches

both

of

the

wisdom

and

knowledge

of

God

!

how

unsearchable

are

His

judgments

,

and

His

ways

past

finding

out

!

”

“

His

judgments

unsearchable

,

”

as

being

those

of

God

the

Judge

;

and

“

His

ways

past

finding

out

,

”

as

comprising

an

understanding

and

knowledge

which

no

man

has

ever

shown

to

Him

,

except

it

may

be

those

critics

of

the

Divine

Being

,

who

say

,

God

ought

not

to

have

been

this

,

and

He

ought

rather

to

have

been

that

;

as

if

any

one

knew

what

is

in

God

,

except

the

Spirit

of

God

.

Moreover

,

having

the

spirit

of

the

world

,

and

“

in

the

wisdom

of

God

by

wisdom

knowing

not

God

,

”

they

seem

to

themselves

to

be

wiser

than

God

;

because

,

as

the

wisdom

of

the

world

is

foolishness

with

God

,

so

also

the

wisdom

of

God

is

folly

in

the

world’s

esteem

.

We

,

however

,

know

that

“

the

foolishness

of

God

is

wiser

than

men

,

and

the

weakness

of

God

is

stronger

than

men

.

”

Accordingly

,

God

is

then

especially

great

,

when

He

is

small

to

man

;

then

especially

good

,

when

not

good

in

man’s

judgment

;

then

especially

unique

,

when

He

seems

to

man

to

be

two

or

more

.

Now

,

if

from

the

very

first

“

the

natural

man

,

not

receiving

the

things

of

the

Spirit

of

God

,

”

has

deemed

God’s

law

to

be

foolishness

,

and

has

therefore

neglected

to

observe

it

;

and

as

a

further

consequence

,

by

his

not

having

faith

,

“

even

that

which

he

seemeth

to

have

hath

been

taken

from

him

”

—

such

as

the

grace

of

paradise

and

the

friendship

of

God

,

by

means

of

which

he

might

have

known

all

things

of

God

,

if

he

had

continued

in

his

obedience

—

what

wonder

is

it

,

if

he

,

reduced

to

his

material

nature

,

and

banished

to

the

toil

of

tilling

the

ground

,

has

in

his

very

labour

,

downcast

and

earth

-

gravitating

as

it

was

,

handed

on

that

earth

-

derived

spirit

of

the

world

to

his

entire

race

,

wholly

natural

and

heretical

as

it

is

,

and

not

receiving

the

things

which

belong

to

God

?

Or

who

will

hesitate

to

declare

the

great

sin

of

Adam

to

have

been

heresy

,

when

he

committed

it

by

the

choice

of

his

own

will

rather

than

of

God’s

?

Except

that

Adam

never

said

to

his

fig

-

tree

,

Why

hast

thou

made

me

thus

?

He

confessed

that

he

was

led

astray

;

and

he

did

not

conceal

the

seducer

.

He

was

a

very

rude

heretic

.

He

was

disobedient

;

but

yet

he

did

not

blaspheme

his

Creator

,

nor

blame

that

Author

of

his

being

,

Whom

from

the

beginning

of

his

life

he

had

found

to

be

so

good

and

excellent

,

and

Whom

he

had

perhaps

made

his

own

judge

from

the

very

first

.

Notes

1
Fluitantibus oculis.
2
Quem videat non videt.
3
Temperat.
4
Cæcutis.
5
Quin potius parcis.
6
In periculum extenderis.
7
Ut sciens.
8
Ut nesciens.
9
Quasi sciens.
10
Retractares.
11
Omnifariam.
12
Comp. Isa. xl. 13, 14, with Rom. xi. 34.
13
Rom. xi. 33.
14
Sic non debuit Deus. This perhaps may mean, God ought not to have done this, etc.
15
1 Cor. ii. 11.
16
1 Cor. i. 21.
17
Consultiores.
18
1 Cor. i. 25.
19
Pusillus.
20
1 Cor. ii. 14.
21
Luke viii. 18; comp. Matt. xiii. 12.
22
That is, the natural man, the ψυχικός.
23
Animali = ψυχικῷ.
24
Electionem. By this word our author translates the Greek αἵρεσις. Comp. De Præscr. Her. 6, p. 245, supra.
25
Si forte.