Opening the library…

Search the Bible

The Five Books Against Marcion

Tertullian

Book 4 · Chapter 5

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 V.—By the Rule of Antiquity, the Catholic Gospels are Found to Be True, Including the Real St. Luke’s. Marcion’s Only a Mutilated Edition. The Heretic’s Weakness and Inconsistency in Ignoring the Other Gospels.

On the whole, then, if that

‹ Book 4 · Chapter 4 Book 4 · Chapter 6 ›

is

evidently

more

true

which

is

earlier

,

if

that

is

earlier

which

is

from

the

very

beginning

,

if

that

is

from

the

beginning

which

has

the

apostles

for

its

authors

,

then

it

will

certainly

be

quite

as

evident

,

that

comes

down

from

the

apostles

,

which

has

been

kept

as

a

sacred

deposit

in

the

churches

of

the

apostles

.

Let

us

see

what

milk

the

Corinthians

drank

from

Paul

;

to

what

rule

of

faith

the

Galatians

were

brought

for

correction

;

what

the

Philippians

,

the

Thessalonians

,

the

Ephesians

read

by

it

;

what

utterance

also

the

Romans

give

,

so

very

near

(

to

the

apostles

)

,

to

whom

Peter

and

Paul

conjointly

bequeathed

the

gospel

even

sealed

with

their

own

blood

.

We

have

also

St

.

John’s

foster

churches

.

For

although

Marcion

rejects

his

Apocalypse

,

the

order

of

the

bishops

(

thereof

)

,

when

traced

up

to

their

origin

,

will

yet

rest

on

John

as

their

author

.

In

the

same

manner

is

recognised

the

excellent

source

of

the

other

churches

.

I

say

,

therefore

,

that

in

them

(

and

not

simply

such

of

them

as

were

founded

by

apostles

,

but

in

all

those

which

are

united

with

them

in

the

fellowship

of

the

mystery

of

the

gospel

of

Christ

)

that

Gospel

of

Luke

which

we

are

defending

with

all

our

might

has

stood

its

ground

from

its

very

first

publication

;

whereas

Marcion’s

Gospel

is

not

known

to

most

people

,

and

to

none

whatever

is

it

known

without

being

at

the

same

time

condemned

.

It

too

,

of

course

,

has

its

churches

,

but

specially

its

own

—

as

late

as

they

are

spurious

;

and

should

you

want

to

know

their

original

,

you

will

more

easily

discover

apostasy

in

it

than

apostolicity

,

with

Marcion

forsooth

as

their

founder

,

or

some

one

of

Marcion’s

swarm

.

Even

wasps

make

combs

;

so

also

these

Marcionites

make

churches

.

The

same

authority

of

the

apostolic

churches

will

afford

evidence

to

the

other

Gospels

also

,

which

we

possess

equally

through

their

means

,

and

according

to

their

usage

—

I

mean

the

Gospels

of

John

and

Matthew

—

whilst

that

which

Mark

published

may

be

affirmed

to

be

Peter’s

whose

interpreter

Mark

was

.

For

even

Luke’s

form

of

the

Gospel

men

usually

ascribe

to

Paul

.

And

it

may

well

seem

that

the

works

which

disciples

publish

belong

to

their

masters

.

Well

,

then

,

Marcion

ought

to

be

called

to

a

strict

account

concerning

these

(

other

Gospels

)

also

,

for

having

omitted

them

,

and

insisted

in

preference

on

Luke

;

as

if

they

,

too

,

had

not

had

free

course

in

the

churches

,

as

well

as

Luke’s

Gospel

,

from

the

beginning

.

Nay

,

it

is

even

more

credible

that

they

existed

from

the

very

beginning

;

for

,

being

the

work

of

apostles

,

they

were

prior

,

and

coeval

in

origin

with

the

churches

themselves

.

But

how

comes

it

to

pass

,

if

the

apostles

published

nothing

,

that

their

disciples

were

more

forward

in

such

a

work

;

for

they

could

not

have

been

disciples

,

without

any

instruction

from

their

masters

?

If

,

then

,

it

be

evident

that

these

(

Gospels

)

also

were

current

in

the

churches

,

why

did

not

Marcion

touch

them

—

either

to

amend

them

if

they

were

adulterated

,

or

to

acknowledge

them

if

they

were

uncorrupt

?

For

it

is

but

natural

that

they

who

were

perverting

the

gospel

,

should

be

more

solicitous

about

the

perversion

of

those

things

whose

authority

they

knew

to

be

more

generally

received

.

Even

the

false

apostles

(

were

so

called

)

on

this

very

account

,

because

they

imitated

the

apostles

by

means

of

their

falsification

.

In

as

far

,

then

,

as

he

might

have

amended

what

there

was

to

amend

,

if

found

corrupt

,

in

so

far

did

he

firmly

imply

that

all

was

free

from

corruption

which

he

did

not

think

required

amendment

.

In

short

,

he

simply

amended

what

he

thought

was

corrupt

;

though

,

indeed

,

not

even

this

justly

,

because

it

was

not

really

corrupt

.

For

if

the

(

Gospels

)

of

the

apostles

have

come

down

to

us

in

their

integrity

,

whilst

Luke’s

,

which

is

received

amongst

us

,

so

far

accords

with

their

rule

as

to

be

on

a

par

with

them

in

permanency

of

reception

in

the

churches

,

it

clearly

follows

that

Luke’s

Gospel

also

has

come

down

to

us

in

like

integrity

until

the

sacrilegious

treatment

of

Marcion

.

In

short

,

when

Marcion

laid

hands

on

it

,

it

then

became

diverse

and

hostile

to

the

Gospels

of

the

apostles

.

I

will

therefore

advise

his

followers

,

that

they

either

change

these

Gospels

,

however

late

to

do

so

,

into

a

conformity

with

their

own

,

whereby

they

may

seem

to

be

in

agreement

with

the

apostolic

writings

(

for

they

are

daily

retouching

their

work

,

as

daily

they

are

convicted

by

us

)

;

or

else

that

they

blush

for

their

master

,

who

stands

self

-

condemned

either

way

—

when

once

he

hands

on

the

truth

of

the

gospel

conscience

smitten

,

or

again

subverts

it

by

shameless

tampering

.

Such

are

the

summary

arguments

which

we

use

,

when

we

take

up

arms

against

heretics

for

the

faith

of

the

gospel

,

maintaining

both

that

order

of

periods

,

which

rules

that

a

late

date

is

the

mark

of

forgers

,

and

that

authority

of

churches

which

lends

support

to

the

tradition

of

the

apostles

;

because

truth

must

needs

precede

the

forgery

,

and

proceed

straight

from

those

by

whom

it

has

been

handed

on

.

Notes

2
Sacrosanctum. Inviolate. Westcott, On the Canon, p. 384. Compare De Præscript. Hæret. c. 36, supra.
3
De proximo. Westcott renders this, “who are nearest to us.” See in loco.
4
et…et. [N.B. Not Peter’s See, then.]
5
Alumnas ecclesias. He seems to allude to the seven churches of the Apocalypse.
6
[Not the Order of bishops (as we now speak) but of their succession from St. John. Kaye, p. 219.]
7
Generositas.
8
De societate sacramenti. [i.e. Catholic Unity.]
9
Eadem.
10
Plane.
11
Censum.
12
Examine.
13
Favos. See Pliny, Nat. Hist. xi. 21.
14
Patrocinabitur. [Jones on the Canon, Vol. I. p. 66.]
15
Proinde per illas.
16
See Hieronymus, Catal. Scriptt. Eccles. c. 8.
17
Digestum.
18
See above, chap. 2, p. 347.
19
Capit videri.
20
Flagitandus.
21
Potius institerit.
22
The Gospels of the apostles John and Matthew, and perhaps Mark’s also, as being St. Peter’s.
23
Dedicata cum.
24
Competit.
25
Confirmavit.
26
Denique.
27
Apostolica, i.e., evangelia.
28
That is, the canonical Gospel of St. Luke, as distinct from Marcion’s corruption of it. [N.B. “Us” = Catholics.]
29
Traducto.
30
Nunc—nunc.
31
Nunc—nunc.
32
Expedimur.
33
Fide, integrity.
34
Posteritati falsariorum præscribentem.
35
[Mark the authority of churches. He uses the plural—quod ab omnibus.]