it had suffered much deterioration in its trans- mission to us; and an advanced school of thinkers has demanded its reform by a ma- nipulation which they have called " free hand- ling." To such readers, then, as prize the deposit of the Christian creed which they have received, in the light of St. Jude's description, as ' ' the faith oticefor all delivered to the saints, ' ' it cannot but prove satisfactory to be able to trace in Tertullian, writing more than sixteen centuries ago, the outlines of their own cher- ished convictions — held by one who cannot be charged with too great an obsequiousness to traditional authority, and who at the same time possessed honesty, earnestness, and in- telligence enough to make him an unexcep- tionable witness to facts of such a kind. The translator would only add, that he has, in com- pliance with the wise canon laid down by the editors of this series, endeavoured always to present to the reader the meaning of the 'Two works are worth mentioning in connection with this topic for their succinct and liandy form, as well as satisfactory treat- ment of their argument: Mr. Perowne's Norrisian prize essay, en- titled 'Ike Essential Coherence o/ the Old and Neiv Testaiiicnts (1858), and Sir William Page Wood's recent work. The Continuity 0/ Scripture, as declared by the testimony of our Lord, and of the evangelists and apostles.
author in readable English, keeping as near as idiomatic rules allowed to the sense and even style of the original. Amidst the many well-known difficulties of Tertullian's writings (and his A?iti-Marcion is not exempt from any of these difficulties,^) the traHslator cannot hope that he has accomplished his labour with- out mistakes, for which he would beg the reader's indulgence. He has, however, en- deavoured to obviate the inconvenience of faulty translation by quoting in foot-notes all words, phrases, and passages which appeared to him difficult. 3 He has also added such notes as seemed necessary to illustrate the author's argument, or to explain any obscure allusions. The translation has been made always from Oehler's edition, with the aid of his scholary Index Verborum. Use has also been made of Semler's edition, and the vari- oruni reprint of the Abbe Migne, the chief result of which recension has been to convince the translator of the great superiority and general excellence of Oehler's edition. When he had completed two-thirds of his work, he happened to meet with the French translation of Tertullian by Mon^ Denain, in Genoude's series, Les Peres de V Eglise, published some twenty-five years ago. This version, which runs in fluent language always, is very unequal in its relation to the original: sometimes it has the brevity of an abridgment, sometimes the fulness of a paraphrase. Often does it miss the author's point, and never does it keep his style. The Abbe Migne correctly describes it: " Elegans potius quam fidissimus interpres, qui Africanae loquelse asperitatem splendenti ornavit sermone, egregiaque interdum et ad vivum expressa interpretatione recreavit. " 2 Bishop Kaye says of Tertullian (page 62): " He is indeed the harshest and most obscure of writers, and tiie least capable of being accurately represented in a translation;" and he quotes the learned Ruhnken's sentence of our author: " Latinitatis certe pessimum auctorem esse aio et confirmo." This is surely much too sweeping. To the careful student Tertullian's style com- mends itself, by and by, as suited exactly to his subject — as the terse and vigorous expression of terse and vigorous thought. Bish- op Butler has been often censured for an awkward style; where- as it is a fairer criticism to say, that the arguments of the Analogy and the Sermons on Human Nature have been delivered in the language best suited to their character. This adaptation of style to matter is probably in all great authors a real characteristic of genius. A more just and favourable view is taken of Tertullian's Latin by Niebuhr, Hist. Rom. (Schniitz), vol, v. p. 271, and his Lectures on Ancient Hist. (Schmitz), vol. ii. p. 54.
3 He has also, as the reader will observe, endeavoured to dis- tinguish, by the help of type, between the true God and Marcion's godj printing the initials of the former, and of the pronouns re- ferring to Him, in capitals, and those of the latter in small letters. To do this was not always an easy matter, for m many passages the argument amalgamates the two. Moreover, in the earlier portion of the work the translator fears that he may have occa- sionally neglected to make the distinction.
THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION.
Book I.- WHEREIN IS DESCRIBED THE GOD OF MARCION. HE IS SHOWN TO BE UTTERLY WANTING IN ALL THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE TRUE GOD.
CHAP. 1. — PREFACE. REASON FOR A NEW WORK. PONTUS LENDS ITS ROUGH CHARACTER TO THE HERETIC MARCION, A NATIVE. HIS HERESY CHARACTERIZED IN A BRIEF INVEC- TIVE.
Whatever in times past ' we have wrought in opposition to Marcion, is from the present moment no longer to be accounted of.^ It is a new work which we are undertaking in lieu of the old one.-* My original tract, as too hurriedly composed, I had subsequently superseded by a fuller treatise. This latter J lost, before it was completely published, by the fraud of a person who was then a brother, s but became afterwards an apostate. He, as it happened, had transcribed a portion of it, full of mistakes, and then published it. The necessity thus arose for an amended work; and the occasion of the new edition induced me to make a considerable addition to the treatise. This present text,^ therefore, of my work — which is the third as superseding'' the second, but henceforward to be considered the first instead of the third — renders a pref- ace necessary to this issue of the tract itself that no reader maybe perplexed, if he should by chance fall in with the various forms of it which are scattered about.
The Euxine Sea, as it is called, is self-con- tradictory in its nature, and deceptive in its name.^ As you would not account it hospita- ble from its situation, so is it severed from ' [Written a.d. 207. See Chapter xv. infra. In cap. xxix. is the token of Montanism which denotes his impending lapse.] = Retro.
3 Jam hinc viderit.
4 Ex vetere.
5 Fratris.
6 Stilus. 7De.
* [Euxine = hospitable. One recalls Shakspeare: — " Like to the Pontick Sea Whose icy current and compulsive force Ne'er feels retiring tMb."—Othel.'\ our more civilised waters by a certain stigma which attaches to its barbarous character. The fiercest nations inhabit it, if indeed it can be called habitation, when life is passed in waggons. They have no fixed abode; their life has 9 no germ of civilisation; they indulge their libidinous desires without restraint, and for the most part naked. Moreover, when they gratify secret lust, they hang up their quivers on their car-yokes,'" to warn off the curi- ous and rash observer. Thus without a blush do they prostitute their weapons of war. The dead bodies of their parents they cut up with their sheep, and devour at their feasts. They who have not died so as to become food for others, are thought to have died an accursed death. Their women are not by their sex softened to modesty. They uncover the breast, from which they suspend their battle- axes, and prefer warfare to marriage. In their climate, too, there is the same rude nature." The day-time is never clear, the sun never cheerful;" the sky is uniformly cloudy; the whole year is wintry; the only wind that blows is the angry North. Waters melt only by fires; their rivers flow not by reason of the ice; their mountains are covered '^ with heaps of snow. All things are torpid, all stiff with cold. Nothing there has the glow''* of life, but that ferocity which has given to scenic plays their stories of the sac- rifices '5 of the Taurians, and the loves '* of the Colchians, and the torments '^ of the Caucasus. Nothing, however, in Pontus is so barbarous 9 Cruda.
'o De jugo. See Strabo (Bohn's trans.), vol. ii« p. 347. " Duritia. 12 Libens. '3 Exaggerantur. uCalet.
^S[I/>higcuia oi Euripides.] •6 [See the Medea of Euripides.] '7 \_Prometheus of /Eschylus.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book I.
and sad as the fact that Marcion was born there, fouler than any Scythian, more roving than the waggon-life ' of the Sarmatian, more inhuman than the Massagete, more auda- cious than an Amazon, darker than the cloud,^ (of Pontus) colder than its winter, more brittle than its ice, more deceitful than the Ister, more cragg}' than Caucasus. Nay^ more, the true Prometheus, Almighty God, is mangled * by Marcion's blasphemies. Marcion is more savage than even the beasts of that barbarous region. For what beaver was ever a greater emasculator^ than he who has abolished the ^nuptial bond? What Pontic mouse ever had such gnawing powers as he who has gnawed the Gospels to pieces? Verily, O Euxine, thou hast produced a monster more credible to philosophers than to Christians. 'For the cynic Diogenes used to go about, lantern in hand, at mid-day to find a man; whereas Mar- cion has quenched the light of his faith, and so lost the God whom he had found. His disciples will not deny that his first faith he held along with ourselves; a letter of his own ^ proves this; so that for the future' a heretic may from his case ^ be designated as one who, forsaking that which was prior, afterwards chose out for himself that which was not in times past.' For in as far as what was de- livered in times past and from the beginning will be held as truth, in so far will that be ac- counted heresy which is brought in later. But another brief treatise '° will maintain this posi- tion against heretics, who ought to be refuted even without a consideration of their doc- trines, on the ground that they are heretical by reason of the novelty of their opinions. Now, so far as any controversy is to be ad- mitted, I will for the time " (lest our compen- dious principle of novelty, being called in on all occasions to our aid, should be imputed to want of confidence) begin with setting forth our adversary's rule of belief, that it may es- cape no one what our main contention is to be.
' Hamaxobio. This Sarmatian clan received its name'A^af^^ioi from its gypsy kind of life.
-[I fancy there is point in this singular, the sky of Pontus being always overcast. Cowper says: " There is but one cloud in the sky, But that doth the welkin invest," etc. 3Quidni.
4 Lancinatur.
5 Castrator camis. See Pliny, N. H. viii. 47 (Bohn's trans.
*> Ipsius litteris.
7 Jam.
SHinc, 5 Retro.
JO He alludes to his book De Prascrijftione Hareticoruvt. I Was this work then already written? Dr. Allix thinks not. But iee Kaye, p. 47.]
"" Interdum. [Can it be that when all this was written (speak- ing of ourselves) our author bad fully lapsed from Communion with the Catholic Church?]
CHAP. II. MARCION, AIDED BY CERDON, TEACHES A DUALITY OF GODS; HOW HE CONSTRUCTED THIS HERESY OF AN EVIL AND A GOOD GOD.
The heretic of Pontus introduces two Gods, like the twin Symplegades of his own shipwreck: One whom it was impossible to deny, i.e. our Creator; and one whom he will never be able to prove, i.e. his own god. The unhappy man gained " the first idea'^of his conceit from the simple passage of our Lord's saying, which has reference to human beings and not divine ones, wherein He disposes of those examples of a good tree and a corrupt one;"^ how that "the good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit, neither the corrupt tree good fruit." Which means, that an honest mind and good faith cannot produce evil deeds, any more than an evil disposition can produce good deeds. Now (like many other persons now-a-days, especially those who have an heretical proclivity), while morbidly brood- ing'^ over the question of the origin of evil, his perception became blunted by the very irregularity of his researches; and when he found the Creator declaring, "I am He that createth evil," '* inasm.uch as he had already concluded from other arguments, which are satisfactory to every perv^erted mind, that God is the author of evil, so he now applied to the Creator the figure of the corrupt tree bringing forth evil fruit, that is, moral evil," and then presumed that there ought to be an- other god, after the analogy of the good tree producing its good fruit. Accordingly, find- ing in Christ a different disposition, as it were — one of a simple and pure benevolence '* — differing from the Creator, he readily argued that in his Christ had been revealed a new and strange '' divinity; and then with a little leaven he leavened the whole lump of the faith, flavouring it with the acidity of hii own heresy. He had, moreover, in one ^ Cerdon an abettor of this blasphemy, — a circumstance which made them the more readily think that they saw most clearly their two gods, blind though they were; for, in truth, they had not seen the one God with soundness of faith."" To men of diseased vision even one lamp looks like many. One of his gods, therefore, whom he was obliged to acknowledge, he destroyed by defaming his attributes in the '8 [This purely good or goodish divinity is an idea of the Stoics. De Prescript, chap. 7.] '9 Hospitam.
2oQuendam. [See Irenxus, Vol. I. p. 353, this Series.'] -' Integre.
CHAP. IV.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
matter of evil; the other, whom he laboured so hard to devise, he constructed, laying his foundation ' in the principle of good. In what articles ' he arranged these natures, we show by our own refutations of them.
CHAP. III. — THE UNITY OF GOD. HE IS THE SUPREME BEING, AND THERE CANNOT BE A SECOND SUPREME.
The principal, and indeed® the whole, con- tention lies in the point of number: whether two Gods may be admitted, by poetic licence (if they must be),'* or pictorial fancy, or by the third process, as we must now add,^ of heretical pravity. But the Christian verity has distinctly declared this principle, "God is not, if He is not one; " because we more properly believe that that has no existence which is not as it ought to be. In order, how- ever, that you may know that God is one, ask what God is, and you will find Him to be not otherwise than one. So far as a human being can form a definition of God, I adduce one which the conscience of all men will also acknowledge, — that God is the great Supreme, existing in eternity, unbegotten, unmade, without beginning, without end. For such a condition as this must needs be ascribed to that eternity which makes God to be the great Supreme, because for such a purpose as this is this very attribute* in God; and so on as to the other qualities: so that God is the great Supreme in form and in reason, and in might and in power.^ Now, since all are agreed on this point (because nobody will deny that God is in some sense® the great Supreme, except the man who shall be able to pronounce the opposite opinion, that God is but some inferior being, in order that he may deny God by rob- bing Him of an attribute of God), what must be the condition of the great Supreme Him- self? Surely it must be that nothing is equal to Him, i.e. that there is no other great su- preme; because, if there were, He would have an equal; and if He had an equal, He would be no longer the great Supreme, now that the condition and (so to say) our law, which per- mits nothing to be equal to the great Supreme, is subverted. That Being, then, which is the great Supreme, must needs be unique,^ by having no equal, and so not ceasing to be ■ Praestruendo. ' Or sections.
3 Et exinde.
4 Si Forte.
5 Jam.
*0f eternity.
7 We subjoin the original of this difficult passage: Hunc enim statum aeternitati censendum, quae sumraum magnum deura effi- ciat, dum hoc est in deo ipsa, atque ita et cetera, ut sit deus sum- mum magnum et forma et ratione et vi et potestate.
»Ouid.
<> Unicus. [Alone of His kind.] 18 the great Supreme. Therefore He will not otherwise exist than by the condition whereby He has His being; that is, by His absolute uniqueness. Since, then, God is the great Supreme, our Chris/tan verity has rightly de- clared,'" " God is not, if He is not one." Not as if we doubted His being God, by saying, He is not, if He is not one; but because we define Him, in whose being we thoroughly believe, to be that without which He is not God; that is to say, the great Supreme. But then " the great Supreme must needs be unique. This Unique Being, therefore, will be God — not otherwise God than as the great Supreme; and not otherwise the great Supreme than as having no equal; and not otherwise having no equal than as being Unique. What- ever other god, then, you may introduce, you will at least be unable to maintain his divinity under any other guise, '^ than by ascribing to him too the property of Godhead — both eternity and supremacy over all. How, there- fore, can two great Supremes co-exist, when this is the attribute of the Supreme Being, to have no equal, — an attribute which belongs to One alone, and can by no means exist in two?
CHAP. IV. — DEFENCE OF THE DIVINE UNITY AGAINST OBJECTION. NO ANALOGY BE- TWEEN HUMAN POWERS AND GOD's.SOV- EREIGNTY. THE OBJECTION OTHERWISE UN- TENABLE, FOR WHY STOP AT TWO GODS?
But some one may contend that two great 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 deprecat- ingly ask, "To whom will ye liken me? " '^ Human circumstances may perhaps be com- pared with divine ones, but they may not he 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 'o As its first principle.
II Porro.
'= Forma.
'4 Denique.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
[book I.
supreme, take care that you can use it prop- erly. For although a king is supreme on his throne next to 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 an- other as shall make it clear which of them is superior in the essential features^ and powers of royalty, it must needs follow that the su- preme 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 author- ity 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 soli- tude, 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.
I Excidet.
^Amittitur. " Tertullian " (who thinks lightly of the analogy of earthly monarchs) " ought rather to have contended that the illus- tration 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 PVriiiftgs of Tertullian, Third edition, p. 453, note 2.
3 Scilicet.
< Graduum.
5 Culmcn.
' Minutalibus regcis.
'Undique.
8 Substantiis.
9 Eliquetur.
CHAP. V. THE DUAL PRINCIPLE FALLS TO THE ground; PLURALITY OF GODS, OF WHATEVER number, more consistent, absurdity and injury to piety resulting from mar- cion's duality.
But on what principle did Marcion confine his supreme powers to tivo? I would first ask, If there be two, why not more? Because if number be compatible with the substance of Deity, the richer you make it in number the better. Valentinus was more consistent and more liberal; for he, having once imagined two deities, Bythos and Sige,'° poured forth a swarm of divine essences, a brood of no less than thirty ^ons, like the sow of -^neas." Now, whatever principle refuses to admit sev- eral supreme begins, the same must reject even two, for there is plurality in the very lowest number after one. After unity, nu7nber commences. So, again, the same principle which could admit two could admit more. After two, miiliitude begins, now that one is exceeded. In short, we feel that reason her- self expressly '^ forbids the belief in more gods than one, because the self-same rule lays down one God and not two, which declares that God must be a Being to which, as the great Su- preme, nothing is equal; and that Being to which nothing is equal must, moreover, be unique. But further, what can be the use or advantage in supposing two supreme beings, two co-ordinate '^ powers? What numerical difference could there be when two equals differ not from one? For that thing which is the same in two is one. Even if there were several equals, all would be just as much one, because, as equals, they would not differ one from another. So, if of two beings neither differs from the other, since both of them are on the supposition '■* supreme, both being gods, neither of them is more excellent than the other; and so, having no pre-eminence, their numerical distinction '* has no reason in it. Number, moreover, in the Deity ought to be consistent with the highest reason, or else His worship would be brought into doubt. For consider'* now, if, when I saw two Gods be- fore me (who, being both Supreme Beings, were equal to each other), I were to worship them both, what should I be doing? I should be much afraid that the abundance of my homage would be deemed superstition rather than piety. Because, as both of them are so equal and are both included in either of the 10 Depth and silence.
" See Virgil, ^neid, viii. 43, etc.
'2 Ipso termino.
•3 Paria.
15 Numeri sui. «6 Ecce.
CHAP, vn.]
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
two, I might serve them both acceptably in only one; and by this very means I should attest their equality and unity, provided that I worshipped them mutually the one in the other, because in the one both are present to me. If I were to worship one of the two, I should be equally conscious of seeming to pour contempt on the uselessness of a numerical distinction, which was superfluous, because it indicated no difference; in other words, I should think it the safer course to worship neither of these two Gods than one of them with some scruple of conscience, or both of them to none effect.
CHAP. VI. MARCION UNTRUE TO HIS THEORY.
HE PRETENDS THAT HIS GODS ARE EQUAL, BUT HE REALLY MAKES THEM DIVERSE. THEN, ALLOWING THEIR DIVINITY, DENIES THIS DI- VERSITY.
Thus far our discussion seems to imply that Marcion makes his two gods equal. For while we have been maintaining that God ought to be believed as the one only great Supreme Being, excluding from Him every possibility of equality, we have treated of these topics on the assumption of two equal Gods; but nevertheless, by teaching that no equals can exist according to the law ^ of the Supreme Being, we have sufficiently affirmed the impossibility that hvo equals should exist. For the rest, however,^ we know full well " that Marcion makes his gods unequal: one judicial, harsh, mighty in war; the other mild, placid, and simply s good and excellent. Let us with similar care consider also this aspect of the question, whether diversity (in the God- head) can at any rate contain two, since equal- ity therein failed to do so. Here again the same rule about the great Supreme will protect us, inasmuch as it settles ^ the entire condition of the Godhead. Now, challenging, and in a certain sense arresting ^ the meaning of our adversary, who does not denj'- that the Creator is God, I most fairly object^ against him that he has no room for any diversity in his gods, because, having once confessed that they are on a par, 5 he cannot now pronounce them dif- ferent; not indeed that human beings may not be very different under the same designa- tion, be because the Divine Being can be neither said nor believed to be God, except as the great Supreme. Since, therefore, he is