Against Marcion 1.3
Summary: Tertullian argues that God by definition is the supreme great being, which can have no equal, so there can only be one God: “God, if he is not one, is not.”
Textual problem in this passage: the printed text is uncertain or disputed here. See the notes.
Latin text · CSEL 47:293–294
Principalis itaque et exinde tota congressio de numero, an duos deos liceat induci, si forte, poetica et pictoria licentia, et tertia iam, haeretica. sed ueritas Christiana destricte pronuntiauit: deus si non unus est, non est, quia dignius credimus non esse quodcumque non ita fuerit, ut esse debebit. deum autem ut scias unum esse debere, quaere quid sit deus, et non aliter inuenies. quantum humana condicio de deo definire potest, id definio, quod et omnium conscientia agnoscet: deum summum esse magnum in aeternitate constitutum, [innatum, infectum, sine initio, sine-fine] — hunc enim statum aeternitati t censendum, quae summum magnum deum efficiat, dum hoc est in deo ipsa — atque ita et cetera, ut sit deus summum magnum et forma et ratione et ui et potestate. cum de isto conuenit apud omnes, — nemo enim negabit deum summum magnum quid esse, nisi qui potuerit deum imum modicum quid e contrario pronuntiare, ut deum neget auferendo quod dei est - quae erit iam condicio ipsius summi magni? nempe, ut nihil illi adaequetur, id est, ut non sit aliud summum magnum, quia, si fuerit, adaequabitur, et si adaequabitur, non erit iam summum magnum, euersa condicione et, ut ita dixerim, lege, quae summo magno nihil sinit adaequari. ergo unicum sit necesse est summum magnum, — quod fuerit par non habendo — ne non sit summum magnum. ergo non aliter erit quam per quod habet esse, id est unicum omnino. proinde deus cum summum magnum sit, recte ueritas nostra pronuntiauit: deus, si non unus est, non est, non quasi dubitemus esse deum dicendo: si non unus, non est, sed quia quem confidimus esse, id eum definiamus esse, quod si non est, deus non est. [et summum scilicet magnum] porro (si) summum magnum unicum sit necesse est, ergo et deus unicus erit, non aliter deus, nisi summum magnum, nec aliter summum magnum, nisi parem non habens, nec aliter parem non habens, nisi unicus fuerit. certe quemcumque alium deum induxeris, non alia poteris eum forma tueri deum quam ut et illi proprium diuinitatis adscripseris, sicut aeternum ita et summum magnum. duo ergo summa magna quomodo consistent, cum hoc sit summum magnum, par non habere, par autem non habere uni competat, in duobus esse nullo modo possit?
English · Claude translation
The principal contest, then, and hence the whole of it, concerns number: whether it is permissible to bring in two gods — by poetic and pictorial licence, if it comes to that, and now by a third kind, the heretical. But Christian truth has declared strictly: “God, if he is not one, is not,” because we more worthily believe that whatever is not as it ought to be does not exist. And so that you may know that God must be one, ask what God is, and you will find it no other way. As far as the human condition can define anything about God, I define what the conscience of all will also acknowledge: that God is the supreme great, established in eternity — for this state must be ascribed to eternity, which makes God the supreme great, since this is what eternity is in God — and so with the rest, so that God is the supreme great in form, in reason, in might, and in power. Since all agree on this — for no one will deny that God is something supremely great, except one who could declare, on the contrary, that God is something lowest and small, so as to deny God by taking away what is God's — what will then be the condition of the supreme great itself? Surely that nothing be equal to it, that is, that there be no other supreme great; because if there were, it would be equalled, and if it were equalled it would no longer be the supreme great, the condition and, so to speak, the law being overturned which allows nothing to be equal to the supreme great. Therefore the supreme great must be unique — which it will be by having no equal — or it will not be the supreme great. So it will exist in no other way than through that by which it has being, that is, by being altogether unique. Accordingly, since God is the supreme great, our truth has rightly declared: “God, if he is not one, is not” — not as though we doubted that God exists when we say “if not one, he is not,” but because we define the one whom we confidently hold to exist as being that which, if he is not, he is not God. Further, if the supreme great must be unique, then God will also be unique: not God except as the supreme great, not the supreme great except as having no equal, and not having no equal except by being unique. Certainly, whatever other god you introduce, you will not be able to maintain him as God in any other form than by ascribing to him too what is proper to divinity, both eternity and supreme greatness. How then will two supreme greats stand together, when this is what the supreme great is — to have no equal — and to have no equal belongs to one alone and can in no way exist in two?
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- “Summum magnum” (the supreme great) is Tertullian's technical term throughout Book 1. The editor deletes, as spurious, “innatum, infectum, sine initio, sine fine” (“unborn, unmade, without beginning, without end”) and “et summum scilicet magnum” (“namely the supreme great”); they are left out of the translation. The “t” before “censendum” (“aeternitati t censendum”) is probably the editor's crux mark (†) misread; the sense is clear.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (Stray period in the digital text.): si non. unus → si non unus.
Cite this passage
Tertullian, Marc. 1.3 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-marcionem/1/3/).
Plain text
Tertullian, Marc. 1.3 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-marcionem/1/3/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text