Against Marcion 1.4
Summary: The analogy of many kings, each supreme in his own realm, fails: nothing can be compared with God, and even among kings supremacy finally belongs to only one.
Textual problem in this passage: the printed text is uncertain or disputed here. See the notes.
Latin text · CSEL 47:294–296
Sed argumentabitur quilibet posse et duo summa magna consistere, distincta atque disiuncta in suis finibus, et utique aduocabit exemplum regna terrarum, tanta numero et tamen summa magna in suis quibusque regionibus, et putabit ubique humana diuinis conferenda. iam ergo si huic argumentationi locus dabitur, quid prohibet, non dico et tertium et quartum deum inducere, uerum tot iam numero quot et gentium reges? de deo agitur, cuius hoc principaliter proprium est, nullius exempli capere comparationem. hoc natura ipsa, si non aliquis Esaias, uel ipse per Esaiam deus, contionabitur: cui me similabitis? diuinis forsitan comparabuntur humana, deo non ita. aliud enim deus, aliud quae dei. denique qui exemplo uteris regis quasi summi magni, uide ne iam non possis eo uti. rei enim, etsi summum magnum est in suo solio usque ad deum, tamen infra deum; comparatus autem ad deum excidet iam de summo magno, translato in deum. hoc si ita, quomodo uteris eius rei exemplo ad dei comparationem quae, dum ad comparationem accedit, amittitur? quid nunc, si nec inter reges plurifarium uideri potest summum magnum, sed unicum et singulare, apud eum scilicet, qui rex regum ob summitatem magnitudinis et subiectionem ceterorum graduum quasi culmen dominationis excipitur? sed etiam [alterius formae] reges, qui singulares in unione imperii praesunt si(militer) minutalibus, ut ita dixerim, regnis, (si) undique conferantur in examinationem, qua constet, quis eorum praecellat in substantiis et uiribus regni, in unum necesse est summitas magnitudinis eliquetur, omnibus gradatim per comparationis exitum de magnitudinis summa expressis et exclusis. adeo etsi in disperso multifarium uidetur summum magnum, suis uiribus et sua natura et suo statu unicum est. proinde cum duo dii conferuntur ut duo [reges et duo] summa magna, in alterum concedat necesse est unio summi magni ex sententia comparationis, quia summum uictoria sua constat, superato aemulo alio magno, non tamen summo, atque ex defectione, aemuli solitudinem quandam de singularitate praestantiae suae possidens unicum est. ineluctabilis iste complexus in hoc sententiam constringit: aut negandum deum esse summum magnum, quod nemo patietur sapiens, aut nulli alii communicandum.
English · Claude translation
But someone will argue that two supreme greats can indeed exist, distinct and separated within their own borders, and will doubtless cite the example of the kingdoms of the earth, so many in number and yet each supreme great in its own region; and he will think that human things may everywhere be compared with divine. Well, if room is given to this argument, what prevents the introduction — I do not say of a third and a fourth god — but of as many gods as there are kings of nations? It is God who is in question, and it is chiefly his property to admit comparison with no example. Nature itself will proclaim this, even if there were no Isaiah — or rather God himself through Isaiah: “To whom will you liken me?” Human things may perhaps be compared with divine things, but not so with God. For God is one thing, the things of God another. In short, you who use the example of a king as a supreme great, take care that you may no longer be able to use it. For a king, even though he is supreme great on his throne, next to God, is nevertheless below God; and when compared with God he will fall from being the supreme great, since that is transferred to God. If so, how do you use for comparison with God the example of a thing which is lost the moment it comes to comparison? And what if even among kings the supreme great cannot be seen in many places but is unique and singular — namely in him who, as king of kings, by the height of his greatness and the subjection of the other ranks, is held to be the summit of dominion? But even kings who preside singly, with undivided rule, over what I may call petty kingdoms — if they are brought together from every side for examination, to establish which of them excels in the resources and strength of his kingdom, the summit of greatness must necessarily be distilled into one, all the others being gradually squeezed out and excluded from the height of greatness by the outcome of the comparison. So then, although the supreme great seems to exist in many places while scattered, in its own strength, its own nature, and its own state it is unique. Accordingly, when two gods are compared as two supreme greats, the unity of the supreme great must yield to one of them by the verdict of the comparison; for the supreme consists in its victory, when another great one — not, however, supreme — has been overcome, and, possessing through the defeat of its rival a kind of solitude in the singularity of its pre-eminence, it is unique. This inescapable grip constrains the verdict to this: either it must be denied that God is the supreme great, which no wise man will allow, or that greatness must be shared with no other.
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- The quotation is Isa 40:18 (cf. 40:25; 46:5). The editor deletes “alterius formae” (“of another kind”) and “reges et duo” (“kings and two”) as spurious; they are left out of the translation.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (Stray letter (line marker) in the digital text.; Words run together in the digital text.): cui mesimilabitis → cui me similabitis; exclusis. I adeo → exclusis. adeo.
Cite this passage
Tertullian, Marc. 1.4 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-marcionem/1/4/).
Plain text
Tertullian, Marc. 1.4 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-marcionem/1/4/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text