Against Praxeas 18
Summary: When Scripture says there is only one God, it excludes idols and false gods, not the Son, who is included in the Father as the ray in the sun.
Textual problem in this passage: the printed text is uncertain or disputed here. See the notes.
Latin text · CSEL 47:259–261
Sed hanc societatem nominum paternorum in filio ne facile perspiciant, perturbat illos scriptura, si quando unicum deum statuit, quasi non eadem et deos et dominos duos proposuerit, ut supra ostendimus. ergo quia duos et unum),. inquiunt, (inuenimus, ideo ambo unus atque idem, et filius et pater. porro non periclitatur scriptura, ut illi de tua argumentatione succurras, ne sibi contraria uideatur. habet rationem et cum unicum deum statuit et cum duos patrem et filium ostendit, et sufficit sibi. filium nominari ab ea constat. saluo enim filio recte unicum deum potest determinasse, cuius est filius. non enim desinit esse qui habet filium ipse unicus, suo scilicet nomine, quotiens sine filio nominatur. sine filio autem nominatur, cum principaliter determinatur ut prima persona, quae ante filii nomen erat proponenda, quia pater ante cognoscitur et post patrem filius nominatur. igitur unus deus pater, et alius absque eo non est. quod ipse inferens non filium negat, sed alium deum. ceterum alius a patre filius non est. denique inspice sequentia huiusmodi pronuntiationum, et inuenies fere ad idolorum factitatores atque cultores definitionem earum pertinere, ut multitudinem falsorum deorum unio diuinitatis expellat, habens tamen filium. quanto indiuiduum et inseparatum a patre, tanto in patre reputandum, etsi non nominatum. atquin si nominasset illum, separasset, ita dicens: alius praeter me non est, nisi filius meus. alium enim etiam filium fecisset, quem de aliis excepisset. puta solem dicere: ego sol, et alius praeter me non est, nisi radius meus: nonne denotasses uanitatem, quasi non et radius in sole deputetur? itaque praeter semetipsum non esse alium deum, hoc propter idolatriam ** tam nationum quam Israhelis; etiam propter haereticos, qui, sicut nationes manibus ita et ipsi uerbis idola fabricantur, id est alium deum et alium Christum. igitur et cum se unum pronuntiabat, filio pater procurabat, ne ab alio deo Christus uenisse credatur. sed ab illo, qui praedixerat: ego deus et alius absque me non est, qui se unicum, sed cum filio, ostendit, cum quo caelum solus extendit.
English · Claude translation
But Scripture confuses them, so that they do not easily perceive this sharing of the Father's names in the Son, whenever it lays down that there is one only God; as if the same Scripture had not also put forward two gods and lords, as we showed above. “So,” they say, “since we find two and one, both are therefore one and the same, both Son and Father.” But Scripture is in no danger, so that you need to come to its rescue with your argument lest it seem to contradict itself. It has its reason both when it lays down one only God and when it shows two, Father and Son; and it is sufficient for itself. It is agreed that the Son is named by it. For without prejudice to the Son it can rightly have defined as one only God the one whose Son he is. For he who has a Son does not cease to be himself the only one, in his own name, that is, whenever he is named without the Son. And he is named without the Son when he is defined in the first place as the first person, who had to be set forth before the Son's name, since the Father is known first, and after the Father the Son is named. So there is “one God, the Father,” and “there is no other besides him.” In saying this he does not deny the Son, but another God; and the Son is not other than the Father. In fact, look at what follows declarations of this kind, and you will find that their definition generally concerns the makers and worshipers of idols, so that the oneness of the Godhead drives out the multitude of false gods, while still having the Son; who, as he is undivided and inseparate from the Father, is to be reckoned in the Father, even if not named. Indeed, if he had named him, he would have separated him, saying thus: “There is no other besides me, except my Son.” For he would have made even the Son another, by excepting him from the others. Suppose the sun said, “I am the sun, and there is no other besides me, except my ray”: would you not have noted the absurdity, as if the ray were not reckoned in the sun? So, that there is no other God besides himself is said because of idolatry … both of the nations and of Israel; also because of the heretics, who, as the nations make idols with their hands, so they themselves make them with words, that is, another God and another Christ. So even when he declared himself one, the Father was acting on behalf of the Son, so that Christ should not be believed to have come from another God, but from him who had said beforehand, “I am God, and there is no other besides me,” who shows himself to be the only one, but with the Son, with whom he “alone stretched out the heavens.”
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- The quotations are 1 Cor 8:6, Isa 45:5 (with 45:21, 46:9), and Isa 44:24. The asterisks in the digital text mark a gap, shown as “…”. The digital text's “factitatoros” is corrected.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (letter misread in the digital text): factitatoros → factitatores.
Cite this passage
Tertullian, Prax. 18 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-praxean/18/).
Plain text
Tertullian, Prax. 18 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-praxean/18/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text