Against Praxeas 13
Summary: Scripture calls both Father and Son “God” and “Lord,” yet Christians do not speak of two gods: the one name was used in the Old Testament so that Christ might be recognized as God, and it is now kept as one, as sun and ray are one substance.
Textual problem in this passage: the printed text is uncertain or disputed here. See the notes.
Latin text · CSEL 47:246–250
Ergo, inquis, si deus dixit et deus fecit, si alius deus dixit et alius fecit, duo dii praedicantur. si tam durus es, puta interim tu; et ut adhuc amplius hoc putes, accipe et in psalmo duos deos dictos: thronus tuus, deus, in aeuum; ** uirga regni tui; dilexisti iustitiam et odisti iniquitatem: propterea unxit te, deus, deus tuus. si ad deum loquitur, et unctum deum a deo, adfirmat et hic duos deos. [pro uirga regni tui] inde et Esaias ad personam Christi: et Se bo in, inquit, uiri elati, ad te transibunt et post te sequentur uincti manibus et ad te adorabunt, quia in te deus est; tu enim es deus noster, et nesciebamus, deus Israhelis. et hic enim dicendo deus in te et (tu deus duos proponit: qui erat in Christo et [spiritum] ipsum. plus est, quod (et) in euangelio totidem inuenies: in principio erat sermo, et sermo erat apud deum, et deus erat sermo: unus, qui erat, et alius, penes quem erat. sed et nomen domini in duobus lego: dixit dominus domino meo: sede ad dexteram meam. et Esaias haec dicit: domine, quis credidit auditui nostro, et brachium domini cui reuelatum est? brachium enim tuum, non domini dixisset, si non dominum patrem et dominum filium intellegi uellet. etiam adhuc antiquior Genesis: et pluit dominus super Sodomam et Gomorram sulphur et ignem de caelo a domino. haec aut nega scripta, aut quis es, ut non putes accipienda quemadmodum scripta sunt, maxime quae non in allegoriis et parabolis, sed in definitionibus certis et simplicibus habent sensum? quodsi ex illis ea, qui tunc dominum non sustinebant dei se filium ostendentem, ne eum deum crederent, recordare tu cum illis scriptum esse: ego dixi: uos dii estis et filii altissimi, et: stetit deus in ecclesia deorum, ut, si homines, per fidem filios dei factos, deos scriptura pronuntiare non timuit, scias illam multo magis uero et unico dei filio id dei nomen iure contulisse, ergo, inquis, prouocabo te, ut hodie quoque ex auctoritate istarum scripturarum constanter duos deos et duos dominos praedices? absit. nos enim, qui et tempora et causas scripturarum per dei gratiam inspicimus, maxime paracleti, non hominum discipuli, duos quidem definimus, patrem et filium, et iam tres cum spiritu sancto, — secundum rationem oikonomiae, quae facit numerum, ne, ut uestra peruersitas infert, pater ipse credatur natus et passus, quod non licet credi, quoniam non ita traditum est — duos tamen deos et duos dominos numquam ex ore nostro proferimus, non quasi non et pater deus et filius deus et spiritus deus et dominus unusquisque, sed quoniam (ideo) retro et duo dii et duo domini praedicabantur, ut, ubi uenisset Christus, et deus agnosceretur et dominus uocaretur, quia filius dei et domini. si enim una persona et dei et domini in scripturis inueniretur, merito Christus non esset admissus ad nomen dei et ad domini, — nemo enim alius praeter unus deus et dominus praedicabatur — et futurum erat, ut ipse pater descendisse uideretur, quia unus deus et unus dominus legebatur, et tota oikonomia eius obumbraretur, quae in materiam fidei prospecta atque dispensata est. at ubi uenit Christus et cognitus est a nobis, quod ipse, qui numerum retro fecerat, factus secundus a patre et cum spiritu tertius, etiam pater, per ipsum plenius manifestatus, redactum est iam nomen dei et domini in unionem, ut, quia nationes a multitudine idolorum transirent ad unicum deum, et differentia constitueretur inter cultores unius et plurimae diuinitatis. nam et lucere in mundo Christianos oportebat ut filios lucis, lumen mundi unum et deum et dominum colentes et nominantes. ceterum si ex conscientia, qua scimus dei nomen et domini et patri et filio et spiritui conuenire, deos et dominos nominaremus, extinxissemus faces nostras, etiam ad martyria timidiores, quibus euadendi quaque pateret occasio, iurantibus statim per deos et dominos, ut quidam haeretici, quorum dei plures. itaque deos omnino non dicam nec dominos, sed apostolum sequar, ut, si pariter nominandi fuerint pater et filius. patrem deum appellem et Iesum Christum dominum nominem. solum autem Christum potero deum dicere; sicut idem apostolus: ex quibus Christus, qui est, inquit, deus super omnia, benedictus in aeuum omne. nam et radium solis seorsum solem uocabo; solem autem nominans, cuius est radius, non statim et radium solem appellabo. nam nec soles duos faciam. tamen et solem et radium eius tam duas res et duas species unius et indiuisae substantiae numerabo, quam deum et sermonem eius, quam patrem et filium.
English · Claude translation
“So,” you say, “if God spoke and God made, if one God spoke and another made, two gods are preached.” If you are so obstinate, think so for the moment; and that you may think so still more, hear two gods named in the psalm as well: “Your throne, O God, is forever; … the scepter of your kingdom; you have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you.” If he speaks to God, and affirms that God is anointed by God, here too he affirms two gods. So too Isaiah, to the person of Christ: “The Sabaeans, men of stature, will pass over to you and follow after you, bound in their hands, and will worship you, because God is in you; for you are our God, and we did not know it, the God of Israel.” For here too, by saying “God is in you” and “you are God,” he sets forth two: the one who was in Christ, and Christ himself. More still, you will find as many in the Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”: one who was, and another with whom he was. And I read the name of Lord too of two: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand.’” And Isaiah says this: “Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” For he would have said “your arm,” not “the arm of the Lord,” if he had not wanted the Lord the Father and the Lord the Son to be understood. Even more ancient, Genesis: “And the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from heaven from the Lord.” Either deny that these things are written, or who are you, that you should think they are not to be taken as they are written, especially those that have their sense not in allegories and parables but in definite and simple statements? But if you side with those who at that time did not bear with the Lord when he showed himself to be the Son of God, so that they might not believe him to be God, remember with them that it is written, “I said, ‘You are gods and sons of the Most High,’” and, “God stood in the assembly of gods”; so that, if Scripture did not fear to call gods men made sons of God through faith, you may know that it has much more rightly conferred the name of God on the true and only Son of God. “So,” you say, “I will challenge you to preach today too, consistently, on the authority of these Scriptures, two gods and two lords.” God forbid. For we, who by the grace of God examine both the times and the occasions of the Scriptures, above all as disciples of the Paraclete, not of men, do indeed define two, the Father and the Son, and now three with the Holy Spirit, according to the principle of the economy, which makes number (lest, as your perversity alleges, the Father himself should be believed to have been born and to have suffered, which it is not permitted to believe, since it has not been so handed down); yet we never utter from our mouth “two gods” and “two lords”: not as if the Father were not God, and the Son God, and the Spirit God, and each one Lord; but because in former times two gods and two lords were preached for this reason, that when Christ came he might both be recognized as God and called Lord, since he is the Son of God and Lord. For if a single person of God and Lord were found in the Scriptures, Christ would rightly not have been admitted to the name of God and of Lord (for no other was preached besides one God and Lord), and it would have come about that the Father himself seemed to have come down, since one God and one Lord was read, and his whole economy would have been obscured, which was foreseen and dispensed as the substance of faith. But when Christ came and was recognized by us as the very one who had formerly made the number, having become second to the Father and, with the Spirit, third, and when the Father too was more fully made known through him, the name of God and Lord was brought back into unity, so that, since the nations were passing over from the multitude of idols to the one only God, a difference might also be established between the worshipers of one Godhead and of many. For Christians had to shine in the world as sons of light, worshiping and naming one who is both God and Lord, the light of the world. Otherwise, if, from the knowledge by which we know that the name of God and Lord belongs to the Father and the Son and the Spirit, we called them gods and lords, we would have put out our torches, and become more timid even toward martyrdom, having every opportunity of escape open to us, by swearing at once by gods and lords, as some heretics do, whose gods are many. So I will not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I will follow the apostle: if the Father and the Son are to be named together, I will call the Father God and name Jesus Christ Lord. But Christ, when named by himself, I shall be able to call God, as the same apostle says: “of whom is Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever.” For I will call a ray of the sun, taken by itself, the sun; but when I name the sun whose ray it is, I will not at once call the ray the sun too. For I will not make two suns. Yet I will count the sun and its ray as two things and two aspects of one undivided substance, just as I count God and his Word, the Father and the Son.
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- The quotations are Ps 45:6-7 (44:7-8 Vulg.), Isa 45:14-15 (in the Septuagint's form), John 1:1, Ps 110:1 (109:1 Vulg.), Isa 53:1, Gen 19:24, John 10:33-36, Ps 82:6 and 82:1 (81:6, 81:1 Vulg.), and Rom 9:5; the allusions include 1 Cor 8:6, John 12:36, and Matt 5:14. The name in Isa 45:14 appears garbled in the digital text (“Se bo in”) and is rendered “Sabaeans.” The asterisks in the digital text mark a gap in the quotation of Ps 45:6. The editor deletes “pro uirga regni tui” and “spiritum”; they are omitted. “Disciples of the Paraclete” reflects the New Prophecy. A garbled question mark in the digital text is restored.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (garbled punctuation in the digital text): praedices\\ absit → praedices? absit.
Cite this passage
Tertullian, Prax. 13 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-praxean/13/).
Plain text
Tertullian, Prax. 13 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-praxean/13/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text