Opening the library…

Search the Bible

Against Praxeas

Tertullian

Chapter 3

About this work

A polemical Latin treatise opposing a modalist account of God and articulating distinctions among Father, Son, and Spirit while insisting on divine unity and the reality of Christ’s incarnation.

Author: Tertullian
Date: Early 3rd century
Origin: Carthage, North Africa
Genre: Theological Treatise

Chapter III.—Sundry Popular Fears and Prejudices. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity Rescued from These Misapprehensions.

The simple, indeed, (I will not call

‹ Chapter 2 Chapter 4 ›

them

unwise

and

unlearned

,

)

who

always

constitute

the

majority

of

believers

,

are

startled

at

the

dispensation

(

of

the

Three

in

One

)

,

on

the

ground

that

their

very

rule

of

faith

withdraws

them

from

the

world’s

plurality

of

gods

to

the

one

only

true

God

;

not

understanding

that

,

although

He

is

the

one

only

God

,

He

must

yet

be

believed

in

with

His

own

οἰκονομία

.

The

numerical

order

and

distribution

of

the

Trinity

they

assume

to

be

a

division

of

the

Unity

;

whereas

the

Unity

which

derives

the

Trinity

out

of

its

own

self

is

so

far

from

being

destroyed

,

that

it

is

actually

supported

by

it

.

They

are

constantly

throwing

out

against

us

that

we

are

preachers

of

two

gods

and

three

gods

,

while

they

take

to

themselves

pre

-

eminently

the

credit

of

being

worshippers

of

the

One

God

;

just

as

if

the

Unity

itself

with

irrational

deductions

did

not

produce

heresy

,

and

the

Trinity

rationally

considered

constitute

the

truth

.

We

,

say

they

,

maintain

the

Monarchy

(

or

,

sole

government

of

God

)

.

And

so

,

as

far

as

the

sound

goes

,

do

even

Latins

(

and

ignorant

ones

too

)

pronounce

the

word

in

such

a

way

that

you

would

suppose

their

understanding

of

the

μοναρχία

(

or

Monarchy

)

was

as

complete

as

their

pronunciation

of

the

term

.

Well

,

then

Latins

take

pains

to

pronounce

the

μοναρχία

(

or

Monarchy

)

,

while

Greeks

actually

refuse

to

understand

the

οἰκονομία

,

or

Dispensation

(

of

the

Three

in

One

)

.

As

for

myself

,

however

,

if

I

have

gleaned

any

knowledge

of

either

language

,

I

am

sure

that

μοναρχία

(

or

Monarchy

)

has

no

other

meaning

than

single

and

individual

rule

;

but

for

all

that

,

this

monarchy

does

not

,

because

it

is

the

government

of

one

,

preclude

him

whose

government

it

is

,

either

from

having

a

son

,

or

from

having

made

himself

actually

a

son

to

himself

,

or

from

ministering

his

own

monarchy

by

whatever

agents

he

will

.

Nay

more

,

I

contend

that

no

dominion

so

belongs

to

one

only

,

as

his

own

,

or

is

in

such

a

sense

singular

,

or

is

in

such

a

sense

a

monarchy

,

as

not

also

to

be

administered

through

other

persons

most

closely

connected

with

it

,

and

whom

it

has

itself

provided

as

officials

to

itself

.

If

,

moreover

,

there

be

a

son

belonging

to

him

whose

monarchy

it

is

,

it

does

not

forthwith

become

divided

and

cease

to

be

a

monarchy

,

if

the

son

also

be

taken

as

a

sharer

in

it

;

but

it

is

as

to

its

origin

equally

his

,

by

whom

it

is

communicated

to

the

son

;

and

being

his

,

it

is

quite

as

much

a

monarchy

(

or

sole

empire

)

,

since

it

is

held

together

by

two

who

are

so

inseparable

.

Therefore

,

inasmuch

as

the

Divine

Monarchy

also

is

administered

by

so

many

legions

and

hosts

of

angels

,

according

as

it

is

written

,

“

Thousand

thousands

ministered

unto

Him

,

and

ten

thousand

times

ten

thousand

stood

before

Him

;

”

and

since

it

has

not

from

this

circumstance

ceased

to

be

the

rule

of

one

(

so

as

no

longer

to

be

a

monarchy

)

,

because

it

is

administered

by

so

many

thousands

of

powers

;

how

comes

it

to

pass

that

God

should

be

thought

to

suffer

division

and

severance

in

the

Son

and

in

the

Holy

Ghost

,

who

have

the

second

and

the

third

places

assigned

to

them

,

and

who

are

so

closely

joined

with

the

Father

in

His

substance

,

when

He

suffers

no

such

(

division

and

severance

)

in

the

multitude

of

so

many

angels

?

Do

you

really

suppose

that

Those

,

who

are

naturally

members

of

the

Father’s

own

substance

,

pledges

of

His

love

,

instruments

of

His

might

,

nay

,

His

power

itself

and

the

entire

system

of

His

monarchy

,

are

the

overthrow

and

destruction

thereof

?

You

are

not

right

in

so

thinking

.

I

prefer

your

exercising

yourself

on

the

meaning

of

the

thing

rather

than

on

the

sound

of

the

word

.

Now

you

must

understand

the

overthrow

of

a

monarchy

to

be

this

,

when

another

dominion

,

which

has

a

framework

and

a

state

peculiar

to

itself

(

and

is

therefore

a

rival

)

,

is

brought

in

over

and

above

it

:

when

,

e

.

g

.

,

some

other

god

is

introduced

in

opposition

to

the

Creator

,

as

in

the

opinions

of

Marcion

;

or

when

many

gods

are

introduced

,

according

to

your

Valentinuses

and

your

Prodicuses

.

Then

it

amounts

to

an

overthrow

of

the

Monarchy

,

since

it

involves

the

destruction

of

the

Creator

.

Notes

1
οἰκονυμία.
2
So Bp. Kaye, On Tertullian, p. 499.
3
Unicum.
4
This was a notion of Praxeas. See ch. x.
5
Tam unicis.
6
Dan. vii. 10.
7
“Pignora” is often used of children and dearest relations.
8
[The first sentence of this chapter is famous for a controversy between Priestly and Bp. Horsley, the latter having translated idiotæ by the word idiots. See Kaye, p. 498.]