Traduction
Masquer
Against Praxeas
Chapter VIII.--Though the Son or Word of God Emanates from the Father, He is Not, Like the Emanations of Valentinus, Separable from the Father. Nor is the Holy Ghost Separable from Either. Illustrations from Nature.
If any man from this shall think that I am introducing some probole--that is to say, some prolation 1 of one thing out of another, as Valentinus does when he sets forth Aeon from Aeon, one after another--then this is my first reply to you: Truth must not therefore refrain from the use of such a term, and its reality and meaning, because heresy also employs it. The fact is, heresy has rather taken it from Truth, in order to mould it into its own counterfeit. Was the Word of God put forth or not? Here take your stand with me, and flinch not. If He was put forth, then acknowledge that the true doctrine has a prolation; 2 and never mind heresy, when in any point it mimics the truth. The question now is, in what sense each side uses a given thing and the word which expresses it. Valentinus divides and separates his prolations from their Author, and places them at so great a distance from Him, that the Aeon does not know the Father: he longs, indeed, to know Him, but cannot; nay, he is almost swallowed up and dissolved into the rest of matter. 3 With us, however, the Son alone knows the Father, 4 and has Himself unfolded "the Father's bosom." 5 He has also heard and seen all things with the Father; and what He has been commanded by the Father, that also does He speak. 6 And it is not His own will, but the Father's, which He has accomplished, 7 which He had known most intimately, even from the beginning. "For what man knoweth the things which be in God, but the Spirit which is in Him?" 8 But the Word was formed by the Spirit, and (if I may so express myself) the Spirit is the body of the Word. The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, "I am in the Father;" 9 and is always with God, according to what is written, "And the Word was with God;" 10 and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since "I and the Father are one." 11 This will be the prolation, taught by the truth, 12 the guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from Him. For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. 13 For these are probolai, or emanations, of the substances from which they proceed. I should not hesitate, indeed, to call the tree the son or offspring of the root, and the river of the fountain, and the ray of the sun; because every original source is a parent, and everything which issues from the origin is an offspring. Much more is (this true of) the Word of God, who has actually received as His own peculiar designation the name of Son. But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. Following, therefore, the form of these analogies, I confess that I call God and His Word--the Father and His Son--two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms, but coherent ones. Everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds, without being on that account separated. Where, however, there is a second, there must be two; and where there is a third, there must be three. Now the Spirit indeed is third from God and the Son; just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root, or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain, or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun. Nothing, however, is alien from that original source whence it derives its own properties. In like manner the Trinity, flowing down from the Father through intertwined and connected steps, does not at all disturb the Monarchy, 14 whilst it at the same time guards the state of the Economy. 15
-
"The word probole properly means anything which proceeds or is sent forth from the substance of another, as the fruit of a tree or the rays of the sun. In Latin, it is translated by prolatio, emissio, or editio, or what we now express by the word development. In Tertullian's time, Valentinus had given the term a material signification. Tertullian, therefore, has to apologize for using it, when writing against Praxeas, the forerunner of the Sabellians" (Newman's Arians, ii. 4; reprint, p. 101). ↩
-
probole. ↩
-
See Adv. Valentin. cc. xiv. xv. ↩
-
Matt. xi. 27. ↩
-
John i. 18. ↩
-
John viii. 26. ↩
-
John vi. 38. ↩
-
1 Cor. ii. 11. ↩
-
John xiv. 11. ↩
-
John i. 1. ↩
-
John x. 30. ↩
-
Literally, the probole, "of the truth." ↩
-
[Compare cap. iv. supra.] ↩
-
Or oneness of the divine empire. ↩
-
Or dispensation of the divine tripersonality. See above ch. ii. ↩
Edition
Masquer
Adversus Praxean
CAP. 8.
[1] Hoc si qui putaverit me probolh_n aliquam introducere, id est prolationem rei alterius ex altera, quod facit Valentinus alium atque alium aeonem de aeone producens, primo quidem dicam tibi, non ideo non utitur et veritas vocabulo isto et re ac censu eius quia et haeresis utatur : immo haeresis potius ex veritate accepit quod ad mendacium suum strueret.
[2] prolatus est sermo dei an non? hic mecum gradum fige. si prolatus est, cognosce probolh_n veritatis, et viderit haeresis si quid de veritate imitata est. iam nunc quaeritur quis quomodo utatur aliqua re et vocabulo eius. Valentinus probola_j suas discernit et separat ab auctore, et ita longe ab eo ponit ut aeon patrem nesciat; denique desiderat nosse nec potest, immo et paene devoratur et dissolvitur in reliquam substantiam.
[3] apud nos autem solus filius patrem novit, et sinum patris ipse exposuit, et omnia apud patrem audivit et vidit, et quae mandatus est a patre ea et loquitur, nec suam sed patris perfecit voluntatem, quam de proximo immo de initio noverat.
[4] quis enim scit quae sint in deo nisi spiritus qui in ipso, est? sermo autem spiritu structus est, et ut ita dixerim sermonis corpus est spiritus. sermo ergo et in patre semper, sicut dicit, Ego in patre : et apud deum semper, sicut scriptum est, Et sermo erat apud deum: et nunquam separatus a patre aut alias a patre quia Ego et pater unum sumus.
[5] haec erit probolh_ veritatis, custos unitatis, qua prolatum dicimus filium a patre sed non separatum. protulit enim deus sermonem, quemadmodum etiam paracletus docet, sicut radix fruticem et fons fluvium et sol radium : nam et istae species probolhai\ sunt earum substantiarum ex quibus prodeunt. nec dubitaverim filium licere et radicis fruticem et fontis fluvium et solis radium, quia omnis origo parens est et omne quod ex origine profertur progenies est, multo magis sermo dei qui etiam proprie nomen filii accepit: nec frutex tamen a radice nec fluvius a fonte nec radius a sole discernitur, sicut nec a deo sermo.
[6] igitur secundum horum exemplorum formam profiteor me duos licere deum et sermonem eius, patrem et filium ipsius : nam et radix et frutex duae res sunt sed coniunctae, et fons et flumen duae species sunt sed indivisae, et sol et radius duce formae sunt sed cohaerentes.
[7] omne quod prodit ex aliquo secundum sit eius necesse est de quo prodit, nec ideo tamen est separatum. secundus autem ubi est, duo sunt, et tertius ubi est, tres sunt. tertius enim est spiritus a deo et filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus ex frutice et tertius a fonte rivus ex flamine et tertius a sole apex ex radio: nihil tamen a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates suas ducit. ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et monarchiae nihil obstrepit et oeconomiae statum protegit.