Edition ausblenden
Adversus Praxean

CAP. 10.

[1] Ita aut pater aut filius est, et neque dies eadem et nox neque pater idem et filius, ut sint ambo unus et utrumque alter, quod vanissimi isti monarchiani volunt. ipse se, inquiunt, filium sibi fecit.

[2] atquin pater filium facit et patrem filius: et qui ex alterutro fiunt a semetipsis sibi fieri nullo modo possunt, ut pater se sibi filium faciat et filius se sibi patrem praestet.

[3] quae instituit deus etiam ipse custodit. habeat necesse est pater filium ut pater sit, et filius patrem ut filius sit. aliud est autem habere, aliud esse: verbi gratia, ut maritus sim habeam oportet uxorem, non ipse mihi ero uxor. sic etiam ut pater sim filium habeo, non ipse mihi ero filius: et ut filius sim patrem habeo, non ipse mihi ero pater.

[4] ero enim me faciunt si habuero tunc ero, pater si filium habeam, filius ero si patrem. porro si ipse ero quid eorum, iam non habeo quod ipse ero, nec patrem quia ipse ero pater, nec filium quia ipse ero filius. in quantum autem alterum ex his habere me oportet, alterum esse, in tantum, si utrumque fuero, alterum non ero dum alterum non habeo. si enim ipse ero filius qui et pater, iam non habeo filium sed ipse sum filius. non habendo autem filium dum ipse sum filius, quomodo pater ero? habere enim filium debeo ut pater sim : non sum ergo filius, quia patrem non habeo qui facit filium.

[5] aeque si ipse sum pater qui et filius, iam non habeo patrem sed ipse sum pater. non habendo autem patrem dum ipse sum pater, quomodo filius ero? habere enim patrem debeo ut filius sim: non ergo ero pater, quia filium non habeo qui facit patrem.

[6] hoc erit totum ingenium diaboli, alterum ex altero excludere dum utrumque in unum sub monarchiae favore concludens neutrum haberi facit, ut et pater non sit qui scilicet filium non habet, et filius non sit qui aeque patrem non habet : dum enim pater est filius non erit. sic monarchiam tenent qui nec patrem nec filium continent.

[7] sed nihil deo difficile. quis hoc nesciat? et impossibilia apud saeculum possibilia apud deum quis ignoret? et Stulta mundi elegit deus, ut confundat sapientia. legimus omnia. ergo, inquiunt, difficile non fuit deo ipsum se et patrem et filium facere adversus traditam formam rebus humanis : nam et sterilem parere contra naturam difficile deo non fuit, sicut nec virginem.

[8] plane nihil deo difficile: sed si tam abrupte in praesumptionibus nostris hac sententia utamur, quidvis de deo confingere poterimus quasi fecerit, quia facere potuerit. non autem, quia omnia potest facere, ideoque credendum est illum fecisse etiam quod non fecerit, sed an fecerit requirendum. potuit, si voluisset, deus pennis hominem ad volandum instruxisse, quod et milvis praestitit : non tamen quia potuit statim et fecit. potuit et Praxean et omnes pariter haereticos statini extinxisse: non tamen quia potuit extinxit. oportebat enim et milvos esse et haereticos, oportebat et patrem crucifigi. hac ratione erit aliquid et difficile deo, id scilicet quodcunque non fecerit non quia non potuerit sed quia noluerit.

[9] dei enim posse velle est, et non posse nolle : quod autem voluit, et potuit et ostendit. ergo quia si voluit semetipsum sibi filium facere potuit, et quia si potuit fecit, font probabis illum et potuisse et voluisse si probaveris illum fecisse.

Übersetzung ausblenden
Against Praxeas

Chapter X.--The Very Names of Father and Son Prove the Personal Distinction of the Two. They Cannot Possibly Be Identical, Nor is Their Identity Necessary to Preserve the Divine Monarchy.

So it is either the Father or the Son, and the day is not the same as the night; nor is the Father the same as the Son, in such a way that Both of them should be One, and One or the Other should be Both,--an opinion which the most conceited "Monarchians" maintain. He Himself, they say, made Himself a Son to Himself. ¹ Now a Father makes a Son, and a Son makes a Father; ² and they who thus become reciprocally related out of each other to each other cannot in any way by themselves simply become so related to themselves, that the Father can make Himself a Son to Himself, and the Son render Himself a Father to Himself. And the relations which God establishes, them does He also guard. A father must needs have a son, in order to be a father; so likewise a son, to be a son, must have a father. It is, however, one thing to have, and another thing to be. For instance, in order to be a husband, I must have a wife; I can never myself be my own wife. In like manner, in order to be a father, I have a son, for I never can be a son to myself; and in order to be a son, I have a father, it being impossible for me ever to be my own father. And it is these relations which make me (what I am), when I come to possess them: I shall then be a father, when I have a son; and a son, when I have a father. Now, if I am to be to myself any one of these relations, I no longer have what I am myself to be: neither a father, because I am to be my own father; nor a son, because I shall be my own son. Moreover, inasmuch as I ought to have one of these relations in order to be the other; so, if I am to be both together, I shall fail to be one while I possess not the other. For if I must be myself my son, who am also a father, I now cease to have a son, since I am my own son. But by reason of not having a son, since I am my own son, how can I be a father? For I ought to have a son, in order to be a father. Therefore I am not a son, because I have not a father, who makes a son. In like manner, if I am myself my father, who am also a son, I no longer have a father, but am myself my father. By not having a father, however, since I am my own father, how can I be a son? For I ought to have a father, in order to be a son. I cannot therefore be a father, because I have not a son, who makes a father. Now all this must be the device of the devil--this excluding and severing one from the other--since by including both together in one under pretence of the Monarchy, he causes neither to be held and acknowledged, so that He is not the Father, since indeed He has not the Son; neither is He the Son, since in like manner He has not the Father: for while He is the Father, He will not be the Son. In this way they hold the Monarchy, but they hold neither the Father nor the Son. Well, but "with God nothing is impossible." ³ True enough; who can be ignorant of it? Who also can be unaware that "the things which are impossible with men are possible with God?" ⁴ "The foolish things also of the world hath God chosen to confound the things which are wise." ⁵ We have read it all. Therefore, they argue, it was not difficult for God to make Himself both a Father and a Son, contrary to the condition of things among men. For a barren woman to have a child against nature was no difficulty with God; nor was it for a virgin to conceive. Of course nothing is "too hard for the Lord." ⁶ But if we choose to apply this principle so extravagantly and harshly in our capricious imaginations, we may then make out God to have done anything we please, on the ground that it was not impossible for Him to do it. We must not, however, because He is able to do all things suppose that He has actually done what He has not done. But we must inquire whether He has really done it. God could, if He had liked, have furnished man with wings to fly with, just as He gave wings to kites. We must not, however, run to the conclusion that He did this because He was able to do it. He might also have extinguished Praxeas and all other heretics at once; it does not follow, however, that He did, simply because He was able. For it was necessary that there should be both kites and heretics; it was necessary also that the Father should be crucified. ⁷ In one sense there will be something difficult even for God--namely, that which He has not done--not because He could not, but because He would not, do it. For with God, to be willing is to be able, and to be unwilling is to be unable; all that He has willed, however, He has both been able to accomplish, and has displayed His ability. Since, therefore, if God had wished to make Himself a Son to Himself, He had it in His power to do so; and since, if He had it in His power, He effected His purpose, you will then make good your proof of His power and His will (to do even this) when you shall have proved to us that He actually did it.