Chapter III.—An Argument of Hermogenes. The Answer:  While God is a Title Eternally Applicable to the Divine Being, Lord and Father are Only Relative Appellations, Not Eternally Applicable. An Inconsistency in the Argument of Hermogenes Pointed Out.

He adds also another point: that as God was always God, there was never a time when God was not also Lord.  But23    Porro. it was in no way possible for Him to be regarded as always Lord, in the same manner as He had been always God, if there had not been always, in the previous eternity,24    Retro. a something of which He could be regarded as evermore the Lord. So he concludes25    Itaque. that God always had Matter co-existent with Himself as the Lord thereof. Now, this tissue26    Conjecturam. of his I shall at once hasten to pull abroad.  I have been willing to set it out in form to this length, for the information of those who are unacquainted with the subject, that they may know that his other arguments likewise need only be27    Tam…quam. understood to be refuted. We affirm, then, that the name of God always existed with Himself and in Himself—but not eternally so the Lord.  Because the condition of the one is not the same as that of the other. God is the designation of the substance itself, that is, of the Divinity; but Lord is (the name) not of substance, but of power. I maintain that the substance existed always with its own name, which is God; the title Lord was afterwards added, as the indication indeed28    Scilicet. of something accruing. For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God.  For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord.  But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.  Do I seem to you to be weaving arguments,29    Argumentari: in the sense of argutari. Hermogenes? How neatly does Scripture lend us its aid,30    Naviter nobis patrocinatur. when it applies the two titles to Him with a distinction, and reveals them each at its proper time! For (the title) God, indeed, which always belonged to Him, it names at the very first: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;”31    Gen. i. 1. and as long as He continued making, one after the other, those things of which He was to be the Lord, it merely mentions God.  “And God said,” “and God made,” “and God saw;”32    Gen. i. 3, etc. but nowhere do we yet find the Lord. But when He completed the whole creation, and especially man himself, who was destined to understand His sovereignty in a way of special propriety, He then is designated33    Cognominatur: as if by way of surname, Deus Dominus. Lord. Then also the Scripture added the name Lord: “And the Lord God, Deus Dominus, took the man, whom He had formed;”34    Gen. ii. 15. “And the Lord God commanded Adam.”35    Gen. ii. 16. Thenceforth He, who was previously God only, is the Lord, from the time of His having something of which He might be the Lord.  For to Himself He was always God, but to all things was He only then God, when He became also Lord. Therefore, in as far as (Hermogenes) shall suppose that Matter was eternal, on the ground that the Lord was eternal, in so far will it be evident that nothing existed, because it is plain that the Lord as such did not always exist. Now I mean also, on my own part,36    Et ego. to add a remark for the sake of ignorant persons, of whom Hermogenes is an extreme instance,37    Extrema linea. Rhenanus sees in this phrase a slur against Hermogenes, who was an artist.  Tertullian, I suppose, meant that Hermogenes was extremely ignorant. and actually to retort against him his own arguments.38    Experimenta. For when he denies that Matter was born or made, I find that, even on these terms, the title Lord is unsuitable to God in respect of Matter, because it must have been free,39    Libera: and so not a possible subject for the Lordship of God. when by not having a beginning it had not an author. The fact of its past existence it owed to no one, so that it could be a subject to no one.  Therefore ever since God exercised His power over it, by creating (all things) out of Matter, although it had all along experienced God as its Lord, yet Matter does, after all, demonstrate that God did not exist in the relation of Lord to it,40    Matter having, by the hypothesis, been independent of God, and so incapable of giving Him any title to Lordship. although all the while He was really so.41    Fuit hoc utique. In Hermogenes’ own opinion, which is thus shown to have been contradictory to itself, and so absurd.

CAPUT III.

Adjicit et aliud: Deum semper Deum etiam Dominum fuisse, nunquam non Deum. Nullo porro modo potuisse illum semper Dominum haberi, sicut et semper Deum, si non fuisset aliquid retro semper, cujus semper Dominus haberetur, fuisse itaque materiam semper Deo Domino. Hanc conjecturam ejus jam hinc destruere properabo, quam hactenus propter non intelligentes adjecisse duxi, ut sciant, caetera quoque argumenta tam intelligi quam revinci. Dei nomen dicimus semper fuisse apud semetipsum, et 0199C in semetipso, Dominum vero non semper: diversa enim utriusque conditio. Deus substantiae ipsius nomen, id est divinitatis; Dominus vero non substantiae, sed potestatis substantiam semper fuisse cum suo nomine, quod est Deus, postea Dominus, accedentis scilicet rei mentio . Nam ex quo esse coeperunt 0200A in quae potestas Domini ageret, ex illo per accessionem potestatis et factus et dictus est Dominus: quia et pater Deus est, et judex Deus est; non tamen ideo pater et judex semper, quia Deus semper. Nam nec pater potuit esse ante filium, nec judex ante delictum. Fuit autem tempus , cum et delictum et filius non fuit, quod judicem, et qui patrem Dominum faceret. Sic et Dominus non ante ea quorum Dominus existeret, sed Dominus tantum futurus quandoque, sicut Pater per Filium, sicut judex per delictum; ita et Dominus per ea, quae sibi servitura fecisset. Argumentari tibi videor, Hermogenes . Naviter Scriptura nobis patrocinatur, quae utrumque nomen ei distinxit, et suo tempore ostendit. Nam Deus quidem quod erat semper, statim nominat: 0200BIn principio fecit Deus coelum et terram. Ac deinceps quamdiu faciebat quorum dominus futurus erat, Deus solummodo ponit: Et dixit Deus, et fecit Deus, et vidit Deus, et nusquam adhuc Dominus. At ubi universa perfecit, ipsumque vel maxime hominem, qui proprie Dominum intellecturus erat, Dominus etiam cognominatur . Tunc etiam Dominus nomen adjunxit: Et accepit DeusDominus hominem quem finxit. Et praecipitDominus Deus. Ac exinde Dominus qui retro Deus tantum, ex quo habuit cujus esset. Nam Deus sibi erat; rebus autem tunc Deus, cum et Dominus. Igitur in quantum putabit ideo materiam semper fuisse, quia Dominus semper esset, in tantum constabit nihil fuisse, quia constat Dominum non semper fuisse. Adjiciam et ego propter non 0200C intelligentes, quorum Hermogenes extrema linea est, et quidem epinoemata illius retorquebo adversus illum. Cum enim neget materiam natam aut factam, sic quoque invenio Domini nomen Deo non competisse in materiam; quia libera fuerit necesse est, quae originem non habendo, non habuit auctorem, 0201A quod erat, nemini serviens . Itaque ex quo Deus potestatem suam exercuit in eam, faciendo ex materia, ex illo materiam Dominum Deum passa, demonstrat hoc illum tamdiu non fuisse, quamdiu fuit.