In a recent volume defending the Catholic dogma of the Filioque, we read the following concerning Tertullian of Carthage:
There is some concern with Tertullian
because of his departure from the orthodox Christian faith later in life, as
well as some writings where he makes it appear as if he sees the Son and Spirit
as created, yet of the very same substance of God. (Erick Ybarra, The
Filioque: Revisiting the Doctrinal Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox [2022],
147)
The text referenced in the footnote to the above (ibid., 147 n. 165) is "Ad Hermogenes, 3.4." The text reads as follows:
He adds also another point: that
as God was always God, there was never a time when God was not also Lord. But 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, a something of which He could be
regarded as evermore the Lord. So he concludes that God always had Matter
co-existent with Himself as the Lord thereof. Now, this tissue 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 be 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
indeed 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, Hermogenes? How neatly does Scripture lend us its aid, 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;” 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;” 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 designated Lord. Then
also the Scripture added the name Lord: “And the Lord God, Deus Dominus, took
the man, whom He had formed;” “And the Lord God commanded Adam.” 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, to add a remark
for the sake of ignorant persons, of whom Hermogenes is an extreme instance,
and actually to retort against him his own arguments. 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, 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, although all the while He was
really so. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, 3 [ANF 3:478-79])
