and a Son makes a Father;* 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 them- selves, that tlie 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 in- stance, 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 to- gether in one under pretence of the Monarchy, he causes neither to be held and acknowledged, so that He is not the Father, since in- deed 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 Fathef nor the Son. Well, but "with God nothing is impossible." 9 True enough; who can be 8 As correlatives, one implying the existence of the other.
CHAR XI.]
AGAINST TRAXEAS.
boignorant of it? Wlio also can be unaware that "the things whicli are impossible with men are possible with God?"' "The foolish things also of the world hath God chosen to confound the things which are wise."'' 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 a.gainst nature was no difficulty with God; nor was it for a virgin to conceive. Of course nothing is "too hard for the Lord." 3 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 \s 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 ex- tinguished 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.'* In one sense there will be something difffcult even for God — namely, jthat 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 washed 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.
CHAP. XI. THE IDENTITY OF THE FATHER AND THE SON, AS PRAXEAS HELD IT, SHOWN TO BE FULL OF PERPLEXITY AND ABSURDITY. MANY SCRIPTURES QUOTED IN PROOF OF THE DIS- TINCTION OF THE DIVINE PERSONS OF THE TRINITY.
It will be your duty, however, to adduce your proofs out of the Scriptures as plainly as we do, when we prove that He made His Word ' Luke xviii. 27. 3 Gen. xviii. 14.
4 An ironical reference to a great paradox in the Praxean her- esy.
a Son to Himself. For if He calls Him Son, and if the Son is none other than He who has proceeded from the Father Himself, and if the Word has proceeded from tlie Father Him- self, He will then be the Son, and not Himself from whom He proceeded. For the Father Himself did not proceed from Himself. *Now, you who say that the Father is the same as the Son, do really make the same Person both to have sent forth from Himself (and at the same time to have gone out from Himself as) that Being which is God. If it was possible for Him to have done this, He at all events did not do it. You must bring forth the proof which I require of you — one like my own; that is, (you must prove to me) that the Scrip- tures show the Son and the Father to be the same, just as on our side the Father and the Son are demonstrated to be distinct; I say dis- tinct, but not separate:^ for as on my part I produce the words of God Himself, " My heart hath emitted my most excellent Word,"" so you in like manner ought to adduce in op- position to me some text where (iod has said, " My heart hath emitted Myself as my owr> most excellent Word, " in such a sense that He is Himself both the Emitter and the Emitted, both He who sent fortli and He who was sent forth, since He is both the Word and God. I bid you also observe,' that on my side I advance the passage where the Father said to the Son, " Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten Thee."^ If you want me to believe Him to be both the Father and tiie Son, show me some other passage where it is declared, " The Lord said unto Himself, I am my own Son, to-day have I begotten myself; " or again, " Before the morning did I beget myself; "5 and likewise, "I the Lord pos- sessed Myself the beginning of my ways for my own works; before all the hills, too, did I beget myself; " '° and whatever other passages are to the same effect. Why, moreover, could God the Lord of all things, have hesitated to speak thus of Himself, if the fact had been so? Was He afraid of not being believed, if He had in so many words declared Himself to be both the Father and the Son? Of one thing He was at any rate afraid — of lying. Of Himself, too, and of His own truth, was He afraid. Believing Him, therefore, to be the true God, I am sure that He declared nothing to exist in any other way than according to His own dis- pensation and arrangement, and that He had arranged nothing in any other way than ac- 5 Distincte, non divise.
* For this version of Ps. xlv. i, see our Anti-Marcion, p. 66, note 5, Edin. 7 Ecce.
9 In alhision to Ps. ex. 3 (Sept.) '" in allusion to Prov. viii. 2a.
AGAINST PRAXEAS.
[CHAl'. Xll.
•cording to His own declaration. On your side, however, you must make Him out to be a liar, and an impostor, and a tamperer with His word, if, when He was Himself a Son to Him- self, He assigned the part of His Son to be played by another, when all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in, (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed fur- nish us with our Rule of faith, that He who speaks, and He of whom He speaks, and to whom He speaks, cannot possibly seem to be One and the Same. So absurd and misleadins: a statement would be unworthy of God, that, when it was Himself to whom He was speak- ing. He speaks rather to another, and not to His very self. Hear, then, other utterances also of the Father concerning the Son by the mouth of Isaiah: " Behold my Son, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom I am well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon Him, and He shall bring forth judgment to the Gen- tiles. " ' Hear also what He says to the Son: "Is it a great thing for Thee, that Thou shouldest be called my Son to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the dispersed of Israel? I have given Thee for a light to the Gentiles, that Thou mayest be their sal- vation to the end of the earth. " - Hear now also the Son's utterances respecting the Father: *' The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the gospel unto men." 3 He speaks of Himself likewise to the Father in the Psalm: " Forsake me not, until I have declared the might of Thine arm to all the generation that is to come. "" Also to the same purport in another Psalm: "O Lord, how are they increased that trouble me! " 5 But almost all the Psalms which prophesy of ^ the person of Christ, represent the Son as conversing with the Father — that is, represent Christ (as speaking) to God. Ob- serve also the Spirit speaking of the Father and the Son, in the character of^ a third Person: "The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. " * Likewise in the words of Isaiah: "Thus saith the Lord to the Lord' mine Anointed."'" Likewise, in the same prophet, He says to the Father re- specting the Son: " Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the 1,(>rd revealed? We brought a report concerning Him, as if He were a little child, as ' Isa. xlii. I.
3 Isa. Ixi. I and Luke iv. i8.
* Sustinent.
9 Tertullian read Kvpi'u instead of Kvpy, " Cyrus."
if He were a root in a dry ground, who had no form nor comeliness."" These are a few testimonies out of many; for we do not pre- tend to bring up all the passages of Scripture, because we have a tolerably large accumula- tion of them in the various heads of our sub- ject, as we in our several chapters call them in as our witnesses in the fulness of their dignity and authority." Still, in these few quotations the distinction of Persons iti the Trinity is clearly set forth. For there is the Spirit Himself who speaks, and the Father to whom He speaks, and the Son of whom He speaks. '3 In the same manner, the other passages also establish each one of several Persons in His special character — addressed as they in some cases are to the Father or to the Son respecting the Son, in other cases to the Son or to the Father concerning the Father, and again in other instances to the (Holy) Spirit.
CHAP. XII. OTHER QUOTATIONS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE ADDUCED IN PROOF OF THE PLU- RALITY OF PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD.
If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singu- lar, to speak in plural phrase, saying, " Let us make man in our own image, and after our own likeness;"'* whereas He ought to have said, " Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness," as being a unique and singular Being? In the following pas- sage, however, "Behold the man is become as one of us," '^ He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the pas- sage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that H^ spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was be- cause He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase " Let us make;" and, " in our image; " and. " become as one of us.'' For with whom did He make man? and to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on '= [See Elucidation III., and also cap. xxv. in/>a.'\ '-3\Sec /)f Ba^iisino, ca.p. v. p. 344, Ed. Oehler, and note liow often our author cites an important text, /y half guotation, leav- ing the residue to the reader's memory, owing to the impetuosity of his genius and his.style: " Monte decurrens velut amnis, imbre* quem super notas aluere ripas fervet, etc. "J CHAP. XIII.]
AGAINST PRAXEAS.
the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and the Spirit on the other, who was to sanctify man. With these did He then speak, in the Unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses In the fol- lowing text also He distinguishes among the Persons: " So God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him."' Why say "image of God?" Why not " His own image" merely, if He was only one who was the Maker, and if there was not also One in whose image He made man? But there was One in whose image God was mak- ing man, that is to say, Christ's image, who, being one day about to become Man (more surely and more truly so), had already caused the man to be called His image, who was then going to be formed of clay — the image and similitude of the true and perfect Man. But in respect of the previous works of the world what says the Scripture? Its fii'st statement indeed is made, when the Son has not yet ap- peared: " And God said. Let there be light, and there was light."- Immediately there appears the Word, " that true light, which lighteth man on his coming into the world," ^ and through Him also came light upon the world.'* From that moment God willed crea- tion to be effected in the Word, Christ being present and ministering unto Him: and so God created. And God said, " Let there be a firmament,...and God made the firma- ment; "^ and God also said, "Let there be lights (in the firmament); and so God made a greater and a lesser light." * But all the rest of the created things did He in like manner make, who made the former ones — I mean the Word of God, " through whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made." "> Now if He too is God, according to John, (who says,) "The Word was God,"' then you have two Beings — One that commands that the thing be made, and the Other that executes the order and creates. In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another, I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance — in tne way of distinction, not of division.' But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons), yet I am l>ound to acknowledge, from the necessity of the case, that He who issues a command is different from Him who 3 John i. Q.
4 Mundialis lux.
''John i. I.
«[ Kaye thinks the Athanasian hymn (so called) was composed by some one who had this treatise always in mind. See p. 526.]
executes it. For, indeed. He would not be issuing a command if He were all the while doing the work Himself, while ordering it to be done by the second.'*' But still He did issue the command, although He would not have intended to command Himself if He were only one; or else He must have worked without any command, because He would not have waited to command Himself.
CHAP. XIII. THE FORCE OF SUNDRY PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE ILLUSTRATED IN RELATION TO THE PLURALITY OF PERSONS AND UNITY OF SUBSTANCE. THERE IS NO POLYTHEISM HERE, SINCE THE UNITY IS INSISTED ON AS A REM- EDY AGAINST POLYTHEISM.
Well then, you reply, if He was God who spoke, and He was also God who created, at this rate, one God spoke and another created; (and thus) two Gods are declared. If you are so venturesome and harsh, reflect a while; and that you may think the better and more deliberately, listen to the psalm in which Two are described as God: " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy king- dom t's a sceptre of righteousness. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: there- fore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee or 7nade Thee His Christ." " Now, since He here speaks to God, and affirms that God is anointed by God, He must have affirmed that Two are God, by reason of the sceptre's royal power. Accordingly, Isaiah also says to the Person of Christ: "The Sabaeans, men of stature, shall pass over to Thee; and they shall follow after Thee, bound in fetters; and they shall worship Thee, because God is in Thee: for Thou art our God, yet we knew it not; Thou art the God of Israel." " For here too, by saying, "God is in Thee, and " Thou art God," he sets forth Two who were God: (in the former expression in Thee, he means) in Christ, and (in the other he means) the Holy Ghost. That is a still grander statement which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: "In the begin- ning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."'^ There was One " who was," and there was another " with whom" He was. But I find in Scripture the name Lord also applied to them Both: " The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand."''* And Isaiah says this: "Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm' of the Lord revealed? " '^ Now he would 10 Per eum.
13 Isa. liii. I.
A( IAIN ST PRAXEAS.
[chap xiii.
most certainly have said Tiiinc Artii^ if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony we have also in Gene- sis: " Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven."' Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple decla- rations? If, indeed, you follow those who did not at the time endure the Lord when showing Himself to be the Son of God, because they would not believe Him to be the Lord, then (I ask you) call to mind along with them the passage where it is wTitten, " I have said, Ye are gods, and ye are children of the Most Highj''^" and again, "God standeth in the congregation of gods;"^ in order that, if the Scripture has not been afraid to designate as gods human beings, who have become sons of God by faith, you may be sure that the same Scripture has with greater propriety conferred the name of the Lord on the true and one-only Son of God. Very well! you say, I shall challenge you to preach from this day forth (and that, too, on the authority of these same Scriptures) two Gods and two Lords, consist- entl)' with your views. God forbid, (is my reply.) For we, who by the grace of God possess an insight into both the times and the occasions of the Sacred Writings, especially we who are followers of the Paraclete, not of human teachers, do indeed definitively declare vthat T7V0 Beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three, according to the principle of the ' 'iivine economy, which introduces number, in order that the Father may not, as you per- versely infer, be Himself believed to have been born and to have suffered, which it is not law- ful to believe, forasmuch as it has not been so handed down. That there are, however, N two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God; but because in earlier times Two were actually spoken of as God, and two as Lord, that when Christ should come He might be both acknowledged as God and designated as Lord, being the Son of Him who is both God and Lord. Now, if there were found in the Scriptures but one Person- »Ps. Ixxxii. 6.
ality of Him who is God and Lord, Christ would justly enough be inadmissible to the title of God and Lord: for (in the Scriptures) there was declared to be none other than One God and One Lord, and it must have followed that the Father should Himself seem to have come down (to earth), inasmuch as only One God and One Lord was ever read of (in the Scriptures), and His entire Economy would be involved in obscurity, which has been planned and arranged with so clear a foresight /« His providential dispensatioti as matter for our faith. As soon, however, as Christ came, and was recognised by us as the very Being who liad from the beginning* caused plurality- (in the Divine Economy), being the second from the Father, and with the Spirit the third, and Himself declaring and manifesting the Father more fully (than He had ever been before), the title of Him who is God and Lord was at once restored to the Unity (of the Divine Nature), even because the Gentiles would have to pass from the multitude of their idols to the One Only God, in order that a difference might be distinctly settled between the wor- shippers of One God and the votaries of poly- theism. For it was only right that Christians should shine in the world as "children of light," adoring and invoking Him who is the One God and Lord as "the light of the iworld." Besides, if, from that perfect knowl- edge * which assures us that the title of God and Lord is suitable both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, we were to invoke a plurality of gods and lords, we should quench our torches, and we should be- come less courageous to endure the martyr's sufferings, from which an easy escape wouh' everywhere lie open to us, as soon as we swore by a phirality of gods and lords, as sundry heretics do, who hold more gods than One. 1 will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be in- voked, I shall call the Father " God," and in- voke Jesus Christ as '"'' LordJ" "> But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him " God,'' as the same apostle says: " Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever."* For I should give the name of " suti " even to a sunbeam, considered I in itself; but if I were mentioning the sun ' from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I make not two suns, still I shall reckon both the sun and