find Two and One, therefore Both are One and the Same, both Father and Son. Now the Scripture is not in danger of requiring the aid of any one's argument, lest it should seem to be self-contradictory. It has a method of its own, both when it sets forth one only God, and also when it shows that there are Two, Father and Son; and i's consistent with itself. It is clear that the Son is mentioned by it. For, without any detriment to the Son,. it is quite possible for it to have rightly deter- mined that God is only One, to whom the Son belongs; since He who has a Son ceases not on that account to exist, — Himself being One only, that is, on His own account, whenever He is named without the Son. And He is named without the Son whensoever He is de- fined as the principle (of Deity)in the charac- ter of "its first Person," which had to be mentioned before the name of the Son; be- cause it is the Father who is acknowledged in the first place, and after the Father the Son is named. Therefore "there is one God," the Father, " and without Him there is none else."' And when He Himself makes this declaration. He denies not the Son, but says that there is no other God; and the Son is \ not different from the Father. Indeed, if you ' only look carefully at the contexts which foL low such statements as this, you will find that they nearly always have distinct reference to the makers of idols and the worshippers thereof, with a view to the multitude of false gods being expelled by the unity of the God- head, which nevertheless has a San; and inasmuch as this Son is undivided and insep- arable from the Father, so is He to be reckoned as being in the Father, even when He is not named. The fact is, if He had named Him expressly. He would have separ- ated Him, saying in so many words: " Beside me there is none else, except my Son." In short He would have made His Son actually another, after excepting Him from others. Suppose the sun to say, " I am the Sun, and there is none other besides me, except my ray," would you not have remarked how use- less was such a statement, as if the ray were not itself reckoned in the sun? He says, then, that there is no God besides Himself in re- spect of the idolatry both of the Gentiles as well as of Israel; nay, even on account of our heretics also, who fabricate idols with their words, just as the heathen do with their hands; that is to say, they make another God and another Christ. When, therefore, He attested His own unity, tlie Father look care of the Son's interests, that Christ should not be sup- ^See above ch. xiii. p. 607.
AGAINST PRAXEAS.
[chap. XIX.
posed to have come from another God, but from Him who had already said, " I am God, and there is none other beside me,"' who shows us that He is the only God, but in company with His Son, with whom " He stretcheth out the heavens alone." ' CHAP. XIX. — THE SON IN UNION WITH THE FATHER IN THE CREATION OF ALL THINGS. THIS UNION OF THE TWO IN CO-OPERATION IS NOT OPPOSED TO THE TRUE UNITY OF GOD. IT IS OPPOSED ONLY TO PRAXEAS' IDENTIFI- CATION THEORY.
But this very declaration of His they will hastily pervert into an argument of His single- ness. "I have," says He, "stretched out the heaven alone." Undoubtedly alone as regards all other powers; and He thus gives a premonitory evidence against the conjectures of the heretics, who maintain that the world was constructed by various angels and powers, who also make the Creator Himself to have been either an angel or some subordinate agent sent to form external things, such as the constituent parts of the world, but who was at the same time ignorant of the divine purpose. If, now, it is in this sense that He stretches out the heavens alone, how is it that these heretics assume their position so perversely, as to render inadmissible the singleness of that Wisdom which says, " When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him? "^ — even though the apostle asks, "Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor? " * meaning, of course, to except that wisdom which was present with Him. 5 In Him, at any rate, and with Him, did (Wisdom) construct the universe, He not being ignorant of what she was making. " Except Wisdom," however, is a phrase of the same sense exactly as " except the Son," who is Christ, "the Wisdom and Power of God,"^ according to the apostle, who only knows the mind of the Father. " For who knoweth the things that be in God, except the Spirit which is in Him?"' Not, observe, 7vithotit Him. There was therefore One who caused God to be not alone, except " alone " from all other gods. But (if we are to follow the heretics), the Gospel itself will have to be rejected, because it tells us that all things were made by God through the Word, without whom nothing was made. * And if I am not mistaken, there is also another passage in SProv. viii. 30.
which it is written: " By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by His Spirit. "^ Now this Word, the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, must be the very Son of God. So that, if (He did) all things by the Son, He must have stretched out the heavens by the Son, and so not have stretched them out alone, except in the sense in which He is " alone " (and apart) from all other gods. Accordingly He says, concern- ing the Son, immediately afterwards: "Who else is it that frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad, turning wise men backward, and making their knowledge foolish, and confirming the words '" of His Son?"" — as, for instance, when He said, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him." '^ By thus attaching the Son to Himself, He becomes His own interpreter in what sense He stretched out the heavens alone, meaning alotie with His Son. even as He is one with His Son. The utter- ance, therefore, will be in like manner the Son's, "I have stretched out the heavens alone," '3 because by the JVordwere the hea- vens established.'" Inasmuch, then, as the heaven was prepared when Wisdom was present in the Word, and since all things were made by the Word, it is quite correct to say that even the Son stretched out the heaven alone, because He alone ministered to the Father's work. It must also be He who says, " I am the First, and to all futurity I AM." 's The Word, no doubt, was before all things. " In the beginning was the Word;"'^ and in that beginning He was sent forth'' by the Father. The Father, however, has no be- ginning, as proceeding from none; nor can He be seen, since He was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have had order or rank. Therefore, if they have determined that the Father and the Son must be regarded as one and the same, for the ex- press purpose of vindicating the unity of God, that unity of His is preserved intact; for He is one, and yet He has a Son, who is equally with Himself comprehended in the same Scriptures. Since they are unwilling to allow that the Son is a distinct Persoti, second from the Father, lest, being thus second. He should cause two Gods to be spoken of, we have shown above '^ that Two are actuall}'^ described in Scripture as God and Lord. And to pre- 9 Ps. xxxiii. 6.
" On this reading, see our Anti-JHarcion, p. 207, note 9. Edia, '4 Ps. xxxiii. 6. '7 Prolatus.
CHAl', XXI.]
AGAINST PRAXEAS.
vent their being offended at this fact, we give a reason why they are not said to be two Gods and two Lords, but that they are two as Father and Son; and this not by severance of their substance, but from the dispensation wherein we declare the Son to be undivided and inseparable from the Father, — distinct in degree, not in state. And although, when named apart. He is called God, He does not thereby constitute two Gods, but one; and that from the very circumstance that He is entitled to be called God, from His union with the Father.
CHAP, XX. THE SCRIPTURES RELIED ON BY PRAXEAS TO SUPPORT HIS HERESY BUT FEW. THEY ARE MENTIONED BY TERTULLIAN.
But I must take some further pains to rebut their arguments, when they make selections from the Scriptures in support of their opin- ion, and refuse to consider the other points, which obviously maintain the rule of faith without any infraction of the unity of the Godhead, and with the full admission ' of the Monarchy. For as in the Old Testament Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than, ''I am God, and beside me there is no God;"=' so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the Lord's answer to Philip, " I and my Father are one;" 3 and, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me."-' They would have the entire revelation of both Tes- taments yield to these three passages, where- as the only proper course is to understand the few statements in the light of the many. But in their contention they only act on the prin- ciple of all heretics. For, inasmuch as only a few testimonies are to be found (making for them) in the general mass, they pertinaciously set off the few against the many, and assume the later against the earher. The rule, however, which has been from the beginning established for every case, gives its prescription against the later assiunptions, as indeed it also does against the fewer.
CHAP. XXI. IN THIS AND THE FOUR FOLLOWING CHAPTERS IT IS SHEWN, BY A MINUTE ANALY- SIS OF ST. John's gospel, that the father AND son ARE CONSTANTLY SPOKEN OF AS DIS- TINCT PERSONS.
Consider, therefore, how many passages present their prescriptive authority to you in this very Gospel before this inquiry of Philip, and previous to any discussion on your part.
* Sonitu.
<John xiv. 9, lo.
And first of all there comes at once to hand the preamble of John to his Gospel, whici\ shows us what He previously was who had to become flesh. " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing rnade.''^ Now, since these words may not be taken otherwise than as they are written, there is without doubt shown to be One who was from the be- ginning, and also One with whom He always was: one the Word of God, the other God (although the Word is also God, but God re- garded as the Son of God, not as the Father); One through whom were all things, Another by whom were all things. But in what sense we call Him Another we have already often described. In that we called Him Another, we must needs imply that He is not identical — not identical indeed, yet not as if separate; Other by dispensation, not by division. He, therefore, who became flesh was not the very same as He from whom the Word came. " Flis glory was beheld — the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father;"* not, (ob- serve,) as of the Father. He " declared " (what was in) "the bosom of the Father alone;" 7 the Father did not divulge the secrets of His own bosom. For this is preceded by another statement: " No man hath seen God at any time." ® Then, again, when He is designated by John (the Baptist) as "the Lamb of God,"' He is not described as Him- self the same with Him of whom He is the beloved Son. He is, no doubt, ever the Son of God, but yet not He Himself of whom He is the Son. This (divine relationship) Na- thanael at once recognised in Him,'" even as Peter did on another occasion: " Thou art the Son of God."" And He affirmed Himself that they were quite right in their convictions; for He answered Nathanael: " Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, therefore dost thou believe?"'^ And in the same manner He pronounced Peter to be "blessed," inas- much as " flesh and blood had not revealed it to him " — that he had perceived the Father — " but the Father which is in heaven." '^ By asserting all this. He determined the distinc- tion which is between the two Persons: that is, the.Son then on earth, whom Peter had confessed to be the Son of God; and tiie 7 I'nius siniim Patris. Another reading makes: (unus) declared," etc. See John i. 18.
8 John i. 18, first clause.
"He alone AGAINST PRAXEAS.
[chap. XXI.
Father in heaven, who had revealed to Peter the discovery which he had made, that Christ was the Son of God. When He entered the temple, He called it " His Father's house," ' speaking as the Son. In His address to Nico- demus He says: "So God loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."^ And again: " For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God."^ Moreover, when John (the Baptist) was asked what he happened to kfimv of Jesus, he said: "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."^ Whom, indeed, did He reveal to the woman of Samaria? Was it not "the Messias which is called Christ?" s And so He showed, of course, that He was not the Father, but the Son; and elsewhere He is ex- pressly called " the Christ, the Son of God," ^ ;md not the Father. He says, therefore, " My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish His work;"^ whilst to the Jews He remarks respecting the cure of the impo- tent man, " My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." ^ " My Father and I" — these are the Son's words. And it was on this very ac- count that " the Jews sought the more intently to kill Him, not only because He broke the Sabbath, but also because He said that God was His Father, thus making Himself equal with God. Then indeed did He answer and say unto them, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that He Him- self doeth; and He will also show Him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quick- eneth them, even so the Son also quickeneth whom He will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the 1 John ii. i6.
Father, who hath sent the Son. Verily, verily, I say unto you. He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life. Verily I say unto you, that the hour is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and when they have heard it, they shall live. For as the Father hath eternal life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have eternal life in Himself; and He hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man" 9 — that is, according to the flesh, even as He is also the Son of God through His Spirit.'" Afterwards He goes on to say: " But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish — those very works bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me. And the Father Himself, which hath sent me, hath also borne witness of me." " But He at once adds, "Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape;"" thus affirm- ing that in former times it was not the Father, but the Son, who used to be seen and heard. Then He says at last: "I am come in my Father's name, and ye have not received me." '3 It was therefore always the Son (of whom we read) under the designation of the Almighty and Most High God, and King, and Lord. To those also who inquired "what they should do to 7vork the works of God," ^* He answered, " This is the 7vork of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent." '^ He also declares Himself to be "the bread which the Father sent from heaven;"'^ and adds, that "all that the Father gave Him should come to Him, and that He Himself would not reject them,'' because He had come down from heaven not to do His own will, but the will of the Father; and that the will of the Father was that every one who saw the Son, and believed on Him, should obtain the life (everlasting,) and the x^'iwxxiiQXxon at the last day. No man indeed was able to come to Him, except the Father attracted him; whereas every one who had heard and learnt of the Father came to Him."'** He goes on then expressly to say, " Not that any man hath seen the Father;"'' thus showing us that it was through the Word of the Father that '" 1. e. His divine nature.
'7 The expression is in the neuter collective form in the originaL C1[AP.
XXII.]
AGAINST PRAXEAS.
(ji men were instructed and taiitjht. Then, when many departed from Him,' and He turned to the apostles with tl\e inquiry whether " they also would go away," - what was Simon Peter's answer? "To whom shall we go? Tliou hast the words of eternal life, and we believe that Thou art the Christ." ^ (Tell me now, did they believe) Him to be the Fc-vther, or the Christ of the Father?
CHAP. XXII. — SUNDRY PASSAGES OF ST. JOHN QUOTED, TO SHOW THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE FATHER AND THE SON. EVEN PRAXEAS' CLASSIC TEXT 1 AND MY FATHER ARE ONE SHOWN TO BE AGAINST HIM, Again, whose doctrine does He announce, at which all were astonished? * Was it His own or the Father's? So, when they were in doubt among themselves whether He were the Christ (not as being the Father, of course, but as the Son), He says to them "You are not ignorant whence I am; and I am not come of myself, but He that sent me is true, whom ye know not; but I know Him, because I am from Him." 5 He did not say. Because I myself am He; and, I have sent mine own self: but His words are, " He hath sent me." When, likewise, the Pharisees sent men to apprehend Him, He says: "Yet a little while am I with you, and (then) I go unto Him that sent me."* When, however. He declares that He is not alone, and uses these words, " but I and the Father that sent me,"^ does He not show that there are Two — Two, and yet inseparable? Indeed, this was the sum and substance of what He was teaching them, that they were inseparably Two; since, after citing the law when it affirms the truth of two men's testimony,^ He adds at once: "I am one who am bearing witness of myself; and the Father (is another,) who hath sent me, and beareth witness of me."' Now, if He were one — being at once both the Son and the Father — He certainly would not have quoted the sanction of the law, which requires not the testimony of one, but of two. Like- wise, when they asked Him where His Father was,'° He answered them, that they had known neither Himself nor the Father; and in this answer He plainly told them of Tivo^ whom they were ignorant of. Granted that "if they had known Him, they would have known the Father also," " this certainly does 4 See John vii. passim.
7 John viii. 16.
not imply that He was Himself both Father and Son; but that, by reason of the insepar- ability of the Two, it was impossible for one of them to be either acknowledged or un- known without the other. " He that sent me," says He, " is true; and I am telling the world those things which I have heard of Him."'= And the Scripture narrative goes on to explain in an exoteric manner, that " they understood not that He spake to them concerning the Father," '^ although they ought certainly to have known that the Father's words were tittered in the Son, be- cause they read in Jeremiah, " And the Lord said to me. Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth;"'* and again in Isaiah, "The Lord hath given to me the tongue of learning that I should understand when to speak a word in season." '5 In accordance with which, Christ Himself says: "Then shall ye know that I am He and that I am saying nothing of my own self; but that, as my Father hath taught me, so I speak, because He that sent me is with me."'* This also amounts to a proof that they were Two, (although) undi- vided. Likewise, when upbraiding the Jews in His discussion with them, because they wished to kill Him, He said, " I speak that which I have seen with my Father, and ye do that which ye have seen with your father;" '' " but now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of God;"'^ and again, "If God were your Father, ye would love me, for I proceeded forth and came from God " '» (still they are not hereby separated, although He declares that He proceeded forth from the Father Some persons indeed seize the opportunity afforded them in these words to propoioid their heresy of His separatioji; but His coming out from God is like the ray's procession from the sun, and the river's from the fountain, and the tree's from the seed); "I have not a devil, but I honour my Father;" =° again, " If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me, of whom ye say, that He is your God: yet ye have not known Him, but I know Him; and if I should say, I know Him not, I shall be a liar like unto you; but I know Him, and keep His saying."" But when He goes on to say, " Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my