7 Ex ipso.
8 Substantiva res.
9 Ipse Deus: i.e., God so wholly as to exclude by identity every other person.
CHAP. XXVII.]
AGAINST TRAXEAS.
avenged by the Fatlicr. He is also ignorant of the last day and hour, which is known to the Father only.' He awards the kingdom to His disciples, as He says it had been ap- pointed to Himself by the Father. = He has power to ask, if He will, legions of angels from the Father for His help.^ He exclaims that God had forsaken Him.-' He com- mends His spirit into the hands of the Father.^ After His resurrection He prom- ises in a pledge to His disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father;^ and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God.' And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of Their names.
CHAP. XXVII. THE DISTINCTION OF THE FATHER AND THE SON, THUS ESTABLISHED, HE NOW PROVES THE DISTINCTION OF THE TWO NAT- URES, WHICH WERE, WITHOUT CONFUSION, UNITED IN THE PERSON OF THE SON. THE SUBTERFUGES OF PR AXE AS THUS EXPOSED.
But why should I linger over matters which are so evident, when I ought to be attacking points on which they seek to obscure the i:>lainest proof? For, confuted on all sides on the distinction between the Father and the Son, which we maintain without destroying their inseparable union — as (by the examples) of the sun and the ray, and the fountain and the river — yet, by help of (their conceit) an indivisible number, (with issues) of two and three, they endeavour to interpret this distinc- tion in a way which shall nevertheless tally with their own opinions: so that, all in one Person, they distinguish two. Father and Son, understanding the Son to be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be spirit, that is God, that is Christ. Thus they, while contending that the Father and the Son are one and the same, do in fact begin by divid- ing them rather than uniting them.. For if Jesus is one, and Christ is another, then the Son will be different from the Father, because the Son is Jesus, and the Father is Christ. Such a monarchy as this they learnt, I suppose, in the school of Valentinus, making two — Jesus and Christ. But this conception of theirs has been, in fact, already confuted in what we have previously advanced, because the Word of God or the Spirit of God is also ' Matt. xxiv. 36.
2 Luke xxii. 29.
3 Matt. XXVI. 53.
4 Matt, xxvii. 46.
5 Luke xxiii. 46. * Luke xxiv. 49. 7 Nod in unum.
called the power of the Highest, whom they make the Father; whereas these relations' are not themselves the same as He whose re- lations they are said to be, but they proceed from Him and appertain to Him. However, another refutation awaits them on this point of their heresy. See, say they, it was announced by the angel: "Therefore that Holy Thing whic'.i shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."' Therefore, (they argue,) as it was the flesh that was born, it must be the flesh that is the Son of God. Nay, (1 answer,) this is spoken concerning the Spirit of God. For it was certainly of the Holy Spirit that the virgin conceived; and that which He con- ceived, she brought forth. That, therefore, had to be born which was conceived and was to be brought forth; that is to say, the Spirit, whose " name should be called Emmanuel which, being interpreted, is, God with us."'" Besides, the flesh is not God, so that it could not have been said concerning it, " That Holy Thing shall be called the Son of God," but only that Divine Being who was born in the flesh, of whom the psalm also says, " Since God became man in the midst of it, and es- tablished it by the will of the Father." " Now what Divine Person was born in it? The Word, and the Spirit which became incarnate with the Word by the will of the Father. The Word, therefore, is incarnate; and this must be the point of our inquiry: How the Word became flesh, — whether it was by having been transfigured, as it were, in the flesh, or by having really clothed Himself in flesh. Cer- tainly it was by a real clothing of Himself in flesh. For the rest, we must needs believe God to be unchangeable, and incapable of form, as being eternal. But transfiguration is the destruction of that which previously ex- isted. For whatsoever is transfigured into some other thing ceases to be that which it had been, and begins to be that which it pre- viously was not. God, however, neither ceases to be what He was, non can He be any other thing than what He is.l The Word is God, and "the Word of the Lord remaineth for ever," — even by holding on unchangeably in His own proper form. Now, if He admits not of being transfigured, it must follow that He be understood in this sense to have be- come flesh, when He comes to be in the flesh, and is manifested, and is seen, and is handled by means of the flesh; since all the other points likewise require to be thus understood. For if the Word became flesh by a transfigura- tion and change of substance, it follows at 8 Ipsae.
'I His version o£ Ps, Ixxxvii. 5.
AGAINST PRAXEAS.
[chap. XXVI II.
once that Jesus must be a substance com- pounded of' two substances — of flesh and spirit, — a kind of mixture, Hke elecfrian, com- posed of gold and silver; and it begins to be neither gold (that is to say, spirit) nor silver (that is to say, flesh), — the one being changed by the other, and a third substance produced. Jesus, therefore, cannot at this rate be God, for He has ceased to be the Word, which was made flesh; nor can He be Man incarnate, for He is not properly flesh, and it was flesh which the Word became. Being compounded, therefore, of both, He actually is neither; He is rather some third substance, very different from either. But the truth is, we find that He is expressly set forth as both God and Man; the very psalm which we have quoted intimating (of the flesh), that "God became Man in the midst of it. He therefore es- tablished it by the will of the Father," — cer- tainly in all respects as the Son of God and the Son of Man, being God and Man, differing no doubt according to each substance in its own especial property, inasmuch as the Word is nothing else but God, and the flesh nothing else but Man. Thus does the apostle also teach respecting His two substances, saying, " who was made of the seed of David;"'= in which words He will be Man and Son of Man. " Who was declared to be the Son of God, ac- cording to the Spirit; "3 in which words He will be God, and the Word — the Son of God. We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in One Person — Jesus, God and Man. Concerning Christ, in- deed, I defer what I have to say." (I remark here), that the property of each nature is so wholly preserved, that the Spirit = on the one hand did all things in Jesus suitable to Itself, such as miracles, and mighty deeds, and won- ders; and the Flesh, on the other hand, ex- hibited the affections w^hich belong to it. It was hungry under the devil's temptation, thirsty with the Samaritan woman, wept over Lazarus, was troubled even unto death, and at last actually died. If, however, it was only a tertium quid, some composite essence formed out of the Two substances, like the elcct>'U7n (which we have mentioned), there would be no distinct proofs apparent of either nature. But by a transfer of functions, the Spirit would have done things to be done by the Flesh, and the Flesh such as are effected by the Spirit; or else such things as are suited neither to the Flesh nor to the Spirit, but confusedly of some third character. Nay ■Ex.
4 See next chapter.
more, on this supposition, either the Word underwent death, or the flesh did not die, if so be the Word was converted into flesh; be- cause either the flesh was immortal, or the Word was mortal. Forasmuch, however, as the two substances acted distinctly, each in its own character, there necessarily accrued to them severally their own operations, and their own issues. Learn then, together with Nicodemus, that " that which is born in the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit."*' Neither the flesh becomes Spirit, nor the Spirit flesh. In one Person they no doubt are well able to be co-existent. Of them Jesus consists — Man, of the flesh; of the Spirit, God — and the angel designated Him as "the Son of God,"' in respect of that nature, in which He was Spirit, reserving for the flesh the appellation " Son of Man." In like manner, again, the apostle calls Him "the Mediator between God and Men,"* and so affirmed His participation of both sub- stances. Now, to end the matter, will you, who interpret the Son of God to be flesh, be so good as as to show us what the Son of Man is? Will He then, I want to know, be the Spirit? But you insist upon it that the Father Himself is the Spirit, on the ground that " God is a Spirit," just as if we did not read also that there is " the Spirit of God; " in the same manner as we find that as "the Word was God," so also there is " the Word of God."
CHAP. XXVIII. CHRIST NOT THE FATHER, AS PRAXEAS SAID. THE INCONSISTENCY OF THIS OPINION, NO LESS THAN ITS ABSURDITY, EX- POSED. THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF JESUS CHRIST ACCORDING TO ST. PAUL, WHO AGREES WITH OTHER SACRED WRITERS.
And so, most foolish heretic, you make Christ to be the Father, without once consider- ing the actual force of this n.altie, if indeed Christ is a name, and not rather a surname, or designation; for it signifies "Anointed." But Anointed is no more a proper name than Clothed or Shod; it is only an accessory to a name. Suppose now that by some means Jesus were also called Vestitus [Clothed)^ as He is actually called Christ from the mystery of His anointing, would you in like manner say that Jesus was the Son of God, and at the same time suppose that Vestitus was the Father? Now then, concerning Christ, if Christ is the Father, the Father is an Anointed One, and receives the unction of course from another. Else if it is from Himself that He re- * John iii. 6.
CllAl'. XXIX.]
AGAINST PRAXEAS.
ceives it, then you must prove it to us. But we learn no such fact from tlie Acts of the Apostles in that ejaculation of the Church to God, "Of a truth, Lord, against Thy Holy Child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered to- gether."' These then testified both that Jesus was the Son of God, and that being the Son, He was anointed by the Father. Christ therefore must be the same as Jesus who was anointed by the Father, and not the Father, who anointed the Son. To the same effect are the words of Peter: " Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ," that is, Anointed.'' John, moreover, brands that man as "a liar" who "■ denieth that Jesus is the Christ; " whilst on the other hand he declares that " every one is born of God who believeth that Jesus is the Christ. "3 Wherefore he also exhorts us to believe in the name of His {the Father's,) Son Jesus Christ, that " our fellowship may be with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ."* Paul, in like manner, everywhere speaks of "God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ." When writing to the Romans, he gives thanks to God through our Lord Jesus Christ. s To the Galatians he declares himself to be " an apostle not of men, neither by man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father."* You possess indeed all his writings, which testify plainly to the same effect, and set forth Two — God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. (They also testify) that Jesus is Himself the Christ, and under one or the other designation the Son of God. For precisely by the same right as both names belong to the same Person, even the Son of God, does either name alone without the other belong to the same Person. Consequently, whether it be the name Jesus which occurs alone, Christ is also understood, because Jesus is the Anointed One; or if the name Christ is the only one given, then Jesus is identified with Him, because the Anointed One is Jesus. Now, of these two names Jesus Christ, the former is the proper one, which was given to Him by the angel; and the latter is only an adjunct, predicable of Him from His anoint- ing,— thus suggesting the proviso that Christ must be the Son, not the Father. How blind, to be sure, is the man who fails to perceive 40 that by the name of Christ some other God is implied, if he ascribes to the Father this name of Christ! For if Christ is God the Father, when He says, " I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God,"' He of course shows plainly enough that there is above Himself another Father and another God. If, again, the Father is Christ, He must be some other Being who " strengtheneth the thunder, and createtli the wind, and declareth unto men His Christ."* And if "the kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered to- gether against the Lord and against His Christ,"' that Lord must be another Being, against whose Christ were gathered together the kings and the rulers. And if, to quote another passage, " Thus saith the Lord to my Lord Christ," '° the Lord who speaks to the Father of Christ must be a distinct Being. Moreover, when the apostle in his epistle prays, " That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and of knowledge," " He must be other (than Christ), who is the God of Jesus Christ, the bestower of spiritual gifts. And once for all, that we may not wander through every pas- sage. He "who raised up Christ from the dead, and is also to raise up our mortal bodies," " must certainly be, as the quickener, different from the dead Father, '^ or even from the quickened Father, if Christ who died is the Father.
CHAP. XXIX. IT WAS CHRIST THAT DIED, THE FATHER IS INCAPABLE OF SUFFERING EITHER SOLELY OR WITH ANOTHER. BLASPHEMOUS CONCLUSIONS SPRING FROM PRAXEAS' PREM- ISES.
Silence! Silence on such blasphemy. Let us be content with saying that Christ died, the Son of the Father; and let this suffice, be- cause the Scriptures have told us so much. For even the apostle, to his declaration — which he makes not without feeling the weight of it —that " Christ died," immediately adds, "ac- cording to the Scriptures," '■* in order that he may alleviate the harshness of the statement by the authority of the Scriptures, and so re move offence from the reader. Now, although when two substances are alleged to be in Christ — namely, the divine and the human — 8 Amos iv. 13, Sept.
'° Here Tertullian reads Tip Xpia-rip y.ov Kvpiw, instead of Kvpw, "to Cyrus," in Isa. xlv. i.
'3 From this deduction of the doctrine of Praxeas, that the Faf/ii-r must have suffered ontfli^ cross, his opponents called him and his fnilowcrs Patripassinns.
AGAINST PRAXEAS.
[chap. XXX.
it plainly follows that the divine nature is im- mortal, and that which is human is mortal, it is manifest in what sense he declares " Christ died " — even in the sense in which He was flesh and Man and the Son of Man, not as be- ing the Spirit and the Word and the Son of God. In short, since he says that it was Christ (that is, the Anointed One) that died, he shows us that that which died was the na- ture which was anointed; in a word, the flesh. Very well, say you; since we on our side afifirm our doctrine in precisely the same terms which you use on your side respecting the Son, we are not guilty of blasphemy against the Lord God, for we do not maintain that He died after the divine nature, but only after the hu- man. Nay, but you do blaspheme; because you allege not only that the Father died, but that He died the death of the cross. For ' ■ cursed are they which are hanged on a tree," ' — a curse which, after the law, is com- patible to the Son (inasmuch as " Christ has lieen made a curse for us,"^ but certainly not the Father); since, however, you convert Christ into the Father, you are chargeable with blasphemy against the Father. But when we assert that Christ was crucified, we do not malign Him with a curse; we only re-affirm ^ the curse pronounced by the law:'* nor indeed did the apostle utter blasphemy when he said the same thing as we.^ Besides, as there is no blasphemy in predicating of the subject that which is fairly applicable to it; so, on the other hand, it is blasphemy when that is al- leged concerning the subject which is unsuita- ble to it. On this principle, too, the Father was not associated in suffering with the Son. The heretics y indeed, fearing to incur direct blasphemy against the Father, hope to dimin- ish it by this expedient: they grant us so far that the Father and the Son are Two; adding that, since it is the Son indeed who suffers, the Father is only His fellow-sufferer.* But how absurd are they even in this conceit! For what IS the meaning of " fellow-suffering," but the endurance of suffering along with another? Now if the Father is incapable of suffering. He is incapable of suffering in company with an- other; otherwise, if He can suffer with another, He is of course capable of suffering. You, in fact, yield Him nothing by this subterfuge of your fears. You are afraid to say that He is capable of suffering whom you make to be capable of fellow-suffering. Then, again, the 2 Same vcr.
3 Referimus: or, " recite and record."
* [This passajre convinces Lardner that Praxeas was not a Patri- pa.^sian. Credib. Vol. VIII. p. 607.]
Father is as incapable of fellow-suffering as the Son even is of suffering under the condi- tions of His existence as God. Well, but how could the Son suffer, if the Father did not suffer with Him? My a?is7ver is, The Father is separate from the Son, though not from Him as God. For even if a river be soiled with mire and mud, alhough it flows from the fountain identical in nature with it, and is not separated from the fountain, yet the injury which affects the stream reaches not to the fountain; and although it is the water of the fountain which suffers down the stream, still, since it is not affected at the fountain, but only in the river, the fountain suffers nothing, but only the river which issues from the foun- tain. So likewise the Spirit of God,^ what- ever suffering it might be capable of in the Son, yet, inasmuch as it could not suffer in the Father, the fountain of the Godhead, but only in the Son, it evidently could not have suffered,^ as the Father. But it is enough for me that the Spirit of God suffered nothing as the Spirit of God,9 since all that It suffered It suffered in the Son. It was quite another matter for the Father to suffer with the San in the flesh. This likewise has been treated by us. Nor will any one deny this, since even we are ourselves unable to suffer for God, un- less the Spirit of God be in us, who also- utters by our instrumentality '° whatever pertains to our own conduct and suffering; not, however, that He Himself suffers in our suffering, only He bestows on us the power and capacity of suffering.
CHAP. XXX. — HOW THE SON WAS FORSAKEN BY THE FATHER UPON THE CROSS. THE TRUE MEANING THEREOF FATAL TO PRAXEAS. SO TOO, THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, HIS AS- CENSION, SESSION AT THE FATHER'S RIGHT HAND, AND MISSION OF THE HOLY GHOST.
However, if you persist in pushing your views further, I shall find means of answering you with greater stringency, and of meeting you with the exclamation of the Lord Him- self, so as to challenge you with the question, What is your inquiry and reasoning about that? You have Him exclaiming in the midst of His passion: " My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me? " " Either, then, the Son suf- fered, being " forsaken " by the Father, and the Father consequently suffered nothing, in- asmuch as He forsook the Son; or else, if it was the Father w'ho suffered, then to what 7 That is, the divine nature in general in this place.
'^ That which whs open to it to suffer in the Sob.
9 Stio nomini'. >o \)f nobis.
POS'lSCRU'l God was it that He addressed His cry? But this was the voice of riesh and soul, that is to say, of man — not of the Word and Spirit, that is to say, not of (iod; and it was uttered so as to prove the impassibility of Ciod, who " for- sook " His Son, so far as He handed over His human substance to the suffering of death. I'his verity the apostle also perceived, when he writes to this effect: '* If the Father spared not His own Son."' This did Isaiah before him likewise perceive, when he declared: "And the Lord hath delivered Him up for our offences." = In this manner He "for- sook " Him, in jwt sparing Him; " forsook " Him, in deliverifig Him up. In all other re- spects the Father did not forsake the Son, for it was into His Father's hands that the Son commended His spirit. ^ Indeed, after so commending it, He instantly died; and as the Spirit* remained with the flesh, the flesh cannot undergo the full extent of death, i.c.,incorntp- tiofi and decay. For the Son, therefore, to die, amounted to His being forsaken by the Father. The Son, then, both dies and rises again, ac- cording to the Scriptures. 5 It is the Son, too, who ascends to the heights of heaven,^ and also descends to the inner parts of the