vii. Manuscripts and Editions . ; ; ^

vii. Manuscripts and Editions . ; ; ^

- '

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

the unity of the holy Trinity ! (two of which in any case are as old as the New Testament), and a revelation made to a woman visionary of the corporeal constitution of the soul.? A prophecy of Prisca, quoted from the Montanist book of prophecies,? seems to mean that the holiness of the minister is essential to the effect

. of his ministrations, quod sanctus minister sanctimoniam noverit ministrare: the words that follow,' in so far as they mean anything, apparently identify sanctimony with spiritualistic experiences.

Two other prophecies, trivial enough in their expression, cited to discountenance flight from persecution,? stand in sharp contrast with the dignified scriptural conclusion of the treatise in which they occur: mon quaeritur qui latam viam sequi paratus sit, sed qui angustam. et ideo paracletus necessarius, deductor omnium veritatum, exhortator omnium tolerantiarum. quem qui receperunt neque fugere persecutionem neque redimere noverunt, habentes ipsum qui pro nobis erit, sicut. locuturus in interrogatione, ita iuvaturus in passione.

If that had been the temper of Montanism, it might have been entirely admirable.

Unfortunately it must be averred that many, even most, of its so-called revelations were of negligible spiritual value, and that it is a great mistake to encourage the religious imaginations of persons of not eminently stable mind.

It is true enough that the Church has need of men of spiritual insight and enlightenment: if such men remain loyal to the Church they can bring about a religious revival which may have lasting effects; but if they allow themselves to despise their fellow Christians, their pride may stultify their goodness.

"Tertullian at first was fortunate: a few years after his death, his vagaries had apparently been forgotten, and he became the revered master of Cyprian, the bishop of the Church of the "natural men": but the seed sown by him subdola vivacitate latitavit and after more than a century produced the poisonous harvest of Donatism.

VII. MANUSCRIPTS AND EDITIONS

[The information here given concerning manuscripts and early editions is summarised from the Preface to Q. Septimii Florentis

1 Adv. Prax., 8.

2 De anima, 9.

* De exhort. castitatis, 1o.

4 Purificantia enim concordat, ait, et visiones vident et ponentes faciem deorsum etiam voces audiunt manifestas, tam salutares quam et occultas.

5 De fuga, 9.

INTRODUCTION

Tertulliani opera: pars iii: ed. Aemilius Kroymann: Vienna and Leipzig, 1906.] The primary authorities for the text are:

M. Codex Montepessulanus: early eleventh century (Montpellier).

P. Codex Paterniacensis: late eleventh century (Peterlingen).

H. Codices Hirsaugienses, no longer extant, but used by Rhenanus in the preparation of his first edition: date unknown, but probably later than M and P.

These three MSS. are supposed by Kroymann to have been copies of a MS., not much earlier than the eleventh century, which he suggests came from Cluny: this would be the parent of all existing authorities.

Ri, The first edition of Rhenanus, based upon P and H, but with the editor's own corrections.

R3, The third edition of Rhenanus, for which he also used the two following MSS.:

F. Codex Florentinus Magliabechianus, written in 1426, in coenobio Pforzhiniensi: a copy of a copy of H.

G. Codex Gorziensis, known only from the citations of Rhenanus and from N. Codex Florentinus Magliabechianus, which is a copy of it, and from which it seems likely that G was a copy of M.

Consequently the only authorities of primary value are M, P, and R!, which last must be used with caution.

'The printed editions of note are these:

. R3, R3, The first and third editions of Beatus Rhenanus, 1521, 1539.

Rhenanus was an editor of excellent industry and skill in emendation, but, does not always distinguish between MS. readings and his own conjectures, with the result that subsequent editors have emended his emendations instead of reverting to the MSS.

B. Editio Gangneiana, by Martinus Mesnartius, 1545, was based upon R°, but records reading from other MSS., which are, however, not distinguished from the editor's own conjectures.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Gel. Sigismundus Gelenius, 1550, does not always acknowledge his own conjectures, which are frequently rash and unnecessary.

Pam. Jacobus Pamelius, 1562-1579, used (besides the earlier editions) an English MS. of untraceable origin and now lost, as well as two Vatican MSS., one of which appears to have been

either N or a copy of it, and the other a copy of F. Pamelius was incompetent as a judge of the relative value of MSS. and did much harm to the text: among other iniquities he accommodated the scriptural quotations to the Latin vulgate.

The standard chapter divisions are his. jun. Franciscus Junius, 1597, displays a wonderful sense of Tertullian's style, and great acumen and erudition.

Unfortunately he made the edition of Pamelius his starting point.

Rig. Nicolaus Rigaltius, 1634, is sparing but felicitous in conjecture.

He based his work on the older MSS., especially M, but also used as though they were ancient testimony the conjectures of Fulvius Ursinus written in the margin of a copy of Pamelius.

These conjectures are of great value, and Ursinus is to be classed with Rhenanus and Junius as one of the great benefactors of the text of Tertullian.

The eighteenth and early nineteenth century editions are of no special value.

Oeh. Franciscus Oehler, 1853-4, made it his business to collect and record all previous variants, but examined afresh no MSS. except comparatively worthless ones from Leyden and Vienna.

His own emendations, Kroymann remarks, are ridiculous and exasperating, and as an editor he was unequal to his task—an unduly harsh judgement.

Kroy. Aemilius Kroymann, 1906, takes M as his main authority, with P as subsidiary: where P fails he uses F to support or check

M: Rt! he also cites as recording the Cluny tradition, but at a greater distance.

He thinks there is still room for conjectural emendation, especially (1) in the restoration of missing words, and (2) in the correction backwards of deliberate scribal alterations. His own conjectures comprise (1) restorations of the correct order of words, or even of whole sentences which he supposes have got displaced, and (2) the insertion of marks of parenthesis and the assignment of some sentences to a presumed interlocutor.

INTRODUCTION

Unfortunately, though he acknowledges faithfully in the footnotes his own conjectures, he has introduced them into his text without distinguishing marks, so that the reader has the distraction of not being able to read the text without continual reference to the foot of the page.

Moreover his conjectures are numerous, and too often uncalled for: it is commonly expected that an editor will record his MS. text and print it intact except in places where it will not make sense; but Kroymann several times on a page alters a text which makes a tolerable sense already.

On the other hand, a valuable feature of his work is that, besides some of his own suggestions, he records the judgements of his friend Augustus Engelbrecht, who (1) frequently expresses his dissent from Kroymann's alterations, and (2) in places offers suggestions for the interpretation of the traditional text or for its discreet emendation.

Of these last it is sufficient to say that many of them had occurred to the present editor as obvious corrections of what he took to be accidental misprints in Oehler's edition: a number of them are so clearly right that the wonder is that during four centuries they had not been made already.

Such places are indicated in the critical notes.

The text here printed follows the manuscript authorities as closely as possible: all emendations or additions, except such as have already become common form, are indicated in the text by italics or <>.

Except for improved punctuation the editor has only presumed to print his own conjectures in ten places.

'The improved punctuation consists largely of the omission of unnecessary commas, of which books printed in Germany usually have far too many: but there are places where the removal of commas, or their transference, has made sense of what previously was meaningless or obscure.

B &

| TEXT AND TRANSLATION,

—— A. w m -A : y

rh :

» 7

TERTULLIANI

ADVERSUS PRAXEAN

LIBER 1. Varie diabolus aemulatus est veritatem. adfectavit illam aliquando defendendo concutere. unicum dominum vindicat, omnipotentem mundi conditorem, ut et de unico haeresim faciat. ipsum dicit patrem descendisse in virginem, ipsum ex ea natum, ipsum passum, denique ipsum esse Iesum Christum. excidit sibi coluber, quia lesum Christum post baptisma Ioannis temptans ut filium dei adgressus est, certus filium deum habere vel ex ipsis scripturis de quibus tunc temptationem struebat: Si tu es filius dei, dic ut lapides isti panes fiant: item, Si tu es filius dei, deice te hinc; scriptum est enim quod mandavit angelis suis super te, utique pater, ut te manibus suis tollant necubi ad lapidem pedem tuum offendas. aut numquid mendacium evangeliis exprobrabit dicens, Viderit Matthaeus et Lucas; ceterum ego ad ipsum deum accessi, ipsum omnipotentem cominus temptavi : ideo et accessi, ideo et temptavi; ceterum si filius dei esset nunquam illum fortasse dignarer ? sed enim ipse potius a primordio mendax est, et si quem hominem de suo subornavit, ut Praxean. nam iste primus ex Asia hoc genus perversitatis intulit Romam, homo et alias inquietus, insuper de iactatione martyrii inflatus ob solum et simplex et breve carceris taedium, quando etsi corpus suum tradidisset exurendum nihil profecisset, dilectionem dei non habens cuius charismata quoque expugnavit. nam idem tunc episcopum romanum, agnoscentem iam prophetias

Montani, Priscae, Maximillae, et ex ea agnitione pacem ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae inferentem, falsa de ipsis prophetis et ecclesiis eorum adseverando et praecessorum eius auctoritates defendendo coegit et litteras pacis revocare iam emissas et a proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare. ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romae procuravit, prophetiam expulit et haeresim intulit, paracletum fugavit et patrem crucifixit. fruticaverant avenae 16 exprobrabit R?: exprobravit PMF.

19 fortasse PMF' : temptasse coniecit Urs.

22 Romam, homo Oeh.: romanae humo PM: romanae humo homo Eng.

33 fruticaverant M: fructificaverant P.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Praxeanae hic quoque superseminatae, dormientibus multis in simplicitate doctrinae: traductae dehinc per quem deus voluit, etiam evulsae videbantur. denique caverat pristinum doctor de emendatione sua, et manet chirographum apud psychicos apud

5 quos tunc gesta res est. exinde silentium. et nos quidem postea . agnitio paracleti atque defensio disiunxit a psychicis. avenae vero illae ubique tunc semen excusserant: ita aliquamdiu per hypocrisin subdola vivacitate latitavit et nunc denuo erupit. sed et denuo eradicabitur, si voluerit dominus, in isto commeatu:

1o Si quo minus, die suo colligentur omnes adulterae fruges et cum ceteris scandalis igni inextinguibili cremabuntur.

2. Itaque post tempus pater natus et pater passus, ipse deus dominus omnipotens, lesus Christus praedicatur. nos vero et semper, et nunc magis ut instructiores per paracletum, deductorem

15 Scilicet omnis veritatis, unicum quidem deum credimus, sub hac tamen dispensatione, quam oikovopíav dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius, sermo ipsius qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum est nihil: hunc missum a patre in virginem et ex ea natum hominem et deum, filium hominis et

20 filium dei, et cognominatum Iesum Christum: hunc passum, hunc mortuum et sepultum secundum scripturas, et resuscitatum a patre et in caelo resumptum sedere ad dexteram patris venturum iudicare vivos et mortuos: qui exinde miserit, secundum promissionem suam, a patre spiritum sanctum paracletum, sancti25 ficatorem fidei eorum qui credunt in patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum. hanc regulam ab initio evangelii decucurrisse, etiam ante priores quosque haereticos nedum ante Praxean hesternum, probabit tam ipsa posteritas omnium haereticorum quam ipsa novellitas Praxeae hesterni. quo peraeque adversus universas 30 haereses iam hinc praeiudicatum sit id esse verum quodcunque primum, id esse adulterum quodcunque posterius. sed salva ista praescriptione ubique tamen propter instructionem et munitionem auorundam dandus est etiam retractatibus locus, vel ne videatur unaquaeque perversitas non examinata sed praeiudicata damnari,

35 maxime haec qu^- se existimat meram veritatem possidere dum unicum deum {non alias putat credendum quam si ipsum eundemque et \patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum dicat: quasi non sic quoque unus sit omnia dum ex uno omnia, per

37 spiritum PM : spiritum sanctum FR vulgo.

TEXT

substantiae -Scilicet unitatem, et nihilo minus. custodiatur eet sacramentum quae unitatem in trinitatem disponit,

OPE RN ruv tres diri | patrem et filium et spiritum, tres autem non statu ETT d | substantia sed. forma, nec potestate sed specie, unius autem em substantiae et unius status et unius potestatis, quia unus deus ex quo et gradus isti et formae et species in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti -deputantur. quomodo numerum sine divisione patiuntur procedentes tractatus demonstrabunt.

3 Simplices enim quique, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotae, quae maior semper credentium pars est, quoniam et ipsa regula fidei a pluribus diis saeculi ad unicum et verum deum transfert, non intellegentes unicum quidem sed cum sua oeconomia esse credendum, expavescunt ad oeconomiam. numerum et dispositionem trinitatis divisionem praesumunt unitatis, quando unitas ex semetipsa derivans trinitatem non destruatur ab illa sed administretur. itaque duos et tres iam iactitant a nobis praedicari, se vero unius dei cultores praesumunt, quasi non et unitas irrationaliter collecta haeresim faciat et trinitas rationaliter expensa veritatem constituat.

Monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus: et ita sonum ipsum vocaliter exprimunt etiam Latini, et tam opifice ut putes illos tam bene intellegere monarchiam quam enuntiant; sed monarchiam sonare student Latini, oikovopiay intellegere nolunt etiam Graeci. at ego, si quid utriusque linguae praecerpsi, monarchiam nihil aliud significare scio quam singulare et unicum imperium: non tamen praescribere monarchiam ideo quia unius sit eum cuius sit aut filium non habere aut ipsum se sibi filium fecisse aut monarchiam suam non per quos velit administrare. atquin nullam dico dominationem ita unius sui esse, ita singularem, ita monarchiam, ut non etiam per alias proximas personas administretur quas ipsa prospexerit officiales sibi: si vero et filius fuerit ei cuius monarchia sit, non statim dividi eam et monarchiam esse desinere si particeps eius adsumatur et filius, sed proinde illius esse principaliter a quo communicatur in filium, et dum illius est proinde monarchiam

IO I5

esse quae a duobus tam unitis continetur. igitur si et monarchia 35 3 spiritum. PM: spiritum sanctum F vulgo.

20 sonum ipsum R?: solium ipsum PMR! (quod forsan reponendum) : paene scripserim solum solium (vel etiam solisolium) ipsi.

20 et tam opifice PFMR! quod dubites an latinum sit : alia alii tentaverunt : quaero an scribendum etiam opifices.

35 unitis ego, Eng.: unicis PMF.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

divina per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum administratur sicut scriptum est, Milies centies centena milia adsistebant ei et milies centena milia apparebant ei, nec ideo unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse quia per tanta milia virtutum

5 procuratur, quale est ut deus divisionem et dispersionem pati videatur in filio et in spiritu sancto secundum et tertium sortitis locum, tam consortibus substantiae patris, quas non patitur in tot angelorum numero et quidem tam «alienorum» a substantia patris? membra et pignora et instrumenta et ipsam vim ac totum

10 censum monarchiae eversionem deputas eius? non recte. malo te ad sensum rei quam ad sonum vocabuli exerceas. eversio enim monarchiae illa est tibi intellegenda cum alia dominatio suae condicionis et proprii status ac per hoc aemula superducitur, cum alius deus infertur adversus creatorem cum Marcione, 15 cum plures secundum Valentinos et Prodicos: tunc in monarchiae eversionem cum in creatoris destructionem.

4. Ceterum qui filium non aliunde deduco, sed de substantia. patris, nihil facientem sine patris voluntate, omnem a patre consecutum potestatem, quomodo possum de fide destruere

20 monarchiam quam a patre filio traditam in filio servo? hoc mihi et in tertium gradum dictum sit, quia spiritum non aliunde puto quam a patre per filium. vide ergo ne tu potius monarchiam destruas, qui dispositionem et dispensationem eius evertis in tot nominibus constitutam in quot deus voluit. adeo autem 25 manet in suo statu, licet trinitas inferatur, ut etiam restitui habeat patri a filio, siquidem apostolus scribit de ultimo fine,

Cum tradiderit regnum deo et patri. oportet enim eum regnare usque dum ponat inimicos eius deus sub pedes ipsius, scilicet secundum psalmum, Sede ad dexteram meam donec ponam

3o inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. cum autem subiecta erunt illi omnia absque eo qui ei subiecit omnia, tunc et ipse subicietur illi qui ei subiecit omnia, ut sit deus omnia in omnibus. videmus igitur non obesse monarchiae filium, etsi hodie apud filium est, quia et in suo statu est apud filium et cum suo statu

35 restituetur patri a filio. ita eam nemo hoc nomine destruet <si> filium admittat cui et traditam eam a patre et a quo quandoque

8 alienorum suppl. Gel. qui et post patris periodum statuit, 14 cum Marcione coniecit Oeh.: tunc male PMF: tunc mage Eng.

36 si suppl. R?,

\ TEXT

restituendam patri constat. hoc uno capitulo epistulae apostolicae potuimus iam et patrem et filium ostendisse duos esse, praeterquam ex nominibus patris et filii, etiam ex eo quod qui tradidit regnum et cui tradidit, item qui subiecit (et cui subiecit», duo sint necesse est.

5. Sed quia duos unum volunt esse, ut idem pater et filius habeatur, oportet et totum de filio examinari, an sit et qui sit et quomodo sit, et ita res ipsa formam suam scripturis et interpretationibus earum patrocinantibus vindicabit. aiunt quidam et Genesim in Hebraico ita incipere, In principio deus fecit sibi 10 filium. hoc ut firmum non sit alia me argumenta deducunt ab ipsa dei dispositione qua fuit ante mundi constitutionem ad usque filii generationem. ante omnia enim deus erat solus, ipse sibi et mundus et locus et omnia. solus autem quia nihil aliud extrinsecus praeter illum. ceterum ne tunc quidem solus: 15 habebat enim secum quam habebat in semetipso rationem, suam scilicet. rationalis enim deus, et ratio in ipso prius, et ita ab ipso omnia: quae ratio sensus ipsius est. hanc Graeci Aó'yov dicunt, quo vocabulo etiam sermonem appellamus : ideoque iam in usu est nostrorum per simplicitatem interpretationis 20 sermonem dicere in primordio apud deum fuisse, cum magis rationem competat antiquiorem haberi, quia [non] sermonalis a principio sed rationalis deus etiam ante principium, et quia ipse quoque sermo ratione consistens priorem eam ut substantiam suam ostendat. tamen et sic nihil interest. nam etsi deus 25 nondum sermonem suum miserat, proinde eum cum ipsa et in ipsa ratione intra semetipsum habebat, tacite cogitando et disponendo secum quae per sermonem mox erat dicturus: cum ratione enim sua cogitans atque disponens, sermonem eam efficiebat quam sermone tractabat. idque quo facilius intellegas, 3o ex te ipso ante recognosce ut ex imagine et similitudine dei, quo habeas et tu in temetipso rationem qui es animal rationale, a rationali scilicet artifice non tantum factus sed etiam ex substantia ipsius animatus. vide, cum tacitus tecum ipse congrederis ratione, hoc ipsum agi intra te, occurrente ea tibi cum sermone 35

4 et cui subiecit suppl. R.

9 quidam edd. post Ciacconium : quidem libri.

22 non seclust.

31 ante recognosce Urs.: amore cognosce MF: a me recognosce P: amo, recognosce K (quod vix Septimianum).

94 | TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

ad omnem cogitatus tui motum, ad omnem sensus tui pulsum. quodcunque cogitaveris sermo est, quodcunque senseris ratio est: loquaris illud in animo necesse est, et dum loqueris conlocutorem pateris sermonem, in quo inest haec ipsa ratio qua cum eo cogitans loquaris per quem loquens cogitas. ita secundus quodammodo in te est sermo per quem loqueris cogitando et per quem cogitas loquendo: ipse sermo alius est. quanto ergo plenius hoc agitur in deo cuius tu quoque imago et similitudo censeris, quod habeat in se etiam tacendo rationem et in ratione sermonem? possum itaque non temere praestruxisse et tunc deum ante universitatis constitutionem solum non fuisse, habentem in semetipso proinde rationem et in ratione sermonem quem secundum a se faceret agitando intra se.

6. Haec vis et haec divini sensus dispositio apud scripturas etiam in sophiae nomine ostenditur. quid enim sapientius ratione dei sive sermone? itaque sophiam quoque exaudi, ut secundam personam conditam: primo, Dominus creavit me initium viarum in opera sua, priusquam terram faceret, priusquam montes collocarentur; ante omnes autem colles generavit me— in sensu suo scilicet condens et generans. dehinc adsistentem eam ipsa separatione cognosce:

Cum pararet, inquit, caelum aderam illi simul; et quomodo fortia faciebat super ventos quae sursum nubila, et quomodo tutos ponebat fontes eius quae sub caelo, ego eram cum illo compingens, ego eram ad quam gaudebat; | cottidie autem oblectabar in persona ipsius. nam ut primum deus voluit ea quae cum sophia et ratione et sermone disposuerat intra se in substantias et species suas edere, ipsum primum protulit sermonem habentem in se individuas suas rationem et sophiam, ut per ipsum fierent universa per quem erant cogitata atque disposita, immo et facta iam quantum in dei sensu: hoc enim eis deerat, ut coram quoque in suis speciebus atque substantiis cognoscerentur et tenerentur.

7. Tunc igitur etiam ipse sermo speciem et ornatum suum sumit, sonum et vocem, cum dicit deus, Fiat lux. haec est nativitas perfecta sermonis, dum ex deo procedit; conditus ab

17 primo, Dominus ita punxi.

22,23 quomodo (bis) PMF: quom (bis) R.

24 quem PMFR!; quam R? vulgo.

26 sophia et ego: sophiae vulgo.

TEXT

eo primum ad cogitatum in nomine sophiae— Dominus condidit me initium viarum; dehinc generatus ad effectum—

Cum pararet caelum aderam illi; exinde eum patrem sibi faciens de quo procedendo filius factus est primogenitus, ut ante omnia genitus, et unigenitus, ut solus ex deo genitus, proprie de vulva cordis 5 ipsius secundum quod et pater ipse testatur, Eructavit cor meum sermonem optimum; ad quem deinceps gaudens proinde gaudentem in persona illius, Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te, et, Ante luciferum genui te. sic et filius ex sua persona profitetur patrem in nomine sophiae, Dominus condidit me 10 initium viarum in opera sua, ante omnes autem colles generavit me. nam si hic quidem sophia videtur dicere conditam se a domino in opera et vias eius, alibi autem per sermonem ostenditur omnia facta esse et sine illo nihil factum, sicut et rursum, Sermone eius caeli confirmati sunt et spiritu eius omnes vires eorum— 15 utique eo spiritu qui sermoni inerat—apparet unam eandemque vim esse, nunc in nomine sophiae, nunc in appellatione sermonis, quae initium accepit viarum in dei opera, et quae caelum confirmavit, per quam omnia facta sunt et sine qua nihil factum est. nec diutius de isto, quasi non ipse sit sermo et in sophiae et 20 in rationis et in omnis divini animi et spiritus nomine, qui filius factus est dei, de quo prodeundo generatus est. ergo, inquis, das aliquam substantiam esse sermonem, spiritu et sophia ef ratione constructam? plane. non vis enim eum substantivum habere in re per substantiae proprietatem, ut res et persona quaedam videri 25 possit et ita capiat secundus a deo constitutus duos efficere, patrem et filium, deum et sermonem: quid est enim, dices, sermo nisi vox et sonus oris, et sicut grammatici tradunt aer offensus intellegibilis auditu, ceterum vacuum nescio quid et inane et incorporale? at ego nihil dico de deo inane et vacuum 3o prodire potuisse, ut non de inani et vacuo prolatum, nec carere substantia quod de tanta substantia processit et tantas substantias fecit; fecit enim et ipse quae facta sunt per illum. quale est ut nihil sit ipse sine quo nihil factum est, ut inanis solida et vacuus plena et incorporalis corporalia sit operatus? nam etsi potest ali35

3 patrem MF (restituit K): parem P vulgo.

8 gaudentem Pam.: gaudenti libri. aa I9 quam... qua vulgo: quem... quo libri (ut videtur) : mallem nunc in appellatione sermonis post confirmavit transposuisse et quem .

. . quo retinuisse.

23 sophia et ratione C. H. Turner: sophiae traditione libri et edd.

24 non vis MFR: novimus P.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

quando quid fieri diversum eius per quod fit, nihil tamen potest fieri per id quod vacuum et inane est. vacua et inanis res est sermo dei qui filius dictus est, qui ipse deus cognominatus est,

Et sermo erat apud deum et deus erat sermo ? scriptum est, s Non sumes nomen dei in vanum. hic certe est qui in effigie dei constitutus non rapinam existimavit esse se aequalém deo. in qua effigie dei? utique in aliqua, non tamen in nulla: quis enim negabit deum corpus esse, etsi deus spiritus est? spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie. sed et si invisibilia illa, ro quaecunque sunt, habent apud deum et suum corpus et suam formam per quae soli deo visibilia sunt, quanto magis quod ex ipsius substantia emissum est sine substantia non erit. quaecunque ergo substantia sermonis fuit, illam dico personam et illi nomen filii vindico, et dum filium agnosco secundum a patre

15 defendo.

8. Hoc si qui putaverit me apoBokie aliquam introducere, id est prolationem rei alterius ex altera, quod facit Valentinus alium atque alium aeonem de aeone producens, primo quidem dicam tibi, non ideo non utitur et veritas vocabulo isto et re ac cezssu eius

20 quia et haeresis utatur: immo haeresis potius ex veritate accepit quod ad mendacium suum. strueret. prolatus est sermo dei an non? hic mecum gradum fige. si prolatus est, cognosce mpo[BoXv veritatis, et viderit haeresis si quid de veritate imitata est. iam nunc quaeritur quis quomodo utatur aliqua re et voca25 bulo eius.

Valentinus 7poBodds suas discernit et separat ab auctore, et ita longe ab eo ponit ut aeon patrem nesciat; denique desiderat nosse nec potest, immo et paene devoratur et dissolvitur in reliquam substantiam. apud nos autem solus filius patrem novit, et sinum patris ipse exposuit, et omnia apud patrem audivit

3o et vidit, et quae mandatus est a patre ea et loquitur, nec suam sed patris perfecit voluntatem, quam de proximo immo de initio noverat. quis enim scit quae sint in deo nisi spiritus qui in ipso est? sermo autem spiritu structus est, et ut ita dixerim sermonis corpus est spiritus. sermo ergo et in patre semper, sicut dicit,

35 Ego in patre: et apud deum semper, sicut scriptum est, Et sermo erat apud deum: et nunquam separatus a patre aut alius a patre,

7 aliqua K (ego) : alia PMF.

I9 utitur... utatur ego: utitur... utitur F: utatur... utitur PM vulgo: accensu R?: accessu PMFR!.

36 alius: quaero an scribendum aliud.

TEXT

quia Ego et pater unum sumus. haec erit zpofodr) veritatis, custos unitatis, qua prolatum dicimus filium a patre sed non separatum. protulit enim deus sermonem, quemadmodum etiam paracletus docet, sicut radix fruticem et fons fluvium et sol radium: nam et istae species mpo/goAai sunt earum substantiarum 5 ex quibus prodeunt. nec dubitaverim filium dicere et radicis fruticem et fontis fluvium et solis radium, quia omnis origo parens est et omne quod ex origine profertur progenies est, multo magis sermo dei qui etiam proprie nomen filii accepit: nec frutex tamen a radice nec fluvius a fonte nec radius a sole dis1o

. cernitur, sicut nec a deo sermo. igitur secundum horum exemplorum formam profiteor me duos dicere deum et sermonem eius, patrem et filium ipsius: nam et radix et frutex duae res sunt sed coniunctae, et fons et flumen duae species sunt sed indivisae, et sol et radius duae formae sunt sed cohaerentes. rs omne quod prodit ex aliquo secundum sit eius necesse est de quo prodit, nec ideo tamen est separatum. secundus autem ubi est, duo sunt, et tertius ubi est, tres sunt. tertius enim est spiritus a deo et filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus ex frutice et tertius a . fonte rivus ex flumine et tertius a sole apex ex radio: nihil tamen 2o a matrice alienatur a qua proprietates suas ducit. ita trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus a patre decurrens et monarchiae nihil obstrepit et oeconomiae statum protegit.

9. Hanc me regulam professum, qua inseparatos ab alterutro patrem et filium et spiritum testor, tene ubique, et ita quid 25 quomodo dicatur agnosces. ecce enim dico alium esse patrem et alium filium et alium spiritum (male accepit idiotes quisque aut perversus hoc dictum, quasi diversitatem sonet et ex diversitate separationem protendat patris et filii et spiritus: necessitate autem hoc dico cum eundem patrem et filium et spiritum con3o tendunt, adversus oeconomiam monarchiae adulantes) non tamen diversitate alium filium a patre sed distributione, nec divisione alium sed distinctione, quia non sit idem pater et filius, vel modulo alius ab alio. pater enim tota substantia est, filius vero derivatio totius et portio, sicut ipse profitetur, Quia pater maior me est: a 35 quo et minoratus canitur in psalmo, Modicum quid citra angelos. sic et pater alius a filio, dum filio maior, dum alius qui generat

ML tiae a X TED I —————M— d 27-31 parenthesim indicavit K.

36 minoratus R^: minor natu PMFR'.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

alius.qui-generatur, dum alius qui mittit. alius qui mittitur, dum alius qui facit alius per quem fit. bene quod et dominus usus hoc verbo in persona paracleti non divisionem significavit sed dispositionem:

Rogabo enim, inquit, patrem et alium advocatum 5 mittet vobis, spiritum veritatis. sic alium a se paracletum, quomodo et nos a patre alium filium, ut tertium gradum ostenderet

in paracleto, sicut nos secundum in filio, propter oeconomiae observationem. ipsum quod pater et filius dicuntur nonne aliud ab alio est? utique omnia quod vocantur hoc erunt, et quod ro erunt hoc vocabuntur, et permiscere se diversitas vocabulorum non potest omnino, quia nec rerum quarum erunt vocabula.

Est est, non non: nam quod amplius est hoc a malo est.

IO. Ita aut pater aut filius est, et neque dies eadem et nox neque pater idem et filius, ut sint ambo unus et utrumque alter,

15 quod vanissimi isti monarchiani volunt. ipse se, inquiunt, filium sibi fecit. atquin pater filium facit et patrem filius: et qui ex alterutro fiunt a semetipsis sibi fieri nullo modo possunt, ut pater se sibi filium faciat et filius se sibi patrem praestet. quae instituit deus etiam ipse custodit. habeat necesse est pater filium ut pater

20 sit, et filius patrem ut filius sit. aliud est autem habere, aliud esse: verbi gratia, ut maritus sim habeam oportet uxorem, non ipse mihi ero uxor. sic etiam ut pater sim filium habeo, non ipse mihi ero filius: et ut filius sim patrem habeo, non ipse mihi ero pater. quae enim me faciunt si habuero tunc ero, pater si filium

25 habeam, filius ero si patrem. porro si ipse ero quid eorum, iam non habeo quod ipse ero, nec patrem quia ipse ero pater, nec filium quia ipse ero filius. in quantum autem alterum ex his habere me oportet, alterum esse, in tantum, si utrumque fuero, alterum non ero dum alterum non habeo. si enim ipse ero filius 3oqui et pater, iam non habeo filium sed ipse sum filius. non habendo autem filium dum ipse sum filius, quomodo pater ero? habere enim filium debeo ut pater sim: non sum ergo filius, quia patrem non habeo qui facit filium. aeque si ipse sum pater qui et filius, iam non habeo patrem sed ipse sum pater. non 35 habendo autem patrem dum ipse sum pater, quomodo filius ero? habere enim patrem debeo ut filius sim: non ergo ero pater, quia

12 edd. post est virgula interpunxerunt, cum potius post hoc distinguendum fuerit.

22, 23 habeo (bis) PMF: habebo (bis) K.

25 pro ero suspicor vero esse scribendum, ut legas filius vero si patrem.

filium non habeo qui facit patrem. hoc erit totum ingenium diaboli, alterum ex altero excludere dum utrumque in unum sub monarchiae favore concludens neutrum haberi facit, ut et pater non sit qui scilicet filium non habet, et filius non sit qui aeque patrem non habet: dum enim pater est filius non erit. sic monarchiam tenent qui nec patrem nec filium continent. sed nihil deo difficile. quis hoc nesciat? et impossibilia apud saeculum possibilia apud deum quis ignoret? et Stulta mundi elegit deus, ut confundat sapientia. legimus omnia. ergo, inquiunt, difficile non fuit deo ipsum se et patrem et filium facere adversus traditam formam rebus humanis: nam et sterilem parere contra naturam difficile deo non fuit, sicut nec virginem. plane nihil deo difficile: sed si tam abrupte in praesumptionibus nostris hac sententia utamur, quidvis de deo confingere poterimus quasi fecerit, quia facere potuerit. non autem, quia omnia potest facere, ideoque credendum est illum fecisse etiam quod non fecerit, sed an fecerit requirendum. potuit, si voluisset, deus pennis hominem ad volandum instruxisse, quod et milvis praestitit: non tamen quia potuit statim et fecit. potuit et Praxean et omnes pariter haereticos statim extinxisse: non tamen quia potuit extinxit. oportebat enim et milvos esse et haereticos, oportebat et patrem crucifigi. hac ratione erit aliquid et difficile deo, id scilicet quodcunque non fecerit non quia non potuerit sed quia noluerit. dei enim posse velle est, et non posse nolle: quod autem voluit, et potuit et ostendit. ergo quia si voluit semetipsum sibi filium facere potuit, et quia si potuit fecit, tunc probabis illum et potuisse et voluisse si probaveris illum fecisse.

11. Probare autem tam aperte debebis ex scripturis, quam nos probamus illum sibi filium fecisse sermonem suum. si enim filium nominat, filius autem non alius erit quam qui ex ipso prodiit, sermo autem prodiit ex ipso, hic erit filius, non ipse de quo prodiit: non enim ipse prodiit ex semetipso. porro qui eundem patrem dicis et filium, eundem et protulisse ex semetipso facis et prodisse quod deus est. si potuit fecisse, non tamen fecit. aut exhibe probationem quam expostulo meae similem, id est sic scripturas eundem filium et patrem ostendere

13 sed si R?: sensi PMFR!.

15 ideoque PMF: ideo quoque Oe.

17 post si voluisset add. ita salvus sim PM". — — 34 prodisse: quod deus et si potuit et q. s., scripsit K, forsan recte.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

quemadmodum apud nos distincte pater et filius demonstrantur: distincte inquam, non divise. sicut ego profero dictum a deo, Eructavit cor meum sermonem optimum, haec tu contra opponas alicubi dixisse deum, Eructavit me cor meum sermonem optimum, ut ipse sit qui et eructavit et quod eructavit, et ipse qui protulerit et qui prolatus sit, si ipse est et sermo et deus. ecce ego propono patrem filio dixisse, Filius meus es tu, ego hodie generavi te: si velis ut credam ipsum esse patrem et filium, ostende sic pronuntiatum alibi, Dominus dixit ad se, Filius meus sum ego, ego hodie generavi me; proinde et, Ante luciferum generavi me;

IO et, Dominus condidi me initium viarum in opera mea, ante omnes autem colles generavi me; et si qua alia in hunc modum sunt. quem autem verebatur deus dominus universitatis ita pronuntiare, si ita res erat? an verebatur ne non crederetur si simpliciter se

et patrem et filium pronuntiasset? unum tamen veritus est, mentiri veritatis auctorem semetipsum et suam veritatem. et ideo veracem deum credens, scio illum non aliter quam disposuit pronuntiasse nec aliter disposuisse quam pronuntiavit. tu porro eum mendacem efficias et fallacem, et deceptorem fidei huius, si cum ipse esset sibi filius alii dabat filii personam, quando scripturae omnes et demonstrationem et distinctionem trinitatis ostendant: a quibus et praescriptio nostra deducitur, non posse unum atque eundem videri qui loquitur et de quo loquitur et ad quem loquitur, quia neque perversitas neque fallacia deo congruat, ut cum ipse esset ad quem loquebatur, ad alium potius et non ad semetipsum loquatur. accipe igitur et alias voces patris de filio per Esaiam:

Ecce filius meus quem elegi, dilectus meus in quem bene sensi; ponam spiritum meum super ipsum et iudicium nationibus annuntiabit. accipe et ad ipsum: Magnum tibi est ut voceris filius meus ad statuendas tribus Iacob et ad convertendam dispersionem Israelis; posui te in lucem nationum, ut sis salus in extremum terrae. accipe nunc et filii voces de patre: Spiritus domini super me, quapropter unxit me ad evangelizandum hominibus. item in psalmo ad patrem de eodem: Ne dereliqueris me, donec annuntiem brachium tuum nativitati universae venturae. item in alio: Domine quid multiplicati sunt qui comprimunt me? sed et omnes paene psalmi qui Christi personam sustinent filium

3 haec PMF: sic Urs.: aeque Oeh., quem secutus K.

16 veritatis auctorem Turner: veritus autem libri et edd.

26 loquatur R?: loquebatur PMFR!: loqueretur Fun.: scribere tentarim loqui videatur.

TEXT IOI ad patrem, id est Christum ad deum, verba facientem repraesentant. animadverte etiam spiritum loquentem ex tertia persona de patre et filio: Dixit dominus domino meo, Sede ad dexteram meam donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum. item per Esaiam: Haec dicit dominus domino meo

Christo. item per eundem ad patrem de filio: Domine, quis credidit auditui nostro et brachium domini cui revelatum est? annuntiavimus de illo sicut puerulus, sicut radix in terra sitienti, et non erat forma eius nec gloria. haec pauca de multis: nec enim affectamus universas scripturas evolvere, cum et in singulis capitulis plenam maiestatem et auctoritatem contestantes maiorem congressum in retractatibus habeamus. his itaque paucis tamen manifeste distinctio trinitatis exponitur: est enim ipse qui pronuntiat spiritus, et pater ad quem pronuntiat, et filius de quo pronuntiat. sic et cetera, quae nunc a patre de filio vel ad filium, nunc a filio de patre vel ad patrem, nunc a spiritu pronuntiantur, unamquamque personam in sua proprietate constituunt.

I0 I5 12. Si te adhuc numerus scandalizat trinitatis quasi non connexae in unitate simplici, interrogo quomodo unicus et singularis pluraliter loquitur, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem

et similitudinem nostram, cum debuerit dixisse, Faciam hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem meam, utpote unicus et singularis. sed et in sequentibus, Ecce Adam factus est tanquam unus ex nobis, fallit aut ludit, ut cum unus et solus et singularis esset numerose loqueretur. aut numquid angelis loquebatur, ut Iudaei interpretantur, quia nec ipsi filium agnoscunt? an quia ipse erat pater filius spiritus, ideo pluralem se praestans pluraliter sibi loquebatur? immo quia iam adhaerebat illi filius, secunda persona, sermo ipsius, et tertia, spiritus in sermone, iden pluraliter pronuntiavit Faciamus et Nostram et Nobis. cum quibus enim faciebat hominem, et quibus faciebat similem? filio quidem qui erat induturus hominem, spiritu vero qui erat sanctificaturus hominem, quasi cum ministris et arbitris ex unitate trinitatis loquebatur. denique sequens scriptura distinguit inter personas: (Et fecit? deus hominem, ad imaginem dei fecit illum. cur non suam, si unus qui faciebat et non erat

15, 16 ita scribendum docuit Turner : ad patrem de filio vel ad filium, nunc ad filium de patre vel ad patrem, nunc ad spiritum libri et edd.

36 et fecit add. Pam.

102.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

ad cuius faciebat? erat autem ad cuius imaginem faciebat, ad filii scilicet, qui homo futurus certior et verior imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo. sed et in antecedentibus operibus mundi 5 quomodo scriptum est? primum quidem, nondum filio apparente :

Et dixit deus Fiat lux, et facta est. ipse statim sermo lux vera quae illuminat hominem venientem in hunc mundum, et per illum mundialis quoque lux. exinde autem in sermone, Christo adsistente et administrante, deus voluit fieri et deus fecit: Et

10 dixit deus Fiat firmamentum, et fecit deus firmamentum; Et dixit deus Fiant luminaria, et fecit deus luminare maius et minus. sed et cetera utique idem fecit qui et priora, id est sermo dei per quem omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum est nihil. qui si ipse deus est secundum Ioannem— Deus erat sermo—habes duos,

15 alium dicentem ut fiat, alium facientem. alium autem quomodo accipere debeas iam professus sum, personae non, substantiae nomine, ad distinctionem non ad divisionem. ceterum

. etsi» ubique teneo unam substantiam in tribus cohaerentibus, tamen alium dicam oportet ex necessitate sensus eum qui iubet et

20 eum qui facit. nam nec iuberet, si ipse faceret dum iuberet fieri. per eum tamen iubebat, haud sibi iussurus si unus esset, aut sine iussu facturus; quia non expectasset ut sibi iuberet.

13. Ergo, inquis, si deus dixit et deus fecit, si alius deus dixit et alius fecit, duo dii praedicantur. si tam durus es, puta 25 interim. et ut adhuc amplius hoc putes, accipe et in psalmo duos deos dictos: 'l'hronus tuus, deus, in aevum, (virga dir:ctionis) virga regni tui; dilexisti iustitiam et odisti iniquitatem, propterea unxit te deus, deus tuus. si ad deum loquitur, et unctum deum a deo, affirmat et hic duos deos [pro virga regni tuif. inde et 3o Esaias ad personam Christi, Et Seboin, inquit, viri elati, ad te transibunt et post te sequentur vincti manibus et te adorabunt, quia in te deus est; tu enim es deus noster et nesciebamus, deus

Israelis. et hic enim dicendo Deus in te, et Tu deus, duos proponit, qui era? in Christo et Christum ipsum. plus est quod in 7 quaero an scribendum omnem hominem.

17 etsi add. Rig.: teneo PM : teneam F.

21 fieri. per eum ita punxi: fieri per eum Oe.

26 virga directionis supplendum censet K"« 29 pro virga regni tui forsan eicienda.

34 qui erat in Christo et Christum ipsum Turner (ego): erant PMF: in Christum PM: in Christo F: spiritum ipsum MF: spiritum P.

TEXT ye evangelio totidem invenies:

In principio erat sermo et sermo erat apud deum et deus erat sermo: unus qui erat, et alius penes quem erat. sed et nomen domini in duobus lego: Dixit dominus domino meo, Sede ad dexteram meam. et Esaias haec dicit:

Domine, quis credidit auditui nostro, et brachium domini cui 5 revelatum est? brachium enim tuum, non (domini) dixisset, si non dominum patrem et dominum filium intellegi vellet. etiam adhuc antiquior Genesis: Et pluit dominus super Sodomam et

Gomorram sulphur et ignem de caelo a domino. haec aut nega scripta, aut quis es ut non putes accipienda quemadmodum 1o scripta sunt, maxime quae non in allegoriis et parabolis sed in definitionibus certis et simplicibus habent sensum? quodsi ex illis es qui tunc dominum non sustinebant dei se filium ostendentem ne eum dominum crederent, recordare tu cum illis scriptum esse, Ego dixi, Vos dii estis et filii altissimi; et, Stetit 15 deus in ecclesia deorum: ut si homines per fidem filios dei factos deos scriptura pronuntiare non timuit, scias illam multo magis vero et unico dei filio (dei» et domini nomen iure contulisse. ergo, inquis, provocabo te ut hodie quoque ex auctoritate istarum scripturarum constanter duos deos et duos dominos praedices. 20 absit. nos enim, qui et tempora et causas scripturarum per dei: gratiam inspicimus, maxime paracleti non hominum discipuli, duos quidem definimus, patrem et filium, et iam tres cum spiritu sancto, secundum rationem oeconomiae quae facit numerum, ne, ut vestra perversitas infert, pater ipse credatur natus et passus, 25 quod non licet credi quoniam non ita traditum est. duos tamen deos et duos dominos nunquam ex ore nostro proferimus: non quasi non et pater deus et filius deus et spiritus sanctus deus, et deus unusquisque, sed quoniam retro et duo dii et duo domini praedicabantur, ut, ubi venisset Christus, et deus agnosceretur 30 et dominus vocaretur quia filius dei et domini. si enim una persona et dei et domini in scripturis inveniretur, merito Christus non esset admissus ad nomen dei et domini—nemo enim alius praeter unus deus et unus dominus praedicabatur—et futurum erat ut ipse pater descendisse videretur quia unus deus et unus 35 dominus legebatur, et tota oeconomia eius obumbraretur quae in materiam fidei prospecta atque dispensata est. at ubi venit 6 tuum R: suum PMF: domini suppl. Rig. v 18 dei et domini scribendum censui: et domini MF: domini P.

33 parenthesim indicavit K.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Christus et cognitus est a nobis quod ipse (sit? qui numerum retro fecerat factus secundus a patre et cum spiritu tertius, etiam pater per ipsum plenius manifestatus, redactum est iam nomen dei et domini in unionem: ut, quia nationes a multitudine idolorum

5 transirent ad unicum deum, et differentia constitueretur inter cultores unius et plurimae divinitatis. nam et lucere in mundo Christianos oportebat ut filios lucis, lumen mundi unum et deum et dominum colentes et nominantes. ceterum si ex conscientia qua scimus dei nomen et domini et patri et filio et spiritui con10 venire deos et dominos nominaremus, extinxissemus faces nostras etiam ad martyria timidiores, quibus evadendi quaque pateret occasio iurantibus statim per deos et dominos, ut quidam haeretici quorum dei plures. itaque deos omnino non dicam nec dominos, sed apostolum sequar ut si pariter nominandi fuerint pater et

15filius deum patrem appellem et lesum Christum dominum nominem. solum autem Christum potero deum dicere, sicut idem apostolus:

Ex quibus Christus, qui est, inquit, deus super omnia, benedictus in aevum omne. nam et radium solis seorsum solem vocabo: solem autem nominans cuius est radius, non

20 statim et radium solem appellabo. nam etsi soles duos faciam, tamen et solem et radium eius tam duas res et duas species unius et indivisae substantiae numerabo quam deum et sermonem eius, quam patrem et filium.

14. Adhuc et illa nobis regula adsistit duos vindicantibus 25 patrem et filium, quae invisibilem deum determinavit. cum enim Moyses in Aegypto desiderasset domini conspectum dicens, Si ergo inveni gratiam coram te, manifesta mihi te ut cognoscenter videam te: Non potes videre, inquit, faciem meam; non enim videbit homo faciem meam et vivet—id est morietur qui viderit.

3o invenimus enim et a multis deum visum et neminem tamen eorum qui eum viderant mortuum: visum quidem deum secundum hominum capacitates, non secundum plenitudinem divinitatis. nam patriarchae deum vidisse referuntur ut Abraham et Iacob, et prophetae ut Esaias, ut Ezechiel, et tamen mortui non sunt.

35 igitur aut mori debuerant si eum viderant—deum enim nemo videbit et vivet; aut si deum viderunt et mortui non sunt, scriptura

1 sit suppl. Urs.

4; 8 ut.«x « et Urs, s eco out i Pip, 20 etsi P: et MF: non faciam Urs. (parum recte).

TEXT ius mentitur deum dixisse, Faciem meam homo si viderit non vivet; aut scriptura mentitur [cum invisum aut] cum visum deum profert. iam ergo alius erit qui videbatur, quia non potest idem invisibilis definiri qui videbatur: et consequens erit ut invisibilem patrem intellegamus pro plenitudine maiestatis, visibilem vero fillum agnoscamus pro modulo derivationis, sicut nec solem nobis contemplari licet quantum ad ipsam substantiae summam quae est in caelis, radium autem eius toleramus oculis pro temperatura portionis quae in terram inde porrigitur. hic ex diverso volet aliquis etiam filium invisibilem contendere, ut sermonem, ut spiritum, et dum unam condicionem patris et filii vindicat unum potius atque eundem confirmare patrem et filium. sed diximus scripturam differentiae patrocinari per visibilis et invisibilis distinctionem. nam et illud adiciunt ad argumentationem, quod si filius tunc ad Moysen loquebatur, ipse faciem suam nemini visibilem pronuntiaret, quia scilicet ipse invisibilis pater fuerit in filii nomine. ac per hoc sic eundem volunt accipi et visibilem et invisibilem, quomodo eundem patrem et. filium,

quoniam et paulo supra, antequam faciem Moysi negasset, scriptum sit dominum ad Moysen locutum coram velut si quis loquatur ad amicum suum, non minus quam et Iacob, Ego vidi, inquit, dominum facie ad faciem: ergo visibilis et invisibilis idem: et quia idem utrumque, ideo et ipse pater invisibilis, qua et filius, visibilis. quasi non expositio scripturae quae fit a nobis

filio competat, patre seposito, in sua visibilitate. dicimus enim et filium suo nomine eatenus invisibilem, qua sermo et spiritus dei, ex substantiae condicione iam nunc, [et qua deus et sermo et spiritus dei] visibilem autem fuisse ante carnem eo modo quo dicit ad Aaron et Mariam, Etsi fuerit prophetes in vobis, in visione cognoscar illi et in somnio loquar illi, non quomodo Moysi os ad os loquar illi in specie (id est in veritate) et non in aenigmate (id est non in imagine): sicut et apostolus, Nunc videmus tanquam

.per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. igitur cum Moysi servat conspectum suum et colloquium facie ad faciem in futurum (nam hoc postea adimpletum est in montis

secessu, sicut legimus in evangelio visum cum illo Moysen 2 cum invisum aut seclusi : totus locus in libris mire turbatur.

16 pronuntiarit scr. K (forsan recte).

"ow JA E 25 patre seposito ita pungendum censet Eng.: visibilitate libri omnes: invisibilitate Harris, quem secuti PamRig. Oeh.

27, 28 et qua .

. spiritus dei seclusi.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

colloquentem), apparet retro semper in speculo et aenigmate et visione et somnio deum (id est filium dei) visum tam prophetis et patriarchis quam et ipsi adhuc Moysi: et ipse quidem dominus si forte coram ad faciem loquebatur, non tamen ut est homo

5 faciem eius videret, nisi forte in speculo et in aenigmate. denique si sic Moysi locutus est dominus ut et Movses faciem eius cominus sciret, quomodo statim atque ibidem desiderat faciem eius videre, quam quia viderat non desideraret? quomodo aeque et dominus negat videri faciem suam posse, quam ostenderat, si rotamen ostenderat? aut quae est facies dei cuius conspectus negatur? si erat quae visa est—Vidi, inquit Iacob, deum facie ad faciem et salva facta est anima mea—alia debet esse facies quae si videatur occidit. aut numquid filius quidem videbatur— etsi facie, sed ipsum hoc in visione et somnio et speculo et aenig15 mate, quia sermo et spiritus nisi imaginaria forma videri non potest—faciem autem suam dicit invisibilem patrem? quis enim pater? num facies erit filii, nomine auctoritatis quam genitus a patre consequitur? non enim et de aliqua maiore persona congruit dicere, Facies mea est ille homo, et, Faciem mihi praestat?

2o Pater, inquit, maior me est: ergo facies erit filii pater. nam et scriptura quid dicit?

Spiritus personae eius Christus dominus. ergo si Christus personae paternae spiritus est, merito spiritus cuius persona erat, id est patris eius, faciem suam ex unitate scilicet pronuntiavit. mira res plane an facies filii pater accipi possit

25 qui est caput eius: caput enim Christi deus.

15. Si hunc articulum quaestionibus scripturae veteris non expediam, de novo testamento sumam confirmationem nostrae interpretationis, ne quodcunque in filium reputo in patrem proinde defendas. ecce enim et in evangeliis et in apostolis

3o visibilem et invisibilem deum deprehendo sub manifesta et personali distinctione condicionis utriusque. exclamat quodammodo Ioannes, Deum nemo vidit unquam: utique nec retro: ademit enim temporis quaestionem dicendo deum nunquam visum. confirmat et apostolus de deo Quem nemo vidit hominum,

35 sed nec videri potest: scilicet quia morietur qui videbit. idem ipsi apostoli et vidisse se Christum et contrectasse testantur.

II negatur? et quae sequuntur, ita punxit K.

14 facie K, qui et parenthesim indicavit : facies sed PM: facies et F.

17 num PMF: non (—nonne) Urs. (perperam).

22, 23 ita libri omnes: edd. alius aliud sine causa mutaverunt.

TEXT

porro si ipse est Christus et pater et filius, quomodo et visus est et invisus? ad hanc diversitatem visi et invisi in unum conferendam qui ex diverso nobis argumentabitur recte utrumque dictum, visibilem quidem in carne, invisibilem vero ante carnem, ut idem sit pater invisibilis ante carnem qui et filius visibilis in carne. atquin si idem ante carnem invisibilis, quomodo visus etiam retro invenitur ante carnem? aeque si idem post carnem visibilis, quomodo et nunc invisibilis pronuntiatur ab apostolis, nisi quia alius quem etretro visum in aenigmate plenius visibilem caro effecit, sermo scilicet qui et caro factus est, alius quem nunquam quisquam vidit, [nisi] pater scilicet cuius est sermo? ' denique inspiciamus quem apostoli viderint.

Quod vidimus, inquit Ioannes, quod audivimus, oculis nostris vidimus, et manus nostrae contrectaverunt de sermone vitae. sermo enim vitae caro factus, et auditus et visus et contrectatus quia caro, qui ante carnem sermo tantum in primordio apud deum patrem, non pater apud semetipsum. nam etsi deus sermo, sed apud deum, quia ex deo deus, quia cum patre apud patrem.

Et vidimus gloriam eius tanquam unigeniti a patre, utique filii scilicet visibilis, glorificati a patre invisibili. et ideo, quoniam sermonem dei deum dixerat, ne adiuvaret adversariorum praesumptionem quasi patrem ipsum vidisset, ad distinguendum inter invisibilem patrem et filium visibilem superdicit ex abundanti, Deum nemo vidit unquam. quem deum? sermonem? atquin, Vidimus et audivimus et contrectavimus de sermone vitae, praedictum est. sed quem deum?

scilicet patrem, apud quem deus erat sermo unigenitus filius, qui sinum patris ipse disseruit. ipse et auditus et visus, et ne phantasma crederetur etiam contrectatus. hunc et Paulus conspexit, nec tamen patrem vidit:

Nonne, inquit, vidi Iesum?

Christum autem et ipse deum cognominavit:

Quorum patres,

et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia deus, benedictus in aevum. ostendit et ipse visibilem dei filium, id est sermonem dei, quia qui caro factus est Christus dictus est. de patre autem ad Timotheum: Quem nemo vidit hominum, sed nec videre potest; exaggerans amplius:

Qui solus habet immortalitatem et lucem habitat inaccessibilem; de quo et supra

dixerat: Regi autem saeculorum immortali invisibili soli deo; ut et 3 qui ex diverso nobis Turner: quis...non libri et edd.

11 nisi secl. K.

A , d 16 semetipsum Turner: sermonem libri et edd. excepto K qui apud sermonem seclusit.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

contraria ipsi filio adscriberemus, mortalitatem accessibilitatem. quem mortuum contestatur secundum scripturas et a se novissime visum, per accessibilem utique lucem: quanquam et illam neque ipse sine periculo luminis expertus est, neque Petrus et Ioannes et Iacobus sine rationis et amentia, qui si non passuri filii gloriam sed patrem vidissent (essent) credo morituri ibidem: deum enim nemo videbit et vivet. si haec ita sunt, constat eum semper visum ab initio qui visus fuerit in fine, et eum nec in fine visum qui nec ab initio fuit visus, et ita duos esse, visum et invisum. filius ergo visus est semper et filius conversatus est semper et filius operatus est semper, ex auctoritate patris et voluntate, quia

Filius nihil a semetipso potest facere nisi viderit patrem facientem —in sensu scilicet facientem. pater enim sensu agit, filius vero quod in patris sensu est videns perficit. sic omnia per filium facta sunt et sine illo factum est nihil.

16. Nec putes sola opera mundi per filium facta sed et quae a deo exinde gesta sunt. pater enim qui diligit filium et omnia tradidit in sinu eius, utique a primordio diligit et a primordio tradidit. ex quo a primordio sermo erat apud deum et deus erat sermo, cui data est omnis potestas a patre in caelis et in terra, non iudicat pater quemquam sed omne iudicium tradidit filio, a primordio tamen: omnem enim dicens potestatem, et omne iudicium, et omnia per eum facta, et omnia tradita in manu eius, nullam exceptionem temporis permittit, quia omnia non erunt si non omnis temporis fuerint. filius itaque est qui ab initio iudicavit, turrem superbissimam elidens linguasque disperden., orbem totum aquarum violentia puniens, pluens super Sodomam et

Gomorram ignem et sulphurem dominus a domino. ipse enim et ad humana semper colloquia descendit, ab Adam usque ad patriarchas et prophetas, in visione in somnio in speculo in aenigmate ordinem suum praestruens ab initio semper quem erat persecuturus in finem. ita semper ediscebat et deus in terris cum hominibus conversari, non alius quam sermo qui caro erat futurus. ediscebat autem ut nobis fidem sterneret, ut facilius crederemus filium dei descendisse in saeculum <si> et retro tale

6 essent supplendum docuit Eng.

14 quod Urs.: qui libri.

18 pro sinu forsan scribendum manu, ut infra.

28 dominus a domino Pam.: deus a deo libri.

35 si suppl. R?.

TEXT 10g quid gestum cognosceremus. propter nos enim sicut scripta sunt ita et gesta sunt in quos aevorum fines decucurrerunt. sic etiam adfectus humanos sciebat iam tunc, suscepturus etiam ipsas substantias hominis carnem et animam, interrogans Adam quasi nesciens, Ubi es, Adam? paenitens quod hominem fecisset quasi non praesciens, temptans Abraham quasi ignorans quid sit in homine, offensus reconciliatus eisdem, et si qua haeretici adprehendunt quasi deo indigna ad destructionem creatoris, ignorantes haec in filium competisse qui etiam passiones humanas et sitim et esuriem et lacrimas et ipsam nativitatem ipsamque mortem erat subiturus, propter hoc minoratus a patre modicum citra angelos. sed haeretici quidem nec filio dei deputabunt convenire quae tu ipsi patri inducis quasi ipse se deminoraverit propter nos, cum scriptura alium dicat ab alio minoratum, non ipsum a semetipso. quid si et alius qui coronabatur gloriam et honorem, alius qui coronabat, utique filium pater? ceterum quale est ut deus omnipotens ille invisibilis quem nemo vidit hominum nec videre potest, ille qui inaccessibilem lucem habitat, ille qui non habitat in manu factis, a cuius conspectu terra contremiscit montes liquescunt ut cera, qui totum orbem manu adprehendit velut nidum, cui caelum thronus et terra scabellum, in quo omnis locus, non ipse in loco, qui universitatis extrema linea est, ille altissimus, in paradiso ad vesperam deambulaverit quaerens Adam, et arcam post introitum Noe clauserit, et apud Abraham sub quercu refrigeraverit, et Moysen de rubo ardenti vocarit, et in fornace

Babylonii regis quartus apparuerit—quanquam filius hominis est dictus?

Tet in imagine et speculo et aenigmateT scilicet et haec nec de filio dei credenda fuissent si scripta non essent, fortasse non credenda de patre licet scripta, quem isti in vulvam

Mariae deducunt et in Pilati tribunal imponunt et in monumento Ioseph reconcludunt. hinc igitur apparet error illorum. ignorantes enim a primordio omnem ordinem divinae dispositionis per filium decucurrisse, ipsum credunt patrem et visum et congressum et operatum, et sitim et esuriem passum, adversus prophetam dicentem, Deus aeternus non sitiet nec esuriet omnino

—Qquanto magis nec morietur nec sepelietur—et ita unum deum semper egisse, id est patrem, quae per filium gesta sunt.

17. Facilius existimaverunt patrem in filii nomine egisse quam 27 tT eicienda suspicor.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

filium in patris, dicente ipso domino, Ego veni in patris mei nomine; item ad ipsum patrem, Nomen tuum manifestavi hominibus; condicente etiam scriptura, Benedictus qui venit in nomine domini—utique filius in patris nomine. et nomen patris Deus omnipotens, Altissimus, Dominus virtutum, Rex

Un Israelis, Qui est. quatenus ita scripturae docent, haec dicimus et in filium competisse, et in his filium venisse et in his semper egisse et sic ea in se hominibus manifestasse.

Omnia, inquit, patris mea sunt: cur non et nomina? cum ergo legis Deum omnipotentem. et Altissimum et Deum virtutum et Regem IO Israelis et Qui est, vide ne per haec filius etiam demonstretur suo iure Deus (omnipotens? qua sermo Dei omnipotentis quaque omnium accepit potestatem, Altissimus qua dextera dei exaltatus sicut Petrus in Actis contionatur, Dominus virtutum quia omnia subiecta sunt illi a patre, Rex Israelis quia illi proprie excidit sors gentis istius, item Qui est quoniam multi filii dicuntur et non sunt. si autem volunt et Christi nomen patris esse, audient suo loco. interim hic mihi promptum sit responsum adversus id quod et de Apocalypsi Ioannis proferunt, Ego dominus qui est et qui fuit et venit, omnipotens, et sicubi alibi dei omnipotentis appellationem non putant etiam filio convenire: quasi qui venturus sit (non sit» omnipotens, cum et filius omnipotentis tam omnipotens sit quam deus dei filius.

18. Sed hanc societatem nominum paternorum in filio ne facile perspiciant perturbat illos scriptura si quando unicum deum statuit, quasi non eadem et deos et dominos duos proposuerit, ut supra ostendimus. ergo quia duos et unum, inquiunt, invenimus, ideo ambo unus, atque idem et filius'et pater. porro non periclitatur scriptura ut illi de tua argumentatione succurras ne sibi contraria videatur: habet rationem et cum unicum deum statuit et cum duos patrem et filium ostendit, et sufficit sibi. filium nominari ab ea constat: salvo enim filio recte unicum deum potest determinasse, cuius est filius. non enim desinit esse qui habet filium ipse unicus, suo scilicet nomine quotiens sine filio nominatur. sine filio autem nominatur cum principaliter determinatur ut prima persona, quae ante filii nomen erat proponenda, quia pater ante cognoscitur et post patrem filius nominatur.

12 omnipotens suppl. R?..

22 non sit supplenda docuit Eng. (ego).

TEXT III igitur unus deus pater, et absque eo alius non est: quod ipse inferens non filium negat sed alium deum: ceterum alius a patre filius non est. denique inspice sequentia huiusmodi pronuntiationum, et invenies fere ad idolorum factitatores atque cultores definitionem earum pertinere ut multitudinem falsorum deorum 5 unio divinitatis expellat, habens tamen filium, quanto individuum et inseparatum a patre, tanto in patre reputandum etsi non nominatum. atquin si nominasset illum separasset, ita dicens,

Alius praeter me non est nisi filius meus: alium enim etiam filium fecisset quem de aliis excepisset. puta solem dicere, Ego sol, et 1o alius praeter me non est nisi radius meus: nonne denotasses vanitatem, quasi non et radius in sole deputetur? itaque praeter semetipsum non esse alium deum, hoc propter idololatriam tam nationum quam Israelis: etiam propter haereticos, qui sicut nationes manibus ita et ipsi verbis idola fabricantur, id est alium 15 deum et alium Christum. igitur et cum se unum pronuntiabat filio pater procurabat, ne ab alio deo Christus venisse credatur sed ab illo qui praedixerat, Ego deus et alius absque me non est, qui se unicum sed cum filio ostendit cum quo caelum solus extendit.

19. Quin et hoc dictum eius in argumentum singularitatis arripient:

Extendi, inquit, caelum solus: quantum ad ceteras virtutes, solus, praestruens adversus coniecturas haereticorum, qui mundum ab angelis et potestatibus diversis volunt structum, qui et ipsum creatorem aut angelum faciunt aut ad alia quae ex25 trinsecus, ut opera mundi, ignorantem quoque subornatum. aut si sic solus caelum extendit, quomodo isti praesumunt in perversum haeretici quasi singularis non admittatur sophia illa dicens, Cum pararet caelum ego aderam illi? et si dixit, Quis cognovit sensum domini et quis illi consilio fuit? utique praeter 3o sophiam ait quae illi aderat. in ipso tamen et cum illo universa compingebat non ignorante quid faceret.

Praeter sophiam autem Praeter filium dicit, qui est Christus sophia et virtus dei, secundum apostolum, solus sciens sensum patris: quis enim scit quae sunt in deo nisi spiritus qui in ipso est?—non qui extra ipsum. erat 35 ergo qui non solum deum faceret, nisi a ceteris solum. sed et evangelium recusetur quod dicat omnia per sermonem a deo

29 etsidixit: add. apostolus Urs:

Esaias Eng.

31 ait Urs.: fuit PM: non fuit PF.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

facta esse et sine eo nihil factum. nisi enim fallor et alibi scriptum est:

Sermone eius caeli firmati sunt, et spiritu eius omnes virtutes eorum. et sermo autem, virtus et sophia, ipse erit dei filius. ita si per filium omnia, caelum quoque per filium extendens

5 non solus extendit, nisi illa ratione qua a ceteris solus. atque adeo statim de filio loquitur: Quis alius deiecit signa ventriloquorum et divinationes a corde, avertens sapientes retrorsum et consilium eorum infatuans, sistens verba filii sui?—dicendo scilicet, Hic est filius meus dilectus, hunc audite. ita filium subiungens ipse 1o interpretator est quomodo caelum solus extenderit, scilicet cum filio solus, sicut cum filio unum. proinde et filii erit vox, Extendi caelum solus, quia sermone caeli confirmati sunt. quia sophia in sermone adsistente paratum est caelum, et omnia per sermonem sunt facta, competit et filium solum extendisse caelum quia

15 solus operationi patris ministravit. idem erit dicens, Ego primus, et in superventura ego sum. primum scilicet omnium sermo:

In principio erat sermo, in quo principio prolatus a patre est. ceterum pater, non habens initium, ut a nullo prolatus, ut innatus,

(primus) non potest videri: qui solus fuit semper, ordinem habere 20 non potuit. igitur si propterea eundem et patrem et filium credendum putaverunt ut unum deum vindicent, salva est unio eius qui cum sit unus habet et filium, aeque et ipsum eisdem scripturis comprehensum. si filium nolunt secundum a patre reputari ne secundus duos faciat deos dici, ostendimus etiam

25 duos deos in scriptura relatos et duos dominos: et tamen ne de isto scandalizentur, rationem reddimus qua dei non duo dicantur nec domini sed qua pater et filius duo, et hoc non ex separatione substantiae sed ex dispositione, cum individuum et inseparatum fillum a patre pronuntiamus, nec statu sed gradu alium, qui

3o etsi deus dicatur quando nominatur singularis, non ideo duos deos faciat sed unum, hoc ipso quod et deus ex unitate patris vocari habeat.

20. Sed argumentationibus eorum adhuc retundendis opera praebenda est si quid de scripturis ad sententiam suam excerpent,

35 cetera nolentes intueri quae et ipsa regulam servant, et quidem salva unione divinitatis et monarchiae sonitu. nam sicut in 19 primus add. K.

P :

34 quaero an scribendum de novis scripturis.

36 pro sonitu scripsit K statu (forsan recte).

TEXT

veteribus nihil aliud tenent quam, Ego deus et alius praeter me non est, ita in evangelio responsionem domini ad Philippum tuentur, Ego et pater unum sumus, et Qui me viderit vidit et patrem, et Ego in patre et pater in me. his tribus capitulis totum instrumentum utriusque testamenti volunt cedere, cum 5 oporteat secundum plura intellegi pauciora. sed proprium hoc est omnium haereticorum. nam quia pauca sunt quae in silva inveniri possunt, pauca adversus plura defendunt et posteriora adversus priora suscipiunt. regula autem omni rei semper ab initio constituta in prioribus et in posteriora praescribit, utique 1o et in paucioribus.

21. Aspice itaque quanta praescribant tibi etiam in evangelio ante Philippi consultationem et ante omnem argumentationem tuam. et in primis ipsa statim praefatio Ioannis evangelizatoris demonstrat quid retro fuerit qui caro fieri habebat:

In principio 15 erat sermo et sermo erat apud deum et deus erat sermo; hic erat in principio apud deum; omnia per ipsum facta sunt et sine ipso factum est nihil. nam si haec non aliter accipi licet quam quomodo scripta sunt, indubitanter alius ostenditur qui fuerit a principio, alius apud quem fuit: alium sermonem dei, alium deum—licet 20 et deus sermo, sed qua dei filius non qua pater—alium per quem omnia, alium a quo omnia. alium autem quomodo dicamus saepe iam edidimus. quo alium dicamus, necesse est non eundem:

(non eundem» autem non quasi separatum, dispositione alium non divisione. hic ergo factus est caro, non ipse cuius erat sermo. 25 huius gloria visa est tanquam unici a patre, non tanquam patris. hic unicus sinum patris disseruit, non sinum suum pater: praecedit enim, Deum nemo vidit unquam. inde et si agnus dei ab Ioanne designatur, non ipse cuius est dilectus. certe filius dei semper, sed non ipse cuius est filius. hoc eum Nathanael statim 3o sensit, sicut et alibi Petrus: Tu es filius dei. hoc et ipse recte sensisse illos confirmat, Nathanaeli quidem respondens, Quia dixi Vidi te sub ficu, ideo credis; Petrum vero beatum adfirmans cui non caro neque sanguis revelasset quod et patrem senserat, sed pater qui in caelis est. quo dicto utriusque personae constituit 35 distinctionem, et filii in terris, quem Petrus agnoverat dei filium,

11 paucioribus libri : pauciora Urs.: totam clausulam secludendam censet Eng.

24 non eundem suppl. Oech.

— 27 unicus Eng. (ego): unius libri.

H .

- 114.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

et patris qui in caelis, qui Petro revelaverat quod Petrus agnoverat, dei filium Christum. cum in templum introiit, aedem patris appellat, ut filius. cum ad Nicodemum dicit, Ita, inquit, dilexit deus mundum ut filium suum unicum dederit, in quem omnis

5 qui crediderit non pereat sed habeat vitam sempiternam: et rursus, Non enim misit deus filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvus sit mundus per eum; qui crediderit in illum non iudicatur; qui non crediderit in illum iam iudicatus est, quia non credidit in nomine unici filii dei. loannes autem io cum interrogaretur quid de lesu cum tingeret, Pater, inquit, dilexit filium et omnia tradidit in manu eius; qui credidit in filium habet vitam aeternam; qui non credidit in filio dei non videbit deum sed ira dei manebit super eum. quem vero Samaritidi ostendit? si Messiam qui dicitur Christus, 15 filium utique se, non patrem, demonstravit, quia et alibi Christus dei filius, non pater, dictus est. exinde discipulis, Meum est, inquit, ut faciam voluntatem eius qui me misit, ut consummem: opus eius. et ad Iudaeos de paralytici sanitate, Pater meus usque modo operatur et ego operor: Pater et ego, filius dicit.

2o denique propter hoc magis Iudaei illum interficere volebant, non tantum quod solveret sabbatum sed quod patrem suum deum diceret, aequans se deo. tunc ergo dicebat ad eos, Nihil filius facere potest a semetipso nisi videat patrem facientem; quae enim ille facit eadem et filius facit: pater enim diligit filium, et omnia

25 demonstravit illi quae ille fecit, et maiora istis opera demonstrabit illi; ut vos miremini; quomodo enim (pater? suscitat mortuos et vivificat, ita et filius quos vult vivificat. neque enim pater iudicat, sed omne iudicium dedit filio, uti omnes honorent filium sicut honorant patrem: qui non honorat filium, non honorat 3o patrem qui filium misit. amen amen dico vobis, quod qui audit sermones meos et credit ei qui me misit habet vitam aeternam, et in iudicium non veniet sed transit de morte in vitam. amen dico vobis, quod veniet hora qua mortui audient vocem filii dei et cum audierint vivent: sicut enim pater habet vitam aeternam

35 a semetipso, ita et filio dedit vitam aeternam habere in semetipso, ,et iudicium dedit illi facere in potestate quia filius hominis est— per carnem scilicet, sicut et filius dei per spiritum eius.

. adhuc adicit, Ego autem habeo maius quam Ioannis testimonium; IO cum tingeret Eng.: contingeret libri.

25 demonstrabit K: demonstravit libri.

26 pater suppl. K.

TEXT

opera enim quae pater mihi dedit consummare, illa i ipsa de me testimonium perhibent quod me pater miserit; et qui me misit pater, ipse testimonium dixit de me. subiungens autem, Neque vocem eius audistis unquam neque formam eius vidistis, confirmat retro non patrem sed filium fuisse qui videbatur et audiebatur. denique dicit, Ego veni in patris mei nomine et non me recepistis—adeo semper filius erat in dei et regis et domini omnipotentis et altissimi nomine. interrogantibus autem quid facere debeant respondit, Ut credatis in eum quem deus misit. panem quoque se adfirmat quem pater praestaret de caelo; ergo omne quod ei daret pater ad se venire, nec reiecturum se, quia de

IO caelo descendisset non ut suam sed ut patris faceret voluntatem ; voluntatem autem patris esse uti qui viderit filium et crediderit in eum vitam et resurrectionem consequatur; neminem porro ad se venire posse nisi quem pater adducat; omnem qui a patre

I5 audisset et didicisset, venire ad se: Non quasi patrem aliquis viderit, adiciens et hic, ut ostenderet patris esse sermonem per quem docti fiant. at cum discedunt ab eo multi et apostolis suis offert si velint discedere et ipsi, quid respondit Simon Petrus?

Quo discedimus? verba vitae habes, et nos credimus quod tu

sis Christus: patrem illum esse an patris Christum?

22. Cuius autem doctrinam dicit ad quam mirabantur? suam an patris? aeque ambigentibus inter se ne ipse esset Christus, utique non pater sed filius, Meque scitis, inquit, (et scitis» unde sim, et non veni a me ipso, sed est verus qui me misit, quem vos non nostis; ego novi illum, quia apud illum sum. non dixit, Quia ipse sum, et, Ipse me misi, sed, Ille me misit. item cum misissent ad invadendum eum pharisaei, Modicum adhuc tempus, ait, vobiscum sum, et vado ad eum qui me misit. at ubi se negat esse solum— Sed ego, inquit, et qui me misit pater—nonne duos demonstrat, tam duos quam inseparatos? immo totum erat hoc quod docebat, inseparatos duos esse: siquidem et legem proponens duorum hominum testimonium confirmantem, subiungit, Ego testimonium dico de me, et testimonium dicit de me qui me misit pater. quodsi unus esset, dum idem est et filius et pater, non uteretur legis patrocinio fidem imponentis non unius testimonio sed duorum. item interrogatus ubi esset pater, neque se neque

17 quaero an scribendum esse se sermonem.

24 meque K: neque me PMF: et scitis supplenda censui.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

patrem notum esse illis respondens, duos dixit ignotos, quod si ipsum nossent patrem nossent: non quidem quasi ipse esset pater et filius, sed quia per individuitatem neque agnosci neque ignorari alter sine altero potest.

Qui me, ait, misit verax est, et ego quae ab eo audivi ea et loquor in mundum: interpretante extrinsecus scriptura non cognovisse illos quod de patre dixisset, cum scilicet cognoscere debuissent sermones patris in filio esse, legendo apud Hieremiam, Et dixit mihi dominus, Ecce dedi sermones meos in os tuum; et apud Esaiam, Dominus dat mihi linguam disciplinae ad cognoscendum quando oporteat dicere sermonem; sicut ipse rursus, Tunc, inquit, cognoscetis quod ego sim, et a memetipso nihil loquar, sed sicut me docuit ita et loquor, quia et qui me misit mecum est. et hoc ad testimonium individuorum duorum. item in altercatione Iudaeorum, exprobrans quod occidere eum vellent, Ego, inquit, quae vidi penes patrem meum loquor, et vos quod vidistis penes patrem vestrum id facitis; et nunc vultis occidere hominem veritatem vobis locutum quam audivit a deo: et, Si deus esset pater vester dilexissetis me; ego enim ex deo exivi et veni (et tamen non separantur, licet exisse dixerit, ut quidam arripiunt huius dicti occasionem: exivit autem a patre ut radius ex sole, ut rivus ex fonte, ut frutex ex semine): <et>, Ego daemonium non habeo, sed honoro patrem meum: et, Si ego me ipse glorificem, nihil est gloria mea; est qui me glorificet pater, quem vos dicitis deum esse vestrum nec nostis illum; at ego novi eum, et si dicam Non novi, ero similis vestri mendax; sed novi illum et sermonem eius servo. at cum subiungit, Abraham diem meum vidit et laetatus est, nempe demonstrat filium Abrahae retro visum, non patrem. item super caecum illum patris opera dicit se facere oportere: cui post restitutionem luminum, Tu, inquit, credis in filium dei? et interroganti quis esset iste, ipse se demonstrans utique filium demonstravit. quem credendum esse dixerat. dehinc cognosci se profitetur a patre et patrem a se, et ideo se diligi a patre quod animam suam ponat, quia hoc praeceptum accepisset a patre. et interrogatus a Iudaeis si ipse esset Christus (utique dei, nam usque in hodiernum Iudaei Christum dei, non ipsum patrem, sperant, quia nunquam Christus pater scriptus est venturus),

Loquor, inquit, vobis et non creditis; opera quae ego facio in

4 sqq. potest etc. ita fere bunxit K.

22 et add. K.

TEXT

* nomine patris, ipsa de me testimonium dicunt. quod testimonium? ipsum scilicet esse de quo interrogabant, id est Christum dei. de ovibus etiam suis, quod nemo illas de manu eius eriperet, Pater enim, (inquit), quod mihi dedit maius est omnibus; et, Ego et pater unum sumus. hic ergo iam gradum 5 volunt figere stulti, immo caeci, qui non videant, primo, Ego et pater, duorum esse significationem; dehinc in novissimo, Sumus, non ex unius esse persona, quod pluraliter dictum est; tum quod Unum sumus, non Unus sumus dicit». si enim dixisset Unus sumus, potuisset adiuvare sententiam illorum: 10 unus enim singularis numeri significatio videtur. adhuc cum duo masculini generis unum dicit neutrali verbo—quod non pertinet ad singularitatem, sed ad unitatem, ad similitudinem, ad coniunctionem, ad dilectionem patris qui filium diligit, et ad obsequium filii qui voluntati patris obsequitur—Unum sumus, 15 dicens, ego et pater, ostendit duos esse quos aequat et iungit. adeo addit etiam multa se opera a patre ostendisse, quorum nihil lapidari mereretur. et ne putarent ideo se illum lapidare debere quasi se deum ipsum, id est patrem, voluisset intellegi quia dixerat Ego et pater unum sumus, qua filium dei deum ostendens, 20 non qua ipsum deum, Si in lege, inquit, scriptum est, Ego dixi

Vos dii estis, et non potest solvi scriptura, quem pater sanctificavit et misit in mundum vos eum blasphemare dicitis quia dixerat,

Filius dei sum? si non facio opera patris mei, nolite credere; si vero facio et mihi credere non vultis, vel propter opera credite, 25 et scitote quod ego in patre sim et pater in me. per opera ergo erit pater in filio et filius in patre, et ita per opera intellegimus unum esse patrem «et filium)». adeo totum hoc perseverabat inducere, ut duo tamen crederentur in una virtute, quia aliter filius credi non posset nisi duo crederentur.

23. Post haec autem Martha filium dei eum confessa non magis erravit quam Petrus et Nathanael: quanquam et si errasset statim didicisset. ecce enim ad suscitandum fratrem eius a mortuis ad caelum et ad patrem dominus suspiciens, Pater, inquit

4 inquit supplendum censui: cetera habent PM: qui maior est omnibus mihi dedit F.

9 dicit suppl. K.

1I videtur etc. ita fere bungenda docuit Eng.

28 et filium add. Urs.

: ate:

31 Martha Pam.:

Maria libri (et forsan ipse Septimius).

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

utique filius, gratias ago tibi quod me semper exaudias; propter istas turbas circumstantes dixi, ut credant quod tu me miseris. sed et in conturbatione animae: Et quid dicam? pater, salvum me fac de ista hora? atquin propter hoc veni in istam horam; verum, pater, glorifica nomen tuum. in quo erat filius: Ego, inquit, veni in patris mei nomine. inde—scilicet suffecerat filii ad patrem vox—ecce ex abundantia respondet de caelo pater i filio contestatus, Hic est filius meus dilectus in quo bene sensi, audite illum: ita et in isto, Glorificavi, et glorificabo rursus. quot personae tibi videntur, perversissime Praxea, nisi quot et voces? habes filium in terris, habes patrem in caelis. non est separatio ista, sed dispositio divina. ceterum scimus deum etiam intra abyssos esse et ubique consistere, sed vi et potestate: filium quoque, ut individuum, cum ipso ubique. tamen in ipsa oeconomia pater voluit filium in terris haberi, se vero in caelis. quo et ipse filius suspiciens et orabat et postulabat a patre quo et nos erectos docebat orare, Pater noster qui es in caelis, cum sit et ubique. hanc sedem suam voluit pater:

(Caelum, inquit, mihi thronus. hinc et» minoravit filium modico citra angelos ad terram dimittendo, gloria tamen et honore coronaturus illum in caelos resumendo. haec iam praestabat illi dicens, Et glorificavi et glorificabo. postulat filius de terris, pater promittit a caelis. quid mendacem facis et patrem et filium? si aut pater de caelis loquebatur ad filium cum ipse esset filius apud terras, aut filius ad patrem precabatur cum ipse esset pater apud caelos, quale est ut filius item postularet a semetipso postulando a patre si

Io (45 | 20

filius erat pater, iterum pater sibi ipse promitteret promittendo filio si pater erat? ut sic duos divisos diceremus quomodo iactitatis, tolerabilius erat duos divisos quam unum deum versipellem praedicare. itaque ad istos nunc dominus pronuntiavit,

Non propter me ista vox venit sed propter vos, ut credant et hi et patrem et filium in suis quemque nominibus et personis et locis. sed adhuc exclamat lesus et dicit, Qui credit in me, non in me credit sed in eum credit qui me misit, quia per filium in patrem creditur et auctoritas credendi filio pater est: Et qui conspicit me conspicit eum qui me misit: quomodo? quoniam

6 inde etc. ita punxi, 8 contestatus ego: contestatur libri: contestaturus Oeh.

18 ita fere scribendum indicavit K: voluit pater: minoravyit PM: voluit pater mihi thronus minoravit F.

25 pater K: filius PMF.

TEXT .

II9 scilicet, A memetipso non sum locutus, sed qui me misit pater ipse mihi mandatum dedit quid dicam et quid loquar—Dominus enim dat mihi linguam disciplinae ad cognoscendum quando oporteat dicere—sermonem quem ego loquor, sicut mihi pater dixit ita et loquor. haec quomodo dicta sunt, evangelizator et utique tam 5 carus discipulus Ioannes magis quam Praxeas noverat: ideoque ipse de suo sensu, Ante autem sollemnitatem paschae, inquit, sciens Iesus omnia sibi tradita a patre esse, et se ex deo esse et ad deum vadere. sed Praxeas ipsum vult patrem de semetipso exisse et ad semetipsum abisse, ut diabolus in cor Iudae non

MT o filii traditionem sed patris ipsius inmiserit: nec diabolo bene nec haeretico, quia nec in filio bono suo diabolus operatus est traditionem. filius enim traditus est dei qui erat in filio hominis, sicut scriptura subiungit: Nunc glorificatus est filius hominis et deus glorificatus est in illo. quis deus? utique non pater, sed 15 sermo patris qui erat in filio hominis, id est in carne: in qua et glorificatus iam, virtute vero et sermone, et ante Iesus, Et deus, inquit, glorificabit illum in semetipso—id est pater filium, quem in semetipso habens etsi porrectum ad terram, mox per resurrectionem <glorificavit> morte devicta.

24. Erant plane qui et tunc non intellegerent: quoniam et Thomas aliquamdiu incredulus, Domine, inquit, non scimus quo eas, et quomodo viam novimus? et Iesus, Ego sum via, veritas et vita; nemo venit ad patrem nisi per me; si cognovissetis me cognovissetis et patrem; sed abhinc nostis illum et 25 vidistis illum. et pervenimus iam ad Philippum, qui spe excitatus videndi patris nec intellegens quomodo visum patrem audisset,

Ostende, inquit, nobis patrem, et sufficit nobis: et dominus, Philippe, tanto tempore vobiscum sum et non cognovistis me? quem dicit cognosci ab illis debuisse (se»? hoc enim solum 3o discuti oportet. quasi patrem an quasi filium? si quasi patrem, doceat Praxeas tanto tempore Christum cum eis conversatum patrem aliquando non dico intellegi verum vel aestimari potuisse. nobis omnes scripturae et veteres Christum dei et novae filium dei praefiniunt. hoc et retro praedicabatur, hoc et ab ipso Christo 35 pronuntiabatur, immo iam et ab ipso patre coram de caelis filium

2 sqq. quid loquar, etc. ita fere pungendum indicavit K.

17 lesus Jun.: lesum PMF.

18 glorificabit Jun.: glorificavit PMF.

20 glorificavit suppl. Urs.

30 se supplendum docuit Eng.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

profitente et filium glorificante: Hic est filius meus; et, Glorificavi et glorificabo. hoc et a discipulis credebatur, hoc et a Iudaeis non credebatur: hoc se volens credi ab illis omni hora patrem nominabat et patrem praeferebat et patrem honorabat. si ita est, 5 ergo non patrem tanto tempore secum conversatum ignoraverant sed filium: et dominus, eum se ignorari exprobrans quem ignoraverant, eum utique agnosci volebat quem tanto non agnosci tempore exprobraverat, id est filium. et apparere iam potest quomodo dictum sit, Qui me videt videt et patrem: scilicet quo Io et supra, Ego et pater unum sumus. quare? quia, Ego ex deo exivi et veni; et, Ego sum via, nemo ad patrem venit nisi per me; et, Nemo ad me venit nisi pater eum adduxerit; et, Omnia mihi pater tradidit; et, Sicut pater vivificat, ita et filius; et, Si me cognovistis et patrem cognovistis. secundum haec enim vicarium

15 se patris ostenderat, per quem pater et videretur in factis et audiretur in verbis et cognosceretur in filio facta et verba patris administrante: quia invisibilis pater, quod et Philippus didicerat in lege et meminisse debuerat—Deum nemo videbit et vivet. et ideo suggillatur patrem videre desiderans quasi visibilem, et

20 instruitur visibilem eum in filio fieri ex virtutibus non ex personae repraesentatione. denique si patrem eundem filium vellet intellegi dicendo, Qui me videt patrem videt, quomodo subicit, Non credis quia ego in patre et pater in me? debuerat enim subiunxisse, Non credis quia ego sum pater? aut quo exaggeravit,

25 si non illud manifestavit quod voluerat intellegi, se scilicet filium esse? porro dicendo, Non credis quia ego in patre et pater in me, propterea potius exaggeravit ne, quia dixerat, Qui me vidit et patrem vidit, pater existimaretur: quod nunquam existimari se voluit, qui semper se filium et a patre venisse profitebatur. igitur 3oet manifestam fecit duarum personarum coniunctionem, ne pater seorsum quasi visibilis in conspectu desideraretur et ut filius repraesentator patris haberetur. et nihilominus hoc quoque interpretatus est, quomodo pater esset in filio et filius in patre:

Verba, inquit, quae ego loquor vobis non sunt mea—utique quia 35 patris—pater autem manens in me facit opera. per opera ergo virtutum et verba doctrinae manens in filio pater, per ea videtur per quae manet et per eum in quo manet, ex hoc ipso apparente proprietate utriusque personae dum dicit, Ego sum in patre et pater in me. atque adeo Credite ait. quid? me patrem esse?

4o non puto scriptum esse, sed, Quia ego in patre et pater in me, si

TEXT I2I quo minus vel propter opera credite, ea utique opera per quae pater in filio non visu sed sensu videbatur.

25. Post Philippum et totam substantiam quaestionis istius, quae in finem evangelii perseverant in eodem genere sermonis, quo pater et filius in sua proprietate distinguuntur. paracletum quoque a patre se postulaturum, cum ascendisset ad patrem, et missurum repromittit, et quidem alium. sed iam praemisimus quomodo alium. ceterum, De meo sumet, inquit, sicut ipse de patris. ita connexus patris in filio et filii in paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero. qui tres unum sunt, non non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et pater unum sumus, ad substantiae unitatem non ad numeri singularitatem. percurre adhüc, et invenies quem patrem cr credis vitem patris dictum et patrem agricolam, uti quez in terra tu putas fuisse hunc rursus in caelis a filio agnosci cum illuc respiciens discipulos suos patri tradidit. sed etsi in isto evangelio non est revelatum, Deus meus ad quid me dereliquisti? et, Pater in tuis manibus depono spiritum meum, tamen post resurrectionem et devictae gloriam mortis, exposita necessitate omnis humilitatis, cum iam patrem se posset ostendere tam fideli feminae, ex dilectione non ex curiositate nec ex incredulitate Thomae tangere eum adgressae, Ne, inquit, contigeris me, nondum ascendi ad patrem meum, vade autem ad fratres meos (quin et in hoc filium ostendit, filios enim appellasset illos si pater fuisset) et dices eis, Ascendo ad patrem meum et patrem vestrum, deum meum et deum vestrum. pater ad patrem et deus ad deum? an filius ad patrem et sermo ad deum? ipsa quoque clausula evangelii propter quid consignat haec scripta nisi, Ut credatis, inquit, Iesum Christum filium dei? igitur quaecunque ex his putaveris ad demonstrationem eiusdem patris et filii proficere tibi posse, adversus definitivam evangelii sententiam niteris: non ideo enim scripta sunt ut patrem credas

Iesum Christum, sed ut filium.

IO I5

26. Propter unum Philippi sermonem et domini responsionem ad eum videmur Ioannis evangelium decucurrisse, ne tot manifeste pronuntiata et ante et postea unus sermo subvertat, secundum

4 perseverant PMF: perseverat Latinius (perperam).

13 vitem K: vice PMF (manifesto errore).

:14 uti quem edit. Leopoldi: utique PMF.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

omnia potius quam adversus omnia, etiam adversus suos sensus, interpretandus. ceterum ut alia evangelia non interponam quae nativitate dominica fidem confirmant, sufficit eum qui nasci habebat ex virgine ab ipso annuntiari angelo filium dei deter5 minatum:

Spiritus dei superveniet in te et virtus altissimi obumbrabit te, propterea quod nascetur ex te sanctum vocabitur filius dei. volent quidem et hic argumentari, sed veritas praevalebit. nempe, inquiunt, filius dei deus est, et virtus altissimi altissimus est: nec pudet illos inicere quod, si esset, scriptum

10 fuisset. quem enim verebatur ut non aperte pronuntiaret, Deus superveniet et altissimus obumbrabit te? dicens autem, Spiritus dei, etsi spiritus deus, tamen non directo deum nominans portionem totius intellegi voluit quae cessura erat in filii nomen. hic spiritus dei idem erit sermo. sicut enim Ioanne dicente, Sermo caro 15 factus est, spiritum quoque intellegimus in mentione sermonis, ita et hic sermonem quoque agnoscimus in nomine spiritus. nam et spiritus substantia est sermonis et sermo operatio spiritus, et duo unum sunt. ceterum alium loannes profitebitur carnem factum, alium angelus carnem futurum, si non et spiritus sermo

20 est et sermo spiritus. sicut ergo sermo dei non est ipse cuius est, ita nec spiritus, etsi deus dictus est, non tamen ipse est cuius est dictus. nulla res alicuius ipsa est cuius est. plane cum quid ex ipso est, et sic eius est dum ex ipso sit, potest tale quid esse quale et ipse ex quo est et cuius est: et ideo spiritus deus et sermo deus,

25 quia ex deo, non tamen ipse ex quo est. quodsi spiritus dei,. tamquam substantiva res, non erit ipse deus sed hactenus deus qua ex ipsius dei substantia, qua et substantiva res est et ut portio aliqua totius, multo magis virtus altissimi non erit ipse altissimus, quia nec substantiva res est quod est spiritus, sicut nec sapientia

30 nec providentia: et haec enim substantiae non sunt sed accidentia uniuscuiusque substantiae. virtus spiritui accidit, nec ipsa erit spiritus. his itaque rebus, quodcunque sunt, spiritu dei et sermone et virtute, conlatis in virginem, quod de ea nascitur filius dei est. hoc se et in istis evangeliis ipse testatur statim a puero:

4 annuntiari PMF: annuntiali K (forsan recte) 8 post filius dei deus est lacunam indicavit K tanquam exciderit et spiritus dei deus est (forsan recte).

I2 etsi spiritus deus ego: etsi spiritus dei PMF: etsi spiritus dei deus Urs.

21 etsi deus dictus est libri et editores : etsi dei dictus est K (forsan recte).

25 quodsi spiritus dei ego: quod deus dei PMF: quodsi deus dei Urs.

27 qua et Urs.: quae et libri.

TEXT

Non scitis, inquit, quod in patris mei me esse oportet? hoc et satanas eum in temptationibus novit:

Si filius dei es. hoc et exinde daemonia confitentur: Scimus qui sis, filius dei. patrem et ipse adorat.

Christum se dei a Petro agnitum non negat. insultans in spiritu ad patrem, Confiteor, inquit, tibi pater quod 5 absconderis haec a sapientibus. hic quoque patrem nemini notum nisi filio affirmat, et patris filium confessurum confessores et negaturum negatores suos apud patrem, inducens parabolam filii, non patris, in vineam missi post aliquot servos et occisi a malis rusticis et a patre defensi, ignorans et ipse diem et horam 10° ultimam soli patri notam, disponens regnum discipulis quomodo et sibi dispositum dicit a patre, habens potestatem legiones angelorum postulandi ad auxilium a patre si vellet, exclamans quod se deus reliquisset, in patris manibus spiritum ponens, et post resurrectionem spondens missurum se discipulis promis15 sionem patris, et novissime mandans ut tinguerent in patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum, non in unum: nam nec semel sed ter, ad singula nomina in personas singulas, tinguimur.

| 27. Et quid ego in tam manifestis morabor, cum ea aggredi debeam de quibus manifesta obumbrare quaerunt? undique 2o enim obducti distinctione patris et filii, quam manente coniunctione disponimus ut solis et radii et fontis et fluvii, per individuum tamen numerum duorum et trium, aliter eam ad suam nihilominus sententiam interpretari conantur, ut aeque in una persona! utrumque distinguant, patrem et filium, dicentes filium carnem z5 esse, id est hominem id est Iesum, patrem autem spiritum, id est deum id est Christum. et qui unum eundemque contendunt patrem et filium iam incipiunt dividere illos potius quam unare. si enim alius est Iesus alius Christus, alius erit filius alius pater, quia filius Iesus et pater Christus. talem monarchiam apud Valentinum 3o fortasse didicerunt, duos facere Iesum et Christum. sed et haec iniectio eorum ex praetractatis iam retusa est, quod sermo dei vel spiritus dei et virtus altissimi dictus sit quem patrem faciunt: non enim ipse sunt cuius dicuntur, sed ex ipso et ipsius. et aliter tamen in isto capitulo revincentur. ecce, inquiunt, ab angelo 35 praedicatum est, Propterea quod nascetur sanctum vocabitur filius dei: caro itaque nata est, caro itaque erit filius dei. immo

25 dicentes MF: discentes P vulgo (manifesto errore).

34 ipse K: ipsae PMF.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

de spiritu dei dictum est. certe enim de spiritu sancto virgo concepit, et quod concepit id peperit. id ergo nasci habebat quod erat conceptum et pariundum, id est spiritus, cuius et vocabitur nomen Emmanuel, quod est interpretatum Nobiscum deus. caro autem deus non est ut de illa dictum sit, Vocabitur sanctum filius dei, sed ille qui in ea natus est deus, de quo et psalmus,

Quoniam deus homo natus est in illa et aedificavit eam voluntate patris. quis deus in ea natus? sermo et spiritus qui cum sermone de patris voluntate natus est. igitur sermo in carne: dum et de hoc quaerendum, quomodo sermo caro sit factus, utrumne quasi transfiguratus in carne an indutus carnem. immo indutus. ceterum deum inmutabilem et informabilem credi necesse est, ut aeternum. transfiguratio autem interemptio est pristini: omne enim quodcunque transfiguratur in aliud desinit esse quod fuerat et incipit esse quod non erat. deus autem neque desinit esse neque aliud potest esse. sermo autem deus, et sermo domini manet in aevum, perseverando scilicet in sua forma. quem si non capit configurari, consequens est ut sic caro factus intellegatur dum

IO I5 fit in carne et manifestatur et videtur et contrectatur per carnem, quia et cetera sic accipi exigunt. si enim sermo ex transfiguratione et demutatione substantiae caro factus est, una iam erit substantia Iesus ex duabus, ex carne et spiritu, mixtura quaedam, ut electrum ex auro et argento, et incipit nec aurum esse, id est spiritus, neque argentum, id est caro, dum alterum altero mutatur et tertium quid efficitur. neque ergo deus erit lesus; sermo enim desiit esse, qui caro factus est: neque homo caro; caro enim non proprie est, quia sermo fuit. ita ex utroque neutrum est: aliud longe tertium est quam utrumque. sed enim invenimus illum directo et deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente, Quoniam deus homo natus est in illa aedificavit eam voluntate patris: certe usquequaque filium dei et filium hominis, cum deum et hominem sine dubio secundum utramque substantiam in sua proprietate distantem, quia neque sermo aliud quam deus neque caro aliud quam homo. sic et apostolus de utraque eius substantia docet: Qui factus est, inquit, ex semine

David—hic erit homo et filius hominis; Qui definitus est filius dei secundum spiritum—hic erit deus, et sermo dei filius: videmus duplicem statum, non confusum sed coniunctum, in una persona deum et hominem lesum. de Christo autem differo. et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantiae, ut et spiritus res suas

TEXT

egerit in illo, id est virtutes et opera et signa, et caro passiones suas functa sit, esuriens sub diabolo, sitiens sub Samaritide, flens

Lazarum, anxia usque ad mortem, denique et mortua est. quodsi tertium quid esset ex utroque confusum, ut electrum, non tam distincta documenta parerent utriusque substantiae; sed et spiritus 5 carnalia et caro spiritalia egisset ex translatione, aut neque carnalia neque spiritalia sed tertiae alicuius formae ex confusione: immo aut sermo mortuus esset aut caro mortua non esset, si sermo conversus esset in carnem; aut caro enim immortalis fuisset aut sermo mortalis. sed quia substantiae ambae in statu 1o suo quaeque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operae et exitus sui occurrerunt. disce igitur cum Nicodemo quia quod in carne natum est caro est, et quod de spiritu spiritus est. neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt. ex his lesus constitit, ex carne homo ex spiritu deus, quem tunc angelus ex ea 15 parte qua spiritus erat dei filium pronuntiavit, servans carni filium hominis dici. sic et apostolus etiam dei et hominum appellans sequestrem utriusque substantiae confirmavit. novissime, qui filium dei carnem interpretaris, exhibe qui sit filius hominis: aut numquid spiritus erit? sed spiritum patrem ipsum vis haberi, 2o quia deus spiritus: quasi non et dei spiritus, sicut et sermo deus, et dei sermo.

28. Itaque Christum facis patrem, stultissime, qui nec ipsam vim inspicias nominis huius, si tamen nomen est Christus et non appellatio potius: unctus enim significatur. unctus autem non 25 magis nomen est quam vestitus, quam calceatus, accidens nomini res. an tu, si ex aliquo argumento vestitus quoque vocaretur

Iesus, quomodo Christus ab unctionis sacramento, aeque lesum filium dei diceres, vestitum vero patrem crederes? nunc de Christo. si pater Christus est pater unctus est, et utique ab 3o alio: aut si a semetipso, proba. sed non ita docent Acta Apostolorum in illa exclamatione ecclesiae ad deum, Convenerunt enim universi in ista civitate adversus sanctum filium tuum quem unxisti, Herodes et Pilatus cum nationibus. ita et filium dei Iesum contestati sunt et filium a patre unctum: ergo Iesus idem 55 erit Christus qui a patre unctus est, non pater qui filium unxit. sic et Petrus: Firmissime itaque cognoscat omnis domus Israel quod et dominum et Christum, id est unctum, fecerit eum deus, hunc lesum quem vos crucifixistis.

Ioannes autem etiam

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

mendacem notat eum qui negaverit lesum esse Christum, contra de deo natum omnem qui crediderit Iesum esse Christum: propter quod et hortatur ut credamus nomini filii eius Iesu

Christi, ut scilicet communio sit nobis cum patre et filio eius Iesu 5 Christo. sic et Paulus ubique deum patrem ponit et dominum nostrum lesum Christum: cum ad Romanos scribit, gratias agit deo per dominum nostrum lesum Christum; cum ad Galatas, non ab hominibus se apostolum praefert nec per hominem, sed per lesum Christum et deum patrem. et habes (per? totum 1o instrumentum eius quae in hunc modum pronuntiant et duos proponunt deum patrem et dominum nostrum Iesum Christum filium patris, et Iesum ipsum esse Christum, in altero quoque nomine dei filium. nam exinde eo iure quo utrumque nomen unius est, id est dei filii, etiam alterum sine altero eiusdem est: et

15 sive lesus tantummodo positum est, intellegitur et Christus quia Iesus unctus est, sive solummodo Christus, idem est et lesus quia unctus est Iesus. quorum nominum alterum est proprium quod ab angelo impositum est, alterum accidens quod ab unctione convenit, dum tamen Christus filius sit, non pater. postremo 20 quam caecus est qui nec in Christi nomine intellegit alium deum portendi si Christi nomen patri adscribat. si enim Christus pater deus est qui dicit, Ascendo ad patrem meum et patrem vestrum et deum meum et deum vestrum, utique alium patrem super se et deum ostendit. si item pater Christus est, alius est qui solidat

25 tonitruum et condit spiritum et adnuntiat in homines Christum suum. et si Adstiterunt reges terrae et archontes congregati sunt in unum adversus (dominum et adversus» Christum ipsius, alius erit dominus contra cuius Christum congregati sunt reges et archontes. et si Haec dicit dominus domino meo Christo,

3o alius erit dominus qui loquitur ad patrem Christum. et cum apostolus scribit, Ut deus domini nostri Iesu Christi det vobis spiritum sapientiae et agnitionis, alius erit deus Christi lesu, charismatum spiritalium largitor. certe, ne per omnia evagemur, qui suscitavit Christum, suscitaturus [est] et mortalia corpora

35 nostra, tanquam alius erit suscitator quam pater mortuus et pater suscitatus, si Christus qui est mortuus pater est.

9 per suppl. K : totum instrumentum PMFR! : tota instrumenta R? vulgo.

11 deum patrem libri: deum et patrem R!.

27 dominum et adversus suppl. K.

30 Christum K:

Christi libri.

34 est secl. K.

35 tanquam PMF: | iamque Rig.

TEXT 127.

29. Obmutescat, obmutescat ista blasphemia. sufficiat Christum filium dei mortuum dici, et hoc quia ita scriptum est. nam et apostolus, non sine onere pronuntians Christum mortuum, adicit Secundum scripturas, ut duritiam pronuntiationis scripturarum auctoritate molliret et scandalum auditori everteret. 5 quanquam cum duae substantiae censeantur in Christo lesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam, ut mortalem quae humana sit, apparet quatenus eum mortuum dicat, id est qua carnem et hominem et filium hominis, non qua spiritum et sermonem et dei filium. dicendo denique, Christus mortuus 1o | est—id est unctus—id quod unctum est mortuum ostendit, id est carnem. ergo, inquis, et nos eadem ratione dicentes qua vos filium non blasphemamus in dominum deum; non enim ex divina sed ex humana substantia mortuum dicimus. atquin blasphematis, non tantum quia mortuum dicitis patrem sed et 15 quia crucifixum. maledictiome enim crucifixi quae ex lege in filium competit, quia Christus pro nobis maledictio factus est, non pater, Christum in patrem convertentes in patrem blasphematis. nos autem, dicentes Christum crucifixum, non maledicimus illum sed maledictum legis referimus, quia nec apostolus 2o hoc dicens blasphemavit. sicut autem de quo quid capit dici sine blasphemia dicitur, ita quod non capit blasphemia est si dicatur. ergo nec compassus est pater filio. scilicet directam blasphemiam in patrem veriti, diminui eam hoc modo sperant, concedentes iam patrem et filium duos esse, si filius sic quidem patitur pater 25 vero compatitur. stulti et in hoc. quid est enim compati quam cum alio pati? porro si impassibilis pater utique et incompas- . oqe .

* "

? etapa est Exe dota otf lo quoda ds LU nd sibilis; aut si compassibilis utique passibilis. nihil ei vel hoc timore tuo praestas. times dicere passibilem quem dicis compassibilem. tam autem incompassibilis pater est quam im3o passibilis etiam filius ex ea condicione qua deus est. sed quomodo filius passus est si non compassus est et pater? separatur a filio, non a deo. nam et fluvius si aliqua turbulentia contaminatur, quanquam una substantia de fonte decurrat nec secernatur a fonte, tamen fluvii iniuria non pertinebit ad fontem; et licet aqua 35 fontis sit quae patiatur in fluvio, dum non in fonte patitur sed in fluvio non fons patitur sed fluvius qui ex fonte est. ita et 16 maledictione R? vulgo: maledictio PMFR!: maledictionem K qui postea Christum omittit.

22 quod PMF: de quo K (forsan recte).

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

spiritus dei qui pati possit in filio? quia non in patre pateretur sed in filio, pater passus non videretur? sed sufficit nihil spiritum dei passum suo nomine: quia si quid passus est in filio (possibile quidem erat ut pater cum filio pateretur in carne. quiz hoc re5 tractatum, nec quisquam negabit: quando nec nos pati pro deo possumus nisi spiritus dei sit in nobis, qui et loquitur de nobis quae sunt confessionis, non ipse tamen patiens sed pati posse praestans.

30. Alioquin si ultra perges, potero tibi durius respondere et 10 te cum ipsius domini pronuntiatione committere, uti dicam, quid de isto quaeris? habes ipsum exclamantem in passione, Deus meus, deus meus, ut quid me dereliquisti? ergo aut filius patiebatur a patre derelictus, et pater passus non est qui filium dereliquit: aut si pater erat qui patiebatur, ad quem deum exclamabat ?

15 sed haec vox carnis et animae, id est hominis, non sermonis nec spiritus, id est non dei, propterea emissa est ut impassibilem deum ostenderet qui sic filium dereliquit dum hominem eius tradidit in mortem. hoc et apostolus sensit scribens, Si pater filio non pepercit. hoc et Esaias prior pronuntiavit:

Et dominus eum 20 tradidit pro delictis nostris. sic reliquit dum non parcit, sic reliquit dum tradit. ceterum non reliquit pater filium, in cuius manibus filius spiritum suum posuit. denique posuit, et statim obiit: spiritu enim manente in carne caro omnino mori non potest. ita relinqui a patre mori fuit filio. filius igitur et moritur et re25 suscitatur a patre secundum scripturas. filius ascendit in superiora caelorum, qui et descendit in interiora terrae. hic sedet ad dexteram patris, non pater ad suam. hunc videt Stephanus, cum lapidatur, adhuc stantem ad dexteram dei, ut exinde sessurum donec ponat illi pater omnes inimicos sub pedibus suis. hic et 3o venturus est rursus super nubes caeli talis qualis et ascendit. hic interim acceptum a patre munus effudit spiritum sanctum, tertium nomen divinitatis et tertium gradum maiestatis, unius praedicatorem monarchiae sed et oeconomiae interpretatorem si quis sermones novae prophetiae eius admiserit, et deductorem omnis

35 veritatis quae est in patre et filio et spiritu sancto secundum Christianum sacramentum.

1-4 locum paene conclamatum ita punxi et possible addere ausus sum.

4 quin scripsi: quia libri. retractatum G: retractatus PMF.

9 perges K: pergens libri: pergas R? vulgo.

TEXT

31. Ceterum Iudaicae fidei ista res, sic unum deum credere ut filium adnumerare ei nolis et post filium spiritum. quid enim erit inter nos et illos nisi differentia ista? quod opus evangelii, quae est substantia novi testamenti statuens legem et prophetas usque ad Ioannem, si non exinde pater et filius et spiritus, tres crediti, unum deum sistunt? sic deus voluit novare sacramentum ut nove unus crederetur per filium et spiritum, ut coram iam deus in suis propriis nominibus et personis cognosceretur qui et retro per filium et spiritum praedicatus non intellegebatur. viderint igitur antichristi, qui negant patrem et filium: negant enim patrem

dum eundem filium dicunt, et negant filium dum eundem patrem credunt, dando illis quae non sunt, auferendo quae sunt. qui vero confessus fuerit Christum filium dei, non patrem, deus in illo manet et ipse in deo. nos credimus testimonio dei quo testatus est de filio suo:

Qui filium non habet, nec vitam habet. non habet autem filium qui eum alium quam filium credit.

I5 14 nos PM: non FR (manifesto errore).

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

AGAINST PRAXEAS

I. In divers ways has the devil shown hostility to the Truth.

At times he has tried to shake it by pretending to defend it.

He is the champion of the one Lord, the Almighty, the creator of the world, so that he may make a heresy out of the unity. He was born of her, himself s suffered, in | short himself is Jesus Christ.

'The serpent has forgotten himself: for when he tempted Jesus Christ after the baptism of John it was as Son of God that he attacked him, being assured that God has a son at least from those very scriptures out of which he was then constructing the temptation : If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread}; again, If thou art the Son of God cast thyself down from hence, for it is written that he—the Father, of course—hath given his angels charge concerning thee, that in their hands they should bear thee up, lest in any place thou dash thy foot against a stone.?

Or will he accuse the gospels of lying, and say, "Let Matthew and Luke see to it:

I for my part approached God himself, I tempted the Almighty hand to hand: that was the reason for my approach, that was the reason for the temptation: otherwise, if it had been (only» God's son, perhaps I should not have demeaned myself (to tempt» him"?

Nay but he himself rather is a liar from the beginning? and so is any man whom he has suborned with his own (coin), like Praxeas.

For this person was the first to import to Rome out of Asia this kind of wrongheadedness—a man generally of restless character, and rnoreover puffed up with boasting of his confessorship on account of nothing more than a mere short discomfort of imprisonment: though even if he had given his body to be burned he would have profited nothing, since he had not the love of God,* whose spiritual gifts he also drove out by assault.

For at that time the bishop of Rome was on the point of recognising the prophecies of Montanus and Prisca and Maximilla, and as a result of that recognition was offering peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygia; but this man, by false assertions concerning the prophets themselves and their churches, and by insistence on the decisions of the bishop's predecessors, forced him both to recall the letters of peace already

1 Matti. 3:

? Matt. 4. 6: Ps. 9r. 11, 12.

3 Cf. John 8. 44.

5 qp Oor. I5. 3:

TRANSLATION

ce issued and to desist from his project of receiving the spiritual gifts.

Thus Praxeas at Rome managed two pieces of the devil's business: » he drove out prophecy and introduced heresy: he put to flight thel—

Paraclete and crucified the Father.

Praxean tares! were sown above (the wheat» and had germinated here also, while many were asleep in simplicity of doctrine.

'Thereafter they were brought to light, by whom God would, and seemed even to have been rooted up.

In fact the teacher gave security for amendment by return to his former opinions, and his bond remains in the custody of the natural men,? in whose presence the transaction was then carried out.

After that, silence.

I for my part was subsequently separated from the natural men by my acknowledgement and defence of the Paraclete.

But those tares had at that time scattered their seed everywhere, and so for a time it lay hid, deceptively dissembling its life, and has now burst forth anew.

But it shall also be plucked up anew, if the Lord will, in the time now at my disposal: if not, then in its due time all counterfeit grain will be gathered and, along with other offences, be burned up in unquenchable fire.

2. And so, after (all this» time, a Father who was born, a Father who suffered, God himself the Lord Almighty, is preached as Jesus Christ.

We however as always, the more so now as better equipped through the Paraclete, that leader into all truth,' believe (as these do) in one only God, yet subject to this dispensation (which is our word for * economy") that the one only God has also a Son, his Word who has proceeded from himself, by whom all things were made and without whom nothing has been made:^ that this (Son? was sent by the Father into the virgin and was born of her both man and God, Son of man and Son of God, and was named Jesus Christ: that he suffered, died, and was buried, according to the scriptures,? and, having been raised up by the Father and taken back into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father * and will come to judge the quick and the dead 7: and that thereafter he, according to his promise,? sent from the Father the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. That this Rule has come down from the beginning» \\.

— M "

» 1 Matt. 13. 24 ff.

P1 Cor. 2. 14. d Ray 1G.

4 John r. 1-3.

1/COR 1553, 45

ark 16. 19.

7 Acts 10. 42.

8 John 16. 7.

- 132.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

of the Gospel, even before all former heretics, not to speak of Praxeas of yesterday, will be proved as well by the comparative lateness of all heretics as by the very novelty of Praxeas of yesterday.

So equally against all heretics let it from now on be taken as already proven that whatever is earliest is true and whatever is later is counterfeit.

Still, saving that demurrer, yet everywhere, for the offensive and defensive equipment of certain persons, place must be granted also for further discussions, if for no other reason lest each several piece of wrong-headedness seem to be condemned not after examination but by previous judgement—and in particular this one which supposes itself to possess truth unadulterated while it thinks it impossible to believe in one

(God unless it says that both Father and Son and Holy Spirit are '

(one and the same: as though the one (God) were not all «these things» in this way also, that they are all of the one, namely by unity of substance, while none the less is guarded the mystery of that economy which disposes the unity into trinity, setting forth

Father and Son and Spirit as three, three however wever not in quality but. i in sequence, not in substance but i in aspect, not in power but in <its> manifesta tation, yet of one substance and one quality and one power, seeing it is one God from whom those sequences and aspects and manifestations are reckoned out in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. How they admit of plurality without. division the discussion will show as it proceeds.

3. For all the simple people, that I say not the thoughtless and ignorant (who are always the majority of the faithful), since the Rule of the Faith itself brings (us) over from the many gods of the world to the one only true God, not understanding that while they must believe in one only (God) yet they must believe in him along with his economy, shy at the economy.

"They claim that the plurality and ordinance a trinity 1s a division of unity— although a unity which derives from itself a trinity is not destroyed but administered by it.

And so (people) put it about that by us two or even three (gods) are preached, while they, they claim, are 'e worshippers of of one God—as though unity irrationally summed up did not make heresy and trinity rationally counted out con- — 'stitute truth.

"We hold", they say, "to the monarchy": and even Latins so expressively frame the sound, and in so masterly a fashion, that you would think they understood monarchy as —

Fite FIVE eye T Yt PUO wawew uw 9.

--—-—owy eS oe"

TRANSLATION

well as they pronounce it: but while Latins are intent to shout out "monarchy", even Greeks refuse to understand the economy.

But if I have gathered any small knowledge of both languages, I know that monarchy indicates neither more nor less than a single and sole empire, yet that monarchy because it belongs to one man does not for that reason make a standing rule that he whose it is may not have a son or must have made himself his own son or may not administer his monarchy. y by. the agency of i E SCA whom. he will. Nay more, I say that no kingdom is in such a sense one man's own, in such a sense single, in such a sense a monarchy, as not to be administered also through those other closely related persons whom it has provided for itself as officers: and if moreover he whose the monarchy is has a son, it is not 7550 facto di divided, does not cease to be a monarchy, 7 the son also is assumed as partner in it, but it continues to belong in first instance to him by whe whom it is passed on to the son: and so long as it is his, that continues to be a monarchy which is jointly held by two who are so closely united.

Therefore if also the divine monarchy is administered by the agency of so many legions and hosts of angels (as it is written, Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him and thousand thousands ministered unto him),' yet has not therefore ceased to belong to one, so as to cease to be a monarchy because it has for its provincial governors so many thousand authorities, how w should God t be thought, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit occupying second and third place, while they are to such a degree conjoint of the Father's substance, to experience a division and a dispersion such as he does not experience in the plurality of all those angels, alien as they are from the Father's substance?

Do you account provinces and family connexions and officials and the very forces and the whole trappings of empire to be the overthrow of it? You are wrong if you do. I prefer you to busy yourself about the meaning of a fact rather than the sound of a word.

Overthrow of monarchy you should understand as «taking place? when there is superimposed another kingship of its own character and its own quality, and consequently hostile, when another god is introduced to oppose the Creator, as with Marcion, or many gods according to people like Valentinus and Prodicus: then is it for the overthrow of the | monarchy when it is for the destruction of the Creator.

1 Dan. 7. 10.

spirilus. a. piling pt Fi lium.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

4. Yet how can I, who derive the Son from no alien (source), but from the Father's substance, (who say» he does nothing without the Father's will! and that he has received from the Father all authority ?—how can I in the matter of the faith be destroying that monarchy which I say has been delivered by the Father to the Son and is conserved in the Son?

Let this be taken to apply also to the third sequence, for { reckon the Spirit from nowhere else than from the Father through the Son.

Beware therefore lest you rather are destroying the monarchy, who are overthrowing that ordinance and dispensation of it which consists in as many names as God would.

But to such a degree does it abide in its own quality, though a trinity be introduced, that it has evento be restored to the Father by the Son, inasmuch as js apostle writes concerning the last end, When he shall have delivered up the kingdom to the God and Father.

For he must reign - until God put all his enemies under his feet,? evidently according to. the psalm, Sit thou at my right hand until I make all thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.* But when all things have been made subject to him, except him who hath subjected all things to him, then also he himself will be subjected to him who hath subjected all things to him, that God may be all things in all? We see then that the Son is not prejudicial to the monarchy, although today i it is in the Son's hands, because it is both in its own quality in the Son's hands, and retaining its own quality will be restored to the Father by the Son. Thus no one will on this account destroy it by admitting a Son, when it is agreed both that it has been delivered to him by the Father and that sometime it is to be restored by him to the Father.

By this one passage of the apostolic epistle we have already been able to show that Father and Son are two, besides (by deduction» from the names Father and Son, also from the fact that he who has delivered the kingdom and he to whom he has delivered it, as also he who has subjected it and he to whom he has subjected it, must of necessity be two.

5. But seeing they will have it that the two are one, so that the Father and the Son are to be considered identical, we must also examine the whole (question) concerning.the Son, whether he is, and who he is, and in what manner he is, and thus the fact itself will establish its own legality by the advocacy of the scriptures v 1 john) 5. 19.

? Matt. 28. 18.

* TICOI. 15224 1l.

4 Ps. 110. I.

Sr Corn ign27, 28.

TRANSLATION

and the interpretations of them.

Certain people affirm that in Hebrew Genesis begins, In the beginning God made for himself a son.!

Against the ratification of this I am persuaded by other arguments from God's ordinance in which he was before the foundation of the world until the generation of the Son.

For before all things God was alone, himself his own world and location and everything—alone however because there was nothing external beside him.

Yet not even then was he alone: for he had with him that Reason which he had in himself—his own, of course.

For God is rational, and reason is primarily in him, and thus from him are all things: and that Reason is his vA I consciousness.

This the Greeks call Logos, by which expression ^77 we also designate discourse: and consequently our people are Sern already wont, through the artlessness of the translation, to say that Discourse was in the beginning with God,? though it would be more appropriate to consider Reason of older standing, seeing ©"

|" that God is [not] discursive from the beginning but is rational even eerie the beginning, and because discourse itself, having its ground in reason, shows reason to be prior as being its substance.

Yet even so it makes no difference.

For although God had not yet uttered his Discourse, he always had it within himself along with and in his Reason, while he silently thought out and ordained with himself the things which he was shortly to say by the agency of Discourse: for while thinking out and ordaining them in company of his Reason, he converted into Discourse that (Reason? which he was discussing in discourse.

And that you may understand this the more easily, observe first from yourself, as from the image and likeness of God,? how you also have reason within '/ i; yourself, who are a rational animal not only as having been made by a rational Creator but also as out of his substance having been made a living soul. See how, when you by reason argue silently with yourself, this same action takes place within you, while reason accompanied by discourse meets you at every movement of your thought, at every impression of your consciousness: your every thought is discourse, your every consciousness is reason: you must perforce speak it in your mind, and while you speak it you experience as a partner in conversation that discourse which has in it this very reason by which you speak when you think in company of that (discourse? in speaking by means of ' 1 Gen. 1. 1.

4 Tohn'- 1,2.

—— ? Gen. 1. 26.

* Gen. 2. 7.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

which you think. So in a sort of way you have in I as a second (person? discourse by means of which you speak by thinking and by means of which you think by speaking: discourse itself is another (than you).

How much more completely therefore does this action take place in God whose image and similitude you are authoritatively declared to be, that even while silent he has in himself reason, and in (that) reason discourse.

So I have been able without rashness to conclude that even then, before the establishment of the universe, God was not alone, seeing he continually had in himself Reason, and in Reason Discourse, which he made arióthier beside himself by activity within himself.

AEE OHEHH S PCM St reg Hab EATER

TSE IBS EAE ET aam e HL ALE QUU MEDINA Aa RSS INC U

6. This function and this ordinance of the divine consciousness is in the scriptures also displayed under the name of Wisdom.

For what is wiser than the Reason or Discourse of God?

So listen also to Wisdom, established as a second person.

First, The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works sake, before he made the earth, before the mountains were set in their places; yea, before all the hills he begat me *—establishing and begetting, of course, in his own consciousness.

Afterwards observe her, by the fact of being separate, standing by him: When he was preparing the heaven, she says, I was present with him, and as he made strong above the winds the clouds on high, and as he made safe the fountains of (the earth which is under heaven, I was with him as a fellow-worker, I was she in whose presence he delighted; for daily did I delight in his person.

For when first God's will was to produce in their own substances and species those things which in company of Wisdom and Reason and Discourse he had ordained within himself, he first brought forth Discourse, which had within it its own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, so that the üniverse of things might come into existence by the agency of none other than him by whose agency they had been thought out and ordained, yea even already made as far as concerns the consciousness of God: for this (only) they lacked, to be openly also recognised and apprehended in their own species and substances.

7. At that point therefore Discourse also itself receives its manifestation and equipment, namely sound and voice, when God says, Let there be light.2 This is the complete nativity of Discourse, when it comes forth from God: (it was) first established by him

1 Prov. 8. 22 ff.

2. Gen: 1. 3.

TRANSLATION

for thought under the name of Wisdom— The Lord established me as the beginning of his ways!: then begotten for'activity—

When he prepared the heaven I was present with him?: thereafter causing him to be his Father by proceeding from ion he became

Son, the first-begotten as begotten before all things, the onlybegotten as alone begotten out of God in a true sense from the womb of his heart, according as the Father himself testifies,

My heart hath disgorged a good Discourse*: and to him thenceforth as he rejoices in his person <the Father) himself rejoicing <says),

Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,? and, Before the daystar I begat shed, 6 So also the Son in his own person, under the name of Wisdom, confesses the F Father, The Lord established me as the beginning of his ways for his works' sake, yea before the hills he begat me." For if in this place it appears that Wisdom says she was established by the Lord for the sake of his works and ways, but elsewhere it is revealed that by Discourse were all things made and without him was not anything made,® as also again By the Discourse of the Lord were the heavens confirmed, and all their host by his Spirit 9—that Spirit of of course which was present in Discourse—it is clear that itis one and the same function, now under the name of Wisdom, now under the designation of Discourse, which received the beginning of ways for God's works' sake, which confirmed the heaven, by which all things were made and without which nothing was made.

And enough of that, for evidently under the name of Wisdom and of Reason and of the whole divine mind and spirit (we are to understand» Discourse, who became Son of God when by proceeding, from him he was begotten. *'So"', you say, "you postulate that Discourse is a sort of substance, consisting of spirit and wisdom and reason. ertainly.

For you Ty to consider him substantive in objectivity, as being a substance which is himself, that (thus? he may be seen to be an object. and a person, and so may be capable, inasmuch as he is another beside God, of causing there to be two, the Father and the Son, God and the Word!?: for what, you will say, is a word except voice and oral sound and (as the grammarians' tradition has it) smitten air intelligible in the hearing, for the rest an empty

1 Prov. 8. 22.

2 Drovo5.27.

Sx Colum. 1559 John 1.418,

EDS. 45. I.

SES 2s 7s

SPS TIO: 3:

@ Prove 8.722.

5 John 1. 3.

22D5353. 101

10 From now onwards we translate sermo, which we have hitherto represented by '' discourse ", by its usual English equivalent, "' the Word ".

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

something, void and incorporal?

But I affirm that from God nothing void and empty can have come forth—for he is not void and empty from whom it has been brought forth: and that that cannot lack substance which has proceeded from so great a substance and is the maker of such great substances—for he himself is the maker of things which were made through him.

How can he be nothing without whom no thing was made, so that one void should have wrought solid things, and one empty full things, and one incorporal corporal things? For although at times something can be made which is the opposite of that whereby it is made, yet by what is empty and void nothing can be made.

(Can you describe as» an empty and void object that Word of God whom scripture calls the Son, who also is designated

God—And the Word was with God and the Word was God?!

It is written, Thou shalt not take the name of God for an empty thing. Certainly this is he who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.?

In what form of God?

Evidently in some form, not in none: for who will deny that God is body, although God is a spirit? * , For spirit is body, of its own kind, in its-own form. Moreover if those invisible things,® whatever they are, have in God's presence both their own body and their own shape by which they are visible to God alone, how much more will that which has been sent forth from his substance not be devoid of substance. Whatever therefore the substance of the Word was, that I call a Person; and for it I claim the name of Son: and while I acknowledge him as Son I maintain he is

; / another beside the Father. mpofoxn Y 8. If anyone thinks that hereby I introduce some *' projection", that is, prolation of one thing from another, as Valentinus does

;. who produces zon from zon one after another, in the first place I shall say to you, "The Truth does not abstain from using that word and the fact and the origin represented by it, on the ground that heresy uses it: nay rather, heresy has taken over from the Truth that which it might build up into its own lie".

Was the Word of God brought forth, or not?

Meet me on that ground.

If he was brought forth, acknowledge "projection" as the Truth understands it, and let heresy beware what it has copied from the * John 2.2.

2 Exod. 20. 7.

9 Phil. 2. 6.

* John 4. 24.

S (Romute20:

TRANSLATION

Truth.

The question now before us is who uses, and in what sense he uses, any fact and the term that denotes it. Valentinus secludes and separates his "projections" from their originator, and places them so far from him that an zon is ignorant of its father: at length it desires to know him and is unable, in fact it is almost consumed and dissolved into residuary substance.

But with us the Son alone knows the Father,! and himself has declared ared the bosom of the Father,? and has both heard and seen all things in the Father's presence?: and whatsoever things he has been commanded by the Father, those he also speaks 4 and has accomplished not his own will but the Father's,® which he knew intimately, yea from the beginning.

For who knows the things which be in God, except the Spirit who is in him? ® But the Word consists of spirit, and (so to speak) spirit is the body of the Word. "Therefore the Word is always in the Father, as he says, lam in the Father ^: and always with God, as it is written,

And the Word was with God 3: and never separate from the Father or other than the Father, tiun is and. the Father are one.® This will be the Truth's "projection", the guardian of unity, «that projection» by which we say that the Son was brought forth from the Father, but not made separate.

For God brought forth the Word, as also the Paraclete teaches, as a root brings forth the ground shoot, and a spring the river, and the sun its beam: for these manifestations also are "projections" of those substances from which they proceed.

You need not hesitate to say that the shoot is son of the root and the river son of the spring and the beam son of the sun, for every source is a parent and everything that is brought forth from a source is its offspring— and especially the Word of God, who also in an exact sense has received the name of Son: yet the shoot is not shut off from the root nor the river from the spring nor the beam from the sun, any more than the Word is shut off from God.

Therefore according to the precedent of these examples I profess that I say that God and his Word, the Father and his Son, are two: for the root and the shoot are two things, but con ioinet?7m and the spring and the river are two manifestations, but undivided; and the sun and its beam are two aspects, but they cohere. Everything that 1 Matt. 11. 27.

2 John 1. 18.

3 John 8. 38.

4 Cf. John r4.

31.

5 John 6. 38.

S Cf T. Cor. 2, 11.

4. 3

? John 14. 11.

8 John 1. 1.

John 1o. 30.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

| | proceeds from something must of necessity be another LM that from which it proceeds, but it is not for that reason separated

(from it».

But where there is a second <one> there are two, and where there is a third there are three.

For the Spirit is third with God and «his» Son, as the fruit out of the shoot is third from the root, and the irrigation canal out of the river third from the spring, and the illumination point out of the beam third from the sun: yet in no respect is he alienated from that origin from which he derives his proper attributes. In this way the Trinity, proceeding by intermingled and connected degrees from the Father, in no respect challenges the monarchy, while it conserves the quality of the economy.

9. Remember at every point that I have professed this rule, by which I testify that Father and Son and Spirit are unseparated from one another, and in that case you will recognise what I say and in what sense I say it. For look now, I say that the Father is one, and the Son another, and the Spirit another (every unlearned or self-willed person takes this, statement in bad part, as though it proclaimed diversity and because of diversity threatened a separation of Father and Son and Spirit: but I am bound to make it, so long as they maintain that Father and Son and Spirit are identical, favouring the monarchy at the expense of the economy), not however that the Son is other than the Father by diversity, but by distribution, not by division but by distinction, because the Father is not identical with the Son, is even being numerically one and another.

For the Father is the whole substance, while the Son is an outflow and. assignment of the whole, as he himself professes, Because my Father is greater 5» than I!: and by him, it is sung i TE PER Re

Tar ul ten made less, a little on this side of the angels."

So also the Fathe is other than the Son as being greater than the Son, as he vis begets is other than he who is begotten, as he who sends is other than he who is sent, as he who makes is other than he through: whom a thing is made.

It suits my case also that when our Lord used this word regarding the person of the Paraclete, he signified not division but ordinance: for he says, I will pray the Father and he will send you another advocate, the Spirit of truth 'Thus (he calls) the Paraclete other than himself, as we say aiebat enis Le ^ e Spei de 1 John 14. 28.

2 pas 86.

8 John 14. 16.

TRANSLATION

the Son is other than the Father, so as to display the third sequence in the Paraclete as we the second in the Son, and so to preserve the economy.

Is not the very fact that they are spoken of as Father and Son (a statement that they are» one thing beside another?

Surely all facts will correspond with their designations, and diversity of designation can by no means be confused, since neither can (the diversity» of the things of which they are the designations.

"Js" d& "is", and "not" is "not": for what is more than this is on the side of evil.

10. Thus (one) "is" either father or son, and day is not identical with night, nor is the Father identical with the Son of the relationship», as those very silly monarchians will have it.

He himself, say they, made himself his own son.

Nay, but father makes son, and son makes father, and those who become what they are by relationship with one another cannot by any means so become by relationship with themselves, as that a father should make himself his own son or a son cause himself to be his own father.

The rules God has made, he himself observes.

A father must have a son so as to be a father, and a son must have a father so as to bea son.

For to have is one thing, to be is another: for example, to be a husband I must have a wife, I shall not be my own wife. So also, that I may be a father ave a son, I shall not be my own son: and that I may be a son

I have a father, I shall not be my own father.

For if I have those things that make me (what I am) I shall be (what I am), a father if I have a son, a son if I have a father.

Moreover, whatever of ' those I am, I have not that which I myself am, no father since

I shall be the father, no son since I shall be the son.

To what degree I must have one of these things so as to be the other, to that degree if I am both I cease to be the one because I have not the other.

For if I am son who also am father, I already have no son but am myself son.

But as not having a son because I am myself the son, how shall I be a father?

For I must have a son so as to be a father, and consequently I am no son, because I have no father and father makes son.

Equally, if I am father who also am son, already I have no father but am myself father. But as not having a father because I myself am the father, how shall I ta Mattress 37

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

f be a son?

For I must have a father so as to be a son, and consequently I shall be no father, because I have no son and son makes father.

This will be the sum of the devil's ability, to make the two mutually destructive, while by locking up both in one to please the monarchy he causes neither (father nor son» to be had, with the result that (God) is no father as not having a son, and «the Son» is no son as equally having no father: for so long as he is the Father he will not be the Son.

"This 1s how these maintain the monarchy, who retain neither the Father nor the Son.

"* But", (they say», "to God nothing is difficult."

Who does not know it? and who is not aware that things impossible with the world are possible with God ? * Also God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the things that are wise.? We have read it all.

"Consequently", they say, "it was not difficult for God to make himself both father and son, contrary to the law traditional in human affairs: for it was not difficult for God, contrary to nature, to cause the barren woman to bear—or even the virgin."

Certainly nothing is difficult for God: but if in our assumptions we so rashly make use of this judgement, we shall be able,to invent any manner of thing concerning God, as that he has done it, on the ground that he was able to do it. But we must not, on the ground that he can do all things, for that reason aM believe that he has done even what he has not done, but must enquire whether he has done it. God could, if he had wished, have equipped men with wings for flying—a faculty he has also provided kites with: yet, because he could, he did not as a matter of course also do it. He could at once have blotted out of existence both Praxeas and all heretics alike: yet he has not, because he could, blotted them out.

For there had to be kites, and heretics,? and the Father had to be crucified.

On this reckoning there will be something even difficult for God, that in fact which he has refrained from doing, not because he could not —/ but because he would not.

For God's power is his will, and his inability is his absence of will: and what his will was, that was in his power, and he has shown (what it was».

Therefore, because if he wished he could have made himself his own son, and because if he could he did it, you will prove that he could have done it and wished to do it only when you have proved that he did do it.

1 Matt. 19. 26.

2 n Gon 527.

3 1 Cor. 11. 19.

TRANSLATION

11. But it will be your duty to prove it as openly from the scriptures as we prove that he made his own Word his Son. For if he calls him Son, while the Son will be no other than he who came forth from him, and the Word came forth from him, this

(Word? will be the Son, not he from whom «(the Word» came forth: for he did not himself come forth from himself.

Further, you who identify Father and Son, cause the same one both to have brought forth from himself that which is God, and as such to have come forth.

If he could have done so, yet he did not do so.

Or else display the proof which I demand, like mine, that is that the scriptures so represent the Son as identical with the Father as among us the Father and the Son are demonstrated in distinction: in distinction, I x not in division. Just as I allege

Te e M SD Dc ath disgorged a good Word, against this do you object that God: somewhere said, My heart hath disgorged myself as a good word, so that he himself may be... both he who disgorged and what he disgorged, himself both he who brought forth and he who was brought forth, if he himself is Word and God. Look now, I allege that the Father said to the Son, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?: if you will have me believe that the Father himself is also the Son, show me that it is stated elsewhere in this form, The Lord said to himself,

I am my son, today have I begotten myself: consequently also, ^ Before the daystar have I begotten myself?: and, I the Lord have established myself as the beginning of ways for my works' sake, yea before all the hills have I begotten myself 4: and any others there are in this fashion.

Before whose disapproval was God, 'the Lord of the universe, afraid of so stating it, if so the fact was?

Or was he afraid of not being believed if he plainly stated that he was both the Father and the Son?

One thing however he was afraid of, to belie himself the author of truth, and to belic his own truth.? And so, believing that God is true, I know that his statements are consonant with his ordinance, and his ordinance consonant with his statements.

You however would make him a liar and a deceiver,® a disappointer of this faith (of mine), if being himself his own son he assigned the role of son to another, since all the scriptures displa the demonstration and the distinctness of the Trinity: and from them is derived also our standing i Pss45-2.

? Ps. 2. 7.

3Qf Ps. Tros.

* Cf, Prov.18222-* 5 Rom. 3. 4.

1 John 1. 1o.

~ 144.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

rule, that speaker and person spoken of and person spoken to cannot be regarded as one and the same, for as much as neither wilfulness nor deception befits God as that, being himself the one spoken to, he should prefer to speak to another and not to himself.

Hear therefore also other words of the Father concerning the Son, (spoken) through Isaiah:

Behold my son whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom I am well pleased; I will place my spirit upon him and he will announce judgement to the gentiles! Hear also (what he says» to him:

It is a great thing for thee to be called my son for the establishment of the tribes of Jacob and the conversion of the dispersion of Israel; I have set thee for a light of the gentiles, that thou mayest be salvation unto the end of the earth.2

Hear next also the Son's words concerning the Father:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to men.?

Also in a psalm (he speaks) to the Father concerning the same (Spirit: Forsake me not, until I announce thy arm to the whole generation to come.* Also in another (psalm): Lord, why are they increased that repress me? * Nay but almost all the psalms which sustain the role of Christ represent the Son as. speaking to the Father, that is, Christ as speaking to God. Observe also the Spirit speaking in the third person concerning the Father and the Son:

The Lord said unto my lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.*5 Again, through Isaiah:

Thus saith the Lord to my lord Christ.

Also through the same (prophet? «the Spirit speaks) to the Father concerning the Son:

Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

We have announced concerning him like a young boy, like a root in a thirsty land, and there was no beauty or glory of his. 'These are a few out of many: for we make no pretence of turning up the whole of the Scriptures, since even in one passage at a time we bring to witness their plenary majesty and authority, and thus have the advantage in argument in (these) discussions.

So in these texts», few though they be, yet the distinctiveness of the Trinity is clearly expounded : for there is the Spirit himself who makes the statement, the Father to whom he makes it, and the Son of whom he makes it.

So also the rest, which are statements made sometimes by the Father concerning the Son or to the Son, sometimes by the Son

ASISSAAUM:

4 Is. 40365

3 Is. 61.1.1 VU"

4. PsP 71.18.

ST PS, 3e $ Ps: FIO. 11

77185 45.112

8 Is. 53. 1: John 12. 38: Rom. ro. 16.

TRANSLATION

concerning the Father or to the Father, sometimes by the Spirit, establish each several |Person as being himself and none other.

12. If you are still offended by the plurality of the Trinity, on the ground that it is not combined in simple unity, I ask you how it is that one only single (person) speaks in the plural, Let us make man after our image and likeness,! when he ought to have said,

Let me make man after my image and likeness, as being one only single (person».

Also in what follows, Behold, Adam is become as one of us,? he is deceptive or joking in speaking in the plural while being one and alone and singular.

Or was he speaking to the angels, as the Jews explain it, because they, like you, do not recognise the Son?

Or, because he was himself father-son-spirit, did he for that reason make himself plural and speak to himself in the plural?

Nay rather, because there already was attached to him the Son, a second\Person, his Word, and a third\Person, the Spirit in the Word, for that reason he spoke in the plural, Let us make, and Our, and Of us.

For in whose company was he making man, and like whom was he making him? He was speaking with the Son who was to assume manhood, and the Spirit who was to sanctify man, as with ministers and mediators in consequence of ei the Trinity.

Then again the scripture that follows distinguishes between the Persons:

And God made man, in the image of God made he him.? Why not "his own image", if the maker was one, and there was none in whose image he was making | him?

But there was one in whose image he was making him, the Son's in fact, who because he was to be the surer and truer man caused that man to be called his image who at that time had to be formed of clay, as the image and similitude of the true.* But also in the preceding works of the world, how is it written?

At first, while the Son is not yet on the scene, And God said, Let there be light, and it was made» The Word himself is in first instance the true light that lighteneth the man that cometh into this world,® and through him also the mundane light (comes to be».

But from then on in the Word, «that is», with Christ as assistant and minister, God wished things to be made, and God made them:

And God said, Let a firmament be made, and God made a firmament 7: And God said, Let lights be made, and God made the greater

1 Gen. 1. 26.

? Gen. 3. 22.

3 Gen. 1. 27.

3sHeb: 9124.

> Gen. I. 3.

$ John I. 9.

? Gen. 1. 6, 7.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

and the lesser light... So also the rest of things the very same one made as made the earlier, that is, the Word of God by whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made.? And if he himself is God, as John says—the Word was God ?—you have two, one commanding a a thing to be | made, ; another making it.

But how you must understand "

'another ^" T have already professed, Inthe sense.of person, not of substance, for distinctiyeness, not for division.

Yet although I always = ete eee three who cohere, I must still, as a necessary consequence of the meaning (of the passage», say that he who commands is other than he who makes.

For he would not be commanding if he himself were making while commanding things to be made.

Yet he did command (them to be made» by him, since he would not have commanded himself if he had been one «alone»: or he would have made them without command, for he would not have waited to command himself.

13. * Consequently ", you say, "if God spake and God made, if one God spake and another made, two gods are preached."

If you are so stubborn, keep on thinking so for a time.

And, to give you more cause to think it, hear how also in a psalm two are called gods:

Thy throne, O God, is for ever, a sceptre of direction is the sceptre of thy kingdom; thou hast loved righteousness and hatest iniquity, wherefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee.*

If he is speaking to God, and to God anointed by God, here also he affirms that two are gods. Concerning this also Isaiah (speaks), regarding the person of Christ, And the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee and shall follow after thee with their hands in chains and shall worship thee because God is in thee; for thou art our God and we knew it not, O God of Israel?

For here also, by saying God is in thee, and Thou O God, he sets forth two, him who was in Christ, and Christ himself.

It is of more moment that in the Gospel you will find the same number: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God 5: there is one who * was", and another "within whom" he was.

Also I read the name Lord applied to two: The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand.' And Isaiah says this: Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord

1 Gen.

1. 14, 16.

2 John 1. 2.

* John 1.1. a Psi aga, 7 5 Te..45 14:

5 John taq%

COPS ITTOSI.

TRANSLATION

revealed?!

For he would have said "thy arm", not "arm of the Lord", unless he had wished us to understand Lord the Father and Lord the Son.

Also Genesis, of still older date:

And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire out of heaven from the Lord.?

Either deny that these things are written, or who are you that you should think they must not be accepted as they are written, especially those which have their meaning not in allegories and parables but in clearly defined and simple statements?

But if you are of those who on one occasion did not tolerate our Lord when he showed himself to be the Son of God, for fear of having to believe that he is the Lord,? recollect along with them that it is written, I said, Ye are gods and sons of the Most High *; and, God standeth in the congregation of the gods 5: so that, if scripture has not been afraid to pronounce to be gods those men who by faith have been made sons of God, you may know that much more has it by right applied the name of God and Lord to the true and only Son of God.

"Therefore'', you say, "T will challenge you, today also by the authority of those scriptures consistently to preach two gods and two lords."

God forbid.

For we, who by the grace of God examine both the occasions and the intentions of the scriptures, especially as being disciples not of men but of the Paraclete, do indeed specify two, the Father and the Son, and even even three with the Holy Spirit, according to that calculation of the economy which makes plurality, lest, as your selfwill imports, the Father himself be believed to have been born and to have died—which is not lawful to E. believed, seeing it has not been so delivered.

Yet "two gods"

"two lords" we never let issue from our mouth: not but that iet the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, and each several one (of them) i is. God; but that of old time. two were preached : as Gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ came he should both be recognised as God and have the name of _

Lord, because he is the son of (him who is» God and Lord.

For if there were found in the scriptures one Person both of God and of the Lord, rightly would Christ not have been admitted

: to the name of God and Lord (because none other besides one God and one Lord was preached), and it would have come about that the Father himself would have seemed to have come down

SBIS S532.

2772 Gen. 19.24:

3 John 10. 33.

4 Ps. 82. 6.

5 Ps. 82. 1.

148 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

(from heaven» (because we were reading of one God and one Lord), and darkness would have fallen upon his whole economy which was designed and administered for material of faith.

But when Christ came and was known by us as being he who of old time had caused plurality by being made a second beside the Father, and a third along with the Spirit, and now that through him the Father was more fully made manifest, the name of God and of Lord was reduced again to union: with the result that, since the gentiles were passing over from a multitude of idols to the one only God, a difference was established between worshippers of one divinity and worshippers of many.

For it was necessary also that Christians should shine in the world as sons of light,! while worshipping and calling upon the name of the light of the world,? one God as also one Lord.

Otherwise, if as a result of the private knowledge by which we know that the name of God and of Lord is applicable to both Father and Son and Spirit, we had been calling upon the name of gods and lords, we should have put out our candle ? by being also less bold in face of martyrdom; for at every turn opportunity would lie open for us to escape by immediately swearing by gods and lords, as do certain heretics whose gods are more than one. i, Consequently I shall in no case say either * gods" or "lords", but shall follow the apostle, with the result that if the Father and the Son are to be mentioned together, I call the Father "God" and name Jesus Christ "the Lord".* But Christ by himself I shall be able to call God, as does the same apostle (when? he says, Of whom is Christ, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.®

For also the sun's beam, when by itself, I shall call "the sun" but when naming the sun, whose the beam is, I shall not immediately call the beam "the sun".

For though I make two suns, yet the sun and its beam I Shall count as two objects, and two manifestations of one.undivided: substance, in the same sense as (I count» God and his Word, the Father and the Son.

| 14. Once more, we have the support, in our vindication of the duality of the Father and the Son, of that rule which has defined

God as invisible.

For when Moses in Egypt had expressed a desire for the sight of God, saying, If therefore I have found grace in thy sight shew thyself to me that I may knowledgeably see thee,®

———À 1 Eph. 5. 8.

2 John 8. 12.

3 Cf. Ps. 18. 28.

+ Rom357:

* Rom. 9. 5.

*. Exod..33. 13.

TRANSLATION

<God) said, Thou canst not see my face, for a man will not see my face and live !—that is, he who sees it will die.

For we find that God was seen, even by many, yet that none of those who had seen him died—that God was seen, of course, according to men's capacity, not according to the fulness of his divinity.

For patriarchs are related to have seen God, as Abraham and Jacob, and prophets, as Isaiah, as Ezekiel, yet they did not die. Therefore they either ought to have died, if they had seen him—for no man will see God and live: or, if they saw God and did not die, the scripture says falsely that God said, If a man sees my face he shall not live?: or else the scripture speaks falsely when it alleges that God was seen.

So then it will be another who was seen, for it is impossible for the same one who was seen, to be characterised as invisible: and it will follow that we must understand the Father JUV/5/ & as invisible because of the fulness of his majesty, but must acknowrr

ledge the Son as visible because of the enumeration of his derivavis» tion, just as we may not look upon thé sun in respect of the total of its substance which is in the sky, though we can with our eyes bear its beam because of the moderation of the assignment which from thence reaches out to the earth. Here one of our adversaries will wish to contend that the Son also is invisible as Word and as Spirit, and, maintaining that the Father and the Son are in like case, to affirm rather that Father and Son are one and the same.

But we have deposed that the scripture, by its distinguishing of visible and invisible, advocates a difference.

For they also add epee this to their quibbling, that if on that occasion it was the Son speaking to Moses,' he pronounced his own face visible to no man, because of course he was the invisible Father himself under the name of Son. And consequently they wish the visible one | and the invisible one to be taken as identical, in the same way

Sor M as (they wish» Father and Son (to be taken as) identical, because also a little earlier, before he refused Moses (the sight of) his face, it is written that the Lord spake to Moses face to face as a man speaks to his friend,* and furthermore that Jacob says, I have seen the Lord face to face*: consequently the same one is visible and invisible: and because the same one has both attributes, therefore also the invisible Father is himself visible, as being also

Son.

As though the explanation of the scripture which we offer 1 Exod. 33. 20. d Exod. 33. 20.

* Exod. 33. 20.

* Exod. 33. 11.

Gen. 32. 30.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

did not, leaving the Father out of question, befit the Son in his own visibility. For we say that the Son also on his own account is, as Word and Spirit, invisible even now by the quality of his substance, but that he was visible before the incarnation in the manner in which he says to Aaron and Miriam, Although there be a prophet among you, I shall become known to him in a vision and shall speak to him in a dream; not as with my servant Moses shall I speak to him mouth to mouth in manifestation 1—that is, in truth— and not in an enigma—that is, not in imagination: as also says the apostle, Now we see as in a mirror in an enigma, but then face to face.? Therefore since for Moses he reserves for the future the sight of himself and conversation with himself face to face (for this was fulfilled afterwards when he withdrew into a mountain, as we read in the Gospel that Moses was seen talking with him),® it is clear that always aforetime God—that is, the Son of God— was seen in a mirror and an enigma and a vision and a dream, both by prophets and patriarchs and Moses himself till that time: and if perchance the Lord did speak in visual presence, yet a man would not see his face as he really is, but only perchance in a mirror and in an enigma.

Lastly, if the Lord spoke to Moses in such sort that Moses knew his face from near to, why does he immediately at the same moment ask to see his face, which if he had seen he would not ask to see?

Equally, why does the Lord deny that his face can be seen,* though he had let him see it, if indeed he had let.him see it? Or what face of God is that, the sight of which is refused?

If there was (a face» which was seen— I have seen, says Jacob, God face to face and my life is preserved 5— there must be another face which slays if it is seen.

Or is it that the Son indeed was seen—albeit in face, yet even this in a vision and a dream and a mirror and an enigma, because Word and Spirit cannot be seen except in imaginary aspect—yet by his face he means the invisible Father?

For who is the Father?

Shall he be the Son's face, on account of the authority which he obtains as begotten of the Father? 'For is it not of some RE Personage that it befits one to say, "'That man is my face"

"He gives me face"?

The Father, he says, is greater than.-I 9 ; e. AE the Father will be the Son's face. For also what says the scripture?

The spirit of his countenance, Christ the Lord." Therefore if Christ ! Num. 12. 6. st (COD 13: 12.

* Matt. 17. 3: Mark 9.

4: Luke 9. 30.

* Exod. 33. 20.

* Gen. 32. 30.

$ John 14. 28.

* Lam. 4. 20.

TRANSLATION

I5I is the spirit of the Father's countenance, rightly has the Spirit pronounced him whose the countenance is, namely his Father, to be his face—evidently because of their unity.

Can you be surprised if the Father can be understood to. be. the Son's face, when he is his head? For the head of Christ is God.

15. If I do not clear this point by enquiries made of the old scriptures, I shall take from the New Testament confirmation of our interpretation, lest whatever I account to the Son you immediately claim for the Father.

For both in the gospels and in the apostles I discover God visible and invisible, with an evident personal distinction betwen these two qualities.

John as it were cries out, No man hath seen God at any time ?—clearly not in the past, for he has precluded question of time by saying that God was never seen.

The apostle also confirms this, (speaking) of God whom no man hath seen, nor can he be seen *—obviously because he who sees him will die. Those very same apostles testify both that they have seen Christ and that they have handled him.'

Consequently if Christ is himself both Father and Son, how is he both seen and unseen?

So as to confer upon one (Person) this diversity of '"'seen"' and "unseen"', our adversary will argue that both are rightly spoken, (since he was» visible in the incarnation but invisible before the incarnation; and that consequently th

Father, invisible before the incarnation, is the same (Person) as Poo the Son, visible in the incarnation.

And yet, if the same (Person) was invisible before the incarnation, how is it he is found to have been seen also aforetime before the incarnation?

Equally, if the same (Person) is visible after the incarnation, how is he even now pronounced invisible by the apostles, unless there is one whom, aforetime seen in an enigma, the incarnation has made more fully visible—the Word in fact, who also was made flesh °—and another | 2

: whom no one hath ever seen 5—the Father in fact, whose the Word is? Once for all let us examine who it was the apostles saw.

That which we have seen, says John, which we have heard, have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life."

For the Word of life was made flesh, and was heard and seen and handled because (he was» flesh, (the same? who before the incarnation as Word only was in the beginning in the presence of 1 x Cor. 11. 3.

2 John 1. 18.

= 1 Dum-a6:16; 47 Johnes.2 % 1 Cor. 9:1.

5 John 1. 14.

Soi Lam. 6336:

7 —»9john zx

- 152.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

God the Father, not the Father in the presence of himself.

For although the Word was God, yet he was (God) in the presence of God, because he was God from God, because he was along with the Father, in the Father's presence.

And we beheld his glory, (the glory» as of the only-begotten of the Father !—evidently of course (the glory» of the visible Son, glorified by the invisible

Father. And consequently, because he had said that the Word of God was God, so as not to assist our adversaries' assumption as that he had seen the Father himself, but so as to distinguish between the invisible Father and the visible Son, he adds of superfluity, No one hath seen God at any time.2

Which God?

The Word? Nay but, it was said before, We have seen and heard and handled, of the Word of life.® But which God?

Evidently the Father, in whose presence the Word, the only-begotten Son, who himself hath declared the bosom * of the Father, was God. He himself was both heard and seen, and lest he should be taken for a phantom was even handled.

Him also Paul had sight of, yet he saw not the Father: Have I not, he says, seen Fesus? > But he

_also has applied to Christ the name of God: Whose are the fathers, ws and out of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever. He also presents as visible the Son of God, that is, the Word of God, because he who was made flesh is called

Christ.

But of the Father (he says» to Timothy, Whom no man hath seen nor can see®: and he piles it up even more, Who alone hath immortality and dwelleth in light unapproachable®: and of him he had previously said, To the king eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God,? so that to the Son we might ourselves also ascribe the contrary, mortality and approachability.

Him also he testifies to have died according to the scriptures, and to have been seen of himself last of all!9—evidently by means of approachable light: though even that he did not experience without danger to his sight," as neither did Peter and John and James without danger to their reason and without astonishment,!? and if they had seen, not the glory of the Son who was to suffer, but the Father, I think they would have died on the spot: for no one will see God and live.

As this is so, our case stands, that from the beginning he always was seen who was seen at the end, and that he was not 1 John r. 14.

2 John r. 18.

Sor Tohhod dq.

4 John 1. 18.

MUI deus $ Rom. 9. s.

* Gal gsm * 1 Tim. 6. 16.

9 s Story os peg JU TV COT: Tees, be 11 Acts 9. 8.

1? Matt. 17. 6.

TRANSLATION

seen at the end who from the beginning had not been seen, and that thus there are two, one seen and one unseen.

"Therefore it was the Son always who was seen and the Son always who conversed and the Son always who wrought, by the authority and will of the Father, because The Son can do nothing of himself, unless he have seen the Father doing it \—doing it, of course, in his consciousness.

For the Father acts by consciousness, whereas the Son sees and accomplishes that which is in the Father's consciousness.

'Thus all things were made by the Son, and without him nothing was made.

16. And think not that solely the works of the world were made by the Son, but those also which from then on were performed by God.

For the Father, who loveth the Son and hath delivered all things into his bosom,? right from the beginning ~ loves him, and from the beginning has delivered them.

Ever since from the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God, and to him was given by the Father all power in heaven and in earth, The Father judgeth no man, but hath delivered all judgement to the Son,» yes, from the beginning: for when he says

"all power"' and "all judgement", and that all things were made by him, and that all things are delivered into his hand, he allows no exception of time, for they will not be "all" unless they have been of alltime. And so it is the Son who from the beginning has judged, smashing down the tower of pride and confounding the tongues,® punishing the whole world by the violence of the waters,' raining down upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone 5—the Lord (raining it down» from the Lord.

For he it always was who came down to converse with men, from Adam even to the patriarchs and prophets,® always from the beginning preparing beforehand in dream and in a mirror and in an enigma that course which he was going to follow out to the end. Thus he was always also learning how as God to company with men, being none other than the Word who was to be flesh. But he was learning with the purpose of laying a foundation of faith for us, that we might the more easily believe that the Son of God has come down into the world, if we knew that something of the sort had previously been done.

For, as things were written, so also they were done, 1 John 5. 19.

"3 John3t a5.

3 Johh-ry1- * Matt. 28. 18.

5s johnis 22:

; Gens ar. 7.

* Gen. 6. 17.

* Gen. 19. 24.

Bar. 3. 37.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

for our sake upon whom the ends of the world are come.!

'l'hus also he already at that time knew human affections, as he was going to take upon himself also man's substances, flesh and soul, asking

Adam a question as though he did not know—Adam, where art thou? *—repenting that he had made man,? as though he had no foreknowledge; tempting Abraham,* as though ignorant what is in a man?; angry, and reconciled with the same persons ; and all those things which heretics, for the destruction of the Creator, seize upon as unworthy of God, ignorant that these things befitted the Son, who was also going to undergo human passions, both thirst and hunger and tears and nativity itself and death itself, for this purpose made by the Father a little lower than the angels.®

But the heretics indeed will refuse to count proper even for the Son things with which you becloud the Father himself, as though he had himself made himself lower for our sakes, though the scripture says that one was made lower by another, not himself by himself.

Moreover it is one who was crowned with glory and honour, and it is another who crowned him, evidently the Father

(crowning» the Son.

Besides, how can it be that God Almighty, that invisible one whom none of men hath seen nor can see, he who dwelleth in light unapproachable,' he who dwelleth not in things made with hands,? before whose aspect the earth trembleth,® and the mountains melt as wax,!? who graspeth the whole world in his hand like a nest, whose throne is the heaven and the earth his footstool,!2 in whom is all space but he not in space, who is the boundary line of the universe, he the Most High, should have walked in paradise in the evening looking for Adam, should have shut up the ark after Noah had gone in,'* should have rested under an oak with Abraham,! should have called to Moses from the burning bush,!$ and should have appeared with three others in the Babylonian king's furnace ""—although it says he was a son of man?

Certainly these things ought not to have been believed of the Son of God unless they had been written, and perhaps not to have been believed of the Father though they had been written: yet these people bring him down into Mary's womb,

Id I COR IO. LI.

2 Gen. 3. 9.

* Gen. 6. 6.

* Gen. 22. 1.

5 John 2725% 81 Ps. 8.551

* 1 Tim. 6. 16.

8 Acts 17. 24.

? Joel 2. 10.

WPS Nora's.

At T8, YO.

14^ IS 66. 00

13 Gene. 18:

14 Gen. 7. 16.

15 Gen. 18. 4.

16 Exod. 3. 4. i Daria bt

TRANSLATION

and set him at Pilate's judgement seat, and shut him up in Joseph's sepulchre. Hence therefore it is evident that they are astray.

For not knowing that from the beginning the whole course of the divine ordinance has come down through the Son, they believe that the Father himself both was seen and conversed and wrought, and suffered thirst and hunger, in spite of the prophet who says

The eternal God shall never thirst nor hunger at all!—and how much more shall he neither die nor be buried—and that thus the one God, that is, the Father, has always done those things which ©

(in fact» have been performed by «the agency of the Son.

17. They have found it easier to think that the Father has acted in the Son's name than the Son in the Father's, though the Lord himself says, I am come in my Father's name?: and again, to the Father himself Che sayes; T Nace wangested thy name to men?: and the scripture also agrees, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord *—evidently the Son in the name of the Father. And the Father's name is God Almighty, the Most High, the Lord of hosts, the King of Israel, I am.

In as much as the scriptures so teach, we say that these also have applied to the Son, and that in these the Son came, and in these always acted, and thus in himself manifested them to men.

All things that the Father hath, he says, are mine*: and why not also the names?

When therefore you read of God Almighty, and the Most High, and the God of hosts, and the King of Israel, and I am, beware lest by these the Son also is shown to be of his own right God

Almighty as being the Word of God Almighty and as having recei mec SU TUN and the Most High as having been by the right hand of God exalted,' as Peter preached in the Acts; and the Lord of Hosts because all things are subjected to him by the Father; and the King of Israel because to him especially has fallen the lot of that nation 9; and also "I am" because there are many that are called sons and art not.'° But if they will have it that Christ's name also is the Father's, they will hear (my answer» in its proper place.

Meantime let this be my ready response against that which they allege from the Revelation of John, I am the Lord, who is and who was and is to come, the Almighty,"

1 Ts, 40. 28.

? John 5. 43.

3 John 17. 6. é Ps. 118. 26.

5 John 16. 15.

$ Matt. 28. 18.

* Acts 2. 33.

$y Cor. 13.27.

* Deut. 32. 9.

1 Cf Rey 2. 9.

I. Rey. 1. 8.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

and wherever else they think the designation "Almighty" not appropriate.to the Son: as if he who is to come were not the Almighty, when the Son of the Almighty is no less almighty than the Son of God is God.

18. But they are thrust out of the way of easily seeing in the Son this partnership in the Father's names by those occasions when the scripture has stated that God is one alone—as though the same scripture had not set before us two Gods and Lords, as we have

: already shown.

Therefore, say they, because we find two as well 'as one, consequently both are one (Person), and the same one is both Son and Father.

Surely the scripture is not in such jeopardy that you have to come to its rescue by your quibbling to prevent it from appearing to be contrary to itself: it is correct both when it states that God is one only and when it reveals

Father and Son as two, and it needs no help but its own.

It is agreed that by it the name of the Son is mentioned: for without prejudice to the Son it can be right in having defined as one only,

God whose (son) the Son is.

For he who has a son does not cease to be one only, on his own account of course as often as he is named without his son: and he is named without his son when he is primarily defined as the first person who must needs be premised before the name of the son, because the father is first recognised, and after the father the son is named.

Therefore there is one God, the Father,! and besides him there is no other? and he himself who introduces this (statement) is denying, not the Son, but another god: whereas the.Son.is.not another (god) soo than the Father.

Finally, look at the contexts of statements like f. this, and you will find that their pronouncement has an eye to . 1.3 makers and worshippers of idols, so that a multitude of false gods

_ 4 may be ejected by the unity of the divine, (the one God», who ~~" yet has a Son who, precisely because he is indivisible and in1s. separable from the Father, must be accounted as in the Father d even when his nàmie is not mentioned.

And moreover, if he had mentioned him he would have made him separate—if he had spoken in this manner, Beside me there is none other except my

Son: for he would have made the Son another (god) by excepting him from those others (who are no gods». Imagine the sun saying,

| '| I am the sun and beside me there is none other except my beam:

-— 1 1 Cor. 8. 6. à As tasses

TRANSLATION

would you not have remarked adversely upon his futility, as though the beam were not accounted in the sun?

And so «the statement) that besides himself there is no other god is (made) on account of the idolatry both of the gentiles and of Israel: also on account of the heretics, who manufacture idols with words as the gentiles do with their hands—that is, another God and another Christ.

Therefore even when pronouncing himself one the Father was serving the Son's interest, lest Christ should be believed to have come from any other God than him who had already said, J am God, and other beside me there is not! (God) who reveals himself as one only, yet (one only» with the Son, with whom also he alone has spread out the heaven.?

19. Yes, and also this saying of his they will seize upon for a proof of his singularity.

J alone, he says, have spread out the heaven *—alone in respect of the other powers, erecting a barrier against the guesses of the heretics, who will have it that the world was built by angels and hostile powers, (heretics? who make the creator himself either an angel or one suborned for other external acts, like the making of the world, and ignorant at that.

Or if in their sense he alone spread out the heaven, why do these (present) heretics perversely assume the exclusion of that singular

Wisdom who says, When he prepared the heaven I was present with — him? * And if one has said, Who hath known the mind of the Lord

. and who hath been his counsellor?,® evidently he means "besides Wisdom who was present with him".

In him, however, and with him she fashioned all things, seeing he was not ignorant what he was doing. But "besides Wisdom" means "besides the Son

", who is Christ the Wisdom and the Power of God, as the apostle says, he who alone knoweth the mind of the Father: for who knoweth the things which be in God, except the Spirit which is in him? "—not which is outside him.

There was then one who made God not alone, except as alone in respect of other gods.

But also let the Gospel be refused (a hearing» because it says that all things were made by God through the Word, and that without him was NE made.® For, if I mistake not, it is also elsewhere written, S his Word were the heavens established, and all their powers by fus Spirit. by pirit.® But the Word also, the Power and the Blige Age S eas San

RSS ME SUIS T4240

3 Is. 44. 24.

3 Provad. 27.

5 Is. 40. 13: Rom. 11. 34.

Six Cor.g, 24.

UC far Cor 2nits 8 John r. 3.

* Ps 3320.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Wisdom, will himself be the Son of God.

"Thus if all things are by the Son, when he spreads out the heaven also by the Son he is not alone in spreading it out, except on that reckoning that he is alone in respect of the other (gods».

And consequently he immediately speaks concerning the Son: W/ho else hath cast down the tokens of the ventriloquists, and divinations away from the heart, turning the wise backward and making their counsel foolish, establishing the words of his Son? 1—by saying, of course, This is my beloved

Son, hear him.?

By thus subjoining the Son, he himself is the interpreter of how he alone has spread out the heaven, that is, alone with his Son, even as he is one thing with his Son. And further, it will be the Son's voice (which says) I alone have spread out the heaven,? because by the Word were the heavens established : because with the assistance of Wisdom in the Word the heaven was prepared, and because all things were made by the Word, it is feasible for the Son also alone to have spread out the heaven, because he alone ministered to the Father's operation.

He also it will be who says, I am the first, and unto things that are to come after, I am he.* Evidently the Word is the first thing of all:

In the beginning was the Word, and in that beginning he was brought forth by the Father: whereas the Father, having no beginning, as having been. brought forth. by none, as being unborn, cannot be regarded as first: he who was always alone could have no (numerical) order.

Therefore if their reason for thinking they must believe the identity of the Father and the Son has been that they may prove their case for the unity of God, the unity is safe of him who, being one, has also a Son himself also no less

(than the Father» included in the same scriptures.

If they are unwilling for the Son to be accounted a second beside the Father, lest the second give rise to the expression "two gods", we have shown that even two Gods are referred to in scripture, and two

Lords: and yet, that they be not offended" ut UN we are rendering an account how the expressions "two gods" or "two lords" are not used, but how the Father and the Eon are two, and this not as a result of separation of substance, but as a UL of ordinance, while we declare the Son indivisible andi inseparable e from the Father, another. not in. quality but in-sequence, who, although he is called God when he is named by himself, yet does

! Ts. 44. 25, 26.

? Luke 9. 35.

3 Is. 44. 24.

4.194104.

> John 1. 1.

TRANSLATION

not for that reason make a duality of gods, but one God, by this very fact that he has to be called God as a result of his unity with the Father.

20. But for the further rebutment of their quibblings we must pay attention to whatever they will glean from the (new?) scriptures to support their opinion, while they refuse to look at the other

«places» which themselves also observe the rule, and that while safeguarding the divine unity and the impressiveness of the ^^ monarchy.

For as in the old (scriptures) they retain nothing else but, I am God and other beside me there is not,' so in the Gospel they uphold the Lord's answer to Philip, I and the Father-are.one,? and, ^

He that hath seen me hath also seen.the. Father, and, I am in the Father and the Father in me.' 'To these three citations they wish the whole appurtenance of both testaments to yield, though thesmaller. — number ought to.be understood in accordance with the greater.

^ But this is the characteristic of all heretics.

For because there are a few «instances» which can be found among the undergrowth, they maintain the cause of (these? few against the many and become advocates of the later against the earlier.

But the rule determined for every subject in earlier instances ever since the beginning, makes a precedent for the later also—and the same in the case of the fewer. dd 4 21. See therefore how many (instances) set the precedent for you even in the Gospel, before Philip's consultation and before all your quibbling. And to begin with, the very preface of John the Evangelist shows what he who had to be made flesh had aforetime been: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was nothing made.' For if this may not otherwise be received than as it is written, undoubtedly one is revealed who was from the beginning, and another with whom he was:

«he reveals> one the Word of God, and God another—though the Word also is God, but as God's Son, not as the Father: one through whom are all things, another by whom are all things.

But what we mean by "another" we have already often explained.

When we say * another" we necessarily mean "not the same": "not the same"

1 Is. 45. 5.

2 John 10. 30.

3 John 14. 9, 16, 11.

4 John r. 1-3.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

however not as separated, another by ordinance, not by division.

He therefore it was who was made flesh, not he whose Word he was.

His was the glory seen, as of the only one of the Father,' not as of the Father.

He, the only one, has revealed the bosom of the Father, not the Father his own bosom: for there comes first,

No one hath seen God at any time.? Therefore even if he is pointed out by John as the Lamb of God ? (he is» not (pointed out as> he whose beloved he is.

Certainly he is always God's Son, not he whose Son he is. Nathanael immediately perceived this of him, as also did Peter elsewhere: Thou art the Son of God.* And that this they rightly perceived he himself confirms, replying to Nathanael, Because I said I saw thee under the fig tree, therefore thou believest ^; and affirming the blessedness of Peter, to whom not flesh or blood had revealed what he had perceived, the Father as well (as the Son», but the Father who is in heaven. And by this saying he determined the distinction of both Persons, the Son on earth whom Peter had recognised as God's Son, and the Father in heaven who had revealed to Peter what Peter had recognised, that Christ is God's Son. When he has entered into the Temple he calls it his Father's house,' as a son (would». When he speaks to Nicodemus he says, God so loved the world that he gave his only

Son that every one who believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life®: and again, For God sent not his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him; he that believeth in him is not judged; he that believeth not in him is judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only

Son of God.2

When John moreover was being asked what (he thought) of Jesus when he was baptizing, he said, The Father hath loved the Son and hath delivered all things into his hand; he that believeth in the Son hath eternal life; he that believeth not in the Son of God shall not see God, but the wrath of God shall abide upon him.1?

Whom moreover did he reveal to the Samaritan woman?

If it was the Messiah who is called Christ, evidently he showed himself to be the Son, not the Father, for elsewhere also Christ is called the Son of God, not the Father.

Thereafter to the disciples he says, Mine it is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may accomplish his work? And to the Jews concerning the healing of the paralytic

1 John r. 14.

2 John 1. 18.

3 John r. 29, 36.

4 John 1. 49: Matt. 14. 33: 16. 6.

5 John 1. 50.

* Matt. 16. 17.

7 John 2. 16.

8 John 3. 16.

® John 3. 17, 18.

10° John 32,35) .30. it John 4.25. © 17% John 4. 34.

TRANSLATION

he says», My Father worketh hitherto, and I work:

'my father and I" is what a son says.

At length for this cause the Jews the more sought to kill him, not only because he relaxed the sabbath, but because he called God his Father, making himself equal with God.* 'Then therefore he said to them, The Son can do nothing of himself, except he see the Father doing it; for the things which he doeth, the same also the Son doeth; for the Father loveth the Son and hath shewn him all things which he hath done, and greater works than these shall he shew him, that ye may marvel; for as the Father ratseth up the dead and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth whom he will. For neither doth the Father judge, but hath given all judgement to the Son, that all may honour the Son as they honour , the Father; he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father who sent him.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that he who heareth my words and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall not come into judgement but hath passed from death into life. Verily

I say unto you, that the hour will come in which the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and when they have heard 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 hath given him to do judgement with authority, because he is the Son of Man *—through the flesh of course, as he is also Son of God through God's Spirit.

Again he adds, But I have a greater witness than John's; for the works which the Father hath given me to accomplish, themselves bear witness concerning me that the Father hath sent me; and the Father who hath sent me, himself hath borne witness concerning me.*

But when he adds, Ye have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his form,? he confirms (our position) that aforetime it was not the Father but the Son who was seen and heard.

At length he says, I am come in my Father's name and ye have not received me — consequently the Son always was in the name of God and King and Lord Almighty and Most High.

'lo those moreover who asked him what they must do he replied, To believe in him whom

God hath sent."

He affirms also that he is the bread which the Father was providing from heaven: consequently that everything which the Father gave him was coming to him, and that he would not cast it out, because he had come down from heaven not to do

1 John 5. 17.

* John 5. 18.

3 John 5. 19-27.

* John 5. 36, 37.

5 John 5. 37.

$ John 5. 43.

7 John 6. 29.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

his own will but the Father's; and that the Father's will was that he who hath seen the Son and believeth in him may obtain life and resurrection: further, that no one can come to him except him whom the Father draweth, and that everyone who had heard and had learned from the Father was coming to him !: adding at this point also, Not that anyone hath seen the Father,? that he might show that (he» was the Father's Word by whom men become taught. But when many go away from him, and he gives his disciples the chance of going away if they wish, what did

Simon Peter answer?

Whither go we? Thou hast the words of life, and we believe that thou art Christ?

<Does he mean) that he is the Father, or the Father's Christ?

22. But whose doctrine does he say it was at which they marvelled?

His own, or the Father's? * Likewise when they were in doubt among themselves whether he were not the Christ— evidently not the Father but the Son—he says, Ye both know me and ye know whence I am, and I am not come of myself, but he is true that hath sent me, whom ye know not: I know him because I am with him.» He says not, Because I am he, or, I have sent myself, but, He hath sent me.6

Also when the Pharisees had sent to attack him, he said, Yet a little time I am with you, and I go to him that sent me."

But when he says he is not alone— But I, he says, and the Father that sent me ?—does he not point to two, as much two as inseparable? Yea, this was the whole of his teaching, that there are two, inseparable: since also while citing the law which confirms the witness of two men, he adds, J bear witness concerning myself, and the Father who sent me beareth witness concerning me.?

. But if there had been but one (Person5, the same one being both Son and Father, he would not have made use of the advocacy of the law which demands belief in the witness not of one butof two.1° Also when asked where was the Father, when he replied that neither he nor the Father was known to them, he spoke of two unknown, though if they had known him they would have known the Father: not indeed as though he were himself Father and Son, but because through their indivisibility the one can neither be known nor unknown without the other. He that sent me, he says,

1 John 6. 32-44.

? John 6. 46.

3 John 6. 66-69.

4 John 7. 15, 16.

» John 7. 26-29.

$ John 7. 32, 33.

? John 7. 33.

5 John 8. 16.

? John 8. 18.

19 John 8. 19.

TRANSLATION

ts true, and the things which I have heard from him, those also I speak unto the world !: and the scripture in a digression explains that they knew not that he had spoken to them of the Father ?; though of course they ought to have known that the Father's words are in the Son, by reading in Jeremiah, And the Lord said to me, Behold I have put my words in thy mouth?; and in Isaiah,

The Lord giveth me the tongue of discipline to know when it is right to speak a word *; as he himself again says, Then shall ye know that I am he, and that of myself I speak nothing, but as he hath taught me so also I speak, because also he is with me that hath sent me.®>

So much concerning the witness of two (who are» indivisible.

Alsoin the dispute with the Jews, when chiding them because they wished to kill him, he says, I speak those things which I have seen with my

Father, and ye do that which ye have seen with your father; and now ye wish to kill me, a man who hath spoken to you the truth which he hath heard from God *: and, If God were your father ye would have loved me, for I came forth and am come from God ? (howbeit they are not separated, though he said he was come forth, as some seize upon the chance which this saying gives them: for he came forth from the Father like the beam from the sun, like the stream from the spring, like the groundshoot from the seed): and, I have not a devil, but I honour my Father 8: and, If I glorify myself my glory is nothing; there is one that glorifieth me, the Father, who ye say is your God and ye do not know him; but I know him, and if I shall say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you; but I know him and I keep his word.? But when he adds, Abraham saw my day and rejoiced,' he surely shows that aforetime the Son was seen by Abraham, not the Father.

Again, regarding that blind man he says he must do the Father's works!!: and after the restoration of his eyes he says to him, Dost thou believe in the Son of God? ?

And when he asked who was he and he pointed out himself, he evidently pointed out the Son, who he had told him must be believed in. Thereafter he claims that he is known by the Father and the Father by him, and that he is loved by the Father because he lays down his life, because he had received this commandment from the Father.?? And when asked by the Jews whether he were

! John 8. 26.

? John 8. 27.

3 Jer. r. 9.

4 Is. 50. 4.

5 John 8. 28.

$ John 8. 38, 40:

7 John 8. 42.

8 John 8. 49.

® John 8. 54, 55.

10 John 8. 56.

1t John 9. 4.

1? John 9. 35.

13 John 10. 15, 17.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

himself the Christ (evidently (the Christ) of God,! for even to the present day the Jews are hoping for the Christ of God, not the Father himself, for it is nowhere written that Christ the Father will come), he says, I speak to you and ye believe not; the works which I do in the Father's name themselves bear witness concerning me.? What witness?

That he of course was he concerning whom they were asking, that is, the Christ of God.

And concerning his sheep, that no one would snatch them from his hand, he says, For what the Father hath given me is greater than (they) all; and,

I and the Father are one. Here then they wish to make a stand, these fools, yea blind, who see not, first, that "I and the Father" is an indication of two; secondly, at the end (of the sentence), that "are" is not from the person of one, because it is spoken in the plural; and then, that he says "are one <thing>"', not "are one <person>".

For if he had said "are one <person>" he would have been able to assist their case: for "one (person»" is apparently an indication of the singular number.

Yet when he says that two, of the masculine gender, are one «thing», in the neuter—which is not concerned with singularity but with unity, with similitude, with conjunction, with the love of the Father who loveth the Son, and with the obedience of the Son who obeys the Father's will —when he says, One (thing) are I and the Father,* he shows that those whom he equates and conjoins are two.

Consequently he adds that he has shown them also many works from the Father, none of which deserved stoning. And so that they should not think they ought to stone him on the ground that he had wished himself to be taken for God himself, tha. is, the Father, because he had said I and the Father are one, by way of showing that he is God, the Son of God, not by way of (showing» that he is God himself, he says, If it is written in the law, I said,

Ye are gods, and the scripture cannot be relaxed, say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, that he blasphemeth, because he said, I am the Son of God?

If I do not the works of my Father, believe not; but if I do (them) and ye will not believe me, believe even for the works' sake, and know that I am in the Father and the Father in me.9 By means of the works, then, the Father will be in the Son and the Son in the Father, and thus by means of the works we understand that the Father and the Son are one.

With | ! John ro. 24.

? John 1o. 25.

3 John ro. 28, 29, 30.

4 John 10. 30.

5 John ro. 32.

$ John 10. 34-38.

J TRANSLATION

such insistence did he bring all this to light, to the intent that we should believe there are two, albeit in one act of power, because it would be impossible to believe there is a Son otherwise than if we believe there were two.

23. After this Martha, confessing him to be the Son of God,! was no more astray than Peter and Nathanael: though also if she had been astray she would at once have learned (the truth».

For the Lord, for the raising up of her brother from the dead, looked up to heaven and to the Father and said, Father—evidently a son

(speaks»—4 thank thee that thou hearest me always: for the sake of these multitudes that stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me." Also at the troubling of his soul: And what shall

I say? Father, save me from this hour?

Yet for this cause came I unto this hour.

But, Father, glorify thy name?

And the Son was in that <name>:

J am come, he says, in my Father's name.'

Thereafter—of course the Son's word to the Father would have been enough—behold, of superfluity the Father answers the Son from heaven; and as he had already testified, This is my beloved

Son in whom I am well pleased, hear him,® so here again (he says), I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.5 How many Persons do you think there are, self-opinionated Praxeas, if not as many as there are voices? You have the Son on earth, you have the Father in heaven. That is no separation, but a divine ordinance.

Yet we know that God is even within the depths, and takes up ? his position everywhere *—though in function and power—and |. that the Son also, as inseparable, is with him everywhere.

Yet in the 'economy itself it v was the Father's will that the Son should be regarded as on earth, but himself in heaven.

And thither also the Son looked up and prayed and made request of the Father 5— where also he taught us to lift ourselves up and pray, Our Father which art in heaven ?—though he is also everywhere.

This the Father would have for his abode:

The heaven, he says, is my throne.© From this also he made the Son a little less than the angels by sending him down to earth, yet with the intention of crowning him with glory and honour by taking him back into heaven.!!

This he was already granting him when he said, I have 1 John 11. 27.

2 John 11. 41-42.

3 John 12. 27, 28.

* John 5. 43.

5 Matt. 17. 5.

$ John 12. 28.

7 Ps. 139. 8.

$ John 11. 41.

?* Matt. 6. 9.

19 Ts. 66.1.

BEN Ab tek By

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

both glorified it and will glorify it.1_ 'The Son makes request from earth, the Father makes a promise from heaven.

Why do you make both Father and Son a liar?

If it is the case that either the Father was speaking to the Son from heaven while being himself the Son upon earth, or that the Son was praying to the Father while being himself the Father in heaven, how is it that the Son should also, by making request of the Father, make request of himself, (as he would do) if the Father were the Son, or again that the Father should, by making a promise to the Son, make a promise to himself, (as he would do» if (the Son» were the Father?

Though it were the case that we spoke of two divided (from each other), as you put it about that we do, yet it were more tolerable to preach two divided than one chameleon god.

And so with reference to those people the Lord next stated, This voice came not for my sake but for your sakes," that these (monarchians» also may believe in both the Father and the Son, each in his own name and person and location.

But once more Jesus cries and says, He that believeth in me believeth not in me but believeth in him that sent me— because through the Son does one believe in the Father, and the Father is the authority for believing the Son:

Amd he that beholdeth me beholdeth him that sent me—how? surely because, I have not spoken of myself, but the Father that sent me himself hath given me commandment what I shall say and what I shall speak 35— for, The Lord giveth me the tongue of learning, to know when I ought to speak *—The word which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so also I speak.® In what sense this is said the evangelist, as being that dear disciple John, knew better than Praxeis: and consequently, himself of his own mind he says, But before the \ feast of the Passover Fesus, knowing that all things were delivered

| to him by the Father and that he was from God and was going to God.5 But Praxeas will have it that the Father himself came forth from himself and went away to himself, with the result that the devil put into the heart of Judas the betrayal § not of the Son but of the Father himself—with no benefit either to the devil or to the heretic, since not even in respect of the Son did the devil contrive the betrayal with advantage to himself.

For he who was betrayed was the Son of'God who was in the Son of Man, as the ! John 12. 28.

2 John 12. 30.

? John 12. 44-49.

4 Ig. 50.147

* John 12. 50.

© John«x3. 3,3.

* John 13. 2.

TRANSLATION

scripture adds:

Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glorified in him. What God?

Evidently not the Father, but the Word of the Father who was in the Son of Man, that is, in the flesh: and Jesus, who had already been glorified in that «flesh», though but by power and word, (now? says, And God will glorify him in himself ?—that is, the Father (will glorify) the Son, whom, because he had him in himself though brought low to earth, he did shortly afterwards by the conquest of death glorify through the resurrection.

24. Clearly there were some who even then did not understand: for Thomas, for a while unbelieving, says, Lord, we know not whither thou goest, and how know we the way? And Jesus said»,

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father but by me: if ye had known me ye would have known the Father also: but from henceforth ye know him and have seen him And now we come to Philip, who, bestirred by the hope of seeing the Father, and not understanding in what sense he had been told that the Father had been seen, says, Shew us the Father and it sufficeth us: and the Lord (said», Philip, am I so long time with you and ye do not. know me? * <As> who does he say he ought to — a have been known by them?

For this alone calls for discussion.

As the Father, or as the Son?

If as the Father, let Praxeas tell us how Christ, having companied so long time with them, could ever, I say not be understood to be the Father, but even be thought to be. To us all the scriptures predetermine, the old the Christ of God, the new the Son-of God.

'This was preached aforetime, this was stated also by Christ himself, yea now also by the Father himself openly from heaven confessing the Son and glorifying the Son—This is my Son, and, I have glorified and will glorify.6 'This also was believed by the disciples, this also was not believed by the Jews.

Wishing them to believe him to be this he at every .hour named the Father and set forth the Father and honoured the Father.

If that is so, it was not the Father who they did not know had companied so long time with them, but the Son: and the Lord, upbraiding them for not knowing himself as him whom they had not known, clearly wished to be recognised as he whom he had upbraided them for not recognising in so long a time, namely the Son. And now it can appear in what sense

John 13. 31.

2 John 13. 32.

3 John 14. 5-7. a john 14. 8, 9.

5 Matt. 17. 5.

$ John 12. 28.

168 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

it was said, He that seeth me seeth the Father also! : of course in the same sense as above, I and the Father are one.? Why? Because,

I came forth and. am come from God ?; and, I am the way, no one cometh unto the Father but by me*; and, No one cometh unto me except the Father have drawn him; and, All things hath the Father delivered to me*; and, As the Father quickeneth, so also the Son'; and, If ye know me ye know the Father also.

For according to these (texts? he had revealed himself as the deputy of the Father, by means of whom the Father was both seen in acts and heard in words and known in the Son ministering the Father's acts and words: because the Father is invisible, a fact which Philip also had learned in the Law and ought to have remembered

—No one shall see God and live. And consequently he is chidden for desiring to see the Father as though he were visible, and is

| informed that he becomes visible in the Son, in consequence of pen of power, not in consequence of actual manifestation of his

Person.

Further, if by saying He that seeth me seeth the Father, he wished the identity of Father and Son to be understood, why does he add, Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me?™ For he ought to have added, Believest thou not that I am the Father?

Or why did he enlarge upon it, except that he made that clear which he wished them to understand, namely that he was the Son?

Further, in saying Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in me, he enlarged upon it for this reason rather, lest, on the ground that he had said He that hath seen me hath seen the Father also,? he might be thought to be the Father: and this he never wished to be thought to be, for he always professed to be the Son, and to have come from the Father.

'Therefore he also made manifest the conjunction of the two Persons, so that the Father separately might not, as though visible, be asked for in open view, and that the Son might be accepted as he who makes the Father present.

And no less did he explain this also, in what manner the Father was in the Son and the Son in the Father:

The words, he says, that I speak unto you are not mine—evidently because they are the Father's— but the Father abiding in me doeth the works.

Therefore the 1 John 14. 9.

? John ro. 30.

3 John 16. 27.

4 John 14. 6.

5 John 6. 44.

$ Matt. 11. 27.

? John 5. 21.

5-John 14:7

? Exod. 33. 20.

10 John 14. 9.

11 John 14. 10.

?? John 14. ro.

13 John 14. 9.

M John 14. 1o.

TRANSLATION

Father, abiding in the Son through works of power and words of doctrine, is seen through those things through which he abides, and through him in whom he abides: and from this very fact it is apparent that each Person is himself and none other, while he says, I am in the Father and the Father in me.

And so he says, Believe.

What?

"Phat I am the Father?

I think it is not so written, but, That I am in the Father and the Father in me, or if not, believe for the very works' sake !—those works in fact through which the Father was seen in the Son, not with the eyes but with the mind.

25. After Philip and the whole context of that question, the things which «follow» down to the end of the gospel continue in the same kind of discourse, in which the Father and the Son are distinguished as being each himself.

He promises that when he has ascended to the Father he will also request of Pie Father

Zy S3 poshiesunti et Moreover he says, He will take of mine? as I myself h have aiken a the Father's.

So the close series of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Paraclete makes three who cohere, the one_attached to the other.

And these three are one «thing», not one person), in the sense in which it was said, I and the Father are one,* in respect of unity of substance, not of t of singularity of number.

Take a further quick glance, and you u will find that he whom you believe to be the Father is called the Father's vine,? and the Father the husbandman, just as (you will find» that he who you think was on earth was by the Son acknowledged to be in heaven when he lifted up his eyes there and commended his disciples to the Father.

But although in this gospel there is no revelation of My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" or of Father, in thy hands I lay down my spirit? yet after the resurrection and the glory of the conquest of death, when he has put off from him the necessity of any humility and now could show himself as the Father to that faithful woman who attempted to touch him as a result of affection and not of curiosity nor of ''homas's unbelief, he says, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father, but go to my brethren—and even in this he shows himself the Son, for 1 John 14. 11, 2 John 14. 16.

3 John 16. 14.

4 John 10. 30. d John 15. 1.

Sarohngrz * Matt. 27. 46: Mark r5. 34.

Luke 23. 46.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

he would have called them his sons if he had been the Father— and tell them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, my God and your God.!

Father to Father, and God to God?

Or Son to Father, and Word to God?

Also what reason does the very conclusion of the gospel set as the seal upon these things that are written, except, That ye may believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ? ? Therefore whatever of these things you have thought were able to be of advantage to you for the demonstration of the identity of Father and Son, you are striving against the express judgement of the gospel: for the things were written, not that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Father, but that (you may believe that he is» the Son.

26. On account of Philip's one remark and the Lord's reply to it we seem to have made a complete study of John's gospel, so that so many things clearly stated both before it and after it

\ may not be overturned by one remark, which ought to be inter- 'preted in accordance with them all, not in contradiction with them all and even in contradiction with its own meaning.

But, so as not to lodge (as evidence» other gospels which by relating» the Lord's nativity confirm our faith, it is enough that he who was to be born of the virgin was by the angel messenger himself defined as the Son of God:

The Spirit of God shail come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God.?

They will wish to quibble even here, but the truth will prevail.

* Doubtless "', say they, "the Son of God is God, and the power of the Most High is the Most High", and they are not ashamed to assume that which, if it had been so, would have been so written.

For, consideration for whom prevented him from openly stating, God shall come upon thee and the Most High shall overshadow thee?

For when he said The Spirit of God,* although God is spirit, yet since he did not mention God in the nominative case he wished there to be understood an assignment of the whole which was to go to the Son's account.

"This Spirit of God will be the same as the Word.

For as, when John says The Word was made flesh,? we understand also Spirit at the mention of the Word, so also here we recognise also the Word under the name vs of the Spirit.

For spirit is the substance of the Word, and word rt, 20. 17.

? John 20. 31.

* Luke rz. 35.

* Luke 1. 35.

S John 14 34.

TRANSLATION

17I is an operation of the Spirit, and the two are one «thing».

Otherwise there will be one whom John declares to have been made flesh, and another who the angel says will be flesh, if it is not the case that both the Spirit is the Word and the Word is the Spirit.

As therefore the Word of God is not (God) himself whose (Word) he is, so the Spirit also, though he is called God, is yet not (God) himself whose (Spirit? he is called.

Nothing in genitive dependence is that on which it is dependent.

Clearly when a thing is "from him", and is "his" in the sense that it is from him, it can be a thing which is like him from whom it is and whose it is: and consequently the Spirit is God and the Word is

God, because he is from God, yet is not (God? himself from whom he is.

But if the Spirit of God, as being a substantive thing, will not (be found to» be God himself, but in that sense

God as being from the substance of God himself, in that it is a substantive thing and a certain assignment of the whole, much more so the power of the Most High will not be the Most High himself, because it is not even a substantive thing as the Spirit is, any more than wisdom or providence: for these are not substances, but attributes of each several substance. Power is an attribute of spirit, and will not itself be spirit.

Since then these, whatever they are, the Spirit of God and his Word and his power, were conferred upon the virgin, that which is born of her is the Son of God.

This in these gospels he himself testifies that he is, immediately, as a boy: Know ye not, he says, that I must be in my Father's (house? 1 'This also Satan knew at the temptations:

If thou art the Son of God.? 'This also later the devils confess: We know thee who thou art, the Son of God. He himself prays to the Father.

When Peter recognises him as the Christ of God he does not deny it. When he rejoices in the Spirit he says to the Father, I thank thee, Father, that thou hast hid these things from the wise In the same passage also he affirms that the Father is known to none but the Son,' and that the Son of the Father will in the presence of the Father confess them that confess him and deny them that deny him,5 while he introduces the parable of a son, not a father, who was sent into a vineyard after a number of servants (had been sent» and was killed by wicked rustics and 1 Luke 2. 49.

? Matt. 4. 3, 6.

3 Mark. 1. 24.

4 Mark 1. 35.

* Luke 9. 20.

* Luke 10. 21.

*'Luke 10. 22.

8 Matt. 10. 32.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

avenged by his father}: and he even himself knows not the last day or hour, which is known to the Father alone 2: and he ordains for his disciples a kingdom even as he says one has been ordained for him by his Father ?: and he has power to ask his Father for legions of angels to help him, if he wished 4: and he cries aloud that God has forsaken him,? and places his spirit in the Father's hands,® and after the resurrection pledges himself to send to his disciples the promise of the Father,? and, lastly, commands them to baptize unto the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,? not unto one <only>: for not once, but thrice, are we ve baptized, unto each several Person at each several name.

27. But why shall I delay over things so evident, when I ought to be attacking those (arguments? by which they seek to cast darkness over (these? evident things?

For, convicted on . all sides by the distinctness of the Father and the Son, which we say is ordained without disturbing the permanence of the union as of the sun and the beam and of the spring and the river, they attempt to interpret this (distinctness) in another way, not less in accordance with their opinion, so as no less (than before? to distinguish Father and Son both in one person, while they say

_ that the Son is the flesh, that is, the Man, Jesus, while the Father is the Spirit, that is, God, Christ.

'These who contend that the Father and the Son are one and the same, now begin to divide them rather than to call them one.

For if Jesus is one and Christ is another, the Son will be one and the Father another, because

Jesus is the Son and Christ is the Father.

This sort of monarchy they perhaps learned of from Valentinus, to make two.of Jesus and Christ.

But this assumption of theirs has already had its point blunted by our previous discussion, because he whom they make the Father is described as the Word of God, or the Spirit of God and the power of the Most High: for these are not he to whom they are described as belonging, but are from him and belong to him.

Yet they will be refuted also in another way in that text.

" Behold', they say, "it was announced by the angel, Therefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, the Son of God ?: and so it was flesh that was born, and so the flesh will be the Son of God."

And yet the statement was made con1 Matt. 21. 33-41.

? Mark 13. 32.

3 Luke 22. 29.

* Matt. 26. 53.

^ Matt. 27. 46: Mark 15. 34.

$ Luke 23. 46.

* Luke 24. 49.

* Matt. 28. 19.

? Luke 1. 35.

TRANSLATION

cerning the Spirit of God.

For certainly it was of the Holy Spirit that the virgin conceived, and what she conceived that she brought to birth.

Therefore that must have been born which was conceived and was to be brought to birth, that is, the Spirit, whose name also shall be called Emmanuel, which is interpreted, God with us. But flesh is not God, that of it should be said, It shall be called holy, the Son of God; but he who as God was born in it, of whom also the psalm <speaks>, Because God as man was born in her and hath builded her by the will of the Father? Who, being

God, was born in her? The Word, and the Spirit who with the Word was born by the Father's will.

Therefore the Word is in flesh; while we must also enquire about this, how the Word was made flesh, whether as transformed into flesh or as having clothed

: himself with flesh.

Certainly as having clothed himself.

God however must necessarily be believed to be immutable and untransformable, as being eternal.

But change of form is a destruction of what was there first: for everything that is transformed into something else ceases to be what it was and begins to be what it was not.

But God neither ceases to be, nor can be anything else. And the Word is God, and the Word of God abideth for ever,? evidently by continuing in his own form. And if it is not feasible for him to be conformed «to something else», it follows that he must be understood to have been made flesh in the sense that he comes to be in flesh, and is manifested and seen and handled by means of the flesh *: because the other considerations also demand this acceptation.

For if the Word was made flesh as the result of a transformation or mutation of substance, Jesus will then be one substance (composed? o of two, flesh and spirit, a kind of mixture, as electrum 1s (composed; of gold. and silver: and he begins to be neither gold (that is, spirit) nor silver (that is, flesh), seeing that the one thing is changed by the > other and a third thing v is brought into being.

In that case Jesus will not be God, for he has RECS err since it has become flesh: neither will his manhood be flesh, for it is not properly flesh, seeing it has been the Word. Thus out of both things there is neither: there is some third thing far other than both. Yet we find that he is, not in genitive dependence, set forth as both God and Man, the psalm itself making this suggestion, Because God as man was born

1 Matt. 1.-23.

? Ps. 87. 5.

S ISO. oi Uolatsh big 845

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

in her, he hath builded her by the will of the Father *: certainly (we find him set forth» as in every respect Son of God and Son of man, since (we find him) as both God and Man, without doubt according to each substance as it is distinct in what itself is, because neither is the Word anything else but God nor the flesh anything else but man.

"Thus also the apostle teaches of both his substances: Who was made, he says, of the seed of David—here he will be man, and Son of Man: Who was defined as Son of God according to the Spirit ?—hére he will be God, and the Word, the Son of God: we observe a double quality, not confused but combined, Jesus in.one Person God and Man.

I postpone «the vini . consideration» of * Christ".

And to such a degree did there remain unimpaired the proper being of each substance, that in him

. the Spirit carried out its own acts, that is powers and works and signs, while the flesh accomplished its own passions, hungering in company of the devil? thirsting in company of the Samaritan woman,* weeping for Lazarus,? sore troubled unto death $—and at length it also died.

But if there had been some third thing, a confusion of both, like electrum, there would not be in evidence such distinct proofs of both substances; but the Spirit would have performed the functions of the flesh and the flesh the functions of the Spirit, by interchange, or else neither those of the flesh nor those of the Spirit but those of some third form, by confusion: yes, either the Word would have died or the flesh would not have died, if the Word had been converted into flesh, for either the flesh would have been immortal or the Word mortal.

But because both substances acted distinctively each in its own quality, therefore to them accrued both their own activities and their own destinies.

Learn therefore with Nicodemus that what is born in the flesh is flesh and what is born of the Spirit is spirit."

Flesh does not become spirit nor spirit flesh: evidently they can (both)? be in one <person>.

Of these Jesus is composed, of flesh as Man and of spirit as God: and on that occasion the angel, in respect of that part in which he was spirit, pronounced him the Son of God, reserving for the flesh the designation Son of Man.

Thus also the apostle, in calling him even the mediator of God and of man,® confirms «the fact that he is» of both substances.

Lastly, zs Emtelois Ti * Rom. 1. 3; 4.

3 Matt. 4. 2.

5 John 4. 7.

5 John 11. 35.

5 Matt. 26. 38.

7 John 3. 6.

Srep:02557

TRANSLATION

you who interpret "Son of God" as the flesh, show me who the Son of Man may be. Or is he to be the Spirit? But you wish the Spirit to be taken to be the Father himself, since God is spirit: as though, just as the Word is God, God's Spirit might not also be

God's Word.

28. And so you make Christ into the Father, you great fool, because you do not even examine the very force of this name, if indeed "Christ" is a name and not rather a title: for it signifies

"anointed". Yet "anointed" is no more a name than "clothed" or "shod", but is something attributive to a name.

If as a result of some quibbling Jesus were also called '* clothed ", as he is called Christ from the sacrament of anointing, would you, as you do here, call Jesus the Son of God but believe *clothed" to be the Father? Now concerning "Christ".

If the Father is Christ, the Father is anointed, and by some one else at that: or if by himself, prove it. But that is not the teaching of the Acts of the Apostles in that cry of the church to God, For in this city have ali assembled together, Herod and Pilate with the gentiles, against thy holy Son whom thou hast anointed.!

'Thus they testified both that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Son was anointed by the Father: consequently Jesus will be the same as Christ who was anointed by the Father, not (the same as) the Father who anointed the Son.

So also Peter: Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made both Lord and Christ—that is, anointed— this Jesus whom ye crucified.? But John even brands as a liar him who has denied that Jesus is Christ,? and in contrast (says? that every one who believes that Jesus is Christ is born of God *: for which reason he also exhorts us to believe in the name of his

Son Jesus Christ, so that, he says, we may have fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Thus also Paul/in every place puts God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ: when he writes to the Romans he gives thanks to God through our

Lord Jesus Christ 5; when to the Galatians, he represents himself as an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus

Christ and God the Father."

And you have, throughout all his collected works, «texts» which make statements in this manner and set forth as two God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ

! Acts 4. 27.

? Acts 2. 36.

3 x John 2. 22.

3 x TohnisT.

1 John: 1:3.

5 Rom. 1. 8.

2 Galerie, Ts

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

the Son of the Father, and <say> that Jesus himself is Christ, and, under another name also, the Son of God.

For continually, by that right by which both names belong to one, that is, the Son of God, one even without the other belongs to the same one: and if "Jesus" alone is written "Christ" also is understood because ..

Jesus was anointed; while if only "Christ" is written, the same is also Jesus because the anointed is Jesus.

And of these names one is a proper name which was conferred by the angel, while the other as an attributive accrues from the anointing, yet only so long as Christ is the Son and not the Father.

Finally, how blind is the man who does not understand that if he ascribes the name of Christ to the Father the presage of another god is implied in the name of Christ.

For if Christ the Father is God who says, I ascend to my Father and your Father and my God and your God,! evidently he reveals another father and god above himself.

Also if the Father is Christ, there is another who stablisheth the thunder and createth the spirit and announceth unto men his Christ.2, And if the kings of the earth are stood up and the rulers are gathered together into one against the Lord and against his Christ? there will be another lord against whose Christ the kings and rulers are gathered together.

And if Thus saith the Lord to my Lord Christ,' there will be another lord who is speaking to Christ the Father.

And when the apostle writes, That the God of our Lord Fesus Christ may give you the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge,? there will be another god of Jesus Christ, the bestower of spiritual gifts.

Certainly, so as not to wander over the whole ground, he who raised up Christ and is also to raise up our mortal bodies,5 will be as it were another raiser up than the Father who died and the Father who was raised up, if it is the case that Christ who died is the Father.

29. Let this blasphemy be silent, be silent.

Let it be enough to say that Christ the Son of God died, and this (only? because it is so written.

For the apostle, while stating not without risk that Christ died, adds According to the scriptures,' so as by the authority of the scriptures to soften the hardness of the statement ? and avert offence to the hearer.

And yet, since in Christ .. Jesus there are assessed two substances, a divine and a human, and it is admitted that the divine is immortal, as that that which is

1 John 20. 17.

* Amos 4. 13.

Susa o.

*uIsdA SEN T $ Eph. 1. 17.

$ Rom. 8. 11.

UST Core ls'.

8 John 6. 60.

TRANSLATION

human is mortal, it is evident in what respect he says he died, namely in that he is flesh and man and Son of Man, not in that he is spirit and Word and Son of God.

By saying then that Christ —that is, the anointed—died, he makes it clear that that which was anointed died, that is, the flesh.

"So", you say, "we also who, by the same reasoning as you, say that the Son (died), do not blaspheme against the Lord God ; for we say that he died not in respect of his divine but of his human substance."

Yet you do blaspheme, not only because you say the Father died but also because (you say he was) crucified.

For by converting Christ into the Father you blaspheme against the Father with that curse upon one crucified ! which by the Law accrues to the Son, because it was Christ, not the Father, who was made a curse for us."

Whereas we, when we say that Christ was crucified, curse him not, but relate the curse of the Law, because neither did the apostle blaspheme when he said this.

But just as a thing said of anyone of whom it may appropriately be said is said without blasphemy, so what is not appropriate is blasphemy if itissaid.

Consequently neither did the Father suffer with the Son.

In fact because they are ashamed of direct blasphemy against the Father, they hope it may in this manner be mitigated, while they now admit that Father and Son are two if indeed in this fashion the Son suffers while the Father suffers with (him».

In this also are they fools.

For what is "compassion" except "suffering with" another?

Further, if the Father is impassible he is of course incompassible: or if he is compassible he is of course passible. So you do him no benefit by this fear of yours.

For you fear to call passible him whom you do call compassible.

But the Father is just as incompassible as the Son also is impassible as regards that state in which he is God.

'But in what way did the Son suffer, if the Father also did not suffer with him?"

The difference begins from the Son, not from the Father.

For also if a river is defiled by some muddying, although the one substance comes down from the spring and there is no interruption at the spring, 1S)" VER the malady of the river will not attach to the spring: and though Pol LO the water which suffers (injury? belongs to the spring, so long as \ it suffers not in the spring but in the river it is not the spring that suffers, but the river which (has come) from the spring.

So also how could the Spirit of God suffer in the Son? On the ground * Deut. 21.23.

2 Gal. 3. 13.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

that <the Spirit) was suffering not in the Father but in the Son, would it seem that the Father had not suffered?

But it is enough that the Spirit of God suffered nothing on his own account: because if he did suffer anything in the Son there was a possibility of the Father suffering with the Son, in the flesh.

But this has <already> been discussed, and no one will deny (our conclusion): since neither can we suffer on behalf of God except there be in us the Spirit of God, who also speaks concerning us the things which belong to (our? confessorship, while himself not suffering, but granting us the ability to suffer.

30. Otherwise, if you will persist further, I shall be able to give you a harder answer and to put you in conflict with the statement of the Lord himself, so as to say, Why do you ask questions about that (answer»?

You have him crying aloud at his passion, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? * Consequently either the Son was suffering, forsaken by the Father, and the Father did not suffer, seeing he had forsaken the Son: or else, if it was the Father who was suffering, to what God was he crying aloud?

But this utterance of flesh and soul (that is, of the manhood), not of the Word and Spirit (that is, not of God), was sent forth with the express purpose of showing the impassibility of God who thus forsook the Son when he delivered his manhood to death.

This was in the apostle's mind when he wrote, If the Father spared not his Son.?

This also Isaiah, an earlier (authority? stated: And the Lord hath delivered him for our iniquities.3

He forsook in that he did not spare, he forsook in that he delivered.

Yet the Father did not forsake the Son, since the Son placed his own spirit in the Father's hands.* He placed it (there) in short, and straightway died: for while the spirit remains in the flesh the flesh cannot die at all.

Thus, to be forsaken by the Father was to the Son death. The Son therefore both dies and is raised up again by the Father according to the scriptures.? The Son ascended into the higher parts of heaven, as he did also descend into the inner parts of the earth.6

This is he who sitteth at the right hand of the Father,' not the Father at his own right hand.

This is he whom Stephen sees, when he is being stoned, still standing at the right hand of God,® as thenceforth to sit, until the Father do put all

— ! Matt. 27. 46.

2 Rom. 8. 32.

3 Is. 53.6.

* Luke 23. 46. bar Cor. 15.3.

$ Eph. 4. 9.

* Mark 16. 19.

* Acts 7. 55.

TRANSLATION

enemies under his feet.! This is he who is also to come again above the clouds of heaven in like fashion as also he ascended.?

"This is he who meanwhile has poured forth the gift which he has received from the Father, the Holy Spirit, the third name of the deity and the third sequence of the majesty, the preacher of one monarchy and also the interpreter of the economy for those who admit the words of his new prophecy, and the leader into all the truth ? which is in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit according to the Christian mystery.

31. Moreover this matter is of Jewish faith, so to believe in one God as to refuse to count in with him. the Son, and after the Son the Spirit.

For what (difference? will there be between us and them except that disagreement?

What need is there of the Gospel, what is that confidence of the New Testament which establishes the Law and the Prophets until John,* unless thereafter

Father and Son and Spirit, believed. in-as-three; constitute one God?

It was God's will to make a new covenant for the very purpose that in a new way his unity might be believed in through the Son and the Spirit, so that God who had aforetime been preached through the Son and the Spirit without being understood might now be known in his own proper names and persons.

Therefore let them beware, these antichrists who deny the Father and the Son 5: for they do deny the Father while they identify him with the Son, and they deny the Son while they identify him with the Father, granting them things they are not and taking away things they are.

But he who shall confess that Christ is the Son of God—not the Father—God abideth in him and he in God.$.

We believe £he testimony of God by which he hath testified concerning his Son: He that hath not the Son hath not life." But he has not the Son who believes him to be other than the Son.

I PSUTO-T.

* Actsai:11: Luke 21.27.

3 John 16. 13.

1C Matt ET; 13:

5 1 John 2. 22.

$ 1 John 4. 15.

Cer Jonny. One.

↑ Back to top