Commentary And Notes ; : É : S R7

Commentary And Notes ; : É : S R7

] L] '

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

ph iN Us * * * E^. odd 25 MA

pes MN "E PRR TWA

TERTULLIANI ADVERSUS PRAXEAN LIBER

I. It is a habit of the devil to attack the truth by pretending to defend it. He champions the divine unity, but only to make a heresy of it. He says that the Father himself was incarnate.

But he has forgotten himself, for when he was tempting Christ he approached him as Son of God, <thus admitting a distinction between the Father and the Son»: unless perchance he alleges that Matthew and Luke

| have wrongly reported him, and have falsified the Gospel narrative.

On the contrary: he himself is the falsifier, along with underlings of his such as Praxeas.

This person was the first to import this heresy from Asia to Rome, where he also prevailed upon the Roman bishop to desist from his project of recognising the new prophecy.

The tares sown by Praxeas bore fruit in Africa also: I had them brought to light and they had apparently been pulled up, the teacher having signed a document admitting his error.

But they had seeded themselves, and having lain hid for a time are now beginning to grow again.

Consequently they again need to be rooted up: and that is the purpose of this treatise.

For the historical circumstances here summarised see the Introduction, p. 10, and for the monarchianist theology, p. 11.

Aemulatus est, * has shown hostility".

So always in Tertullian.

Rivalry may begin as competitive striving towards a good end, but it is prone to develop into personal enmity: the word has suffered the fate of the moral process which it describes.

Cf. adv. Marc. i. 26, quia aemulum sit necesse est (sc. eius) quod noluit admitti et nolendo prohibuit .

. qui non alias plene bonus sit nisi mali aemulus: ibid. ii. 11, nihil enim aemulum mali non bonum sicut et boni aemulum nihil non malum: de anima, 2, quia et ex aemulis (our adversaries) nonnunquam testimonium necessarium, si non aemulis prosit: ibid. 57, quid novi aemulatio veritatis in spiritu immundo? de carne Christi, 4, in aemulationem sapientiae saecularis (in contrast with).

Adfectavit, which means " pretend" in both the older and the newer sense of the English word, here appears to distribute those senses

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

between defendendo and concutere, i.e. "he has tried to shake by pretending to defend".

Ipsum ... patrem descendisse.

On the interpretation of Luke 1. 35 see the Introduction, p. 63.

Coluber, the serpent, which is the devil and Satan:

Gen. 3. 15:

Rom. 16. 20: Rev. 20. 2.

Ex ipsis scripturis: Ps. 91. 11, 12: cf. Matt. 4. 6: Luke 4. 10, 11.

Viderit M. et L.

Cf. de anima, 2, sed viderit utriusque (sc. medicinae et philosophiae) praestantiae ambitio: adv. Prax.

31, widerint igitur antichristi.

Ad ipsum deum .

. ipsum omnipotentem.

Tertullian's own practice follows the New Testament in applying the designation deus rarely, and in a derivative sense or predicatively, to God the Son: less infrequently than the New

Testament he applies it to the Holy Spirit. There is in Tertullian's mind a sense in which the Father is God, so to speak, in first instance, while the Son is derivatio totius substantiae deitatis.

In the Church Service, as a rule, though there are exceptions, prayers addressed to our Lord begin not with Deus but with Domine.

'There is however a certain irony in the present sentence, which is supposedly spoken by the devil, and need not of necessity represent Tertullian's own view.

See a note on § 9, and cf. $ 13.

Nunquam illum, etc.

** perhaps I should not have demeaned myself (to tempt) him".

The conjecture of Ursinus seems unnecessary: brevity by omission is quite in Tertullian's style.

Praxeas is not mentioned by other anti-heretical writers, except pseudoTertullian (adv. omn. haer. 8), Augustine, and Gennadius, who are too late to be regarded as first-hand authorities.

The silence of Hippolytus is remarkable, for he must have been in Rome at the presumed time of Praxeas' visit there.

Consequently it has been suggested (see the Introduction, p. 10) that the name was invented by Tertullian to cover some important person, such as

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

Zephyrinus or Callistus.

The reference to confessorship would suit either of these, though there is no evidence that they came from Asia.

Tertullian does not say that Praxeas was ever in Africa: the common opinion that he was is deduced from a false reading Roma in the next sentence, and doctor later in this chapter need not be Praxeas.

Romam, homo.

This is Oehler's emendation, and on general grounds seems likely to be correct: though he is wrong in suggesting that it means the provinces near Rome, for it means the city itself.

Romanae humo, of the earlier editions, was intended to give the same meaning.

But romana humus could only mean imperial territory, in which Asia is already included.

Also the dative is the wrong case, and without homo or some such word the succeeding epithets are left lame.

Engelbrecht, whose suggestions are usually good, would read romanae humo, homo: but again "soil" has no point, unless (which is unlikely) there is a reference by anticipation to the parable of the Tares.

Episcopum romanum.

The tract adv. omn. haer. (preserved in the same MS. as Tertullian, de praescr. haer., but possibly by Victorinus of Petavio, a martyr in Diocletian's persecution) gives this bishop's name as Victorinus.

"This seems like a conflation of an original reading "Victor" with a scribal correction " Zephyrinus".

Zephyrinus (202-219) is perhaps too late to suit Tertullian's narrative: Victor (192-202) is more probable. But there is a remarkable coincidence of language between Tertullian's words here, pacem ecclesiis Asiae et Phrygiae inferentem, and those of Eusebius (H.E. v. 3), who says that the brethren in Gaul, hearing of the various opinions held concerning the prophecies of Montanus, Alcibiades, and Theodotus, sent letters expressing their own judgement, and expounding letters written in prison by their own martyrs, to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and to Eleutherus bishop of Rome

(177-192), THS TOV exKAnoLaV etprjvus Evexa mpea Bevovres.

According to Tertullian, Eleutherus condemned the prophets:

Victor, ignorant of his predecessor's policy, or preferring to disregard it, was inclined to approve of the movement, until Praxeas arrived in Rome and (a) gave him information discreditable to the prophets, and (b) reminded him of his predecessor's ruling.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Falsa de ipsis prophetis, etc.

For contemporary estimates of Montanism and strictures upon the character of Montanus and his associates see the Introduction, p. 78.

Itis hard to believe that Tertullian would have approved either of moral disorder or of that type of enthusiasm which is described as "involuntary madness of the soul": and we must surmise (a) that in Africa the more fanatical manifestations of the movement were rarely or never produced, and (5) that Tertullian had heard of, but did not credit, some of the other objectionable features of Phrygian Montanism.

Praecessorum eius auctoritates.

Praecessorum may be a rhetorical plural, and refer only to Eleutherus (177-192).

There is no evidence independent of this passage that he or Soter (168-177) condemned Montanism: but they may have done so, and provoked the martyrs of Lyons to remonstrance.

The appeal to a previous decision would have had some weight at Rome, and in all catholic Churches, but none whatever with Tertullian, who would have replied, domnus noster

Christus veritatem se, non consuetudinem, cognominavit (de virg. vel. 1).

Fruticaverant avenae Praxeanae hic quoque superseminatae, "Here (in Africa» also Praxean tares were sown over (the good seed? and germinated ": cf. de anima,

16, avenarum superseminatorem et frumentariae segetis nocturnum interpolatorem, and Hippolytus, philos. ix. 7 (a passage treating of the same subject as the present), "Eiyovds tus Tovvoua, 0s TH Pop émióquijoas éréamewe THY iÜcov yvápumv.

Tertullian does not say that Praxeas himself came to Africa: his doctrines were taught there by some person unnamed, referred to below as "the teacher".

"While men slept" in simplicity of doctrine, they obtained some vogue: afterwards they were brought to light (traductae, a late use of the word, cf. Petronius, 17, neve traducere velitis tot annorum secreta: de anima, 1, nondum enim Christianae potestatis documenta processerant, quae vim istam perniciosissimam . . . sola traducit); "by whom God would", i.e. by Tertullian himself, probably the only man in Africa with sufficient theological acumen to be aware of the danger.

The teacher caverat

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

pristinum—a legal expression meaning that he gave security for his return to his former opinions !: he signed a written document to that effect, which when Tertullian was writing was still in the archives of the Church: and there is no reason to think that he went back on his word.

That being so, if he were now a person of note, only harm would be done by publishing his name.

The tares appeared to have been rooted up, and it seemed as if the trouble were at an end.

But not so: they had been allowed to grow long enough to make seed, which was self-sown over the land, and for a time lay dormant (subdola vivacitate latitavit) because those infected with it dissembled their views (per hypocrisin): it had now germinated afresh, and called for a fresh uprooting. Avenae stood in the Old Latin version for (ulavia

(so, e.g., Prudentius, hamartigenia, 217, malignus ager . . . triticeam vacuis segetem violavit avenis) : the Vulgate retains the Greek word.

Apud psychicos, apud quos tunc gesta res est.

St Paul (1 Cor. 2. 14-3. 3) distinguishes between the carnal man, the natural man (yvxuós, animalis), and the spiritual man.

All men, he would say, are endowed with the three constituents, body, soul, and spirit: the distinction depends on whether body, soul, or spirit is the ruling factor in one's outlook and conduct; and that depends on the grace of God and one's use of it.

See a masterly exposition of these terms in St Augustine, de fide et symbolo, 23. The gnostics, and afterwards the Manichees, made the distinction absolute: the carnal man was so constituted that he could not help being carnal, and likewise the natural man, and the spiritual man.

The spiritual man was the gnostic, certain of salvation; the carnal man the pagan, incapable of salvation; the natural man the ordinary Christian, capable of a limited salvation but not of reception within the "fulness of the godhead".

Tertullian uses the terms in a Pauline sense, but with a difference.

To him the psychic or animal or natural man is the ordinary Christian; the spiritual man is the Montanist, who has received or who acknowledges the yapiopara, of the Holy Spirit in the "new prophecy". The psychici therefore in the present passage

1 A note by Fr. Junius, quoted by Oehler, suggests that caverat pristinum is equivalent to 7d ápxaiov 7daMqero, which he says (though he produces no evidence) has the meaning given in the note.

C. H. Turner (3-1.S. vol. xiv. p556), disregarding this suggestion, objects that there is no adverb pristinum, and offers an emendation caverat presbyter istorum doctor.

But if Junius is right, pristinum is not an adverb, but a cognate or adverbial accusative.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

are the Catholic Church of Africa.

The question had arisen in Asia, Gaul, and Rome, whether Montanists could be retained within the Church.

The Asiatic bishops, with nearer knowledge of their irregularities, after some consideration decided that they could not.

There are indications that the African Churches would have been disposed to look more favourably upon them: probably Felicity and Perpetua were Montanists (see Armitage

Robinson, The Passion of S. Perpetua, pp. 6, 51 sqq.), and neither the African nor the Roman Church has ever counted this to their discredit.

The impediment in Tertullian's case was not in the Church, but in that schismatical temper which, along with the acknowledgement and defence of the Paraclete, led him to despise his fellow Christians as merely "psychic": he separated from them, not they from him, and even so (such was their reasonableness) within thirty years of his death they had forgotten that he was not one of themselves.

In isto commeatu, ; "in the time at my disposal". Commeatus is regularly used by Tertullian for a time of opportunity: de fuga, 9, si redimendum tempus dicit quia dies nequam sunt, non per fugam, per sapientiam conversationis lucrari nos vult commeatum (where lucrari commeatum seems to be a paraphrase of redimere tempus, which is hardly a satisfactory translation of é€ayopdleo

Oar Tov Karpov, Eph. 5. 16; both tempus and commeatus connote extent of time, which kaupds excludes): de anima, 30, commeatus hic vitae, "the usual length of human life": ibid. 34, in primo quoque vitae huius commeatu, "in each soul's first allowance of this life" [i.c. on the supposition of metempsychosis].

Jste, equivalent to hic talis or hic tantus, and without any suggestion of contempt or depreciation, is common. in late Latin, The reference to the parable of the Tares, Matt. 13. 24, is evident, though Tertullian prefers to anticipate the time of harvest.

I. Praxeas says that it was the Father who was born and who suffered, that God himself, the Lord Almighty, is Jesus Christ.

We also believe that there is one God, yet in the divine unity we acknowledge an economy: the one God has also a Son, his Word, who has proceeded from him, and was the agent of creation.

He it was who was born, being God and man, who suffered and died and was buried and was raised up again and was taken up again into heaven and will

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

come again in judgement.

He has also sent from the Father the promised Paraclete.

The truth of this Rule of the Faith is shown by its antiquity, for it is older than all the heresies: and all heresies altke are judged beforehand on the principle that what came first ts genuine and what comes after is debased.

So long as this claim is allowed, there is room for further exposition, so that certain persons may be armed and fortified, and lest heresy appear to be condemned by prejudice, without examination.

This new heresy thinks the | divine unity can only be maintained by the identification of Father and Son and Holy Spirit: we reply that the unity is a unity of substance, but that the mystery of the economy must be guarded, which distributes the unity into.a irimity, the Son and the Holy

Spirit deriving their being from the Father.

The purpose of this treatise is to show how there can be plurality without division.

This chapter contains (1) a summary statement of the monarchian position: (2) the Rule of the Faith which Tertullian claims is as old as Christianity and has the right to be considered true because primitive: and (3) a statement in technical terms of the trinitarian doctrine which the treatise is intended to expound and defend.

The monarchianist doctrine, and the meaning of Tertullian's terminology, have been discussed in the Introduction, pp. 6 and 38, q.v.

The Rule of the Faith, regula fidei, nypuvypa rrjs adnOeias, is not the same thing as the Creed.

The Creed is a liturgical document, whose proper use is in the immediate preparation for and in the administration of Baptism: its other uses are subsequent and secondary to this.

It was a jealously guarded form of words: in different Churches, though the general sense was the same, verbal details might differ; but in the same Church verbal accuracy was insisted on.

It was a very brief document, consisting in Tertullian's day of no more than five or six clauses, referring to each several Person of the Holy Trinity, to the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, and to little more (see Badcock, History of the Creeds (2nd ed.), p. 24). The Rule of the Faith is not a form of words but a series of ideas, a guide for teachers rather than a test of the neophyte's faith.

It is thrice rehearsed by Tertullian, and once by Irenaeus (Aaer. i. 2), in varying forms comprising substantially the same matter: it is the regula rather than the Creed from which Novatian seems to be quoting (de trin. 1, 9, 29).

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

A comparison of Tertullian's three forms gives results of some interest:

REGULA FIDEI A TERTULLIANO ADHIBITA

de virg. vel. 1

Regula quidem fidei una de praesc. haer. 13

Regula est autem fidei adv. Prax. 2 omnino est . .. credendi scilicet in unicum deum omniqua creditur unum omnino deum esse Unicum quidem deum potentem mundi conditorem : nec alium praeter mundi conditorem, credimus, ,sub hac tamen dispensatione, quam olkovopiay dicimus, ut unici dei sit et filius, sermo ipsius qui ex ipso processerit, per quem omnia facta qui universa de nihilo produxerit per verbum suum primo omnium demissum : id verbum filium eius appellatum, in nomine dei visum esse a patriarchis, in prophetis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spirsunt et sine quo factum est nihil : hunc missum a patre in et filium eius lesum Christum, natum ex virgine Maria, itu patris dei et virtute in virginem Mariam, carnem factum in utero eius et ex ea natum egisse Iesum Christum: virginem et ex ea natum hominem et deum, filium hominis et filium dei, et cognominatum Iesum Christum : exinde praedicasse novam legem et novam promissionem regni caelorum, virtutes fecisse, crucifixum hunc passum, hunc morcrucifixum sub Pontio Pilato tuum et sepultum secundum scripturas, et resuscitatum a patre tertia die resurrexisse, tertia die resuscitatum a mortuis, receptum in caelis, sedentem nunc ad dexin caelos ereptum sedisse ad | dexteram patris, misisse vicariam vim spiritus sancti qui credentes agat : venturum cum claritate ad sumendos sanctos in vitae aeternae et promissionum fructum et ad profanos iudicandos igni perpetuo, facta utriusque resuscitatione et in caelo resumptum sedere ad — dexteram patris teram patris, venturum iudicare vivos venturum iudicare vivos et mortuos : et mortuos partis

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

IgI de praesc. haer. 13 de virg. vel. 1 adv. Prax. 2 cum carnis restitutione. ^ per carnis etiam resurrectionem. qui exinde miserit, secundum promissionem suam, a patre spiritum sanctum paracletum, sanctificatorem — fidei eorum qui credunt in patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum.

From this it appears that:

(a) The constant elements are those which refer to one God the Creator; his Son Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary; the death, resurrection, ascension, and heavenly session of Christ, and his coming again to judgement; and (in two cases explicitly, in the other by implication) the resurrection of the dead.

(b) In the later works, adv. Prax. and de virg. vel., the reference to the Holy Spirit seems to have been affected by Tertullian's

Montanism.

In the earlier work, de praescr. haer., there is no identification of the Word and the Holy Spirit in the account of the Incarnation: the Word indeed is said to have been sent down upon the Virgin, but "the,Spirit and power of God the Father" was the operative agent in that demission.

Also in that work there is a statement of the mission of the Holy Spirit after the heavenly session, which can most naturally be referred to Pentecost.

In. the later works the references to the Holy Spirit at the Incarnation and at Pentecost are e omitted: when Luke 1: 37 has to be referred to, "the Spirit and power of the Most High" is identified with the Word: and adv. Prax. has at the end of the regula fidei a reference to the mission of the Holy Spirit the Paraclete which by its position and phrasing seems to disregard Pentecost in favour of something more recent.

In de virg. vel. the Rule omits al reference to the Holy Spirit: but the rest of that work is a claim that he was then at work in reforming church discipline, but had hardly been operating until the Montanist movement began.

(c) De praescr. haer. and adv. Prax. expressly state that the Word was the agent of creation: the former adds that it was the Word or Son who as God appeared to the patriarchs and spake in the prophets, a contention which forms the basis of a great deal of the argument of adv. Prax.

Tertullian has nothing corresponding to the statement of

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Irenaeus that the Holy Spirit announced beforehand in the > prophets "the economies and the comings, the virginal birth

- and the passion, the resurrection from the dead and the corporal - assumption into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to recapitulate all things and to raise up all flesh of all mankind . . . so that he may do judgement upon all".

The rule in this shape, basing the facts connected with the Incarnation on Old Testament prophecy rather than on the New T'estament narrative, was known also to Justin; apol.

1. 61, kai éw vóparos Tveóparos ayiov 0 8a Tov mpoow«rOv qmpoekwüpuvte TA KATA TOU 'IycoU mávra.

Post tempus might possibly be construed with matus et passus, not with praedicatur, i.e. "in time" as contrasted with "in eternity", and perhaps with a reminiscence of the Pauline phrase "in the fulness of time".

Ut instructiores per paracletum.

Concerning Montanism and its bearing on Tertullian's theology see the Introduction, p. 75.

Dispensatione, quam oixovopiay dicimus. i Dispensatio, de anima, 43, dispensatio ciborum, means digestion: in this treatise and elsewhere, e.g. adv. Marc. v. 18 (a quotation of Eph. 3. 8, 9) it is a translation of oixovopia.

In St Paul 7 OlKovopia TOU puaTnpiov Tov amoKekpuppevor is the dispensation, the carrying into activity in the temporal sphere, of the eternal purposes of God.

In Irenaeus oikovop.ía. means the dispensation of the Old or the New Testament, which is sufficiently near the Pauline sense, as is also the common patristic usage by which 7) oixovoyia means the Incarnation: cf. Ignatius, ad Eph. 18, 'Ipa'oUs 6 Xpua Tos exvohopyOn wo Mapías kar oikovopíav Óco0:

Athenagoras, suppl. 21, kàv adpka Üeos kata Üeíav oixovopiay hapBavy.

In Origen oixovopiar pvotikai are those Old Testament histories (e.g of Abraham and his two wives) which are best treated as allegories. Tertullian, followed by Hippolytus, regularly uses it of the Holy Trinity:

Hippolytus, c. Noet. 8, ómov 9€ karà THY oikovopíav TpLy7s 7| amdderéts : ibid. 14, Ojo uév ovK ép Deods GAN 1) eva,

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

mpocwna 06 Oso, oikovouíav (fortasse oixovopia, Routh) 8€ rpírqyv Tiv xdápw Tod ayiov mve)paros: ibid. oikovopía cuppavias cvváyerau eis eva Oedv.

Tatian had already used the word in this connexion: orat. 5, ró O6 peprobev oikovopías THY atpeow mpocdaBov o)k évdea rov bev eura Terrotmkev (but uepua £v involves a conception which Tertullian summarily rejects: cf. 88 8, 9). At first sight it might appear that Tertullian had misunderstood the word, for he certainly does not mean that the Holy Trinity is a temporal or in any sense temporary manifestation of the divine being; but further consideration will show what he does mean by the term.

In $ 4 dispensatio is a synonym of dispositio: vide ergo ne tu potius monarchiam destruas, qui dispositionem et dispensationem eius evertis in tot nominibus constitutam in quot deus voluit: and so frequently throughout the treatise.

But dispositio is regularly used of a divine ordinance: apol. 22, dispositiones etiam dei et tunc prophetis contionantibus excerpunt ("they make excerpts from the law"): ibid. 41, admittite prius dispositiones eius et non retorquebitis: adv. Marc. ii. 21, mec enim dispositio expuncta inveniretur si non ille venisset post quem habebat evenire (for you would not find an ordinance fulfilled unless he had come whose coming was a condition of it being fulfilled").

Oixovopia therefore, with its Latin equivalents, used with reference to the Holy

Trinity, means nothing temporary: it refers to the law of God's being, which (from the nature of that being) must be an eternal law, the expression of an eternal fact.

[In our translation we have represented oixovoyia and dispensatio by their English derivatives, and dispositio by "ordinance", which (as in the English marriage service) implies something more fundamental than "law", a fact inherent in the very nature of things.] Filius, sermo ipsius.

For the term Aóyos and its theological history see the Introduction, p. 31, and the note on $ 5. Processerit is more appropriate to sermo than to filius: cf. Matt. 4. 4, €v savri pymarte ékmopevop.évo dia oTopartos ÜcoV.. Later theologians, who thought more readily of the Son than of the Word, preferred genitus to express his relation to the Father and reserved éxmopeveo

Oat for the Holy Spirit, of whom,this verb is used at John 15. 26, N

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

TO mvevpa THS adrneias 6 Tapa Tov TaTpos Ékmopeverau, and in the figure of the River of Life, Rev. 22. 1.

Posteritas in classical authors means either "futurity" or '"posterity — the latter as a collective noun: in Tertullian it means "the fact of being later" or, if there were such a word, *subsequency"': cf. de praesc. haer. 31 (quoted below) and adv. Marc. v. 19, soleo in praescriptione adversus haereses omnes de testimonio temporum compendium figere, priorem vindicans regulam nostram omni haeretica posteritate, "earlier than any heresy, for these are all of later emergence ".

Salva ista praescriptione, etc., "though we lodge this protest, yet we must, for the accoutrement and protection of certain persons, be prepared to discuss matters again".

Praescribere in legal language is to enter a demurrer claiming that certain aspects of a case have been already decided and ought not to be argued again as part of the present suit.

Tertullian claims that the contents of the Rule are beyond argument, on the principle id esse verum quodcunque primum: cf. de praesc. haer. 31, principalitas veritatis et posteritas mendacitatis.

Retractatus (in the singular) is found in the sense of doubt or hesitation, e.g. de res. carn. 2, animae autem salutem credo retractatu carere, by direct derivation from one of the senses of retracto.

Here, and in some other places, it seems to be a compound of re and tractatus, tractate (cf. Pliny, xiv. 4, 5, $ 45), and its natural meaning would be a second or subsidiary discussion of a subject, the concrete result of the process of retractatio, reconsideration.

But cf. de anima, 22, itaque iam ab isto dispositionis retractatu recedam, "I will leave that discussion of its characteristics": de carne Christi, 11, prius retractemus an isto modo ostendenda fuerit anima, "consider": from which it appears that there is no particular force in the prefix re, and that retractatus are simply discussions.

For the scope and limits and limitations of discussion of the faith see de praescr. haer. 13, 14.

Non alias putat credendum.

Rónsch, Itala und Vulgata, p. 433, gives examples of the gerundive as equivalent to the future infinitive passive, but no parallel to the present instance, where credendum seems to mean credi posse.

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

Quasi non sic, etc.

For a discussion of this sentence see the Introduction, p. 50.

Omnia "all three things", viz. the things implied by the three names.

Quia unus Deus, ex quo .

. deputantur.

If Tertullian means what he says, this sentence would have given some countenance to what Athanasius (admitting his ignorance of the facts) surmised to have been the sophistry of Paul of Samosata: de synodis, 45; ToU IIasAov cogiler Bat

T€ ÜéXovros kat Méyovros, Et pn éé àvÜporrov yéyovev Ó xpuarós Beds, ovKody opoovords €OTL TQ map, Ka avayKy Tpets ovgías eiva, play pev mponyovpévqv Tas Ó€ dvo é£ éxeivns.

[Athanasius], Orat. c. Arian. iv. 13, refers to two forms of the Sabellian heresy: according to one of them the Father is the monad who expands into Son and Holy Spirit; according to the other the monad is anterior to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

If this sentence of Tertullian's is taken literally it means something dangerously like the second of these; but that this is not his meaning is shown by the whole tenor of the treatise and by the similes of the tree, the river, and the light in$8.

Evidently he means that it is the Father who is the source of the being of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and in him the Trinity has its unity: if he had written in quo and not ex quo this meaning would have been plain.

'The sentence involves the truth that the Son and the Holy Spirit are not afterthoughts of the Father, but are as essential to his Being as he is to theirs. Deputantur probably means no more than "are reckoned"', not "are grafted off".

Numerum patiuntur, "admit of plurality".

The ancient mathematicians regarded two as the lowest number. nr. The Rule of the Faith recalls us from the many gods of the heathen to the one only true God.

The simple and unlearned, having apprehended this unity, recoil from the dispensation of the Trinity, which they think implies division.

Consequently we are accused of preaching a plurality of gods. They reiterate the word " monarchy", but have not understood its meaning.

Monarchy signifies a single

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

imperium: but there is nothing to prevent an emperor from sharing his imperium with his son, or administering it through agents.

The divine monarchy is administered through innumerable multitudes of angels, but is not thereby divided.

Far less is it divided because of the Son and the Holy Spirit, since they are consortes substantiae patris, equal possessors of the Father's substance.

If the meaning of the word is considered, and not its mere sound, a subversion of monarchy only takes place when an alien and independent authority is introduced, like the god of Marcion or the many gods of the gnostics.

'This first stage of the argument (intended primarily for the unlearned) merely skirts the fringe of the subject.

It is not a sufficient characterisation of the Son and the Holy Spirit to compare them with the officiales of an emperor.

"The contrast between the angels who are God's ministers, and the Son and the Holy Spirit who are consortes substantiae patris comes nearer to the point.

Monarchy is only subverted by the interpolation of an alien and independent authority: and consortes. substantiae patris can never be alien or independent, nor can the primary

Authority be alien to or independent of them.

Ad unicum et verum deum.

In his rehearsal of the Rule, Tertullian has, de virg. vel. 1, in unicum deum omnipotentem: de praescr. haer. 13, unum omnino deum esse, nec alium praeter mundi conditorem: adv. Prax. 2, unicum quidem deum. Irenaeus, haer. 1. ii. has eis va 0eóv tatépa mavtexpatopa.

The Creed of the Egyptian Church Order, which is possibly the Roman creed of the second centiry, has

"in one God the Father almighty".

Verum, adyOwor, occurs in Creeds of Cappadocian origin in the fourth century (Badcock,

Creeds (2nd ed.), pp. 49-50) and the idea is introduced, also in contrast with the supposed gods of the heathen, by Justin Martyr, apol. i. 6, Tov adnbeotarov (sc. ÜcoU) kai marpós SiKaL0ovvns kai awppoovvys kai TOV addwv apeTrov.

Eastern baptismal creeds almost invariably had eis éva Oedv : the clause stood so in the Creed of Caesarea, from which it was transferred to the Faith of Nicaea, which in its original form was not a creed but a regula fidet.

Unitas ex semetipsa derivans trinitatem.

Derivare is to draw off a stream from a main stream through a

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

sluice: cf. § 8 for the figure of the source and the stream, and § 9, pater enim tota substantia est, filius vero derivatio totius et portio.

In the present passage the language, if taken strictly temporally, is open to the same objection as unus deus ex quo in $ 2: but (1) the derivatio must be understood to be not a temporal process but an eternal fact, and (2) it is not the work of any outside agent but of the unitas itself.

Administretur = oikovoj.evrau, and consequently has the same sense of permanency which Tertullian implies by the term oixovopía.

Duos et tres iam iactitant a nobis praedicari.

In origin the monarchian controversy arose from the necessity of justifying the Christian practice of offering to the Lord Jesus

Christ those prayers and praises which can properly be offered to God alone.

That practice can be justified only if our Lord is himself personally God: for Christianity has never treated with anything but scorn the heathen deifications of men either dead or living.

'The question then arises, what is the relation between our Lord, and God to whom he prayed and to whom he referred as "my Father".

Primarily it is a question of the relation between two divine Persons: and those of the school of ''heodotus and Artemas hardly took it further than that, finding it easy enough to regard the Holy Spirit as an impersonal divine attribute or function.

But with Noetus and his successors there was always question of three divine Persons, even when, as often happens, only two are being discussed: for the controversy with the patripassians is always a trinitarian controversy, and no such word as dyad is known to the Church writers or their opponents.

Translate: "They have for long been casting hints that we preach two, or even three", and cf. below, secundum et tertium sortitis locum:

§ 4, monarchiam quam a patre filio traditam in filio servo: hoc mihi et in tertium gradum dictum sit: Athenagoras, suppl. 10, where also avrd TO évepyoÜv rois Expwvodar mpopyTiKas ayLov mvedpa is mentioned only after some discussion of the Son, but is immediately acknowledged as equal with the Father and the Son, and (not as in the much discussed passage of Justin, apol. i. 6

—but cf. ibid. 13) as in a different sphere from the 7700s dyyéXov kai Aevwovpyóv, who are next mentioned as a rebuttal of the charge of atheism: tis otv ovk àv arropyoau

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

^ v Aéyovras Üeóv warépa kai vióv Üceóv Kal mvevpa ayvov, ^ ^ Sd A Sexvivtas avtav kai T)v €v TH ace Ovvapav kai THY

^^ , ^ > ,

, , * ev TH Taker Suaipeow, àkojgas àÜéovs kaXovpévovs; The subject of iactitant is no longer the imprudentes et idiotae but the main movers of the controversy.

Trinitas rationaliter expensa.

One might suspect that expensa is written for expansa, which seems to make a more objective contrast with collecta.

[So C. H.

Turner, who remarks that extensa is more likely than expansa.] But an objective contrast is not needed: it is subjective thoughts, not objective facts, that make heresy.

Et ita sonum ipsum, etc.

The MSS. read solium, changed by Rhenanus in his third edition to sonum, which has become the accepted reading.

I suspect that solium may be right, as being Tertullian's equivalent of &px?j, and I wonder if we should not read:

Monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus—et ita solum solium [or perhaps solisolium] vocaliter exprimunt etiam Latini—et tam opifice, etc.

*'The monarchy, say they, is what we are upholding (for even Latins say 'monarchy' when they mean a single throne), and they pronounce the word in so masterly a fashion that you would think they understood monarchy as well as they pronounce it."

C. H. Turner suggests etiam Latini, etiam opifices (in which Rigaltius had anticipated him), remarking that there is no adverb opifice: that would not have prevented Tertullian from inventing one, though the suggestion is otherwise attractive.

Sonare means "make to sound impressive": see the note on sonitu, § 20.

Singulare et unicum imperium.

For the previous history of the term povapyia, see the Introduction, p. 6, footnote.

Officiales, a post-classical word, first quoted from Appuleius, metam. i. 25, in the sense of apparitor: the same is perhaps the meaning in Tertullian, adv. Marc. i. 25, proinde enim aemulationi occurrant

(i.e. praesto sint) necesse est officiales suae in ea quae aemulatur, ira, discordia, odium, dedignatio, indignatio, bilis, violentia, offensa: de idol.

17, quid facient officiales sacrificantibus dominis?

Here, -

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

however, it seems that more important officials are intended.

It would be an unsatisfactory parallel if it were meant that God has looked out or provided for himself, prospexerit sibi, the Son and the Holy Spirit to act as his subordinates in administration: it is, however, little more than a passing phrase, an illustration rather than an argument.

Principaliter, "jn the first instance and as the origin of the rest": cf. scorp. 2, nec aliud primum tam principaliter denuntiantis quam ab omni factura atque cultura idolorum cavere: apol. 6, ipsum adhuc quod videmini fidelissime tueri a patribus traditum, in quo principaliter reos transgressionis Christianos destinastis, studium dico deorum colendorum.

Princeps is the first of a series, not the ruler of it:

Eusebius is princeps historicorum ecclesiasticorum because he is the first of them, and Peter is princeps apostolorum for the same reason.

A duobus tam unitis.

The MSS. read unicis, by an obvious error.

Divisionem et dispersionem.

Divisio, division into two or more substantive things: dzspersio, . dispersion into unrecognisable elements: cf. de res. carn. 31, si et populus allegorice mussitaret ossa sua arefacta et spem suam perditam, dispersionis exitu querulus : adv. Hermog. 39, si et materia

\ eadem aeternitate censetur, neque initium habens neque finem, eadem ratione non poterit pati dispertitionem (v.l. dispersionem) et demutationem, qua nec deus.

Secundum et tertium sortitis locum, * who occupy the second place and the third": cf. de anima, 8, ceterum etsi invisibilis anima, est pro condicione corporis sui et pro proprietate substantiae et pro natura etiam eorum quibus invisibilis esse sortita est: de res. carn. 26, proinde et in paradisum restitutio carni videbitur repromissa quae eum incolare et custodire sortita est, ut talis illuc homo revocetur qualis inde pulsus est.

In both cases the reference is to a quality or prerogative conceded from above, not by chance or lot, but by deliberate assignment, and involving permanent possession.

Cf. JUVENAL xv. 144, venerabile soli|sortiti ingenium divinorumque capaces.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Tam consortibus substantiae patris.

Cf. Athenagoras, suppl. 18, évi tO ÜcQ kai TO Tap' avToU Àóyo viQ voovpévo apyepiatw. Consortes are joint possessors, not mere sharers (participes).

Et quidem tam, etc.

The MSS. read et quidem tam a substantia patris membra, for which it is hard to find any meaning.

Gangneius and Gelenius read et quidem tam (alienorum) a substantia patris. membra et pignora, etc., which gives a good sense and involves very little interference with the MSS.

The sentence, membra .

. deputas eius, is easier to interpret if it applies not to the divine monarchy but to monarchy in general.

Membra, pignora, instrumenta, vim, censum.

Conceivably the Son and the Holy Spirit could be designated patris membra by a figurative interpretation of expressions such as "the eyes of the Lord", "the hands of the Lord", or the two branches of the olive tree (Zech. 4. 14), though such fancifulness is not in Tertullian's manner; but membra monarchiae (following the other punctuation) gives a better sense, as it naturally means the provinces of the empire, cf. Seneca, ep. 21. 6, membra et partes alienae potentiae. Pignora, in its secondary senses, means

(a) children, ad nat. i. 15, vestra pignora extinguitis; (b) any near relations, de idol. 12, pignora et artificia et negotia propter

. dominum relinquenda (where see Oehler's note): ad nat. ii. 9, qui pro salute principum et domus eorum adversus liberos et coniuges et omne pignus suum deierant:

Quintilian, inst. orat. vi. 1. 24, affert in his momentum et aetas et sexus et pignora, liberi dico et parentes et propinqui.

In this broader sense the Son and the Holy Spirit might be described as pignora patris; but it is better to construe pignora monarchiae, as referring to the sons and colleagues of Severus.

Instrumenta is frequently used by Tertullian for the holy Scriptures or some part of them, e.g. de res. Carn. 33, instrumentum loannis. lt would not be easy to assign any intelligible meaning to patris znstrumenta; but instrumenta monarchiae would mean the officials through whom the empire was administered.

Ipsa vis monarchiae therefore means the army, and census (which frequently means "origin" and more naturally * rank") is here used for apparatus, i.e. the court officials.

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

"Do you account provinces, and the emperor's sons and officials, and the very forces and trappings of the empire, as destructive of its unity?"

Suae condicionis et proprii status, etc., "when there is introduced another lordship, self-established and of independent quality, and consequently hostile".

Condicio and conditio appear to be frequently confused, though the former strictly means attributes or circumstances, the latter creation or establishment: de carne Christi, 5, proprietas conditionum divinae et humanae (where conditio divina cannot imply creation or anything fortuitous): ibid. 6, nec tamen infringitur semel separata conditio dominicae carnis ex causa alterius dispositionis, i.e. the corporal appearances of angels are without prejudice to the conditions of the Incarnation: ibid. 22, eadem conditio substantiae, the same sort of substance: de anima, 40, caro .

. res est alterius plane substantiae et alterius condicionis, addicta tamen animae ut supellex (where altera condicio apparently means another. act of creation).

Status, natura, condicio (or conditio in the sense of condicio) appertain to the same set of facts: the first two are permanent, as dependent on substantia: condicio refers more to external circumstances, and is capable of change, cf. de res. carn. $7, permitte hanc et deo potestatem per vim demutationis illius (sc. the Pauline omnes demutabimur) conditionem non naturam reformandi, dum et passiones auferuntur et munitiones conferuntur.

Cum Marcione is Oehler's conjecture.

The MSS. read tunc male, which Engelbrecht would correct to tunc mage, the chief objection to which is that Tertullian seems always to write magis. Valentinos et Prodicos: the plurals are contemptuous.

"Valentinus is well known as one of thé most famous gnostic teachers: cf. adv. Val. passim.

Prodicus is mentioned at scorp. 15 (again in company with Valentinus) as suggerens non in terris esse confitendum apud homines.

The writer of the article Prodicus in D.C.B. (George Salmon) refers to Clem. Alex., strom. i. 15, where the school of Prodicus are said to possess the books of Zoroaster: ibid. iii. 4, they are said to have justified and practised licentious living: ibid. vii. 7, to have objected to the practice of prayer.

'Theodoret, haer. fab. i. 6, says that Prodicus was the founder of the sect of the

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Adamites: but Salmon remarks that Theodoret could only have learned of this sect from Epiphanius, who acknowledges that he had never met any of them, and so his connexion of them with Prodicus can be no more than a guess.

IV. That being so, we introduce no such subversion in the matter of the faith, for the Son is of the substance of the Father, does nothing without the Father's will, and from the Father has received all authority.

The same also holds good of the Holy Spirit.

There is more danger of a subversion of the divine monarchy by these false teachers who set themselves up as independent authorities against the revelation which God has made of himself.

That the kingdom remains a single one is shown by the fact that it has been committed in its integrity to the Son (Ps. 110. 1), who will at the last deliver it in its integrity to the Father (1 Cor. 15. 24-28).

That the Father and the Son are two is evident both from the names Father and Son, and from the fact that he who delivers up the kingdom must be another than he to whom it is delivered, as he who puts it in subjection is another than he to whom it is put in subjection.

In the first sentence, monarchy is still considered in a subjective sense, of the authority inherent in, or possessed by, the monarch.

In what follows, Tertullian (apparently unconsciously) passes over to the objective sense, of the persons over whom (or the sphere in which) the authority is exercised.

It cannot be denied that this form of the problem is easier to discuss, and that the transition amounts to a shelving of the real question.

Tertullian's excuse could be that the political theme had been introduced not by him but by his opponents, and that in such a case a forensic victory is good enough.

He has now finished with this aspect of the matter, and with the szmpliciores: the rest of the treatise approaches the doctrine of the Holy 'Trinity from other sides.

Ceterum qui filium, etc.

This sentence balances the last sentence of the previous chapter.

The Christian doctrine of God introduces none of those factors which produce subversion of monarchy: the Son is de substantia patris, i.e., non proprii status; we acknowledge him as nil facientem sine patris voluntate, i.e., non aemulum; as omnem a patre consecutum potestatem, i.e. non suae condicionis.

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

De fide destruere monarchiam "overthrow the monarchy in respect of the faith": de fide reintroduces the theological question after the preceding secular illustrations.

C. H. Turner remarks, "I cannot translate in this connexion the words 'de fide': perhaps 'quomodo possum videri destruere monarchiam' "—which is certainly attractive.

A patre filio traditam.

Matt. 11. 27=Luke 10. 22, mavta pou mapedd0n vmó ToU matpos pov. The whole authority is delivered to the Son, and is preserved by the Son, in singularity: hence in filio servo, a pregnant expression for "which I affirm is preserved in the Son"'.

Spiritum non aliunde puto, etc.

Puto, reckon: Kroymann reads deputo, plausibly but needlessly.

There seem to be no precedents for this statement of the "double procession": it may have been suggested to Tertullian by the images in § 8, where observe, 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.

De praescr. haer. 13, misisse vicariam vim spiritus sancti (quoted by 'lixeront in this connexion), refers to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit.

In JusriN the question of procession does not arise.

'THEOPHILUS,

ad Autol. i. 10, mvevpa éàv «ime avamvony avroU AMéyo, occurs in too rhetorical a context for the meaning to be pressed: but zbid. ii. 10, while the double procession is not clearly stated, the strict sense of the preposition peta perhaps involves it—éy«v oUv 6 Üeós Tov éavroU Aóyov év Tots iOíow amdyxvoiws éyévvgaev avTov peta THs éavroU codias éfepevé£dpevos vpó Tav O\wy.—God generates the Word endowed with, not merely accompanied by, the Wisdom, which thus proceeds from God through the Word. ATHENAGORAS seems to consider only a single procession of the Holy Spirit, parallel with the generation of the Word: suppl. 10, kairo. kai avTo TO evepyovr Tots exfwvovar mpodytikds ayiov mvevua dmóppouaw eivai $aj.ev ToU Üeo?, aoppéov kai éravapepdpevoy ws dkriva qMov : ibid. 24, vods Aóyos Godia 6 vids ToU vaTpOs kai dméppowa ws pws amd Tupds TO mveUpa.

TERTULLIAN,

applying to the Son the relation ws áxrtva. 7)ACov, solis radium, is logically led to the further relation apex ex radio, and so to the

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

doctrine of the double procession in the form in which it appeared in the fourth century and in which (apart from reserves due to later controversy) the Greek theologians would still apparently be prepared to accept it: see Tixeront, Histoire des Dogmes, vol. ii. pp.

89-93, vol. iii. pp. 198-202.

Dispositionem et dispensationem, etc.

AudÜeaw Kai oikovopíav : the words are practically synonymous, and Ou&Üeaws, dispositio, has a sense of permanency and essentiality.

The Trinity is not merely administrative, not a mere assignment of functions, but a permanent and essential

8.dÜcos of the Godhead.

Consequently the divine activity in the temporal sphere corresponds with the essential facts of the divine nature; and as e.g. the Holy Spirit is a patre per filium (see the preceding note), so it is the Son who sent vicariam vim spiritus sancti. Nominibus=personis (see the Introduction, p. 48): but below Aoc nomine means "on this account": constitutam, vmápxovcav, existentem.

Voluit has here no special significance, and no bearing on the question whether the Son is begotten "'by the will" of the Father: "you, who deny the three names, are the subverter of the monarchy, for by that denial you set yourself in opposition to the will of God who has declared that three there are".

Nor has Justin, dial. 61, éyev yap mávra (sc. rara Ta óvóuara) mpocovopalea Oar ék Te ToU vmwperewv TQ vaTpuQ DovNájuar. kat ék ToU amd ToU marpós Dedjoe yeyevno Oat, any bearing on that question: nor does it, as Otto's note suggests, refer to the Incarnation; the meaning is that the Son served the Father's will by willingly (e\xjoec) appearing to or presenting himself to (yeyevrjo Oat = tapayeyevno Bar) the patriarchs.

When Origen says (de princ. iv. 4. 1) that the Son €k Dedjpatos ToU maTpos éyevijÜn, the scriptural images with which he supports that statement (Col. 1. 15: Heb. 1. 3) show that he intends this not in the sense in which the Arians afterwards claimed his support, and it seems possible that he used the expression in implied opposition to the gnostic supposition of spontaneous or unconscious emanation.

Ut etiam restitui habeat, etc.

This is the earliest patristic discussion of 1 Cor. 15. 24-28 and it is to be observed that, whereas Origen and Eusebius discovered in the passage difficulties which called for explanation,

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

Tertullian finds it entirely to his purpose.

He welcomes it as indicating that the Son, who holds the kingdom, is not the same as the Father to whom he will deliver it up, and argues that the monarchy is safeguarded by the fact that only one Person holds it at a time: the Father has delivered it to the Son, who now possesses it, and the Son will in due course surrender it to the Father. Evidently he can only say this by regarding the monarchy entirely in an objective sense (as do Origen and Eusebius), not as the kingly authority but as those who acknowledge it, the domain over which the Son is now ruling.

This is perhaps less than St Paul's words would naturally mean.

Even so, Tertullian's position seems to be hardly more than verbally different from that of his adversaries: it is not easy to see why the severalness of the three Persons should be so anxiously maintained if in the process it has to be allowed that only one at a time is in active authority.

ORIGEN offers two explanations to smooth away difficulties which the text of St Paul had already suggested: n (a) de princ. iii. 5. 6, that the final subjection of Christ is the climax of his redemptive work, and consists of the subjection of all those of whom he is the Head and who find their salvation in him: quia ergo non solum regendi vel regnandi verum etiam oboediendi, ut diximus, reparare venerat disciplinam, in semetipso prius complens quod ab aliis volebat impleri, idcirco non solum usque ad mortem crucis patri oboediens factus est, verum etiam in consummatione saeculi in semetipso complectens omnes quos subicit patri et qui per eum veniunt ad salutem, cum ipsis et in ipsis quoque subiectus dicitur patri, dum omnia in ipso constant et ipse est caput omnium et in ipso est salutem. consequentium plenitudo. hoc ergo est quod de eo dicit apostolus, Cum autem omnia ei fuerint. subiecta, etc.

With this Koetschau compares in Levit. hom. vii. 2, cum vero consummaverit opus sium et universam creaturam suam ad summam perfectionis adduxerit, tunc ipse dicetur subiectus in his quos subdidit patri et in quibus opus quod ei pater dederat consummavit, ut sit deus omnia in omnibus.

'The words dicitur, dicetur, might suggest that Origen regards the subjection of the Son as merely putative, the reality being the subjection of those over whom he has authority: but this is not the case: he regards the Son's subjection, in the sense indicated, as not less than real, and dicitur, dicetur, introduce apostolic authority for his infererice.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

(b) de princ. iii. 5, 7, verum nescio quo pacto haeretici non intellegentes apostoli sensum .

. subiectionis in filio nomen tnfamant : cuius appellationis si proprietas requiritur, ex contrario facile poterit inveniri. nam si subiectum esse non est bonum, restat ut illud quod contrarium est bonum sit, id est non esse subiectum. Who the heretics were is not clear: certain theologians, whom Origen would hardly have stigmatised as heretics, tended to repudiate any idea not only of subjection but even of subordination, and znfamant would in that case mean "repudiate as false": or subiectionis nomen infamant may mean "give the term 'subjection' a bad name", by overpressing it, in which case the people in question would be

Sabellians anticipating the interpretation ascribed to Marcellus of Ancyra.

Origen proceeds:

It is precisely because Christ is already subject that it is possible for all things in him to be made subject: and since subjection is a good thing it is for the good of those who are to be subject, ut sicut cum dicitur filius patri subiectus perfecta universae creaturae restitutio declaratur, ita cum filio dei inimici dicuntur esse subiecti, subiectorum salus in eo intellegatur et reparatio perditorum.

MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA, unless Eusebius misrepresents him, argued from this text in a Sabellian and Nestorian sense: apud

EusEB. de eccl. theol, ii. 9 (p. 1134), kai dua ToUTo oUx viv Deov EQUTOV dvopacer, ada. mavTaxov viov dvOpdmou éavrüv Aéyew wa dia THS Tovavrns opohoyias Oéoe zov avOpwmov dia THs mpos avrov koiwavías vióv ÓeoU yéveo Üac TaparKevaoy, k

Kal perà TO Télos TIS mpatews abOis as Móyos evan TO ec, my pov €xelvo TO UTO TOU GTOGTÓAOU etpmpévov, Tóre avros Ümoroyrjoerau TÓ vTOTaLavTL avT@® Ta TávTA Wa j) Távra. Kal év mücuw 6 Beds.

The same passage is quoted c. Marc. ii. 2 (p. 422) with some variations of which the only one of any significance is

Xpiords for 6 Oeds.

EusEBIUS, de eccl. theol. iii. 15 (p. 183 sqq.), argues as follows:

(a) vrorayy is not the same as évocts: (b) GÀN óorep ovx vog w 0 dmdaTohos edxjhov e... GAG THY e axÜekovgíov Tpoatperews varaKony kal THY ddgav Kat Tiv Tuv

3v dmoóó e. avre Tà mávTO. ota. goript Kat Baowret Tov Oa, TOV aurov Tpomov Kal TO abrov vroraynoer Gar TÓ mrarpl oudev érepov onpaivor av 1 rjv Oófav kal Tv

Tuv Kat TO céfas Táv Te jqeyaompémeuv THY TE

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

a ekovaíav ÜmakoTv qv Kat avTos amoddce TO Üeg kai marpt émeuóàv TOUS mavtas akious THS TaTpiKyS OedtyTos eva TapaGckevág.

This could bear the sense indicated by Origen, though it is expressed in language which betrays. a sympathy with Arianism.

(c) For the present, Christ exercises a corrective office: but this task will be completed, when death, the last enemy, is destroyed, àv de evr perio Üévrov TO Vi ToU Oeod TwTnpLov vTOTOyTv mares ol Q^yLoL vrorayyOUT ovde THS Georntos QUTOLS $0ovijaet arcani

THpacw ovpaviots Him kai ceXNjvp Kal acTpow xpijc'ovrau Tapam\ynoto.s: therefore Marcellus is wrong in suggesting that the Word will discard his body, but rather it karamoÜxcerau, ovx vro povns THS Los Ópotes TO T"uerépo, dha Kal vmod Tis avrov Ücórnros. enr Kal Tovar ny Twa

TV TwTr plov brorayny xp? voew ko jv Kal avTos Ó vios vmoraycera, TÓ Ümorá£avri avro Ta mávro, aNEKTOV

(vl. dhnx7dv) Twa Kat dppytov Kal póvo QUT Q Tpérovaav vTOTOyTv Trova óp.evos, OTE Tovs vm avrov mavras Xopov dixny TepioToryiodpevos TH Dew kai mwarpi mpoodéer.

Here again the general sense is derived from Origen.

(d) There follows an exposition of iva y 6 eds rà mávra €v Tac, and (p. 187d) ov yàp mavoeoÜa. pev THs Baocue(as TOv viov Tov 0€ Ocóv Bacthevoev éd 6 dmóoroXos, àÀÀà TOV pev viàv TO Oe@ kai ma pl Tv Baorhetav mapaBáaew, owav TV Tapabyixny Kal pos Tiv ToU TaTpos Aarpeíav

TE Kal lepwovvny erapKovoay evOerkvupevov, which is probably what Tertullian means in the present passage.

The treatise known as ATHANASIUS, contra Arianos iv, surprisingly does not discuss this text.

Sede ad dexteram meam.

Ps, 110 is cited by Jusriw, dial. 56 (P277 b, note), to prove OTL Kat Tapa TOV VOOUMEVOY TOUT» TOV OÀov dAXos TIS

Kuptohoyetrar Umo TOU aylov Tvevpatos.

IRENAEUS, haer. iii. 6. 1, quotes this and the other passages adduced by Justin, with the comment: patrem enim filo collocutum ostendit, qui dedit ei haereditatem gentium et subiecit ei omnes inimicos. vere igitur cum pater sit dominus et filius vere sit dominus, merito spiritus sanctus domini appellatione signavit eos.

Our Lord cited fhe same text (Matt. 22. 44) to indicate that the Messiah,

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

though David's son, is David's lord, and therefore to suggest that the Jews must look to find in Messiah something nobler even than descent from David, which can only be divine Sonship: the text is an unexpressed statement of Christ's divinity.

The psalm is quoted for the same purpose in Heb. 1. 13.

In suo statu .

. cum suo statu.

Cf. above, adeo autem manet in suo statu.

It is not easy to find a consistent translation for status: the former phrase might well mean *'in its real quality", while the latter would naturally mean

* with its appurtenances".

Possibly cum is an insignificant variation for im.

Hoc uno capitulo, etc.

The argument that the delivery of the kingdom from one to the other implies the existence of two, and that the two cannot be identical is a matter of common sense and cannot be impugned: the further statement, that the mention of Father and Son involves there being two, though sound here, will not hold in all cases, as is observed by [ATHAN.] c. Arian. iv. 33, éÜos 86 Tovro rj ypady, «mepiépyos kai amas tas Aéfes exdbpalew.

Capitulum means neither "chapter" nor "section" in any conventional sense, but "passage", i.e. the text under discussion, whether long or short: cf. below, $ 20. v. Our opponents affirm that the Father and the Son are one and the same.

We have therefore to examine the question of the Son's existence, personality, and relation to the Father.

The facts, as established from the Scriptures, will provide their own justification.

It is alleged by some that Gen. 1. x reads in the Hebrew, "In the beginning God made for himself a son".

That this is mot true appears, among other arguments, from the following considerations.

Before all things, when God alone existed, he was not alone: for he had with him his Nóyos or Reason.

This Greek word is commonly translated by sermo, "speech" ; but wrongly, for reason precedes speech. God was rational before the beginning: speech begins at the beginning.

Yet even so, reason when it is articulate involves a kind of unspoken speech, as may be seen in ourselves who are of God's image and likeness.

The mind, active within itself, holds a conversation with its speech.

Thought is reason: articulate thought is speech.

Speech therefore is a kind of second self: and if this is

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

true of man, the more so is it true of God.

We thus arrive at a presumption that before the world was made God was not alone, but had with him his Reason and Speech.

An sit et qui sit et quomodo sit.

The next few chapters will prove (a) that there is a Son of God (8 5): (6) that he is the divine Person revealed in the Scriptures as the Word or Wisdom of God, the Son of God, Jesus Christ

(88 6, 7): (c) that his relation to the Father'is such as to involve no separation or division of the divine unity (§ 8).

Res ipsa formam suam . . . vindicabit.

Forma is habitually used by Tertullian to mean a rule of law, prescript, warrant, contract (the classical formula): see the Introduction, p. 54.

Aiunt quidam, etc.

The MSS. reading quidem can hardly be right: if it were, the subject of azunt would be the monarchians, the least of all people likely to approve of the suggestion that "in the beginning God made for himself a son". Quidam introduces, for one sentence only, a different set of persons.

Tertullian must have misunder- . stood his informant: among many comments on the alleged Hebrew of Gen. 1. 1 this particular piece of fancifulness seems not to recur.

The Armenian translator of IRENAEUS, praed. apost.

43, mistook the first syllable of bara for "the Son"—"''The Son in the beginning: afterwards God established the heaven and the earth": the mistake may go back to Irenaeus, who however, adv. haer. ii. 2. 4, quotes the text correctly.

Certain gnostics (ibid. i. 11. 1) interpreted apyy as 7) wnTHp TOV OXov.

A typical comment is the following:

HiLaR. PicTAV., tract. in psalm. ii. 2:

" Ambiguitatis autem linguae Hebraicae unum afferemus exemplum, ex quo caetera istius modi esse atque ita ut sunt intelligantur.

Bresith, verbum hebraicum est.

Id tres significantias in se habet, id est, in principio, et in capite, et in filio. Sed translatores LXX zn principio ediderunt, caeteris diverse transferentibus: et secundum hanc ambiguitatem haec ab illis in omni translatione est facta confusio."

On which the Benedictine editors have the following note:

Hunc Hilarii locum notasse videtur Hieronymus, Quaest.

Hebr. in Genesim, dicens:

''Plerique existimant, sicut in O

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

altercatione Jasonis et Papisci scriptum est, et Tertullianus in libro contra Praxeam disputat, necnon Hilarius in expositione cujusdam psalmi affirmat, in Hebraeo haberi, Jn Filio fecit Deus caelum et terram:

'quod falsum esse ipsius rei veritas comprobat: nam et LXX interpretes et Symmachus et T heodotion In principio transtulerunt, et in Hebraeo scriptum est Beresith, quod Aquila interpretatur Jn capitulo, et non Baben, quod interpretatur

In filio. Magis itaque secundum sensum quam secundum verbi translationem de Christo est."

Ita tamen in Hebraeo haberi Jn filio affirmat Hilarius ut huic interpretationi neque adhaereat ipse neque adhaerendum putet.

De "Tertulliano obiter observamus eam in ipsius libro contra Praxeam nusquam reperiri, sed hoc dumtaxat num. 5 de Praxeae sectariis, "Aiunt quidem [sic] et Genesim in Hebraeo ita incipere etc." Quanquam hunc Tertulliani locum ex Hieronymo emendandum esse facile concedamus.

Ipse vero Tertullianus legere solet In primordio, et libro contra Hermogenem n. 20 juxta vim vocis graecae permittit ut legatur Jn principatu et potestate.

The passage referred to is this (adv. Hermog. 19 ad fin.):

Possum et aliter principium interpretari, non ab re tamen: nam et in Graeco principii vocabulum, quod est dpyn, non tantum ordinativum sed et potestativum capit principatum, unde et apyovtas dicunt principes et magistratus; Ergo secundum hanc quoque significationem principium pro principatu et potestate sumetur: in principatu enim et potestate fecit caelum et terram.

But the preceding statement is not entirely correct: adv.

Hermog. 3, 22, 26, Tertullian reads In principio:

In primordio occurs de bapt. 3 and (from John 1. 1) adv. Prax. 5.

For the interpretation ev &pxp-in filio, cf. THEOPHILUS, ad Autol. ii. 10, OUTOS (sc. Ó Aóyos) héyeTat &px?), OTL apyet kai kupiever mávrov TOV Ot avTod Sednprovpynpevev.

Hoc ut firmum non sit, etc.

Elliptical for ut firmum non esse censeam. Deducere is used for movere, persuadere, cf. de anima, 43, inde deducimur etiam imaginem mortis tam tunc eum (sc. somnum) recensere.

Alia argumenta: for a priori reasons Tertullian is unable to approve of the suggestion: it cannot be reconciled with his inherited conception of the relation between the Father and the Son: for the Son is the Word or Reason of God and it is impossible to think of God having made

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

21I for himself his own reason and thereby to hàve made himself for the first time rational.

It would probably not have occurred to Tertullian to ask a Jewish scholar for light on the Hebrew: one does not consult an unbeliever on matters connected with Christian theology—though Origen did.

Ad usque filii generationem.

Tertullian does not really think that the Father ever existed without the Son: as he says almost immediately, ceterum ne tunc quidem solus.

But he is unable to rid himself of the idea of a priority of the Father, at least in thought, or to dissociate it from some sort of time sequence.

Hence, e.g. in $ 7, the statement, which he alleges to have a scriptural basis, that God made the Word into his Son, sibi filium fecisse sermonem suum.

Hence also the verbs in the preterite, Prodiit, protulisse, as though the generation of the Son was an event which took place, albeit before the beginning of time, and is not rather (as Origen says) an eternal fact of the divine Being.

The thought is on the lines of that involved in the contrast Aóyos évÓudÜeros, Aóyos mpopopikos, which seems to appear first in THEOPHILUS, ad Autol. ii. 1o,

€yov ovv 6 beds Tov éavroU Aóyov évOwuiÜerov év Tots idiots amXdyxvow, éyévvqgev avTov peTa THS avrov codias (i.e. the Holy Spirit) €€epevEdpevos (Ps. 45. 1) mpó rov odkwv: see below on § 7. IRENAEUS, who had found something akin to this idea in gnostic teachings,points..out..its..difficulties,.. à rM Á—— MÀ smt it involves separation, while if it is inward it is otiose and ineffective: elsewhere, haer. ii. 42. 4, he accepts the term prolation, but prefers not.to.discuss.its.mysterles: s? quis taque nobis dixerit, Quomodo ergo filius prolatus a patre est? dicimus ei quia prolationem istam sive generationem sive nuncupationem sive adapertionem aut quolibet quis nomine vocaverit generationem. eius tnenarrabilem exsistentem nemo novit .

. quoniam enim ex cogttatone et sensu verbum emittitur, hoc utique sciunt omnes homines, and consequently those who have thought of this contrast have not made any great discovery, nor have they (says Irenaeus) been very wise in transferring human analogies to God.

See below on $ 8.

Ante omnia enim deus erat solus.

Tertullian does not say that the Father was alone, but that

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

God was alone: i.e. the created world did not exist.

Even when God was alone in this sense, he was not alone in himself, as having always with him his Aóyos: cf. ATHENAGORAS, suppl. 10, é£ apxns yap 6 Beds, voUs didios dy, eiyev avrüs €v éavrO

Tov Àóyov, didiws AoyiKds wv.

See also TaTIAN, orat. ad Graecos, 5, quoted in the Introduction, p. 35.

Ipse sibi et mundus et locus et omnia.

ATHENAGORAS, suppl. 16, 6 O6 Kdapos ovy ws Ocopévov TOU ÜcoU yéyovev mavta yap 0 Beds €oTw avTos avro, pos ampdcitov, KOopos TÉéÀewos, mveUpa, Ovvapus, Aóyos.

THEOPHILUS, ad Autol. ii. 10, a)r0s éavrQ TómOs ay kai avevdens dv: ibid. i. 3, varépa éàv emo rà mávra avrov

Aéyo (a sentence which has received many apparently needless suggestions for emendation: see Otto's note).

Rationalis enim deus, etc.

'The MSS. reading seems to give a tolerable meaning, though Turner's suggestion et ab ipso in omnia gives a balanced sentence which is at first sight attractive.

In ipsum, and not the more obvious zm ipso, was no doubt deliberately written in view of the Johannine apud deum (soon to be quoted), and to indicate that the relation of God's reason to God himself is fundamentally a relation of person with person and not that of a mere faculty or function within a person. Reason is primarily in relation with God, et ita ab ipso omnia, 1.e. because of that relationship all things come to be and are.

Quae ratio sensus est.

Sensus varies its meaning as widely as its English derivative or its German equivalent Sinn, from sense-perception to mental impression, from feeling to consciousness, with an extension upwards to "mind" and downwards to *sensuality".

According to de anima, 18, sensus is concerned with corporalia, intellectus with spiritalia: so ibid. 43, the Stoics say that sleep is resolutionem sensualis vigoris, quia corporis solius quietem procuret, non et animae : but zbid. 40, sensus (plural) are thoughts as distinguished from acts, sensus delictorum etiam sine effectibus imputari solent animae, 'the soul is blamed for thoughts of sin even if they are not brought into effect".

Cf. de carne Christi, 5, an ideo passiones a Christo non rescidisti quia ut phantasma vacabat a sensu earum, " feeling",

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

"perception": de res. carn. 46, si vero sine anima (caro nullius est sensus intellege sensum carnis ad animam esse referendum, "if without the soul the flesh is void of perception, 'the mind of the flesh' must be referred to the soul" (sensus=ppovynpa): but ibid. 45, quoting Eph. 4. 23, renovari spiritu sensus, sensus—voUs.

De carne Christi, 12, animae anima sensus est: igitur cum omnibus anima sentire praestet et ipsa sentiat omnium etiam sensus nedum qualitates, cui veri simile est ut ipsa sensum sui ab initio sortita non sit? "the soul perceives not only the attributes of things but also the perception of the attributes: therefore it must from the beginning have possessed perception of itself"—1i.e. there was no need for Christ to turn soul into flesh so as to make it perceptible to itself.

De res. carn. 40, Ephestis scribens in interiorem hominem habitare Christum sensibus utique intimandum dominum significavit, "the mind": so ibid.

15, principalitas sensuum quod Tyyeuovucóv appellatur .

. animae, cogitatorium (in this passage sensus seems to mean impressions, cogitatus thoughts): ibid. 3, communes enim sensus simplicitas ipsa commendat, "common impressions", "opinions".

But ibid. 47, per totam hanc sensuum seriem, "this whole series of thoughts": and de carne Christi, 20, nunc ad sensus ipsos decertemus, the actual meanings of the texts under discussion.

In the present passage the meaning apparently is that reason is the divine consciousness, or self-consciousness: cf. § 6, zn sensu suo condens et generans .

. immo et facta iam quantum in dei sensu.

Quia sermonalis a principio.

The MSS. read non sermonalis: but the meaning seems to be that since reason precedes speech, and "from the beginning "

God has been articulate (sermonalis a word apparently coined by Tertullian in imitation of rationalis), therefore even before the beginning he was rational.

Even so, the argument continues, there is no real thinking without a sort of unspoken speech, and the priority of reason to speech is no more than theoretic.

The sentence gives two reasons why ratio is preferable to sermo as a translation of Aóyos:

(1) the theoretical priority of reason:

(2) the metaphysical priority, in that speech is founded on reason and reason is the substance of speech.

Cum ratione enim sua, etc.

God made reason into speech by making it articulate.

Tertullian ARUM Urbi cass seems to be struggling to avoid the contrast évOiáÜeros, mpo-

SE NTE TR ISOLA NEN EAN

RIZ We 2 ite zen tain

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

$opukós : ratio did not become sermo by being emitted as speech at any point of time, but Aóyos is always sermo because it is always articulate ratio.

Ante recognosce .

. quo habeas.

The text is doubtful (see critical note) but the sense is sufficiently clear.

Oehler comments, Quo, id est qucrsum, in quem usum; but the point remarked on is not the purpose of human reason but the manner of it, and if quo is correct it stands for quomodo.

For the comparison with the human voice see the references in the Introduction, § IV, to Justin, Tatian, Theophilus, and Irenaeus : but Tertullian's treatment of the analogy guards against those suggestions of impermanence to which Irenaeus objects.

Factus .

. animatus.

Gen. 1. 27: 2. 7 : ex substantia ipsius because the substance of God is spirit, and that spirit, as the breath of life, was breathed into man.

Quodcunque cogitaveris, etc., "Your articulate thought is speech; your instinctive thought is reason.

You must perforce speak that (thought? in your _ mind: and while you are speaking «it» you have in conversation with you Speech, which comprises this very Reason by which, while thinking, you converse with that (Speech? by means of which, while speaking, you think.

So there is in you Speech, as it were another (besides yourself», by means of which, while thinking, you speak, and by means of which, while speaking, you think: Speech itself is someone else."

Imago et similitudo censeris, * whose image and similitude you are authoritatively declared to be".

Censeri is invariably used by Tertullian with the idea of a census in his mind, the object of a census being (1) to count numbers, (2) to ascertain a person's rank or position as determined by his origin, or (3) to assign to him a new rank in view of his present office or possessions.

The verb never means "is thought to be", for the census deals not with mere opinion but is the public acknowledgement of what is already, or what is henceforth to be, an objective fact.

The following quotations illustrate this contention, (1) Arithmetical numbering: de anima, 31, tam nunc de tanto Graeciae censu quattuor solae animae recensentur, where

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

census population, and recensentur means "are counted a second time", i.e. make a second appearance by metempsychosis : ibid. 32, maiorem piscium censum, "the greater number", "the majority": ibid., in tam contraria unicuique substantiae animalia reformari et censum eis de sua translatione conferre, "increased numbers".

(2) Origin: de carne Christi, 8, peccatrix de peccatorio censu, i.e. on the heretical supposition that the creation of the world was a sin, the flesh of Christ, from whatever element it were taken, would be sinful by reason of its sinful origin: de anima, 21, quodsi nec spiritale nec quod dicitur materiale proprium in illo

(sc. Adam) fuit . .

. superest ut solum in illo et unicum fuerit naturale quod censetur animale, quod statu simplex et uniforme defendimus,

* the one and only natural property in him would be that which in its origin pertains to the soul": ibid. 38, praestruximus omnia naturalia animae ipsi substantiae inesse

. ex ingenito animae censu, *its inherited quality" (almost in the now obsolete social sense of the word " quality"): de res. carn. 6, licet et caro audiat,

Terra es, etc., origo recensetur, non substantia revocatur, "its rank is referred to its origin, but it is not denied to be what it is": ibid., excusato censu, "removing the reproach of its origin".

(3) Rank or class: de anima, 8, abruptum alioquin et absurdum idcirco quid de corporalium eximere censu quia ceteris corporalibus exemplis non adaequet: ibid. 40, ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur donec in Christo recenseatur, tamdiu immunda quamdiu recenseatur, 'takes its rank from Adam until it receives a new rank in Christ" (quamdiu apparently=donec).

Moreover, the active verb censere does not mean "think" or "suppose"', but "decide" or "authoritatively determine": de anima, 39, ut huius spei pignore matrimoniüs, quae retinenda censuerat, patrocinaretur, * marriage, which he decreed must be retained": adv. Hermog. 7, ambo ex pari magna, ex pari sublimia, ex pari solidae et perfectae felicitatis quae censetur aeternitas, "both equally great, equally sublime, equally possessing that entire and perfect felicity which is authoritatively designated eternity "—which is closely parallel with the present passage.

Finally, if the meaning of censeri is as we have suggested, the much discussed sentence, de orat. 6

(corpus eius in pane censetur: Hoc est corpus meum) will mean "his body is authoritatively declared to be in the bread": i.e. it is not a mere matter of repute or supposition, for what the censor decides is either an acknowledgement of an already existent fact

216.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

or the establishment of a new fact from now on—in this case the latter, for the censorial aestimatio is represented by the dominical words, which for that reason are quoted without preamble or explanation.

Proinde.

Cf. § 7, gaudens proinde gaudentem, "each rejoicing in view of the other's joy": so here, there is ratio because there is sermo, and there is sermo because there is ratio.

Quem secundum a se faceret, etc., *which he made another besides himself by activity within himself": cf.$ 7 ad fin., secundum a patre, "another besides the Father":

Justin, dial 128, àpiÜpq érepóv ti é€omr.

De anima, 6, secundum sit necesse est quod ex alio est: mihil porro ex alio est nisi dum gignitur: sed tunc duo sunt. vi. The Reason or Speech of God is referred to in holy Scripture as Wisdom.

Wisdom itself, in Prov. 8, speaks first (verse 22) of its own establishment, creation, or generation, before the foundation of the world: and then (verse 27) it represents itself as distinct from God, yet present with him, at the creation.

As soon as God determined to create in their own substances and forms the things which he had already, in company with Wisdom's reason and speech, ordained within himself, he first produced Speech, with the reason and the wisdom which are inseparable from it, to the end that all things might come into existence by the agency of it by which they had been thought out and ordained, nay even already made, in the mind of God.

The only thing they lacked was to be perceived and apprehended in forms and substances of their own.

Tertullian adduces selections from this passage of Proverbs, adv. Hermog. 18, in support of his argument that the world was not made of pre-existent matter.

If, he says, God had needed material ad opera mundi, he had such material at hand as philosophers cannot take account of, but prophets can understand, namely his Wisdom, which alone knows the mind of the Lord.

Paraphrasing 1 Cor. 2. 11, Quis enim scit quae sunt dei et quae in ipso, nisi spiritus qui in ipso?, he identifies Wisdom with that Spirit: and he quotes Prov. 8. 27 sqq. (cum pararet caelum, etc.) to prove that Wisdom was in fact operative in the creation of the

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

world.

This Wisdom he declares to be omnium fontem et originem -.

. materiam materiarum, non fini subditam, non statu diversam, non motu inquietam, non habitu informem, sed insitam et propriam et compositam et decoram, quali deus potuit eguisse, sui magis quam alieni egens.

He proceeds: denique ut necessariam sensit ad opera mundi, statim eam condit et generat in semetipso: Dominus, inquit, condidit me . .

. prior autem abysso genita sum.

Hermogenes must observe that even the Wisdom of God is declared to have been born and established, for the express purpose that we should not believe that anything exists zmnatum et inconditum except God alone.

For if, within the Lord, that which is of him and in him was not without beginning, namely, his Wisdom which was born and established from (the time» when (ex quo) in the mind of God it began to be set in motion for purposes of creation, a fortiori there cannot be anything outside God which is without beginning.

If there were, that something would be more ancient and therefore more noble, and indeed stronger, than the Son of God himself.

Moreover, if evil is Znnatum, while the Word was begotten (quoting Ps. 45. 1 Eructavit, etc.), then evil could never have been brought under control by good. Hermogenes gives matter precedence of God, by giving it precedence of the Son (quoting

John 1. 1: 10. 30).

Evidently Tertullian is somewhat carried away by his argument: to say that Wisdom was condita et generata within God is to say that God was originally a\oyos, which he certainly cannot have intended to say.

In the present passage (adv. Prax. 6) he interprets even this primary generation as a generation not of Wisdom itself but of the projected world in dei sensu, so anxious is he to maintain that Wisdom itself is coeternal with God.

Again, adv. Hermog.

20, having identified Wisdom and principium (substantified from in principio fecit deus), he says: in sophia enim primo fecit, in qua cogitando et disponendo iam fecerat

. . . quia cogitatio et dispositio prima sophiae fit operatio, de cogitatu viam operibus instituens.

'lhis agreement with his later work shows what was his settled opinion, when not carried away by disputation.

The previous interpretation recurs in the summary of his argument, adv. Hermog. 45: at enim prophetae et apostoli non ita tradunt mundum a deo factum apparente solummodo et adpropinquante materiae, quia nec materiam ullam nominaverunt, sed primo sophiam conditam, initia viarum in opera ipsius, dehinc et

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

sermonem prolatum, per quem omnia facta sunt et sine quo factum est nihil: denique sermone eius caeli confirmati sunt et spiritu ipsius universae virtutes eorum.

Tertullian was not the first to use Prov. 8, as the following note shows; but he was the first to interpret it with such attention to detail. He is almost the last to make positive use of it: later writers needed to interpret it apologetically. None of them saw that their difficulties arose from the fact that it has no real application to their purpose.

Among the second-century expositors of Prov. 8. 22 sqq. and similar texts there was some uncertainty as to whether the divine

Wisdom is the Son or the Holy Spirit. Justin identifies copia with the Word or Son of God: dial. 61, paprvpijae dé pou 6 hoyos | THs codias, avTds Sv obros 6 Ücós dmó ToU TAT POs

TOV Ohwv yevenbeis, kal Adyos Ka copia kai Svvapus kai dd€a ToU yevvycavTos vmápxcov, quoting Prov. 8. 21-36: ibid. 129, quoting verses 21-25, voetTe, @ dx poarai, et ye kai

TOV voov T podÉxere, Kat ore yeyevvija bar VmÓ TOU Tar pos TOUTO TO yevynpa Tpo TavT@v mos TOV kr. prov Ó

Móyyos éOjAov, kai (suppl. ort) TO yevvdp.evov TOU yevvàvros apiOu@ érepóv eat. Tas oaTLGOvY ÓnoNoyjaee.

ATHENAGORAS likewise identifies Word, Son, Wisdom: suppl. 10 voovpev yap Kal viov TOU Üeo). kai M) pot yeXotóv TUS vopía TO viv elvar TQ Dew. ov yap ws wowrai pvboTrovovow ovder Bedrious TaV avo parrav Beuvüvres TOUS

Üco)s 1) wepi ToU ÜcoU «ai _Tarpos 7) "epi TOU vioU rePpovijKaper. aN' €otw 6 vios TOU Geod Aóyos ToU |

Trarpos ev idéa kat évepryeia: pos avrov yàp kai àv avTod TavTa éyévero, évós Óvros TOU marpos kai TOU viod.

ÓvTos O€ TOU viov ev Tar pi kai Tar pos ev vi@ evornre kat duvdper TV€Upatos, vous kai Móyos ToU _TarTpos 6 vids ToU Beod ... ovvddet dé TÓ Moyo kai Tà mpodwyrudv mveb pa, Kópios yáp $qow | ékTugÉ [LE px Ó v avrov eis epyo. avro) : ; ibid. 24, VOUS Móyos copia Ó vios TOU waTpos Kal dxóppou ds Pas dmó Tvpos TO TED pA,

IRENAEUS on the other hand, praed. apost. 5, interpreting Ps. 33. 6, "By the Word of the Lord . . . by the Breath of his mouth", says that the Word is the Son, and the Spirit is the Wisdom:

"Therefore, because the Word constitutes, that is, gives substance and confers the power of existence, but the Spirit forms and shapes the different forces,

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

rightly and properly the Word is called the Son, and the Spirit the Wisdom of God": adv. haer. iv. 34. 2, quoniam autem et sapientia, quae est spiritus, erat apud eum ante omnem constitutionem, per

Salomonem ait, Deus sapientia fundavit terram, etc. (Prov. 3.

19-20): et rursus autem, Dominus creavit me, etc. (Prov. 8. 22-25, 27-31).

'THEOPHILUS for the most part is of the same opinion: ad Autol. i. 7, 6 Oeds, 6 Üepameíov kal Cworordv 81a To Aóyov kai Ts codías.

6 Üeós Sia TOD Aóyov avro Kal THs copias eroinoe rà mávra (quoting Ps. 33. 6): ibid. 15,

Ggca/Tes Kal al Tpeis "uépau. TPO TOv PwoTHpwy yeyovuiat TÜmOL eloiv THs TpLddos, ToU Heod kai Tod Aóyov avTov Kal THS codías avroU: and, a little later, Beds, Aóyos, copia: ibid. 18, ovk addw Oé Ti eipgkev Ilovjawpev. àÀX

7) TO éavroU ÀAóyo kai TH éavroU codia: but ibid. ii, 10 he seems to identify Word and Spirit and Wisdom, otros ody, dv

TveÜpa Üeo0 kai dpx:) kai copia kai Sdvapis vWíoTov, Karwxpxero eis TOUS Tpodnjras: ibid. i. 3 (in a rhetorical context), codiav éàv eUro, -yévrgua. avroU héyw. |

ORIGEN agrees with Justin and Athenagoras: de princ. i. 2... unigenitus filius dei, qui multis quidem et diversis nominibus pro rebus vel opinionibus appellantium nuncupatur (cf. comm. in oa. i. 21 sqq.): sapientia namque dicitur, sicut et Salomon dixit ex persona sapientiae, Dominus creavit me, etc.

There follows a discussion of the theological implications of this title.

Later authors accept this identification, which, with Prov. 8. 22 sqq., is much to the fore in the discussions of the fourth century.

Haec vis et haec divini sensus dispositio.

Vis is apparently the equivalent of dv¥vapis, as in Justin's paraphrase of Aóyos, Sivas Xoyucá: cf. Otto's note 6 on Theophilus, ii. 10, which quotes a remark of Ziegler that to Theophilus Aóyos and codia are Kráfte und Eigenschaften Gottes

—which is something less than the truth. Here vis seems to mean "function": cf. $ 7, apparet unam eandemque vim esse nunc in nomine sophiae nunc in appellatione sermonis.

Dispositio at de res. carn. 35, dispositio corporalis, means attitude or posture: at ado

Hermog. 20, cogitatio et dispositio prima sophiae fit operatio, it has the active sense "ordaining": cf. cogitata et disposita at the end of this chapter.

Divini sensus dispositio apparently means something like * posture of the divine consciousness", and as such

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

a "posture" has about it nothing either fortuitously assumed or imposed from without it may perhaps be best represented by "ordinance"': see the note on oikovopía, $2.

Sensus: see the note on § 5.

Conditam .

. condens.

This is apparently an attempt to soften the meaning of creavit in the quotation:

"establish" is a possible meaning of x7ileu, as Eusebius remarked (ee below): Tertullian tacitly slurs over the difficulty.

Primo... dehinc divide the quotation into two parts, the first describing the establishment of Wisdom as another by the side of God, the second describing the creation of the world with Wisdom as assistant.

Dominus creavit me, etc.

These sentences from Prov. 8. 22 sqq. are selections only, translated from the LXX.

This and the other passages cited, many of them only by strong allegorism brought to bear on the subject under discussion, had become common form from Justin onwards, and do not seem to have been new even to him.

The LXX translate as follows: Kópws ékrwév pe apynv odav avTov eis Epya avToU ..

. Tpd TOU THY yv movjcat .

Tp ToU opn EpacOnvau, Tpo d€ mavTwv ,Bovvàv yevvé pe. vía Hroipalev Tüv ,obpavàv cvvma pip QUTO ...

Kat as loxupa émoíeu TA dvo vey, kai as &a $aAets éríDe myyas TNS om obpavóv ipo Tap' avT@ appdlovaa, eyo "pv 0 T pod éxatpev, p npepav 8e evppawdpnv év tpooam@ avTov.

According to Tertullian's exposition, the first half of the quotation, as far as generavit me, represents the premundane establishment of Wisdom as another Person, secundam personam, by the side of the Lord: the second half, from cum pararet, represents her as ipsa separatione distinct from him, yet adsistentem (—aderam illi), present with him and assistant to him at the creation.

But, he adds, the first sentence represents not the establishment of Wisdom herself, but the establishment in her of the world as proposed for creation in the mind of God: the second sentence, assuming that Reason and Wisdom have meantime been emitted as Speech, describes the creation of the actual sensible world through Speech as God's agent.

Tertullian is

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

only partly aware of the difficulties caused by deriving Christian theology from a Hebrew scripture not primarily intended for that purpose.

Following (as he thinks) his text, he seems to indicate that the Aóyos only obtained separate personal existence for the purpose of being the agent of creation.

But if the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is true it must always have been true, and must represent an essential fact of the divine being. ORIGEN was aware of that: de princ. iv. 4. 1 (quoted by ATHANAsIUS, de decret. 27),

GAN' ov Oduis écaTiv ovd€ dxivdvvov bia riv daobéverav UL TO Ocov ed Qpiv doa repeto Oar Tov Ücüv. TOU dei

O'vvóvTOS avro Aóyov povoyevovs, _cogias 6vTOS 7) TpoceXaipev ovTO yap ove yalpwy del vonOyoera.

He therefore, following up the implications of this text, which seems to connect the generation of the Word with the creation, supposes the creation, along with the Word, to be an eternal fact of the mind of God: de princ. i. 4, 4, haec ergo ipsa est sapientia cui semper adgaudebat deus orbe perfecto, ut per hoc etiam semper laetari intellegatur deus. in hac igitur sapientia, quae semper erat cum patre, descripta semper et formata conditio, et nunquam erat quando eorum quae futura erant praefiguratio apud sapientiam non erat.

See the notes in Koetschau, Origenes Werke, vol. v. p. 67.

Creavit, exter, provoked much discussion, both before and after Eusebius of Caesarea had exhaustively treated the subject: e. g. Dionysius of Rome (ap. Routh, R.S., vol. ili. p. 376), ov pia yap 7 TOU

"Exrigev, as lore, apaga: "Exrwe yàp. évra.JÜa. dKovgTéov avtTt TOU "Ex€ornoe Tots vT QUTOU Yeyovóaw Epyous, yeyovoow dé OV abro) rod vioboUXi ÓÉ ye 70

Extice vov Méyow' av émi tov 'Emoiyoe Svadeper yap TOU vovjcau TO KTiTaL . .

. Kat Todhaxov oe Tov Oeiwv Aoyicv yeyevvia Oa. GAN' o? yeyovevar Tov vióv Aeyópevov eUpou rus av.

'The Arians pressed the word to prove that the Son of God is a created being inferior to and of a different kind from the Father: their opponents for the most part alleged that the text refers to the created nature which the Word took upon him at the Incarnation.

EusEBIUS of Caesarea, c. Marcell. ii. 3, complains that Marcellus, applying this text to the Incarnation, infers that the Word only became the Son at the Incarnation: de eccl. theol. i. 10 (a notable passage as against both Sabellians and

'TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Arians), he complains that Marcellus and others, once in Scripture finding the word € extice, base upon it a denial of the generation of the Son.

He discusses the text fully, de eccl. theol. iii. 2, saying: (1) kríZew is often used metaphorically for kaÜu ava, karaTácacew: (2) in the text before us its sense is qualified by the secondary object, "the beginning of his ways": (3) the correct translation of the Hebrew word m» is not éxrwev but ékr?jmaro, as witness Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion: he quotes other texts of the Old Testament where the Hebrew verb has this sense, and adds, 76 yàp péya Krnpa Tov 0cov

0 povoyevos vios Hv, Kad pev éÉ avTov yeyévvro vios àv avrov, Koo 66 Tots mw Kowepenns Kal gorrjpios kaÜéa rye TÓ péywr rov KQi TLILLO'TO.TOV krijpa. TOU Tar pos tmdpxov TE kai óvop.og pévos: ovee yàp dio TL yévow' àv mOTépu vioU TUM Tepov Krise: and again, ópoU xal TÜv mpobmap£w avrov eórjXov kal TÜ)V iBuitova av mpos TOV

Trarépa oikeiórnro, Opov Kal TO xpnjcuiov kai diva, KaLov THS OlKelas TEpt TA vaTpQa épya Mpovotas T€ Kat He oews.

ATHANASIUS, orat. c. Arian. ii. 43 sqq., still unacquainted with the Hebrew, says (1) this text must be interpreted in the light of Prov. 9. 1, 7 codia @xoddunoev éavry oikov, which means 76 ypeTEpov Tapa órep avaraBav yéyovev avOpwros: and (2) xrifew in holy Scripture often means not the creation of something new but the making of something into something else.

Ipsa separatione, an instrumental ablative: it is by the very fact of being distinct that Wisdom "stands by", for otherwise it would not stand by but coincide.

'This is the evident meaning of Tertullian's text as it stands: the difficulty is that he is elsewhere insistent that the Son is individuus et inseparatus, and consequently Kroymann substituted zn ipsa operatione, which Turner improved on with tpsius operationi.

'There is however just a possibility that the inconsistency is due to Tertullian: at this point he is concerned to prove duality, and only later becomes anxious to defend himself against the charge that duality involves division.

Et quomodo fortia, etc.

The MSS. read quomodo (twice), which must be restored to the text: LXX has ws, of which quomodo is a literal translation.

It is

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

possible that ws was intended to mean * how", or it may be a device for avoiding the repetition of nvixa and ore (like the French que which picks up the sense of a preceding conjunction, or the "that" which takes up '"'forasmuch as" in the preface to the English baptism service).

Editors from Rhenanus onwards have substituted quum. Super ventos has slipped in from the preceding sentence (omitted by Tertullian), kat ore apwpiley Tov éavrov

Opdvov én' avépwv: CYPRIAN, test. ii. 1, translates this, cum super ventos validas faceret desuper nubes: English R.V. "when he set a circle upon the face of the deep". Eius quae represents the Greek rs, sc. okovpévys.

In substantias et species suas, "in their own substances and species": so again at the end of this chapter.

Individuas, "inseparable": de pat. 15, cum ergo spiritus det descendit, individua patientia comitatur eum.

Reason and Wisdom are essential attributes of the Word, of his very substance, and no activity of his is conceivable without them. vul. The nativity of the Word becomes complete when he proceeds from the Father in the expression, Let there be light. Established already for thought, he is now begotten for action, and from henceforth stands to God in the relation of Son to Father, being firstbegotten and only-begotten.

The texts which speak of creation by Wisdom, combined with those which speak of creation by the Word, and with those which identify the Word and the Son, prove that Wisdom, Word, and Son are one and the same.

Moreover, the Word is not empty sound, but ts substantial. Nothing which proceeds from God can be less than substantial, nor could anything unsubstantial be the maker of substances: and the Word is himself the maker of the things which were made through him.

The designations Son and God, applied in holy Scripture to the Word, imply substantiality, for the name God cannot be taken in vain, that 1s, for an empty thing.

The Son's being 1n the form of God has the same implication; for God is corporeal, though he is spirit, since spirit is body, of its own kind and in its own form. And if the invisible things of God have their body and form, in which they are visible to God alone, how much

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

more must that which proceeds from his substance not be devoid of substance.

This substance of the Word I denominate a Person, claiming for him the name of Son, as being another besides the Father.

Spectem et ornatum, "manifestation and equipment", immediately explained as sonum et vocem, "sound and articulation "".

Cum dicit deus, Fiat lux.

Probably the repeated xai etzrev 6 0eos of Gen. 1, preceded by the reference to the Spirit of God moving (émedépero) above the waters, suggested the verse of the Ps. 33 6, TQ Àóyg ToU kvpiov om ovpavot éarepeoiÜnaav, kai TQ mebpare TOU

CTOMATOS avTOU TGca.7 Ovvapus avTOV and this in turn suggested to the evangelist the designation 6 Adyos, without any dependence upon Philo or the Greek philosophers.

'The sublimity of the conception was observed by the heathen author of the tract

Tepi vious (9. 9), who writes: tavTy kai 6 Tov "lovdaiwy expolerns, ovx 6 TvyOv avip, éme7 THY ToU

Oetouv Ovvapav Kata riv a€iay exwopnoe kà£édmvev, evOds ev TH eicBokn ypabas Tov vópov, Eimer ó Deos, $qcé

Tt; TevécOw pas, kai éyévero* yevéa 0o yn, kai éyévero.

[The passage has been suspected as possibly an interpolation; but rashly, since Longinus (if he is the author of the book) could have had his attention drawn to the Scriptures p Paul of Samosata.] Haec est nativitas perfecta sermonis.

Prov. 8. 22 sqq. having been interpreted (8 6) as falling into two parts, in the first part Tertullian takes the key-word to be creavit (now paraphrased as condidit, conditus), which he refers to God's plan or project for creation, ad cogitatum: in the second part the key-word is generavit, referring to the external expression of Wisdom as the Word of creation.

Wisdom and Word are identical: but, says Tertullian, there was a prior generation, creation, establishment, as Wisdom, and afterwards that same

Wisdom received expression as the Word.

This is nativitas perfecta sermonis; not that sermo is more perfect than sophia, but that his generation as sermo is now complete.

Further, as conditus primum ad cogitatum represents the first stage, and

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

dehinc generatus ad effectum the second, exinde eum patrem Sibi faciens declares the permanence of the oikovopía thus evolved in two stages.

The monarchians regarded the Son as a temporary manifestation of the Father in the work of redemption:

Tertullian not only refers the manifestation of the Son back to the creation, but denies also that that manifestation is temporary or that it is a manifestation of the Father in person, for the Son, once begotten, is a second Person by the side of the Father.

But, though the Son's existence does not come to an end when redemption is completed, Tertullian cannot rid himself of the thought that the ratio dei, itself eternal, had in some sense a beginning of its existence as Son.

This, of course, has nothing in common with the Arian position that "there was once when he was not", for the Arians maintained that there are two Adyou, one an eternal attribute of God, the other (which afterwards was incarnate) created for the purpose of creating the world.

For Tertullian Wisdom, Word, and Son are identical, as eternal as God himself, though Wisdom only becomes completely the Word when expressed in the word of creation.

Conditus, condidit.

'The substitution of condidit removes the ambiguity involved in creavit: cf. AUGUSTINE, de fide et symbolo, 5, nam idem est condere quod creare: quanquam in latinae linguae consuetudine dicatur aliquando creare pro eo quod est gignere; sed graeca. discernit. hoc enim dicimus creaturam quod illi kría ua, vel Kriow vocant: et cum sine ambiguitate loqui volumus non dicimus creare sed condere.

For all that, Tertullian does not say that the Word was created, but that Prov. 8. 22 means that the projected world was created in him, as the actual world was afterwards created by him.

Exinde eum patrem sibi faciens, etc.

Patrem is, as Kroymann discovered, the reading of M, and is obviously right: cf. $ 10, patrem .

. qui facit filium, filium . .

. qui facit patrem. Primogenitus, Col. 1. 15: unigenitus, Ld 18:

1 John 4. 9: ut solus ex. deo genitus, because other things, though they are sometimes by a misuse of the word said to have been begotten, were not begotten of God but created out of nothing: cf. § 17, multi filii dicuntur et non sunt. Proprie depends

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

on solus ex deo genitus, "alone begotten from God in the strict sense of the word", de vulva cordis ipsius, "from the womb of his heart".

The next quotation is brought in to justify cordis ipsius: vulva comes from Ps. 110. 3, €k yao'rpós mpd éog pov é£eyévvuoá, oe, which is quoted in part below, ante luciferum genui te.

Eructavit cor meum sermonem optimum.

Ps. 45. 1, where LXX reads é€ypevéato 7) Kapdia pov Aóyov ayaldv, "my heart hath disgorged a good word".

Driver translates, my heart is astir with a goodly matter".

This is another of the texts, having even in Greek no immediate bearing on the subject, which are constantly adduced in this connexion: cf. below, $ 11, and adv. Marc. ii. 4, adhibet operi bono optimum etiam ministrum, sermonem suum:

Eructavit, inquit, cor meum sermonem optimum: agnoscat hinc primum fructum, optimum utique optimae arboris Marcion: ibid. iv. 14, iam hoc ipsum quod a benedictionibus coepit (sc. Lk. 6. 20 beati mendici) creatoris est qui universa prout edidit nulla alia voce quam benedictionis dedicavit :

Eructavit enim, inquit, cor meum sermonem optimum: adv. Hermog.

18, proinde si malum quidem innatum est, natus autem sermo dei— Eructavit enim, inquit, sermonem. optimum—non scio an a bono malum possit adduci, validius ab infirmo, ut innatum a nato.

'The citation was perhaps originally suggested by Heb. 1. 8, 9, where verses 7, 8 of this psalm (6 Apdvos aov, 6 Beds, xré.) are quoted as proof of the greatness of the Son of God, and the words €ypicé ae 6 Ücós justify a Messianic interpretation.

Justin, dial. 38, quotes the whole psalm, and promises the Christian interpretation later: ibid. 56, he adduces 6 @pdvos cov, 6 Beds, KTE. to prove that xai Tapa TOV vooupevov TounTHY TOV OÀov ANOS

TUS KUPLOAOYEtTaL vrró TOU dytou mvevdp. .aTos: ibid. 63, quoting verses 6-12, he comments, OTL yov Kat mpogkvvyTós ETL

Kat Beds Ka Xploros (suppl. 6) UTO TOU TavTa movjg avos paprupop.evos. Kat ot Adyou ovToL SiappHenv onpaivovar: kat ore Tos €is avToOV TL.OTEUOVG W, os oct pud Vvxm

Kal pud ouvayoyy Kat pug. ékkNgaia, 6 Aóyos TOU Ücov | os Üvyor pi (suppl. Tapawei vel simile quid) 7» exkhnoig, Tj e€ dvdparos GUTOU yevopévy Kat petacyovan ToU ÓvópLaros abrov—Xpioriavol yàp mavres Kahovpefa—épotws pavepas ot Adyo. Kynpvaocovar SiddoKovTes Huas Kal TOV

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

Tahav Tarpoov eOov émrabecOar: ibid. 76 and 86 he quotes éxpugé oe 6 Üeós.

IRENAEUS, haer. iv. 55. 1, quotes verses 3, 8, 4, and 5, as proof that the prophets foresaw the glory of Christ: ibid. iii. 6. 1, quoting verses 7, 8, he comments, utrosque enim det appellatione signavit spiritus, et eum qui ungitur filium et eum qui ungit, id est patrem: ibid. iii. 32. 1 he quotes verse 17, pro patribus nati sunt tibi filii in a discussion of the Lucan genealogy: ibid. iv. 9. 2 he cites the same verse to prove that the fathers, i.e.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, are God's sons: praed. apost. 47, quoting verses 6, 7, he comments, "For the Son, since he is God, receives from the Father who is God, the throne of eternity and the oil of anointing more than his fellows.

And the oil of anointing is the Spirit with which he is anointed, and his fellows are the prophets and righteous men and apostles and all who receive the communication of his kingdom, that is, who are His disciples."

Thus far the comment is within the limits of Heb. 1. 8, 9 and may claim scriptural authority.

Doubtful exegesis begins when THEOPHILUS mistakes the "good word", by which the psalmist means the subject-matter of his ode, for the Word or Son of God: ad Autol. ii. 10, €ywv odv 6 cos Tov éavroO Aóyov évO.dÜerov év rots idiots o mAáyyvow éyévvqoev abróv pera

THs éavroU codias e€epevEdpevos pd TOv drwy:

Otto's note gives the following references: Tertullian, adv. Prax. 7. 11; Cyprian, Zest. ii. 3; Alexander Alexandrinus, ap. Socr. H.E. i. 6;

Athanasius de decret. tom. 1, p. 227, al.

'The orthodox fathers insist that é&ypeí£aro means éyévvqaev and cannot possibly be made to imply creation: it does not seem to have occurred to their adversaries to reply that the quotation has no bearing on the theological question.

ORIGEN, comm. in Ioa. i. 24 (p. 25), remarks that certain persons are always quoting this text, oidjevor mpopopayv marpuc]» olovel ev cvddaBais kewuiévmv civar

Tov viov TOU OBeov, kai Kata TovTO vmócTaOi avTo, ci ákpugàs avTav mvvÜavotu.eÜa, ov diddacw, ovd€ obaíav ajro0 cadyvilovew, ovdéra $apév todvde, add' Oras more ovotav.

He claims that the title Aóyos, equally with other titles such as door, vine, way, must be subjected to examination in search of its intended meaning: apparently his suggestion is that Àóyos is no more a proper name than any of these others.

Tertullian always reads sermonem optimum:

Cyprian, l.c., verbum bonum.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Ad quem deinceps, etc.

For proinde see the note on § 5 ad fin. In persona illius: see a further note on filius ex sua persona, p. 229 : here the phrase might mean that the Father, in Ps. 2. 7, addresses the Son as a person, or possibly the meaning is that as Ps. 2 is spoken throughout by the Son, in verse 7 the Father "in the Son's role" or "as quoted by the Son" speaks to the Son as Son.

The sentence then seems to mean, "And immediately thereafter (i.e. after the disgorging of the good word) the Father rejoicing, as the Son himself relates, addresses the Son, equally rejoicing"'.

Filius meus es tu, etc., is quoted at Acts 13. 33 (with reference to the Resurrection of Christ) and at Heb. 1. 5 (as proving the Son's superiority to the angels, to whom such a thing was never said): and no doubt the words spoken from heaven at the Baptism and the Transfiguration were understood to be a reference to the psalm.

Hence certain of the school of Theodotus maintained that the Baptism or the Resurrection marked the beginning of the divine Sonship.

Ante luciferum genui te.

Oehler's punctuation needs correction, to mark a new quotation :

Ps. 110. 3, €K yaoTpos mpó éonópov é£eyévvgo d oe, where Driver translates, from the womb of the dawn thine is the dew of thy young men"', and comments, "The verse describes how the king is enabled to carry into effect the commission, * Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies':

. fresh and numerous as the dewdrops in the early dawn, his young warriors press forward in his service".

"This text also has a long exegetical and controversial history.

That the psalm was, in pre-Christian Jewish circles, regarded as Messianic is shown by the quotation of the first verse, Eimev 6 kÜptos TO kvpío pov, at Matt. 22. 41-46 and Luke 20. 41-44: the fourth verse, a? iepeds eis Tov aiava

Kata tTHv Taéw Medyioedéx, is cited at Heb. 5. 6.

The present verse is again quoted by Tertullian, adv. Marc. v. 9, where he remarks that Marcion says it refers to Hezekiah (see below), whereas it evidently means Christ's nativity, which took place at night before the dawn, as is proved by the appearance of the star, and by the angels appearing to the shepherds by night, and by its taking place at an inn, a place where people go only at night: further, he says, ex utero can only apply to a real (not a putative)

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

son, unless perhaps it signifies the virgin birth, ex solo utero sine viri semine. JUSTIN, apol. i. 45, quotes verses 1-3 as a prophecy of the Ascension, without particular comment on verse 3: dial. 32,

33, he quotes the whole psalm, and contests in detail the Jewish exegesis which refers it to Hezekiah: ibid. 83, he quotes verses 1-3, with the same explanation: ibid. 45, Xpwaróv ToUrov ToU coU vióv, ds mpd éEwoddpov kai cedrvns Fv, where éwo- $ópos means not the dawn but the planet itself (cf. ibid. 76, kai AaBid dé mpd Hriov kal oehyvns ék yaoTpos vyevvgOQjoccOar avróv Kara tiv Tod mwarpós [ovii éxjpv€e): ibid. 63, kai rà vmó AaBid cipnuéva, 'Ev rais haympdtyar

. karü Tijv Taw MeXxweOék, ov onmaiver "iv dru dvoÜcv kai dia yaotpos avOpwteias 6 Ücós Kal mor)p

TOV ohwv yevvàaÜac avrov epedde ; [here for avwHev Otto's Latin version has antiquitus, but the meaning is clearly iterum].

Tertullian therefore, at one time interpreting the text as referring to the Incarnation, at another time to the eternal generation, follows Justin's lead: so that there is no a priori objection to its appearance here (F omits it), especially as without it de vulva cordis ipsius would remain unexplained.

ATHENAGORAS and THEOPHILUS do not quote this psalm. — IRENAEUS, haer., quotes verse I several times: fraed. apost. 43, he quotes verse 3 (ascribing it to Jeremiah) to show that the Son existed before the foundation of the world: zbid. 48, he quotes the whole psalm to prove that "he has been before all, and has conquered the heathen, and judges all men, and even kings, who now hate him and persecute his name".

This is another of the texts quoted by Alexander of Alexandria in his encyclical letter, and so introduced into the Arian controversy.

Sic et filius ex sua persona, etc.

Persona here seems to combine the dramatic with the metaphysical sense: "the Son in his own person", but in nomine sophiae "calling himself Wisdom", acknowledges the existence of the Father (and so of the father-son relationship) by using the word generavit: and moreover, in the metaphysical sense, the Son, as well as the Father, is a persona, as being distinct from, yet in relation with, another persona.

Nam si hic quidem, etc.

The text of Proverbs which speaks of creation by Wisdom,

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

and the text of the Gospel which speaks of creation by the Word, taken together prove that the titles Wisdom and Word indicate unam eandemque vim, "one and the same function" (see above,

§ 6): and moreover, as the Gospel identifies the Word and the Son, the three designations, Wisdom, Word, Son, signify one and the same Person.

See the critical note on page 95, line 19.

Nec diutius de isto, etc.

* But enough of that matter: for evidently the Word himself is (represented? under the name of Wisdom and Reason and of the whole divine Mind and Spirit: and that Word became Son of God, by proceeding from whom he was begotten."

De isto, i.q. de istare.

Quasi non, a common locution in Tertullian, e.g. apol. 49, quasi non totum quod in nos potestis nostrum sit arbitrium,

"for evidently all that you can do against us is a matter of our own choice", seeing we can please ourselves whether we are

Christians or not. Divini ..

. spiritus: It is evident from $2 and elsewhere that Tertullian does not identify the Word and the Holy Spirit; "spirit" is a common term which describes the substance of God: mvevya 0 Ücós, and therefore the Word of God is spirit: the Holy Spirit is a third Person (§ 8, tertius enim est spiritus a deo et filio), but the same spirit.

Filius factus est dei, * became", not "was made": Tertullian is neither an Arian nor an adoptionist: he does not mean that Wisdom was raised to the rank of Son, but that, retaining her divine rank and substance, she became Word and Son by issuing forth from God.

Ergo, inquis, etc.

Here the argument takes a new step, justifying and reinforcing the position already assumed, that the Word of God is not, like human speech, a mere faculty or activity, butis aliqua substantia, a substance of some kind (i.e. a Person, which is a particular kind of substance) possessing attributes and exercising activity.

Tertullian is aware of the danger to which Irenaeus refers (haer. ii.

42. 3, quoted in the Introduction, p. 37), of thinking that human attributes and faculties are a sufficient illustration of the divine nature: cf. adv. Marc. ii. 16, stultissimi qui de humanis divina praeiudicant .

. discerne substantias, et suos eis distribue sensus tam diversos quam substantiae exigunt, licet vocabulis communicare videantur .

. et haec ergo imago censenda est dei in homine, quod eosdem motus et sensus habeat humanus animus quos et deus, licet

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

non tales quales deus: pro substantia enim et status eorum et exitus distant. Das would naturally mean "concede'': here it evidently means "postulate".

Constructam does not here bear its strict sense of "composed" or "created", but means nothing more precise than "subsisting": so also constitutus, below.

If the traditional text is correct, this sentence can only mean that that substance which is the Word is spiritu constructa, consists of spirit

(ablative of origin), because veya 6 eds, spirit is the substance of God and consequently of the Word; and is sophiae traditione constructa, subsists by the transference of Wisdom (ablative of means), because the divine Wisdom, when translated into speech, is the Word.

But Turner's conjecture is evidently correct, and saves the awkwardness of using the ablative in two senses in the same phrase: "consisting of spirit, wisdom, and reason" (ablative of origin throughout).

Non vis enim, etc.

This seems to be the correct reading.

The difficulty (which perhaps was thought to call for novimus, the reading of P) arose from failure to observe that enim refers back beyond plane to inquis in the preceding sentence: novimus would leave enim in the following sentence hanging in the air. Kroymann's insertion of ne before ut is unnecessary, for videridoes not mean * seem" but "be seen" or "be acknowledged".

'For you are not prepared to regard him as substantive, in objective existence, on account of his being a substance which is himself, that so he may be seen to be objectively and personally existent, and consequently, by being another beside God, may establish the existence of two,

Father and Son, God and Word."

In re, in objective existence, as a res and not merely an attribute or activity:

'Turner's haberi in seis then unnecessary.

Per substantiae proprietatem, because he is a substance of his own: proprietas hardly means "property" for it seems invariably to look not towards the things possessed but towards the possessor: de cor. 10, usque adhuc proprietatem istius habitus (sc. coronae) et ex originis censu et ex superstitionis usu idolis vindicamus, "the true possession of that decoration": de praesc. haer. 35, apostolis ubique (leg. ubi quid) non damnatur, immo defenditur, hoc erit indicium proprietatis, "that it really belongs to them" : de bapt. 2, pro misera incredulitas, quae denegas deo proprietates suas, simplicitatem et potestatem, "attributes which

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

he alone possesses in perfection": de fug. in pers. 2, vides iam et a servis dei facilius diabolum accipere potestatem—tanto abest ut eam ex proprietate possideat, "possesses it by his own right": de anima, 38, desiderabit igitur cibos anima sibi quidem ex causa necessitatis, carni vero ex natura proprietatis, "for itself because of its relationship with the flesh (necessitas— necessitudo), for the flesh because food by nature belongs to it": ibid. 43, ommis enim natura aut defraudatione aut enormitate rescinditur, proprietate mensurae conservatur, *by that measure which is its own": so adv. Prax. 27, utramque substantiam in sua proprietate distantem,

"in that which is properly itself": ibid., utriusque. proprietas substantiae, that which each substance itself is": and bid. 11, unam quamque personam in sua proprietate constituunt, "in that which he himself is".

In the present passage the argument is that his being a substance of his own proves him to be, in a metaphysical sense, res quaedam, a substantive existence, and, in a psychological sense, persona quaedam, a person.

Capiat=évdéynrar.

Secundus a deo, "another beside God", cf. below, secundum a patre defendo.

Constitutus—vóeavós or vrápxcov (as below in the quotation of Phil. 2. 6), without any passive meaning.

Efficere, "establish by argument"', not " bring into existence".

Aer offensus.

The point is now too obvious to need illustration: the ancients had doubts about it. AuLus GELLIUS, N.A. v. 15, vetus atque perpetua quaestio inter mobilissimos philosophorum agitata est, corpusne sit vox an incorporeum. hoc enim vocabulum quidam finxerunt proinde quod graece dicitur drdpatov. corpus autem est quod aut efficiens est aut patiens: id graece definitur 75 you rovoUv

3 rác Xov. quam definitionem significare volens Lucretius poeta ita scripsit: Tangere enim aut tangi nisi corpus nulla potest res. alio quoque modo corpus esse Graeci dicunt T0 Tpvy$) 9u&a rarov. sed vocem Stoici corpus esse contendunt, eamque esse dicunt ictum aera, Plato autem non esse vocem corpus putat: Non enim percussus, inquit, aer sed plaga ipsa atque percussio, id vox est.

Democritus ac deinde Epicurus ex individuis corporibus vocem constare dicunt, eamque, ut ipsis eorum verbis utar, peda atdouwv appellant.

STOBAEUS, ecl i. 45, ot amd llAárovos mAyTTec Oar TOv év T] Kehary dépa, rovrov Ó' dvakhacbar eis TA Tyyeuovikà

'COMMENTARY AND NOTES

kai ylyverBar Ts axons aicOnow.

IlAárovos év Twuato (p. 675)... dws perv o)v $owviv Odpev tiv Ov órov vm dépos éykepdhov re Kal aipatos péxpi Wuyns amwyiv

Siadisopevyy, (rijv 8 (m abrüs kivgaw, dard THs Kedadys Bev üpxopévqv,» rekevrücav 96 mepi THY TOU HmaTos ESpar, axonv: ibid. 46, IIAárov tiv $oviv opilera mvedpa Sua oTomatos amd Siavoias kai mAnynv vm dépos 9v oTov kal éyxepddov kai a(uaros péxpu tuys SuideBoAy

Lucretius, iv. 524-614, takes the view that particles of speech travel from the organ of speech to the organ of hearing: principio auditur sonus et vox omnis, in auris | insinuata suo pepulere ubi corpore sensum. | corpoream vocem quoque enim constare fatendumst | et sonitum, quoniam possunt impellere sensus.

Mayor, ad loc., quotes Epic, in Diog. x. 52, TO dkovew yivetar pevpards Twos $epopévov dà Tod hwvorvtos 1) ?)yoUvros 1) yoooUvTos 1) Omws O*mor dkovaTwOv máÜos mapackeváLovros:

TO O€ feta TodTO eis Ópowopepeis Óykovs Ouaac'reiperaa.

[APPULEIUs] Asclepius 20 (which G. Boissier, La Fin du paganisme, vol. ii. p. 196, says is a fourth-century version of a Greek original), si enim vox haec est, ex aere spiritu percusso sonus, declarans omnem hominis voluntatem vel sensum quem forte ex sensibus mente perceperit, etc.

C. H. Turner (7.T.S., vol. xiv. p. 563) quotes vox est aer ictus or similar phrases from the grammarians, who he thinks represent a tradition older than Tertullian.

By the fourth century the theory was sufficiently well established to find a place in the Church

Service: Cons. Apost. viii. 12. 10 (from the preface to the anaphora), 0 Tovjcas...dépa Cwtikdv mpós eiomvony kai àvamvonv kal duwwüs dmóO0ogiv dua yhotrns mAnTToOvaNs TOV dépa,

Kai akony ouvepyouperyny vm avTod ws Émalew eigOexopévqv THY wpooTmírrovcav aiTH ÀaMáv.

At ego nihil dico, etc.

Five considerations prove the substantiality of the divine Word:

(1) That which proceeds from the divine substance must itself be substance: (2) Nothing devoid of substance could have been the creator of substances (and the Agent in creation is a creator):

(3) The titles "Son" and "God", applied to the Word in Scripture, are indicative of substance:

(4) The scriptural expression "in the form of God" implies substance, because (a) there can be no form without substance, and (b) since God is

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

substance that which is in his form must be substance: (5) If the "invisible things of God", i.e. the divine attributes, have such body and form as to be visible to him, a fortiori that which is not a mere attribute but has been "sent forth" from him, cannot but be substance.

Scriptum est, Non sumes, etc.

THEOPHILUS, ad Autol. ii. 10 (quoting Gen. 1. 1), mpa@rov apynv kai Toinow a@vopacer, «tf ovros Tov Ücóv cwvéTTHTEV: OV yap apyas xp?) kai émi Keva Üeóv dvoydlew.

In effigie dei constitutus, etc.

Phil. 2. 6, év poppy 0cov vrapxov.

Constitutus supplies the place of the missing participle of esse.

Cyprian reads in figura dei constitutus: Augustine and the Vulgate, gui cum in forma dei esset.

Except when quoting this text (here and adv. Marc. v. 20, de res. carn. 6), ''ertullian uses effigies for what is appearance but not fact, e.g. de anima, 53, paulatim et ipsa (sc. anima) migrare compulsa deducitur in diminutionis effigiem.

Esse se aequalem deo: adv. Marc. v. 20, pariari deo: de res. carn. 6, parem esse deo.

Utique in aliqua: so Kroymann for the MSS. utique in alia, which seems meaningless.

Quis enim negabit deum corpus esse ?

It was a Stoic fancy that all reality is corporeal: see the authorities quoted by Ritter and Preller, §§ 488-490, e.g. CICERO, acad. i. 39, nullo modo arbitrabatur (Zeno? quicquam effici posse ab ea (sc. natura) quae expers esset corporis

. nec vero aut quod efficeret aliquid aut quod efficeretur posse esse non corpus.

Consequently, according to other authorities, truth, knowledge, understanding, mind, are copa ra, because they are efficient:

SENECA, ep. 106. 3, quaeris bonum an corpus sit: bonum facit, prodest enim: quod facit corpus est.

So 'TERTULLIAN, de anima, 6, bene autem quod et artes Stoici corporales affirmant: adeo sic quoque anima corporalis si et artibus ali creditur.

'Tertullian can grudgingly allow, for the sake of argument, that incorporeal existence is conceivable: adv. Hermog. 35, omnis res aut corporalis aut incorporalis sit necesse est—ut concedam interim esse aliquid incorporale de substantiis dumtaxat, cum ipsa substantia corpus sit rei cuiusque— certe post corporále et incorporale nihil tertium.

His real opinion is

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

given de carne Christi, 11, nihil enim habens invisibile quomodo potest (anima) invisibilis dict? sed ne esse quidem potest nisi habens per quod sit. cum autem sit, habeat necesse est aliquid per quod est. si habet aliquid per quod est, hoc erit corpus eius. omne quod est corpus est sui generis. nihil est incorporale nisi quod non est.

So with reference to creation ex nihilo, de res. carn, 11, quo enim interest ex nihilo quid proferri an ex aliquo, dum quod non fuit fiat, quando etiam non fuisse nihil sit fuisse? sic et fuisse e contrario nonnihil est fuisse.

Consequently the soul is corporeal, since it really exists: de anima, 7, (anima sub terris» nihil, si non corpus: incorporalitas enim ab omni genere custodiae liber est, immunis et a poena et a fovella: but the soul is body with a difference, de res. carn. 53, anima vero etsi corpus, tamen quia ipsa est corpus non animatum sed animans potius, animale corpus non potest dici, nec fieri quod facit: consequently the suggestion that corpus animale at 1 Cor. 15. 44, means the soul cannot be upheld.

According to EuskBiUs, H.E. iv. 26, Melito of Sardis wrote a treatise mept €vowpdtou ÜcoU. JEROME, who had not seen the book, did not know what the title meant, and kept it in Greek:

RUFFINUS, translating de deo corpore induto, took it to refer to the Incarnation.

ORIGEN, who apparently had seen the book, gives the impression that Melito understood literally the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament: Fragm. comment. in Genes.

(ap. THDT. quaest. in Genes. 20), mpodvakynmtéov mpórepov aro cwíaTara, 10 kar eikóva, ev a dpa 1) ev vxg. lwpev dé mpórepov ois xp@vrau oi TO TpGrov Xéyovres, Qv EoTL kai Merov ovyypappd 7 (so Otto for MS. avyypáppara) karaAeAourüs Tept ToU évoaparov eia, Tov Üeóv. péedy yàp Jeov óvoualópeva evpioKortes .

. avTiKpus daakovar TavTa ovy érepóv Tu SiddoKew 1) THY poppyy Tov coU.

The Clementine homilies (xvii. 7) take the Old Testament anthropomorphisms literally, but soften them slightly:

"He has all the members, but not for use .

. it is for man's sake, so that the pure in heart may enjoy the sight of him".

See Routh, R.S., vol. i. pp. 121, 143:

Otto, Corp. Apol. ix. pp. 394 sqq.: NovATIAN, de frin. 5, quoted in the Introduction, p. 53. GzNNaDIUS of Marseilles, de eccl. dogm. 4, classes Melito with Tertullian, the anthropomorphites, and Audianus, as having believed the Trinity to be corporeal: but he was unintelligent, or ill-informed, in classing Tertullian with these,

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

seeing he insists on the fact that it is man who is in God's image, not God who is in man's: adv. Marc. ii. 16, discerne substantias, et suos eis distribue sensus tam diversos quam substantiae exigunt, licet vocabulis communicare videantur: nam et dexteram et oculos et pedes dei legimus, nec ideo tamen humanis comparabuntur quia de

| appellatione sociantur. When he says that God is corpus he means no more than that he really exists: he cannot conceive of substantia except as corpus: cf. below, § 8, sermo autem spiritu structus est, et ut ita dixerim sermonis corpus est spiritus.

Etsi deus spiritus est.

NovaTIAN, in what is apparently a deliberate criticism of Tertullian, remarks, de trin. 7, that when our Lord says "God is a spirit", spirit is no more a substantival name than caritas or lux: ut merito et quando spiritus dictus est, non omne id quod est dictus est, sed ut dum mens hominum intellegendo usque ad ipsum proficit. spiritum, conversa iam ipsa in spiritu aliud quid amplius per spiritum conicere deum esse possit . .

. denique si acceperis spiritum substantiam det, creaturam feceris deum: omnis enim spiritus creatura est.

Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie.

Genus seems to mean "kind of substance", though how it is differentiated is not explained: effigies, the attributes by which the substance is cognisable.

Elsewhere effigies means mere appearance: de anima, 53, deducitur in diminutionis effigiem .

. actu elanguens non statu, constantiam non substantiam decoquens, quia comparere cessat non quia esse.

Invisibilia illa :

Rom. 1. 20: cf. adv. Hermog. 45, haec autem sunt invisibilia eius, quae secundum apostolum ab institutione mundi de factis eius conspiciuntur, non materiae nescioquae, sed sensualia ipsius.

Quaecunque ergo, etc.

The substantia of the Aóyos, being derived from the Father, not created by him, is personal, as is the substantia of the Father; is also Son, because he proceeds from the Father, for sonship is the only word which will adequately describe this relationship of person derived from person; and therefore he is secundus a -

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

patre, "another besides the Father", not identical with him as the monarchians allege. vill. The expression quod ex ipsius substantia emissum est,

"that which has been produced from his own substance", may be objected to as reminiscent of the Valentinian mpofdoXa£, prolationes, projections.

But (1) the word 7poBody is not to be rejected on the ground that heretics use it: the heretics have borrowed it from the Truth, although they use it to maintain a he.

The question for us is whether the Word did or did not proceed forth: and the answer is that he did.

(2) Valentinus makes his aeons so proceed as to be separated from and ignorant of their origin: whereas we say that the Son, who alone knows the Father, perfectly accomplishes the Father's will.

(3) The Word, being the Spirit who is "in God", cannot be separate from him, but is one with him, as the branch is one with the root, the river one with the spring, the beam one with the sun.

These are in each case two, and yet inseparable, as the Father and the Son are two, and yet inseparable: for that which proceeds from something must be another besides that from which it proceeds.

(4) The Holy Spirit is a third (proceeding) from the Father and the Son, as the fruit from the root through the branch, the irrigation canal from the spring through the river, the illumination point from the sun through the beam. | None of these is alienated from its origin: and likewise the Trinity, originating in the Father, safeguards the economy without gainsaying the monarchy.

In the Valentinian theology the "fulness of the godhead" is supposed to have evolved by a succession of emissions or projections of pairs of zons from an original pair, Depth and Silence.

It is essential to the system (a) that each emission should have taken place without conscious activity on the part of the projecting pair, and (5) that each pair should be ignorant of all above itself, and especially of the original unknown and unknowable Depth: for in this scheme the Fall, as enacted in the celestial sphere, consists of a passionate desire for that forbidden knowledge on the part of one of the lowest zons, and that passionate desire is substantified and becomes the semi-celestial prototype of matter—dissolvitur in reliquam. substantiam.

Christian theology does not take kindly to the non-scriptural word zpoj/goXj (see note); but Tertullian, being confronted with it, and having found it and its cognates in reputable authorities, is prepared to allow it,

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

though with the safeguard that the 7po8od7 of the Son and of the Holy Spirit does not separate them from the Father nor admit of their being ignorant of him.

Origen, with Justin before him, adds the further safeguard that the Son was begotten "from the will of the Father" (de princ. iv. 4. 1, cf. i. 2. 6, quoted above), thus excluding the gnostic theory of unconscious emission: the Arians took up this phrase and twisted it to imply that the Son exists by the will of the Father, i.e. is a created being, and by the will of the Father could cease to exist.

Tertullian's three illustrations, if overpressed, would be open to both the above objections: e.g. the spring is ignorant of its act of producing a river, and the river is ignorant of its source in the spring.

But these are illustrations, not proofs, of the contention that it is possible for there to be three, who yet are one: with that limitation they were regarded as reasonably satisfactory and were adopted by other expositors.

AUGUSTINE, de fide et symbolo, 17, points out another defect in the illustration: sane cavendum est me quisquam ineffabilem illius maiestatis substantiam sicut fontem istum. visibilem atque corporeum vel fluvium vel potionem cogitet. in his enim aqua illa quae nunc in fonte est exit in fluvium, nec in se manet: et cum de fluvio vel de fonte in potionem transit non ibi permanet unde sumitur. itaque. fieri potest ut eadem aqua nunc ad fontis appellationem pertineat, nunc ad fluvii, nunc ad potionis, cum in illa trinitate dixerimus non posse fieri ut pater aliquando sit filius, aliquando spiritus sanctus.

'This defect, he adds, is corrected by the other illustration, of the root, the trunk, and the branches, where there is no passing over of the one into the other: and if this image, in its turn, is open to the objection that the three parts of the tree, though all and each are wood, are of differing qualities and consistencies, it again can be corrected by the simile of the water which is of the same quality in the river and the cup as in the fountain.

He concludes: sed haec non propter illius divinae naturae similitudinem sed propter visibilium etiam unitatem corporalia exempla data sunt, ut intelligeretur fieri posse ut aliqua tria non tantum singillatim, sed etiam simul, unum singulare nomen obtineant.

HiPPOLYTUS, c. Noet. 1o, evidently borrows from Tertullian: TOV de yvyvopévoy &pyyov Kal otpBovdov kai epydrny €yévva

Moyo... Kai oUTOS maia Taro avT@ ÉTEpos.

£repov de MÉyov. ov dvo Geods Aéyo [d ws Pas Ex PaTos, 1) às VOwp ek THYNS, 7) WS dkriva dmó TAbov.

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

IIpoBodnv aliquam.

ITpof8dAXeww means "emit" or "give out" apparently only in late writers:

Liddell and Scott (8th ed.) quote from D1oscorIDEs (ómpjv), Dioporus (Govijv, xov), and JosEPHUS (kaprróv).

IIpoBoMj in the VOFFCSDOROHAE sense is not quoted: one of its meanings is "bulwark", "protection", "pretext", and it seems possible that the Valentinians, using the word in the sense of "emission" (or better, "emanation"'), were not unconscious of the idea that the zons were a series of defences of the majesty of Bo)fos. Tertullian is right in hinting that the word has respectable

Christian authority: Justin used it in all good faith, and it was because of Valentinian misuse that Origen expressly rejected it.

Justin, dial. 61, ahd' ov Tovovrov omotov kai ed Hpav yuyvópevov paper ; Móyov yáp TLVO, mpoBáXXovres Méyov yevvapev, ov kar ümorouyv ws éAarroÜvat TOV €v 7p

Aóyov mpoBadddpevor: ibid. 62, "Let us make man", was not spoken to angels, GANG TobTo 76 TQ OvTL amo rof TAT pos mpoBdnGev yevvnpa po TAVTOV TOV TOoLnLaTwWY cvm

TQ Tarpi, kai ToUTQ Ó TaTNp mpocopaXev: ibid. 76, kai TÓ Mov TOUTOV eire dev XELpav rpm Üévra, € €v pvo opio TÓ avTo KeKpaye' TO yap avev Xetpav eUretv avTOv ékrerpija Üau, ore ovK éa rw. àvÜpórmwov épyov adda THS Bovdrs ToU mpoBaddovTos avrov Tarpós TOv OXcv Oeov.

"THEOPHILUS

does not use the word: IRENAEUS uses it only in describing gnostic tenets.

ATHENAGORAS appears at first sight to come near to it: suppl. 1o, Tpórov yévvupa . .. TO Tar pi, OUX ws yevopevov

. QÀÀà ws TOV UALKOY Evprdvtov ... Wéa Kat evépyea eva, mpoedOav: but here the reference is not to the generation of the Word, but to his coming forth to create the world: the question of generation does not arise, since €€ apyyns 6 00s .

. eixev avros €v éavrQ Tov Aóyov.

He uses the kindred idea, daroppowa, | of the procession of the Holy Spirit; bid. 1o, dytov TVEvLE. droppovav elvat papev Tov Oeo, daroppéeov

Kal éravadepopevov es ákriva. mriov: ibid. 24, vous Aóyos copia ó 6 viós TOU marpós, kai dmóppou. ws Pas amd TUPOS

TO mveUpa.

Athenagoras thus applies to the Holy Spirit the scriptural image of light from light, which in the first instance appertains to the Son.

ORIGEN deprecates both the word TpoBaddew and the speculations of those who use it: de princ. i. 2. 6, observandum namque est ne quis incurrat in illas absurdas i

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

fabulas eorum qui prolationes quasdam sibi ipsi depingunt .

. magis ergo sicut voluntas procedit e mente et neque partem. aliquam mentis secat neque ab ea separatur aut dividitur, tali quadam specie putandus est pater filium genuisse: ibid. iv. Rees epi Tar pos

T ddiaiperos a àv Kal , üpépur ros viod ylyveras Tarnp, ov. mpoBarav | auTOV as olovrat Twes: ei yap mpoBdnpa éaTw

Ó vios ToU TAT pos Kai yévvmpa. yeyevvmpévov e£ avrov OTola TA TOV Gear yevvpara, avaykn o@pa evar TOV mpoBahovta kai Tov mpoBeBrAnpevov: and, a little later, ex invisibili et incorporeo deo verbum et sapientiam genitam. dicimus absque ulla corporali passione, velut si voluntas procedat e mente

. otros Or 6 vids €k ÜeNjparos TOU TaTpos eyevyOy.

Origen is objecting as much to anthropomorphism as to gnosticism, and apparently rejects yevvay as well as mpof8áAXew: but -€x Oejparos would exclude the Valentinian theory of an involuntary self-development or self-articulation of the divine being.

Cf. NovaTIAN, de trin. 15, si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo dicit: Ego ex deo prodii et veni; cum constet hominem a deo factum esse, non ex deo processisse?

'Tertullian, de anima, 34, translates mpoBody, in a gnostic sense, by iniectio:

Simon of Samaria says that he is the most high Father, and that Helen, his companion, is his prima intectio.

Non ideo utitur, etc.

Read utitur for the MSS. utatur: a statement of what Christian usage is is more to the point here than an injunction as to what one desires it to be: utatur (Kroymann's conjecture) et the end of the sentence, as well as being grammatically correct, may be what Tertullian wrote.

Res vocabuli is the fact which the word signifies, in this case the derivation of the Son from the substance of the Father.

Heretical misunderstanding does not cause the Truth to repudiate this fact but to distinguish the true from the false interpretation of it. The falsehood of gnosticism is not in using the word and the fact of 7 poBoXj, but in supposing that ró TpofAnÜcv is separate from and ignorant of its apy.

Census vocabuli is the word's origin and antecedents: see Oehler's index, where census is equated with origo, natura: "nam in censuales libros referebantur cuiusque parentes atque natales, cf. adv. Marc. iv. 7 " : ad nat. i. 12, omne omnino genus censum ad originem refert.

See the note on $ 5. The word mpo/8o)j is of

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

quite respectable origin, and remains respectable in spite of heretical misuse.

Iam nunc quaeritur, etc.

Delete Oehler's note of interrogation: a statement of fact is more to the point than a remonstrative question.

Valentinus.

| On the Valentinian theology see adv. Val. 14, 15: possibly a sentence or so of summary has dropped out after nesciat: denique seems to mark the last clause of a series, and reliquam needs an antecedent.

Apud nos autem, etc.

This sentence is a cento of adapted scriptural phrases: Matt. 11.

27 (Luke ro. 22), ovOeis €muywdoKer Tov viv ei uz) 6 TaTHp, ovde TOV maTÉpa Tis ETLYWOOKEL ei jr] Ó vios, kré.: John

I. I8, 6 àv eis TOY KOATOV ToU maTpós, éketvos é&yysjaaro, where Tertullian takes the object of é£wywoaro to be tov

Koop (as also § 21, hic unicus sinum patris disseruit, non sinum suum pater: cf. Novatian, de trin. 18, qui sinum exposuit. patris: ibid. 28, cum nondum sinum patris Christus exposuisset: Hippolytus, c. Noet. 5, uóvos 6 mais kai TéAew s avOpwiros kai povos unynodpevos THY [BovXiv ToU 7arpós, quoting John 1. 18):

John 8. 26, Kaya à yKovoa map avroU (apud patrem, as though the Greek were wap avro) raUTra dada, conflated with 8. 38, à éyw éópaka Tapa ro Tarpií, hadw: John

14. 31, KaOas évere(laró por 6 TaTYHp, ovro Toi, conflated with 8. 28, kaÜàs edidaéé pe 6 TaTHp, TavTa dada:

John 6, 38, ovy iva wow) 7d OéXnpa TO Epdv, adda TO ÜéXnua tov éppavtds pe.

Immo de initio: Kroymann conjectures de intimo, which is plausible; but possibly de initio noverat is a reminiscence of 1 John 2. 13, ote €yvokare TOV amr apX7s.

Quis enim scit, etc.

This misquotation of 1 Cor. 2. 11 occurs again in § 19 and adv. Hermog. 18.

'Tertullian transfers 75 év avrQ from the spirit of man to the Spirit of God, and proceeds to interpret the apostle's words as referring to the Son: there are indications that his Montanism led him to think that the Paraclete was not Q

"TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

operating until the rise of the prophetic movement, and that consequently all apostolic references to the Spirit (other than promises of future operation) must be interpreted of the Son: see anoteon$2. For the identification of Spirit and Word see Justin, apol. i. 33 (quoted on § 2) TATIAN, orat. 7 Móyos yàp. o érovpávtos, Tveüp.a, yeyovós ard TOV TATPOS kai Móyos €K TS

Xoyucijs wápeos: ibid. 20, (ot Tpopyrar> TETELT EVOL OTe TVEDHA TO ovpavioy erevdupa THs OvnTdTHTOS KEKTHO ETAL.

On the former passage Otto quotes a note by Daniel: Offenbar ist hier mvevpa generische Bezeichnung eines geistigen Wesens: es bezeichnet das Princip des hervorgegangen hoyos. This remark is not true of the second passage quoted; but it is what Tertullian means here by sermonis corpus est spiritus.

Aut alius a patre.

Perhaps read aliud.

C. H. Turner suggests alienus, quoting passages where it is said that the Son is alus a patre, and referring to nihil . .

. alienatur later in this chapter.

Prolatum . . . sed non separatum.

Justin, dial. 61, o Kar' dmorojwjv: ibid. 128, ob Kat' àmoAN €

rg ^ ^ * > , TOjT)v WS VR gon prae THS TOU marpós obcías: TATIAN, ordi. 5, yéyove € karà pepua póv,, ov KaTa &mokomjrTO yap amotunbev ToD mpwrtov kexópua rat, To O€ epi Bev oixovopias THY aiperw mpoohaBov ovx evdea Tov ocv elthnatat Temoinkev.

See the note on Aóyos, § 5.

Quemadmodum etiam paracletus docet.

See the note on ut instructiores per paracletum, § 2 and the Introduction, p. 81. Of the three similes here expounded, that of the sun and its radiance has a scriptural background in Heb. 1. 3, amravyaopa THs Sdéns: that of the fountain and the stream is scriptural as applied to the Holy Spirit (John 7. 38, 39, worapot

€k THS koilías av'Tov pevoovow VOaros Lüvros, kré. cf.

Apoc. 22. 1), but as applied to the generation of the Word it seems to be new: that of the tree and the branch seems also to be new and may be due to the new prophecy.

Justin, dial. 61 and 128, and TATIAN, orat. 5, give as an illustration fire lighted from fire without loss to the parent fire, an illustration only valid if fire is regarded as an element in itself.

Dionysius ALEXANDRINUS (Routh, R.S., vol. iii. pp. 390 sqq.), àma yao a

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

0€ dv dwrüs didiov, mávros kai abrós diSios éorw, kré. and (ibid. p. 398), (e) ex (ijs éyevvijfg, kai domep moraHOS dmó mHYNS Eppevoe, kai avd wos do Séorov apmpov pos avypOy.

[ATHANASIUS] orat. c. Arian. iv. 10, éorw 8€ Tapaderypa àvÜpcmwov, to mip kai rd éf adrod ám. avyacpa, Ojo pév TH elvar kai paca, tv 86 vg éÉ ajroU kai dóua(perov eiva, 70 üravyaapa, abro).

Quia omnis origo, etc.

The terms parent and offspring can be used in an extended sense of all originals and of that which proceeds from them: even more so does this apply to God and his Word, the Word who has in its exact sense (proprie) received the name of Son.

Nam et radix, etc.

Res, species, formae, are not quite synonymous: see the Introduction, p. 57.

Coniunctae, indivisae, cohaerentes are apparently insignificant variations of the same idea.

Tertius enim est.

See the note on $ 3, secundum et tertium sortitis locum.

Nihil tamen a matrice alienatur.

The subject of the sentence is spiritus, and nihil is an adverbial accusative.

If nihil be taken as the subject, the statement is too general to be true.

On matrix see apol. 21, quoted in the Introduction, p. 59: evidently the original physiological meaning is almost or entirely out of mind.

IX. The inseparability of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is to be kept in mind as a standing background of all that I shall proceed to say.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are other than one another—I make this statement in spite of the objections of the unlearned or the opinionated, who pay respect to the word

* monarchy" at the expense of the economy—other however not by dissimilarity but by individuality, not by division but by differentiation: for the Father is not the same as the Son, there being even a numerical difference between them.

The Father is the whole substance (of the Godhead»; the Son is an outflow and apportionment of the whole: for the Father is greater than the Son, as holy

Scripture testifies.

Our Lord himself uses this word "other" in

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

reference to the Holy Spirit, with no suggestion of division but only of distribution: we are using it in reference to the Father and the Son.

The very words "Father" and "Son"? indicate a difference: the names cannot be confused, for the facts behind the names are not confused, since Yea is Yea, and Nay is Nay, and anything more ts on the side of evil.

Quid quomodo dicatur, * what I say, and the meaning I attach to it."

Alium esse patrem, etc.

In view of this it is practically certain that in § 8, nunquam separatus a patre aut alius a patre, aliud should be read: and clearly (8 9 infra) quia non sit idem pater et filius, idem is masculine gender.

Male accepit .

. adulantes.

Kroymann rightly makes these clauses parenthetical, so that non tamen .

. alius ab alio depends directly upon dico alium esse, etc.

Delete Oehler's comma after protendat.

Diversitas is used by Tertullian to indicate a fundamental unlikeness: ad nat. i. 20, si nihil inter nos (sc. Christians and pagans) diversitas habet, si unum et eidem sumus: adv. Marc. i. 20 (and frequently elsewhere), diversa pars means "the opposite party", "my opponents".

Possibly "dissimilarity" is a sufficient translation, but "opposition" would not be too strong.

Distributio appears to mean an assignment, or allocation, of functions (and so forth) among persons fundamentally alike: ad nat. i. 19, sed et philosophi de animarum reciprocatione et iudicii distributione confirmant, "concerning the return of souls to their bodies and concerning the administration of judgement".

It is more or less synonymous with otxovopia, dispensatio: see below on dispositio.

Divisio.

See the note on $ 8, prolatum .

. sed non separatum.

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

Distinctio.

Possibly a colourless word indicating a difference which the writer is not prepared to define accurately.

Quia non sit idem, etc.

Idem is masculine gender: et stands for atque.

Vel modulo alius ab alio: Kroymann adds alii, which is what Tertullian means, though the addition of the word to the text is unnecessary.

Modulus can mean the abacus, and so indicate numerical reckoning: cf. apol. 21, ita et de spiritu spiritus et de deo deus modulo alternum numerum gradu non statu fecit et a matrice non recessit sed excessit, "brought about duality in reckoning": on which passage

Oehler quotes Rigaltius, itaque modus et modulus est certarum rerum secundum sui generis rationes dispositio, ordinatio, oeconomia, which seems like an attempt to gloze over the fact that elsewhere

Tertullian does say that in some sense the Father is "greater"

(if only in the sense of metaphysically "elder") than the Son: see the following note, and cf. § 14 et consequens erit ut invisibilem patrem intellegamus pro plenitudine maiestatis, visibilem vero filium agnoscamus pro modulo derivationis.

'The present sentence, vel modulo alius ab alio, is too concise for perfect clarity, though apparently what Tertullian means is siquidem vel modulo sint alius ab alio alii, and whether modulo means "by reckoning" or * by measure" is not yet clear: cf. de anima, 37, ceterum animam substantia crescere negandum est, ne etiam decrescere substantia dicatur atque ita defectura credatur: sed vis eius, in qua naturalia peculia consita retinentur, salvo substantiae modulo quo a principio inflata est, paulatim cum carne producitur: from which it would appear that, as substances are incapable of increase or decrease, since Father and Son are one substance there can be no difference of magnitude between them, and modulo will mean "by numerical reckoning".

Derivatio totius et portio.

Cf. apol. 21, et cum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa: sed sol erit in radio quia solis est radius, nec separatur substantia sed extenditur (the substance is not divided but extended"): ita et de spiritu spiritus et de deo deus ut lumen de lumine accensum: manet integra et indefecta materiae matrix etsi plures inde traduces qualitatis mutueris. ita et quod de deo profectum est deus est et dei filius, et

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

unus (sc. deus) ambo.

Derivare in its literal sense is to draw water (or intransitively for water to pass) from a main stream into a side channel: and here the meaning seems to be that there is a "derivation"? of the whole substance of the Deity into the Son, the whole substance remaining unimpaired in the Father: cf. de pud. 21, si quia dixerit Petro dominus, Super hanc petram, etc., idcirco praesumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem

. Qualis es, evertens atque commutans manifestam domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem?

'The Roman bishop's claim appears to have been that the whole authority committed to Peter had passed down the stream to the apostle's successor for the time being.

So it is tempting to suggest that portio does not mean "part" but "endowment" (as by inheritance), and that portio totius means that the Son "inherits"', or is endowed with, the whole substance of deity, which yet remains entire in the Father: and so also at $ 26, dicens autem, Spiritus dei, etsi spiritus dei (leg. deus), tamen non directo deum nominans portionem totius intellegi voluit quae cessura erat in filii nomen, "an endowment of the whole, which was to fall to the Son's account".

Cf. JUVENAL,

ix. 128, brevissima vitae portio " our brief allowance of life". In that case the description of Domitian as portio Neronis de crudelitate

(apol. 5) would not mean that he was less ruthless than Nero, but that he, so to speak, inherited Nero's character: but Eusebius,

H.E. iii. 20, translates wépos àv THs TOU Népwvos ópórwqTos, and Tertullian, adding the remark, sed qua et homo facile coeptum repressit, seems to indicate that the later Emperor was less confirmed in (if not less well endowed with) ferocity than the earlier.

Also it must be added that in the third century portio seems to be regularly used as equivalent to pars: e.g. NOVATIAN, de frin. 11, quoniam nec tenebit perfectam veritatem quisquis aliquam veritatis excluserit portionem. On the other hand Tertullian, de res. carn. 16, remarking that the flesh is the servant of the soul, not its tool, adds, ita et ministerium tenebitur iudicio, etsi de suo nihil sapiat, quia portio est eius quae sapit, non ministerium: on which it is to be observed that as the body is on no showing part of the soul, portio cannot mean "part", but yet means something intrinsically connected, something between " part" and " possession "—perhaps

*purtenance". On the whole then it seems that in his description of the Son as derivatio totius et portio, Tertullian is acknowledging, even pressing the acknowledgement of, a certain difference of

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

magnitude such as (fortified by the texts which he quotes) safeguards the non-identity of Father and Son: while on the other hand he is trying to keep the question of magnitude as much as possible in the background (qualifying portio with totius, a descriptive, not a partitive, genitive), so as not to suggest an inferior grade of deity, or the exhaustion of the source by the procession of the stream.

And it would appear likely that while the suggestion of minoration was forced upon him by controversy, the safeguarding of equality was a requirement of the received tradition.

Pater maior me est.

John 14. 28, quoted again $ 14, non enim et de aliqua maiore persona congruit dicere, Facies mea est ille homo, et, Faciem mihi praestat? Pater, inquit, maior me est.

[The mark of interrogation, omitted by Oehler, is necessary after praestat: the Son, says Tertullian, is spiritus personae patris, and persona is equivalent to facies, and therefore the Father is greater than the Son, and they are two Persons and not one.] IRENAEUS, haer. ii. 43. 3, uses the text to show that there is not, as the gnostics allege, another god greater than the Father: Why, he asks, does our Lord say that the Father alone knows the day and the hour? . . . ut discamus per ipsum super omnia esse patrem. etenim Pater, inquit, maior me est. et secundum agnitionem itaque praepositus esse pater annuntiatus est a domino nostro, ad hoc ut et nos in quantum in figura huius mundi sumus perfectam scientiam et tales quaestiones concedamus deo, et ne forte quaerentes altitudinem patris investigare in tantum periculum incidamus uti quaeramus an super deum alter sit deus.

ORIGEN, de princ. iv. 4. 8, adds a superiority of the Father's knowledge to a general superiority: the passage is omitted by Rufinus but quoted by Jerome and Justinian: ei Ó6 6 warip eumepréxer

Ta TavTa, TOv O€ mávrov écTiv 6 vids, ÓgAov OTL kai TOV vidv. dAÀXos S€ tis (yrjaec ei adnOes TO Gpoiws Tov Ücóv bd' éavtod ywooker Oar TQ ywooKer bar avTov Vmó ToU p.ovoyevoUs, Kal amopavetrat OTL TO eipyuevov, 'O maryp pov 6 Tépjas pe peilwy pov eotiv, ev waow adnes:

@oTe kai év TO voeiv Ó TaTHp peóves Kal TpavoTépws kai reAevorépes voetrar Up' éavroU 7 UTd ToU viov.

Later custom interpreted the text of Christ's human nature—minor patre secundum humanitatem: EusEBIUS, de eccl. theol. ii. 7 (p. ,

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

110 b, c), demurs to an early suggestion to that effect, and (like Tertullian) points out that inequality implies duality: àv dv amavrwy érepov éavróv ToU maTpos SeiKvuTaL.

Kal TO jmepéxov THs Sdéns ToU TaTpds mapíaTQcu Sia TOU TOV pev ameotadkevar Aéyew, éavróv O6 amweoradOa, kai ék

Tov ovpavod kareNQAvÜéva, ovx iva oujom TO ÜéNqpua 7d éavroU adha TO ToU TéupavTos avróv.

Kai Ti àv ps tavta gain Madpkeddos, akovwr tov kareNgAvÜóros é£ ovpavov raUra OwdoKorvTos ; od yap Oxmov Kal v)v' THY cápka TOU GwTHpos TavTa áckew epet. ov yàp 7) cape €K TOU ovpavoU KaTehyAvOe.

Minoratus . .

. modicum quid citra angelos.

Ps. 8. 5, quoted Heb. 2. 5-10, where the argument is (a) that according to the psalmist mankind in general, and Jesus among them, are a little lower than the angels, and (5) that Jesus, and mankind with him, is on account of the suffering of death (d.a To wdOypa) and by means of sufferings (&uà maÜnpudrov) crowned with glory and honour.

Tertullian quotes the text again, $ 16, where he says that the minoration of the Son consisted of those anticipations of the Incarnation, the appearances to the patriarchs, things which we believe true of the Son only because they are written, and possibly should not believe true of the Father even though they were written: cf. adv. Marc. ii. 27, to the same effect. Again, § 23, he refers it to the Incarnation itself: minoravit filium modico citra angelos ad terram dimittendo, gloria tamen et honore coronaturus eum in caelos resumendo.

Adv. Marc.iv.21: the real (as opposed to the Marcionist) Christ has never been ashamed to demean himself pro suo homine, pro imagine et similitudine sua, non aliena: so also adv. Iud. 14: de carne Christi, 15, adding, and so he was not ashamed to take to him our corruptible flesh: ibid. 14, reading minuisti and emphasising citra angelos, by which he refutes the suggestion that the Son took upon him the nature of angels.

De corona, 14, the martyrs, like Christ, will reach glory through suffering: nec ante rex gloriae in caelestibus salutatus est quam rex ludaeorum proscriptus cruci, minoratus primo a patre modico quid citra angelos et ita gloria et honore coronatus.

'The present passage therefore stands alone in regarding the minoration as the subordination of the Son to the Father within the Godhead.

"l'ATIAN, orat. 15 (p. 154 d), misquotes the verse, xarà Tov evmóvra

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

Aóyov, "Eme? Bpayd rw mapa dy yéovs AarroÜnaav, in describing the condition of mankind pera r7v THs àÜavaoías amofoXjv.

Bene quod.

Oehler, note to de idol. 5, gives examples of this expression from Tertullian:

Mayor, note to apol. 7, gives references to other authors.

In APPULEIUS it appears to mean "it is a good thing that ...''; in Tertullian, in the passages cited, it means "it suits my case that". Dispositio is equivalent to oikovopía below, and the contrast with divisio illustrates the meaning of distributio and distinctio above: cf. note on $ 2.

Propter oeconomiae observationem, "so as to respect the economy".

Cf. de corona, 2, where observare (several times) is to keep a rule, and observatio is a rule or custom which ought to be kept: ergo nec nullum nec incertum videri potest delictum quod committitur in observationem suo iam nomine vindicandam et satis auctoratam consensus patrocinio.

Ipsum quod pater et filius dicuntur.

"The very fact that Scripture uses the terms Father and Son."

Diversity of terms implies diversity of facts: the admission here of diversitas rerum quarum erunt vocabula in a sense goes back on non diversitate alium .

. sed distributione earlier in this chapter, and goes to suggest that the balanced phrases of the earlier passage are rhetorical rather than accurately thought out: Tertullian perhaps would not object to diversitas provided it is not thought to involve separatio or divisio.

Quod amplius est hoc.

Correct Oehler's punctuation, placing the comma after hoc:

Matt. 5. 37, To 0€ qepuoaóv rovrov.

Cf. de carne Christi, 23, Lux lux et tenebrae tenebrae et est est et non non: quod amplius hoc a malo est. x. The monarchians, ignoring this distinction, allege that the Father made himself his own son.

But father and son are correlatives, and each implies the existence of the other.

This is one of those laws of nature which God ordained, and which God himself keeps.

To be a father a man must have a son, and to be a son he.must have a

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

father.

To have is not the same thing as to be. Whichever of these I am, that I have not: if I am both at once, I am neither, since I have neither.

Consequently this affectation of respecting the monarchy denies both the Father and the Son.

But, they say, God can do anything, and can have made himself both father and son, without. regard to our human relationships: the miracles of the nativity of john and of our Lord prove it. I admit that God can do anything: but we have no right to assume that he has done any particular thing unless we have proof that he did. He could have done all manner of things which he has evidently not done.

Which proves that there is something that God cannot do, namely, what it was not his will to do: for with God to will is to be able.

Therefore, to prove that God could have made himself his own son, and that it was his will to do so, you ill first need to prove that he did so.

This chapter makes the transition from Tertullian's general statement of his own position to his particular discussion of the scriptural texts alleged by his adversaries in support of their case, and of those texts which he produces in proof of his.

Ita aut pater aut filius est, etc.

Kroymann reads, ut pater et filius est, "as there is a Father so there is a Son":

C. H. Turner suggests et pater et filius est, *there is both a Father and a Son": Engelbrecht conjectured et ut neque dies, which Kroymann has printed in his text.

But the traditional text makes quite good sense, when it is observed that est refers back to the scriptural quotation est est.

Qui ex alterutro fiunt, "those whose existence depends on each other", i.e. those who are correlatives:

cf. DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS,

af. Routh, R.S. vol. iii. p. 391, OvTOS obv aiwviou Tob Tra pos aidveos 6 vids eau, pas ek purds av. ovTos yàp yovews €oT. Kal

TEKVOW" el de UR Tékvov eim, TOs kai Tivos eivat Svvarat yoveós; add' eigiv do, kai eioiy det: ibid. p. 392, kai yàp. avOpwreiav youn Tmapebeuny, Sov as ovcray Op.oyer, pyoas TdvTOS TOUS yoveis póvov érépovs elvat TÀV

Tékvav, ort py avro elev Ta Tékva, 1) pate yovels dvayKavov mdpxew pyre téxva.

He mentions m\elova tar Gvyycvàv ópovopara, e.g. the seed (or the root) and the plant, the fountain and the river, which are correlatives and (he

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

implies) in a sense ópioosaua.

[6podpuys is the vegetable equivalent, as ópoyevijs is the animate equivalent of ópoosaos.]

Ibid. p. 395, rov on €j.0U XexÜévrav óvoprav €kag' Tov à ópuaTóv eon Ka adiaiperov TOU mryoior marépa. eumov, Kal mp erayáyo TOV viàv eojpava Kat TOUTOV

€v TO mar pt: viov emyyayov" | el Kal pr T poeupy Kew Tv Tarépa, TávTOS dv év Tw viQ mpoeQayrro ..

. 0L O6 ovK (cagiv ote wire ám orpiorat Tatnp vio) j) maTp .TpoKaTapkruv yap éoT. TS dvvadeas TÓ Svopa. ouTe 6 vids dmpKirrar TOU TaTpós 7) yàp TaTnp poacwyopía Snot Tv kowovíay.

Sic etiam ut pater sim, etc.

In this sentence Kroymann twice reads habebo for habeo, presumably to regularise the tenses—for which there is no pressing need.

In the following sentence Oehler's punctuation should be corrected: and possibly the second ero should be deleted, or changed into vero.

Patrem .

. qui facit filium, "without whom no one can be a son", as below qui facit patrem,

* without whom no one can be a father": and cf. the corrected text of $ 7, exinde eum patrem sibi faciens.

Hoc erit totum ingenium diaboli, etc.

Totum is evidently attributive to zngenium, not defined by hoc: "this it is that all the devil's ingenuity will amount to", i.e. it will have logical consequences on which he did not reckon.

Alterum ex altero excludere: to suppress one or the other is the devil's ingenuity: to suppress each as a consequence of suppressing the other is all he gains by it. Dum neutrum haberi facit, "he suppresses 'having' in both cases", i.e. he causes neither the Father to have a son nor the Son to have a father, and consequently is driven by our logic to deny "being" in each case: dum enim pater est, etc., for in the case we are discussing

"father" and "son" are not only correlative terms but are mutually exclusive.

Impossibilia apud saeculum.

Matt. 19. 26, wapa ávÜpdrow rovro advvardv €or, Tapa 86 eG «ávra OÓvvará éor..

Stulta mundi elegit, 1 Cor.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

1. 27, rà. pwpa ToU kóo ov e€eheEato 6 Ücós iva, karaua xovg Tovs wogovs.

Adversus traditam formam rebus humanis, "in opposition to the traditional law imposed upon human affairs".

Traditam bears a double sense, "traditional in human affairs", which would have required rerum humanarum, and also "assigned to or imposed upon human affairs" (sc. by the Creator), which requires the dative.

Forma is equivalent to lex or institutum: or perhaps an architect's or surveyor's plan.

See the Introduction, p. 54.

Quasi fecerit.

The sentence might have read quidvis deum confingere poterimus fecisse, except that Tertullian wished to castigate such inventions as attacks on the veracity or integrity of God: so he writes de deo confingere, which requires the periphrasis quasi fecerit, and quidvis now serves a double purpose as the object of both confingere and fecerit.

Oportebat .

. esse et haereticos.

^ s \ e (o

v e 1 Cor. 11. 19, Set yap kai aipégews év )piv elvar iva oi Sdxyor $avepoi yévwvTar év viv.

Oportebat et patrem crucifigi ; unless this is a mere passing sarcasm, Tertullian's meaning is that even this patripassian heresy has its.uses, in that it causes the true doctrine to receive a new and more systematic presentation. x1. Such proof must be derived from the Scriptures.

In them God speaks of his Son, evidently meaning not himself, but the Word who came forth from him.

Our adversaries make out that God brought forth, or came forth, himself from himself.

The texts which refer to the generation of the Son cannot without manipulation be made to mean that.

If that was what God meant, why did he not say it?

By alleging that he said one thing and meant another our adversaries make him a liar. Evidently he who speaks is not the same person as he who is spoken of or he who is spoken to.

There are texts in which God speaks of or to his Son, by that name. Again there are others in which the Son speaks of or to the Father, i.e. Christ speaks of or to God. And again there are others in which the Holy Spirit speaks of the Father and the Son, or to the Father of the Son: there is no need

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

to quote all of them, but the few which we have quoted are sufficient to show a distinction constituting a trinity, for they specify each several Person as being himself and none other.

^ Of the five sets of texts quoted in this chapter, the first, concerning the generation of the Word, have already been cited in chapters 6, 7. The source of all the citations seems to be Justin, or possibly some collection of proof texts which may have been used by Justin. Those of the second set, in which the Father addresses the Son, have only been made to suit Tertullian's purpose by strained application and (in one case) by a misrepresentation of the Hebrew and the Greek.

Those of the third and fourth sets, in which the Son speaks of or to the Father, are introduced by Is. 61.

I, which our Lord himself interpreted as applying to himself (Luke 4. 18): the messianic character of some of the Psalms was universally acknowledged, by Jews as well as Christians, and here

Tertullian's citations would carry conviction.

In the fifth set, in which the Holy Spirit speaks of the Father and the Son or to the Father of the Son, there is an underlying assumption that the Holy Spirit is the speaker of the Old Testament prophecies, and that the prophets themselves are mere mouthpieces (hence per

Esaiam loquentem): this is contrary to the teaching of the New Testament, where Ps. 110. 1 is quoted by our Lord (Matt. 22. 43) as by David speaking in his own person, albeit under the influence of the Holy Spirit (Souter rightly prints év IIveupart).

Porro qui eundem, etc.

The text as printed by Oehler makes good sense:

"Further, you who identify the Father and the Son, make out that the same One both brought forth from himself a divine entity and proceeded forth from himself as that divine entity." Kroymann's repunctuation and slight verbal alteration (. .

. et prodiisse. quod deus etsi potuit fecisse non tamen fecit), at first sight attractive, breaks down on examination: the admission that God could have done something which he has not in fact done, is not one that Tertullian is prepared to make (see the conclusion of § 10): the bare suggestion (sz, not ets) is all he is able to allow.

Distincte .

. non divise.

A reference to § 9, nec divisione alium sed distinctione: so again,

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

§ 12, personae non substantiae nomine, ad distinctionem non ad divisionem.

Quem verebatur, etc.

Quem is the object of verebatur, not of pronuntiare: quem verebatur is grammatically equivalent to quid timebat and so governs

© the infinitive pronuntiare.

Unum tamen veritus est, etc.

The text as Oehler prints it will just make sense: but Turner's brilliant emendation ought almost certainly to be adopted: unum tamen veritus est, mentiri veritatis auctorem semet ipsum et suam veritatem.

Alii dabat filii personam.

Possibly here, and twice later in this chapter, persona has a dramatic sense, "assigned the role of the Son to another".

Deceptorem fidei huius : i.e. the faith implied by veracem deum credens, above.

Praescriptio nostra.

| See a note on $ 2. "Our standing claim that it is not possible for speaker and person spoken of and person spoken to to be regarded as one and the same."

Perversitas.

Cf. 8 9, perversus quisque.

Perversitas is such a misdirected insistence on one's own way as would (in the present case) lead to the use of language in a sense opposed to that in which it is commonly understood.

Ecce filius meus, etc.

Is. 42. 1: LXX reads, 'lakofó 6 vais pov, avTikypwopar avrov:

"Iopand 6 ékXekrós pov, mpooeO0éfaro avTov 7) Wyn pov: €dwKa TO veda pov én avTov, kpíaw Tots eOveow 退otce.

The Hebrew has nothing about Jacob and Israel, and in that respect Tertullian is more correct than Justin: but he is wrong in translating mats by filius (the Greek word will not naturally mean "son", and the Hebrew is "servant") and in putting dilectus for ékXekrós (the Greek of IRENAEUS, haer. iii.

2. 9, may have read ayamnrds: the Latin is Ecce filius meus dilectissimus in quo bene sensi). JusTIN, dial. 123, quotes the LXX with slight variants, remarking epi Tov xpua ToU Aéyav 6 eos

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

... lakof a)róv kaÀet xai "Iopayd: again, ibid. 135, he quotes LXX accurately, pointing out that the executing of judgement implies kingship, and as Jacob was not a king the prophecy must be taken as looking forward to Christ who is a king.

Magnum tibi est, etc.

Is. 49. 6: Tertullian is sufficiently close to LXX, except that again he reads filius meus for matda pov, and omits eis 8a.

Onxnv yévous which LXX interpolates before eis das éÜvóv.

Justin, dial. 121, quotes LXX with slight variations, emphasising eis das éÜvàv as marking the contrast between Christ's former coming in ignominy and his later coming in glory.

Spiritus domini super me, etc.

Is. 61. 1, Luke 4. 18. LXX has rots vroxois: so Tertullian, adv. Marc. iv. 14, reads pauperibus: hominibus here is possibly a slip. IRENAEUS, haer. iii. 18. 1, iv. 37. 1 (referring to Luke), iii.

19. 3, with the comment, significans et unguentem patrem et unctum filium et unctionem qui est spiritus.

, | Ne dereliqueris me.

Ps. 71. 18: Tertullian follows LXX.

De eodem : I suspect means "concerning the same Spirit", by that interpretation by which the "hands of the Lord" are taken to represent the Word and the Spirit. Engelbrecht's domine is ruled out by the fact that both the Hebrew and the Greek require deus: Kroymann rashly prints Dee domine, which is not Latin.

Domine, quid multiplicati, etc.

Ps. 3. 1: Tertullian follows LXX.

Psalmi qui Christi personam sustinent perhaps means "the psalms which sustain the role of Christ", and a little later, spiritum loquentem ex tertia persona possibly means "the Spirit speaking as a third interlocutor".

Oehler quite correctly points out that sustinere usually. means exfectare, sperare: so de anima, 56, ceterum quam vanum ut anima corporis tusta sustineat, quasi aliquid ex illis ad inferos avehat, "wait for the body's funeral rites": ibid., tempora constituta frustra mutilantur st iam impleri sustinentur (v.l. sustinent).

But the verb seems almost always to refer to irksome, not hopeful, waiting (as in the passages quoted): and once at least it has a present sense, de

'"TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

anima, 1, universi orbis iniquam. sententiam sustinens pro nomine veritatis, "bearing, suffering from, the unjust judgement of the whole world".

In our present passage, if sustinent means "expect", Christi personam wil have to mean "Christ himself" or "Christ in person"—an awkward turn of phrase: and loquentem ex tertia persona will be a grammatical term, "speaking in the third person".

For "sustain the role" cf. JUVENAL iii. 93, cum Thaida sustinet aut cum | uxorem comoedus agit vel Dorida.

Dixit dominus, etc.

J Ps. 110. 1: the latter part of the verse is quoted above, § 4, in connexion with 1 Cor. 15. 24 sqq.: the whole verse in § 13 and 30.

The first dominus represents mi, the second *sw: Tertullian could not be expected to know that, and once the psalm is accepted as messianic the difference does not affect his argument.

JUSTIN, dial. 32, interprets the psalm as a prophecy of the Ascension: ibid. 56, he uses it to show that besides the God and Father of all aAXos Tis KUptodoyetrar.

Ex tertia persona either goes with spiritum, " as a third interlocutor" or with de patre et filio, "in the third person".

There appears to be no parallel to Tertullian's suggestion that the Holy Spirit refers here to the Son as "my lord".

Haec dicit dominus, etc.

Is. 45. 1, where LXX, following the Hebrew, reads ovrws Aéyev KvUptos 0 Üeós ro xpwoTQ pov Kipw.

The text is quoted again with the same misreading in $ 28, and adv. Iud. 7 as a prophecy which the Jews must acknowledge to have been fulfilled in the conversion of the gentiles to Christianity.

Domine quis credidit, etc.

Is. 53. 1: Tertullian follows LXX, except in writing de illo stcut puerulus instead of ws maidvov évavr(ov avrov: neither of these represents the Hebrew. The chapter was apparently not reckoned by the Jews as messianic; but it was so reckoned by Christian teachers from the episode described in Acts 8. 32 and onwards, cf. Rom. 10. 16.

Justin frequently quotes it: see especially dial. 13.

Nec enim affectamus, etc.

The text as printed by Oehler could conceivably mean: "For I

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

make no pretence of ransacking the whole of the Scriptures, since (because in every single chapter I call into evidence their plenary majesty and authority) I have the advantage in argument in these discussions"; but the difficulty of the sentence must be admitted.

Kroymann's insertion of sunt before plenam and of a period after contestantes hardly makes things easier.

Maiorem congressum.

Congressus, congressio, are used for the debate or discussion, as at de carne Christi, 21, accedam adhuc cominus ad congressum, and maior congressus seems to mean "the advantage in debate".

Est enim ipse, etc.

This sentence evidently refers only to the fifth group of texts quoted: hence probably the whole passage from haec pauca to the third pronuntiat, must be taken as having that restricted reference.

Sic et cetera, etc.

\ The sentence as printed by Oehler will construe, but has no precise bearing either on the Scriptures in themselves or on the texts which Tertullian has quoted: for example, he cites no texts addressed to the Holy Spirit, and it is questionable whether there are any.

C. H. Turner suggests .

. quae nunc a patre de filio vel ad filium, nunc a filio de patre vel ad patrem, nunc a spiritu pronuntiantur, which (when once suggested) is unquestionably right, as closely corresponding to T'ertullian's five groups of texts.

Kroymann had already printed a spiritu.

"The present editor (before his attention was drawn to Turner's article) was disposed to suggest nunc ad patrem de filio vel a filio, nunc ad filium de patre vel a patre, nunc a spiritu.

Unamquamque personam, etc.

. Persona here (perhaps for the first time) appears in what afterwards became its standard theological meaning.

In sua proprietate, "in that which is specifically himself": we have to rid ourselves of the idea that proprietas necessarily implies ownership

—a meaning which is not found in authors earlier than Suetonius: the proprietas of each Person is not that which he specifically possesses but that which he specifically is: so $ 27, utramque substantiam in sua proprietate distantem, where there is no question of "properties" either physical or metaphysical, but of each

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

substance being referred to separately by St Paul as being itself and not the other.

See note on § 7. xi. Those who refuse to recognise the Trinity are unable to explain the plural locutions found in the Scriptures.

Such are, "Let us make man after our image and likeness"', " Adam is become as one of us".

Is it that God was speaking to the angels, as the Jews explain? or is it that being himself Father and Son and Holy Spirit, <as the monarchians allege), he was representing himself as plural? Rather it is that he was speaking to the Son and the Holy Spirit, the one who was to take manhood upon him, the other who was to sanctify man.

Moreover the narrative continues, ''God made man in the image of God", distinguishing between God who made man, and God in whose image he made him: for man is the image and likeness of the Son, who was to become the real and true Man. . Also in the preceding narrative the distinction ts found. At first, the Son not yet appearing, God said "Let there be light", and the light was made: for the Word is the true light, and mundane light (comes into existence) through him.

But, in what follows, the Word is present and operative: God speaks and God makes, that is, the Word makes, since by him all things were made: and inasmuch as "the Word was

God"', you have two, one commanding and another making. I have already explained that by " another" I imply a distinction of Persons, not a division of substance.

Yet though I maintain one substance in three inseparable «Persons», the text compels me to distinguish the one who gives the command from the one who carries it out: for if he had been (merely) one, he would not have waited for himself to command, but would have made things without a command.

The texts here discussed were habitually interpreted in the sense indicated by 'Tertullian:

Liddon, Bampton Lectures (4th ed.), pp. 48 sqq., gives a reference to Petavius, de trin, ii. 7. 6. 'TERTULLIAN, de res. carn. 6, commenting on Gen.r.

27: recogita totum illi (sc. limo) deum occupatum ac deditum, manu sensu opere consilio sapientia providentia, et ipsa imprimis adfectione quae liniamenta dictabat. quodcunque enim limus exprimebatur, Christus cogitabatur homo futurus: quod et limus et caro sermo quod et terra tunc. sic enim praefatio patris ad filium, Faciamus

1 The meaning here is far from clear, and the punctuation is doubtful : perhaps, '' for whatever expression the clay took upon it, the thought was of Christ who was to become man (which is clay), and of the Word to become flesh

~ (a thing which at that time was earth)".

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. et fecit hominem deus. id utique quod finxit, ad imaginem dei fecit illum, scilicet

Christi . .

. ita limus ille iam tunc imaginem induens Christi futuri in carne non tantum det opus erat sed et pignus. Elsewhere, contending for the unity of God and of the created world, he disregards the plural forms: adv. Hermog. 26, nobis autem unus deus et una est terra, quam in principio deus fecit. cuius ordinem incipiens scriptura decurrere primo factam eam edicit, dehinc qualitatem ipstus edisserit

. [quoting Gen. 1. 1, 1. 7, 1. 27, 2. 7] .

. et utique sic decet narrationem inire, primo praefari postea prosequi, nominare deinde describere, In writing the present passage he seems to have had in mind JusTIN (dial. 62), who, having quoted Prov. 8. 21-36. proceeds: Kal TOUTO avr, à $0 or, etre Kal dud Movotws

Ó TOU Beov Móyos, pnviev pw ov cOjhoce, Tov GOeov Aéyew ToUTQ avT@ TÓ vonpare émi THS moujceos ToU avOparrov, he yor Tavra.

Toujowpev dv Opwrrov suat mpácare Tv ynv kal KaraKupievoare GUTTS.Kal OTOS pa dXXa aovres TOUS _TpodeheypHevous | Adyous,\ éxewa héynre & oi SiddoKador 9 pev Myovaw, A 'ore pos EauTov eheyev 6 beds Moujowper, ómoiov Kal pets pedovres TL

TrOLELV 0M kis TpOs éavroUs héyopev Tloujowper, 1 ort Tpós Ta, OTOLXELA, TOUTEOTL TV Ynv kai Ta ahha. óp.olas é£ Ov vooUpev TOV ,dvÜporov yeyovévau, 0cóv eipkévau

(scribere debuit cos etprke) Ilouja oper, Móyovs Tous eiprpévovus vm avTov TOU Movaéos mad ioropyow Kj ov dvappuréxros mpos Twa Kal dpuo 6 ovTa. érepov Kat hoyeKOV bmdpxovra apidyKevat avrüv ETL vavat EXOMED. elo be oL Adyou oürov Kat eizev 6 Beds: 'IO0ov Ada yéyover ds els €€ 1) npav TOU ) yao Ke kaAóv Kat Tovnpov. oUkoUv elroy

'Os eis €€ Hpov, kai dpb pov TOV adArAous cvvóvrav kal TÓ Xx Tov Oo pepojvvkev.

Ov yap, ómep 7 Tap opiv AMeyopévm aipeois Soypatiler, painy av éyo adn bes elvat

) oL exes 89d o kaXot droderfau Svvavrat, OTe ayyéhous edeyev 7 ori Gy yékov Toinpa Tw TÓ Tope. To avOperetov: dÀAÀà TOTO

TO TQ OVTL

amo ToU TAT POs _mpoBhy bev yevynpa. po TAVTWY TOV TOLNLATwV oun TO TATpt Kal Tovro Ó TATIp Tpowopidel [referring again to Prov. 8, and quoting Josh. 5. 13-6. 2, concerning the apy.orparnyos kvptov].

IRENAEUS, haer. i. 18, says that Menander and Saturninus said that the angels said "Let us make man" to one another: ibid. i. 28. 3,

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

that the Ophites said that Ialdabaoth said it to the six powers.

His own exegesis agrees with Justin: zbid. iv. praef., homo est autem temperatio animae et carnis qui secundum similitudinem det formatus est et per manus eius plasmatus est, hoc est per filium et spiritum sanctum quibus et dixit Faciamus hominem: ibid. v. 1. 3,

. non enim effugit Adam manus dei ad quas pater loquens dicit Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram: ibid. v.

15. 4, idem ipse qui ab initio plasmavit Adam, cum quo et loquebatur pater, Faciamus hominem secundum | imaginem | et. similitudinem nostram, in the latter days formed clay from the earth and restored the eyes of the blind.

"l'ArrAN, fragm. 6. 7 (Otto, quoted from Clement of Alexandria and Origen), said that yevzÜ5ro das was evxTiKov, a prayer of the demiurge to the supreme god.

ORIGEN, comm. in Ioa. ii. 14, p. 67 (of course independently of Tertullian and perhaps of Justin), quotes Ps. 148. 5, Adros yap eure Kal éyevvij0noav, avrüs évereQkaro kai ékrío Pyaar, and comments, évere(Aaro yap 0 ayevvyntos eds TH mTpororóko

Taons KTicews Kal exticOnoay, ov póvov 6 kócopos kai TA €v avT@ GANA Kal TA Novrà TavTa, eire Üpóvow eire

KupLoTntes eire üpxai eire CLovoia mavTa yap ou avrov Kal eis avTOv ExTLoTaL kai avTds é€oTL mpO TavTw@v (Col.

16).

The letter of the ANTIOCHENE. SvNoD to Paul of Samosata (Routh, R.S., vol. iii. p. 292) shows acquaintance with both Tertullian and Origen: quoting Ps. 148. 5, they say, ó de evTehhomevos érépo evTéhdeTar TW Ov ovk dAÀXov TeETELopela 3) TOV povoyern vidv Tov coU Üeóv, à Kal ere

Homoope avOpwmrov kat eikóva, kai Kal? dpolwow Amerépav: then follow the usual references to John 1. 3: Col. 1. 16:

Prov. 8. 30: Gen.

18. 1 (one of the three who appeared to Abraham): Gen. 19. 24 (fire and brimstone from the Lord): with the remark that God who appeared to the patriarchs is called sometimes angel, sometimes Lord, sometimes God, and Tóv pev yap Ücóv Tov óNov aveBes ayyedov vepioat kaXeta Oat.

HiLaRY oF Poitiers, de trin. iv. 16 sqq. and tract. in psalm. cxlviii. 4, repeats the same texts with similar comments.

What may be the real significance of the plural Faciamus it is not easy to say. 'Those who describe it, and the plural Elohim, as a relic of primitive polytheism have not explained how such a relic occurs in the last and most uncompromisingly monotheistic

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

stratum of the Old Testament, the exilic or post-exilic priestly document.

Aut numquid angelis loquebatur ?

JusriN (loc. cit.) mentions, only to reject, this suggestion: the present parallel should be added to Otto's note rejecting Thirlbey's emendation zap piv.

Maranus (in the note quoted by Otto) gives no actual instance of Jewish teachers offering this explanation.

Cf. NOVATIAN, de trin. 17, aut numquid angelum cum angelis dicit descendentem et dicentem, Venite et mox descendamus, etc.2: ibid. 22, sed nec in angelis formam dei legimus.

Spiritus in sermone.

Tertullian perhaps means the same as ORIGEN, comm. in Ioa. ii. 10, Kal Taxa. aUTN éa Tiv 1) AiTLa TOU i1) kai ATO (SC. TO dy Lov aan viov ypnpatile Tov Jeov, póvov TOU povoyevoUs ae viov &pxT)Üev TUYXAVOVTOS. ov 5 xpycew EOLKE TO dywov TED Ótakovotvros avToU TN VTOTTACEL, ov póvov eis TO €ivau àÀÀà kai copov elvan kai hoyuKov Kat SiKaLov kai

Tay OTUTOTOUY xpT7) avTd voeiv Tvyyávew KkaTü.geroxv TOV Tpoewpmuévov vjpiv XpwToU Emwo.avy.

Quasi cum ministris et arbitris, *as with confidential agents".

Cf. below, Christo assistente et ministrante.

Deus hominem, etc.

Pamelius restored the scriptural text, (Et fecit» deus hominem, ad imaginem dei fecit illum: there is no pressing need for the restoration in this case, but (as is shown by the necessity of supplying virga directionis in the next chapter) the manuscripts are not faultless in this respect, and the missing words are best restored.

Erat autem ad cuius imaginem, etc.

*But there was one in whose image he was making him, the Son in fact, who because he was to be the truer and more veritable

Man, caused to be described as his image the man who at the creation had to be formed of clay, and was the image and similitude of the true." — Excidit sibi Septimius.

In what follows he says that God who spake is the Father, and God who made is the Son: in that case God who made man will be the Son and ad zmaginem

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

dei should mean not the Son's image but the Father's.

Imago vert et similitudo is a recollection of Heb. 1. 3 and g. 24 in view of Gen. 1. 26: according to Tertullian, de bapt. 5, imago in effigie, similitudo in aeternitate censetur.

Ipse statim sermo, etc.

There is no question here of the Word coming into existence when God said, "Let there be light".

Tertullian only says that the Word was not yet made manifest, nondum apparente: but the Word himself is statzm, without preamble or without intermediary, the true Light, and consequently when God says "Let there be light", the mundialis lux comes into existence through him.

Kroymann has rashly altered the text, against all the MS. evidence, and against the requirements of sound theology.

Tertullian, contrary to frequent custom, reads venientem, i.e. makes épxóp.evov in John 1. 9 agree with avOpw7ov.

Ceterum <etsi> ubique teneo.

Teneo and teneam have equal MS. authority. ets? was added by Rigaltius.

Oehler, reading ceterum ubique teneam, remarks that it it not unknown for Tertullian to omit the concessive conjunction and put the verb in the subjunctive: but he gives no examples.

Nam nec iuberet, etc.

It is difficult to make sense of these two sentences as Oehler prints them, and Kroymann's alteration hardly helps.

The difficulty lies in dum zuberet fieri per eum and in aut sine iussu, where sed is required to balance haud.

I should suggest reading, nam nec iuberet si ipse faceret dum iuberet fieri: per eum tamen iubebat, aut sibi iussurus si unus esset, aut sine iussu facturus, quia non expectasset ut sibi iuberet.

"For neither would he be commanding if himself were the maker when he commanded things to be made: yet he did command (them to be made» by him, though if he had been alone he would either have commanded himself or would have made them without a command, since he would not have waited to command himself."

The objection to this is that the second aut should have been vel potius.

Most of the difficulty would vanish if we could omit dum iuberet fieri per eum. xil. These and other texts where the titles God and Lord are in the same context applied to two Persons are not by us taken to mean

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

that there are two Gods or two Lords, They cannot however be disregarded, but must be taken as meaning what they say.

Those who deny that the titles are rightly applied to our Lord should recollect that in two places the designation "gods" is applied to men who by faith have become sons of God: a fortiori it can be applied to the only Son of God.

The plural expressions are a safeguard against the idea that it was the Father who was born and who died.

The Old :

Testament used the titles God and Lord of two Persons, with the intention that when Christ came they should not be denied to him, and that it should not be supposed that it was the Father himself

. who came down from heaven.

When Christ did come, the meaning of those indications of the Trinity was made clear, and the Father himself was made more fully manifest.

Christians however, with the purpose of discountenancing the polytheism of the gentiles, do not use the titles in the plural: else they would put out their candle and would weaken their courage against persecution.

Consequently, if the Father and the Son are mentioned together the Father is called God and Jesus Christ is called the Lord; though, by the apostle's authority,

Christ by himself can be called God, even as the sun's ray is called sun (though the sun is not called the ray). For the sun and the ray are two aspects of one undivided substance, as also God and his Word are two, yet of one substance.

Once more Tertullian is largely, though not entirely, quoting texts already collected by Justin and Irenaeus.

JusTIN, dial. 42, cites Is. 53. 1, not like Tertullian (§ 11) as spoken by the Holy

Spirit, but ós dmó mpoowmov Tov dmoaTÓXov Aeyóvrov TQ XplaT@ OTL obxi TH Qkoy avTOv TicTeVovcw dà TH avTov TOU TÉjjavros a)TOUs Ovvdpev: ibid. 56, maintaining that he who appeared to the patriarchs érepós €otu ToU Ta vávra vovjcavros Üco), he takes the rain of fire and brimstone as his main argument, and adds, as further proof that Tapa TOY voojpevov movr?v TOv OXev GAXos Tts kvpiooyevra, bd ToU ayiov mvevparos, Ps. 110. 1 and Ps. 45. 6, 7.

IRENAEUS, haer. iii. 6. 1, has (with one exception) all the texts quoted by Tertullian: meque igitur dominus neque spiritus sanctus neque apostoli eum qui non esset deus definitive et absolute deum nominassent aliquando nisi esset vere deus: neque dominum appellassent aliquem ex sua persona nisi qui dominatur omnium deum patrem et filium eius qui dominium accepit a patre suo omnis conditionis, quemadmodum habet

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

illud, Dixit dominus, etc.: patrem enim filio collocutum ostendit qui dedit ei haereditatem gentium et subiecit ei omnes inimicos. vere igitur cum pater sit dominus et filius vere sit dominus merito spiritus sanctus domini appellatione signavit eos. et iterum in eversione sodomttarum scriptura ait, Et pluit dominus, etc.: filium enim his significat,

— qui et Abrahae collocutus sit, a patre accepisse potestatem iudicandi sodomitas propter iniquitatem eorum. — similiter habet illud, Sedes tua deus, etc.: utrosque enim dei appellatione signavit. spiritus, et eum qui ungitur filium. et eum qui ungit, id est patrem. et iterum, Deus stetit, etc., de patre et filio et de his qui adoptionem perceperunt dicit: hi autem sunt ecclesia. haec enim est synagoga dei, quam deus, hoc est filius ipse, per semetipsum collegit. de quo iterum dicit, Deus deorum, etc. quis deus? de quo dixit, Deus manifeste veniet, deus noster, et non silebit: hoc est filius, qui secundum manifestationem hominibus advenit, qui dicit, Palam apparui his qui me non quaerunt. quorum autem deorum? quibus dicit, Ego dixi, etc., his scilicet qui adoptionis gratiam adepti sunt per quam clamamus Abba pater.

'lertullian's own contribution to the discussion is confined to the texts Is. 45. 14 and 53. 1.

There is at first a certain irony in the suggestion that he will help his adversaries by producing further texts in support of their objection that he is a dualist: but Tertullian proceeds to be carried away by his own phantasy, so as to suggest that the Old Testament is deliberately dualist, and that it is only at the coming of Christ that strict monotheism makes its appearance.

'l'he statement that in Christian practice the Father is addressed as God and Jesus

Christ as Lord is supported in general by the ancient liturgies.

Puta interim, i.e. (1) until I am able to explain that the Old Testament of set purpose has these dualistic expressions, so that there may be scriptural support for the Christian statement that Christ is God, yet is not identical with the Father, and (2) until I am able to point out that, the purpose of these dualistic expressions being fulfilled, the New 'l'estament uses strictly monotheistic language.

Thronus tuus, deus, etc.

The primary authority for the application of this text to our Lord is Heb. 1. 8, 9. Westcott (ad loc.) claims that the best rendering is "God is thy throne": to which one can only reply that in that case it is strange that none of the ancient fathers, who

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

presumably were fairly expert in the Greek language, had even a suspicion that 6 Oeós is anything but a vocative.

In classical Greek the article with the nominative, when used for the vocative, is somewhat peremptory or somewhat contemptuous: in Coptic the article is regularly used with the vocative, and the Alexandrian translators were possibly influenced by the vernacular usage.

Also "God is thy throne" goes too far: if God is the Son's throne, then the Son is greater than God, which is rather more than the apostolic writer means to prove.

Virga directionis has to be restored, as Kroymann remarks.

St ad deum loquitur, etc.

The text as printed seems the simplest restoration, involving only a slight variation from the MS. authorities, i.e. affirmat et for affirmat sed (Kroymann).

Pro virga regni tui presents more difficulty: it is not easy to make sense of it, and possibly the four words are the misplaced relic of a marginal note bearing on the need to insert virga directionis above.

Esaias ad personam Christi.

Persona once more is used in almost a dramatic sense: Christ is, so to speak, one of the interlocutors in a dialogue, in this instance the person addressed.

'The quotation, from Is. 45, 14, consists of selected phrases: the complete Greek text is, [Ovrws héyer KUpios caBadd, "Ekomíacev AvyvmTOs kai étropia

Aifidrrwv, kai] ot YaBaeip, avdpes vuoi, eri oe diahycorra, [kat coi exovTat GoUAot] Kal Ómíoc cov axodovbycovow OcOeuévou xewpoméOaus [kai dia Byjoovrar mpds oe]

Kal mpooKvyyocovat cou [kal év aoi mpooevEovTat] ort &v coi 6 beds eat [kat ovk eotw beds mN)v Gov]: od yap et Üeós kal ovK qOewuuev, 6 Beds Tov "Iopayr.

Tertullian alone seems to apply this text ad personam Christi: the words are evidently addressed to Jerusalem (see verse 13), and ovK éoTw feds mAnv cov, discreetly omitted by Tertullian, probably means

"there is no god except the God who is in thee": od yap ei Oeds Kal ook joewev is evidently the prayer addressed to God in Jerusalem by the Sabaeans. rat for erant and Christum for spiritum, Turner's corrections, are beyond question right.

Alius penes quem.

A mutilated note among the fragments of SuETONIUS (Roth,

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Pp. 314), from the lost work pratum, reads inter apud et penes, apud personam significat: probably the note continued penes (significat) locum.

'Tertullian treats the two prepositions as interchangeable: adv. Marc. v. 6, sapientia enim huius mundi stultitia est penes deum: penes quem deum?

Domine, quis credidit, etc.

The text, Is. 53. 1, is often quoted, but not before Tertullian with this deduction from the repeated domne

. domini: the commentators were probably well aware of the Hebrew practice of repeating the substantive instead of using the pronominal termination, especially in stock phrases like "arm of the Lord".

Et pluit dominus, etc.

Gen. 19. 24, quoted by Justin and Irenaeus with the same interpretation.

'The true explanation is probably, as in the previous instance, that dominus is the only possible subject of luit and that emphasis was intended to be laid on the fact that retribution came de caelo a domino: there would be no particular point in de caelo a se, even if such a turn of phrase were possible in Hebrew.

Ego dixi, etc.

This argument is drawn from John 10. 34, where the same quotation from Ps. 82. 6 receives a similar comment, ei éxeivous eure Üco)Us mpods ods 6 Aóyos ToU ÜcoU éyévero, KTE.

APHRAATES, whose thought is hardly advanced even to the second-century standard, makes it the basis of his argument in the tractate xviii, Of Christ the Son of God.

Kirkpatrick remarks that elohim in this psalm are the judges of Israel, appointed by God to their office, and called into council by God to have judgement passed upon them: he also approves of Westcott's observation that the citation in John is more than an argumentum ad hominem, in that the Old Testament contains within it a foreshadowing of the Incarnation.

This is rather like special pleading: it is not impossible that elohim was used as equivalent to shophetim without any specific divine implication.

Et tempora et causas scripturarum.

Tertullian here enunciates the principle that divine revelation is progressive: elsewhere, e.g. in the treatise against Marcion, he maintains the concurrent principle that it is a self-consistent whole.

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

As a disciple of the Paraclete he claims to have good understanding of the way in which successive stages of revelation fit their tempora, occasions, and serve their ultimate purposes (causae).

He probably means by this that the Montanist prophets received revelations explanatory of such matters; but, apart from this idiosyncrasy, he is following the principle enunciated by St Paul,

"comparing spiritual things with spiritual", or "investigating spiritual things for spiritual men".

Elsewhere, e.g. de praescr. haer. 19, scorp. 12, he maintains that the true sense of Scripture is only understood by the apostles and in the Churches which have learned from them: which is probably what he means here by quod non licet credi quoniam non ita traditum est.

Sed quoniam retro, etc., "but because previously two were proclaimed as God and two as Lord, so that when Christ came he might be acknowledged as God.and addressed as Lord, as being the Son of him who is God and Lord".

"There is no need to strain Tertullian's, paradox into the statement that the Old Testament preaches two gods and two lords.

Praeter unus deus.

Oehler's Index has references for praeter—praeterquam (or nisi): e.g. scorp. 8, Danielem nullius praeter dei supplicem. Descendisse refers to the theophanies, not to the descent into hell.

Ut quia nationes.

Ut... et (Ursinus for et .

. ut) seems a necessary change.

- Quia must apparently be understood to mean eo consilio ut.

Ex conscientia qua scimus.

Conscientia means rather more than scientia: it occurs several times in de carne Christi, 3, for Christ's knowledge of himself or of his own nature, which (on certain suppositions with which Tertullian does not agree) might differ from the impression made upon those who saw him: here it means that private knowledge which we have of the doctrine of the holy Trinity which we might

(though we ought not to) use to excuse us if we were to make a public profession of polytheism and so escape persecution.

Sed apostolum sequar.

Tertullian correctly states the New "Testament practice, by

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

which 0eós means God (the Father) and xvpuios means our Lord.

The exceptions to this practice are rare: notably John 20. 28:

Rom. 9. 5.: 1 Tim. 1. rand perhaps 3. 16, and the Old Testament quotations in Heb. 1, where eds is used of our Lord: Kvptos seems always to mean our Lord except in quotations from the Old Testament (in 2 Cor. 3. 17 sqq. it is interpreted by St Paul as meaning the Holy Spirit).

Etsi soles duos factam.

Non was inserted by Ursinus, who (strangely for him) missed the point, which is that by calling both the orb and the beam the sun I give the superficial impression of making out that there are two suns, which in fact I do, though only in the same sense in which I speak of the Father and the Son as two, reserving the safeguard that they are of one indivisible substance. xiv. Our contention that there are two (who are designated God and Lord» is supported by the fact that though God says "No man can see my face and live", the Scriptures also say that on certain occasions God was seen.

Therefore he who was seen must be understood to have been Another, and we must suppose that the Father is invisible and the Son visible, even as no one dare look at the sun though our eyes can bear the sight of its ray.

Someone may object that the Son also, as being Word and spirit, is invisible, equating the attributes of the Father and the Son with the intention of maintaining their identity (though we have pointed out that the Scripture differentiates them by the attributes of invisibility and visibility).

Such objectors add that if it was the Son who spoke to Moses, it was the Son who said that his face could not be seen, being himself the invisible Father under the name of Son.

So, they say, the same one is both visible and invisible, both Father and Son: and they quote texts which they think prove this.

But our interpretation of the Scriptures is appropriate to the Son.

For we say that the Son also, being in his own nature invisible, before his Incarnation became visible to certain people as it were in visions or dreams.

The statement that God spoke to Moses face to face is therefore proleptic, and became true only at the Transfiguration, since all the Son's appearances before the Incarnation were "'as in a glass, darkly".

If God had already spoken to Moses face to face, why did Moses afterwards ask to see God's face? Moreover, Facob says, " I have seen God face to

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

face and my life is preserved": so there must be another "face of God" which no man can see and live.

It was then the Son whom jacob saw, and "my face", which Moses cannot see, means the invisible Father, the breath of whose person is Christ the Lord: for since the Father is Christ's head, a fortiori he is his face.

It is tempting to see, in the change of ground which Tertullian is driven to make in the course of this chapter, a trace of the oral discussions which may have preceded the writing of the treatise.

The distinction between the Father essentially invisible and the Son capable of becoming visible (or assuming visibility) cannot be maintained, and has to be relinquished.

It has moreover a gnostic flavour (though, as is shown below, Tertullian by no means derived it from gnostic sources): for it seems to remove the Father into the region of the unknown and unknowable, but with the difference that while the gnostics made the unbegotten Father absolutely unknowable, Tertullian asserts the scriptural truth that the Father is known to and revealed by the Son.

'Also the distinction has in it at least the germs of Arianism: for if the Father is essentially incapable of being visible, while the Son can make himself visible (or, alternately, if the glory of the Father is such that the sight of it causes death, while the lesser glory of the Son can be seen with impunity) there would appear to be a difference of nature between the two divine Persons such as the Arians imagined.

'Tertullian therefore in the present passage, while retaining the traditional theory that the theophanies were appearances of the Son, denies their substantive reality and suggests that they were no more than visions and dreams, "as in a glass, darkly"', and will have it that in his own Person the Son was not seen until the Incarnation.

That this was not his previous view of the matter is shown by the following passages from other works, in two of which he says that what the patriarchs saw was a real body created expressly as a vehicle for each theophany: though even so he would still be able to maintain (as he does here) that the Son was not seen in his divine nature but as 1t. were 2n speculo et in aenigmate.

Adv. Marc. ii. 27, nam et profitemur Christum semper egisse in dei patris nomine, ipsum ab initio conversatum ipsum congressum cum patriarchis et prophetis, filium. creatoris, sermonem eius quem ex semetipso proferendo filium fecit et exinde omni dispositioni suae

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

voluntatis praefecit, diminuens illum modico citra angelos .

. qua diminutione in haec quoque dispositus est a patre quae ut humana reprehenditis, ediscens iam inde a primordio, iam inde hominem + quod erat futurus in fine. ille est qui descendit, ille qui interrogat, ille qui postulat, ille qui iurat. . .

. igitur quaecunque exigitis deo digna, . habebuntur in patre invisibili incongressibilique et placido et ut tta dixerim philosophorum deo: quaecunque autem ut indigna reprehenditis deputabuntur in filio et viso et audito et congresso, arbitro patris et ministro miscente in semetipso hominem et deum, in virtutibus deum in pusillitatibus hominem, ut tantum homini conferat quantum deo detrahit.

Ibid. iii. 9.

The two angels who visited Lot had real, not putative, bodies.

Ideo et ipse (sc. Christus) cum angelis tunc apud Abraham in veritate quidem carnis apparuit, sed nondum natae quia nondum moriturae, sed et discentis iam inter homines conversari.

Cf. ibid. 6, persona spiritus nostri Christus dominus, qui ab initio vicarius patris in dei nomine et auditus sit et visus.

De carne Christi, 6: [to the same effect, in almost identical language].

; Adv. Iud. 9. nam qui ad Moysen loquebatur ipse erat dei filius, qui et semper videbatur. deum enim patrem nemo vidit unquam et vixit. et ideo constat ipsum dei filium Moysi esse locutum, etc.

When he says to the people " Behold I send my angel before thy face", the angel is Joshua, even as in Malachi the angel is John the Baptist.

The patristic view of the theophanies is discussed by Bull, Def. Fid. Nicaenae, lib. 1 cap. 1, from which most of the following references are taken: almost without exception, from Justin onwards, they are regarded as manifestations of the Son.

Justin, apol. i. 63. The Jews even now teach that it was the unnameable God who spoke with Moses.

For this lack of insight they «are rebuked by the prophetic Spirit (Is. 1. 3) and by our

Lord (Matt. 11. 27).

The Adyos is also called "angel" and "apostle", because he is the messenger of the Father who sent him. Hence the Angel who spoke to Moses at the Bush, éyó eu, 0 av, is the Son of God, xai év idéa mvpós tore haveis, mote O€ kai év eików adowpatwr (quaero an legendum

EVTWPATOV).

1 Perhaps read iam inde a primordio hominem <indutus id esse> quod, etc., or possibly, regarding iam inde hominem as a marginal note, read iam inde a primordio id esse quod, etc.

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

Dial. 56 sqq. A long section of the Dialogue is an argument to prove from the theophanies the existence of "another who is called God" besides the invisible Father.

As it was apparently Justin who worked out this theory and made it common form for his successors, his method of approach is of interest.

Justin says that God who appeared to Abraham at Mamre in company with two angels was sent by another, and therefore cannot be identified with that other. One of the Jews objects: Not so, but the episode is in two stages: first God appeared, and after his departure came the three men (i.e. three angels), one of whom was sent to Sara,

. the other two to Sodom.

Justin replies that this explanation cannot stand, for the one who spoke to Sara promised to return, which he did when Isaac was grown [an evident misunderstanding of the text of Genesis].

Trypho having expressed the view that all three were angels, Justin undertakes to prove that God who appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Moses, érepós ét ToU rà mávra Tovjcavros Üco0, apiOu@ Xéyo add ov yvópq.

He quotes the texts, "The Lord rained down fire and brimstone from the Lord", "The Lord said unto my Lord", "Thy throne,

O God, is for ever and ever . .

. God, even thy God, hath anointed thee", remarking that in each case there are two called "the Lord".

Returning to the Mamre-Sodom narrative he suggests that its whole tenor shows that the Lord is in converse with Abraham and Sara until the end of Abraham's prayer; that then the two angels go alone into Sodom, and only when Lot comes out of Sodom does the Lord again appear, and sends down fire and brimstone from the Lord.

Trypho acknowledges the point as proved, but has doubts whether the Lord ate the food which Abraham prepared. Justin replies that eating must be understood in a figurative sense, as we say that fire eats. "rypho agrees, and asks for an explanation zs obros 6 T@ "ABpaap ddOeis, cos

Kal vmypérgs àv Tod TounToU Tov OXov Üco0, dia THS Tap0évov yervnfeis avOpwros OpowaÜ7)s macw ws mpoepys yéyovev.

Justin prefers to give the rest of his proofs first: God, he says, gave Jacob advice about the sheep-breeding, wrestled with him, blessed him after the death of Deborah, appeared to him in the dream at Bethel: he also appeared to Moses at the Bush.

Here Trypho suggests that it was an angel who was in the flame of fire, but God himself who spoke to Moses: to which Justin replies that you cannot suppose that the Maker of all things himself left

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

the heavens and appeared in a small part of the earth. There are subsequent references to the Captain of the Lord's host who appeared to Joshua, and to God's appearance to Moses in the cleft of the rock at Sinai. In $ 127 the argument is summed up in. these terms:—ó yap dppmros TATHp Kal kÜpios TOV TAVTOV. oure TOL áücrat OUTE mepvraret ovre kaÜeóOe. ovre àvtorarau, adn' év TH avToU YOpa OmOov TOTE BEVEL, 0f) ópàv kai o€v doo, ovK opHahpors ovee óciv aha duvdpet

GNEKT@ ... OUTE OUD 'ABpaap OUTE 'Toad OuTE laxo OUTE adhos av Opodtrav cide TOV aTépa. Kat dppntov KUptov TOV

TávTOV GATOS kai aU TOU TOU xpuwrToU, aN €KELVOV TOV Kata Bovdyv thy éxeivov kai Ücóv Ovra vióv avTov, Kal ayyedov ék TOU UaypeTEelY TH yvópw) avTod.

Tertullian was undoubtedly acquainted with Justin's work: his use of the same series of texts can hardly be accidental.

But the purpose of the two discussions is different, Justin's being to prove the existence of Another, Tertullian's to prove that that other (whose existence his adversaries admit) is not a mere phase of the one.

Consequently Justin stresses the transcendence of the Father, so that he may claim that the visible God of the theophanies is the Son.

Tertullian could hardly repudiate Justin; yet (since his adversaries accepted Justin's argument and used it in their own interests) he finds the distinction a liability rather than an asset, and is driven back to acknowledge the transcendence of the Son, even at the cost of surrendering the pest reality of the theophanies.

To THEOPHILUS, expounding to a Greek the divine transcendence, it is the theophanies which present the difficulty, and the doctrine of a not always transcendent Aóyos is a means of easing the situation. Ad Autol. ii. 22, in answer to an anticipated question, how the infinite God can be supposed to have walked in the Garden, he says: 6 pev Oeós kai car)p TOv OXov dxópyTós €ov kai év vómq OVX ebpíokerav oU yap eoTW TOTOS THS KaTaTavoEws avTOU.

6 O6 Aóyos a)To), dU ov Ta TATA memoinKer, Sdvapus av Kat copia avron, avahap Saver TO ™porwmov TOU TaTpos Kal Kupiov TOV ÓXov, oUTOS mapeytvero els TOV Tapdde~ov év TpoTeTw

TOD Óco0 xai pier ro 'AOdp: consequently it says, "Adam heard the Voice of the Lord God"— dor) dé ti ado early

Gd' 1j Ó Xóyos 6 TOU ÜcoU, Os éorw Kal vids avro0; This is

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

language which would have pleased the monarchians: but a little later (having introduced the idea that the oyos evdudbetos became TpopoptKos for the purpose of creating the world) he uses expressions of which Tertullian would have approved : feds o)v àv 6 Aoyos kat ék Oeod rebukes, ómórav BovAnTar oO Tarp TOv. OXov Téjrmev [leg. mréprew] avrov els

TWa TÓTOV, os [del. os] Tra paryevóp.evos Kal duc oveT au Ka Opa Ta. Trejumóp.evos UT aUTO), kai €v rómQ e)píakera.

IRENAEUS is in controversy with gnostics who have removed the ineffable Father to such remote transcendence that there is need for angels of inferior rank to act as mediators in creation and in the work of the world.

The Jews, he says (haer. iv. 14), have revolted from God in refusing to accept his Word: they think they can know the Father in himself, without the aid of the Son.

But it was the Son who from the beginning ordered all divine revelation, non indigente patre angelis ut faceret conditionem et

, formaret hominem propter quem et conditio fiebat .

. sed habente copiosum et inenarrabile ministerium. — ministrat enim ei ad omnia sua progenies et figuratio sua, id est filius et spiritus sanctus, verbum et sapientia, quibus serviunt et subiecti sunt omnes angeli.

From which it is evident that, to Irenaeus, the Word and the Holy Spirit are not, like the angels, inferior powers, for all that they are mediators in the revelation of the Father to men.

With the theophanies in mind, Irenaeus says (ibid. iv. 34. 7), verbum dispensator paternae gloriae factus est .

. hominibus quidem ostendens deum, deo autem exhibens hominem, et invisibilitatem quidem patris custodiens ne quando homo fieret contemptor dei et ut semper haberet ad quod proficeret: visibilem autem rursus. hominibus per multas dispositiones ostendens deum, ne in toto deficiens a deo homo cessaret esse: gloria enim det vivens homo, vita hominis visio dei... Already

(ibid. 6) he has said, qun Nemo videbit deum et vivet, that the reason for this is man's disability and not God's lack of power; for God, when he will, is seen by men, a quibus vult et quando vult et quemadmodum vult.

'The TT therefore are real events, for only on a real present experience could the patriarchs and prophets have based a prophecy of the future: zbzd. 8, necessario oportebat eos per quos futura praedicabantur, videre deum quem ipsi hominibus videndum [=visum iri] intimabant, uti non solum dicatur prophetice deus et dei filius, et filius et pater, sed et ut videatur

. secundum hanc igitur rationem et filium dei hominem videbant converS

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

satum cum hominibus, id quod futurum erat prophetantes, eum qui nondum aderat adesse dicentes et impassibilem passibilem annuntiantes, etc.

Tertullian accepts this view of the prophetic character of the theophanies, adding to it, apparently of his own, the idea that the Word was habituating himself to the assumption of human attributes: but since he has been driven to admit the transcendence, as of the Father, so of the Son before the Incarnation, he has to regard the theophanies as no more than visions and dreams.

But the passage adv. Marc. ii. 27 (quoted above), with its ironic reference to the placid philosopher's God, suggests that Tertullian was at times too wise to push transcendence to the point of abstraction: and consequently what his present argument amounts to is that, on scriptural testimony, God cannot be seen with impunity, and God has been seen with impunity, and therefore the authority of Scripture is with us when we say that there are two who are named God and Lord, and when we maintain that the Son is not the same Person as the Father. When,

. as in $ 16, he presses to the utmost the transcendence of God, he insists that the Son in his divine nature is transcendent as well as the Father, and that it is only because the Scriptures compel us that we consent to believe the theophanies at all.

Cum enim Moyses . . . qui viderit.

This sentence should be treated as parenthetic, adducing the scriptural authority for the rule or principle deum invisibilem esse.

The next sentence, Invenimus enim, etc., states how this rule nobis adsistit: the apparent exceptions to it require explanation, which is what our doctrine provides.

In Aegypto is incorrect:

Exod. 33. 13, 18, 20 takes place in eremo: possibly the correction should be made (but see note on $ 23).

Secundum hominum capacitates.

IRENAEUS, haer. iv. 34. 5 (quoted in part above), had already used similar language wherein he made it clear that the impossibility of seeing God is due to man's incapacity to see, not to God's incapacity to be seen: Tertullian means the latter, and it is the mainspring of his argument.

Irenaeus wrote: praesignificabant igitur prophetae quoniam videbitur deus ab hominibus, quemadmodum et dominus ait: Beati mundo corde quoniam ipsi deum videbunt. sed secundum magnitudinem quidem eius et mirabilem gloriam nemo videbit deum et vivet: incapabilis enim pater: secundum autem

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

dilectionem et humanitatem, et quod omnia possit, etiam hoc concedit tis qui se diligunt, id est videre deum, quod et prophetabant prophetae : quoniam quae impossibilia apud homines possibilia apud deum. homo etenim a se non videt deum. ille autem volens videtur ab hominibus, a quibus vult et quando vult et quemadmodum vult. potens est enim — in omnibus deus: visus quidem tunc per spiritum prophetice, visus autem et per filium adoptive, videbitur et in regno caelorum paternaliter, spiritu quidem praeparante hominem in filium dei, filio autem adducente ad patrem, patre autem incorruptelam donante in aeternam vitam, quae unicuique evenit ex eo quod videat deum.

Cum invisum aut cum visum.

The MSS. readings are unintelligible.

Probably the easiest way out is to delete cum invisum aut as already contained in the previous clause. We are then left with a triple dilemma.

Either (1) they ought to have died, or (2) the Scripture i is false in saying that God said he could not be seen, or (3) it is not true that they saw God: since (1) they did not die, and (2), (3) the Scripture cannot lie, zam ergo alius erit qui videbatur.

Pro modulo derivationis is illustrated by pro temperatura portionis, where temperatura means "lower temperature" (not '" mixture"), and portio is * apportionment"' rather than "part" (see note on $ 9). IRENAEUS, haer. iv. 6, omnia enim mensura et ordine deus facit, et nihil non mensum (ovdev aperpov) apud eum. quoniam nec incompositum

(un dev avapiOunrov): et bene qui dixit ipsum immensum patrem in filio mensuratum: mensura. enim. patris filius, quoniam et capit eum (capit=ywpet).

Ex diverso .

. aliquis, * some one of the opposite party": as in $ 15, quis ex diverso non argumentabitur. .

Sed diximus, etc.

Tertullian is going to be forced to shift his ground, but on one point he remains immovable, namely that the Scripture does make a distinction between God visible and God invisible, and this distinction implies difference of persons, differentiae patrocinari.

With that safeguard he admits that the Son, as Word or Spirit, is invisible: he goes further, and instead of saying (as do Justin and 'Theophilus) that the Son, by nature invisible, becomes

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

visible as occasion requires, he allows that the Son until the Incarnation was always invisible and that the theophanies were no more than visions and dreams.

But still, the Scripture makes a distinction, and if the Son is in his divine nature invisible, a fortiori the Father is.

Nam et illud adiciunt.

An obvious point for the monarchians to score: if the Son was the subject of the theophanies, then it was the Son who said (tunc at Exod. 33. 20) that his face could not be seen, and consequently the Son may be identified with the Father.

It takes Tertullian all his skill to surmount this difficulty, which he does (with more ingenuity than conviction) at the end of this chapter. Kroymann wishes to read pronuntiarit, perhaps wrongly: 'Tertullian reports the monarchians' arguments in the imperfect subjunctive, his own statement in the indicative (loquebatur).

Ac per hoc, etc.

A further step in the monarchian argument: immediately before Moses' request to see God's face, the request that was denied, it is written (Exod. 33. 11) that the Lord spake to Moses face to face, and it is written that Jacob (Gen. 32: 30) said he had seen the Lord face to face: therefore God is both visible and invisible.

Et quia idem utrumque, and because the same Person has both attributes, it must be that the Father himself, though invisible, is, as Son, visible.

Quasi non .

. filio competat.

But our interpretation is equally suitable: for the moment Tertullian will say no more than that.

'This use of competere is almost unparalleledin Tertullian: but cf. ad nat. ii. 13, sed neque hoc potest competere numini. He would perhaps have written expositioni

. filius competat except for the consideration that ideas must conform to the Son rather than the Son conform to ideas.

The MSS. read visibilitate, which is possible if patre seposito is parenthetic, the last three words going closely with filio: so Engelbrecht, and Kroymann's alterations are unnecessary.

Dicimus enim, etc.

Tertullian admits one part of the monarchian argument: he takes it even further, iarn nunc, since the Incarnation.

Et qua

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

deus .

. spiritus dei : this clause perhaps began as a marginal gloss, et qua deus, amplifying qua sermo in the previous line, the other words being added (still in the margin) to indicate its place in the text.

Etsi fuerit, etc.

Num.

12. 6 sqq. LXX has éàv yévynrau mpodnjrns Up Ov Kupt@, eV opdpare ave yvoac Onoopar Kal év vmvo AaMjgo avrQ. ovx oUTOS Ó Üepimov pov Movarjs. Mus cTÓLa Kata ocTóna halyow avT@, €v elder Kal ov Ov aiviypatov. The additional words are Tertullian's explanations: the quotation 1 Cor. 13. 12 is introduced to justify the equation aenigma=imago.

'lhis promise regarding Moses, Tertullian says, was only fulfilled at the Transfiguration: and consequently in past time (retro) all the theophanies, including those to Moses, must be understood to have been visions and dreams.

IRENAEUS held the same view: Aaer. iv. 34. 8, as regards Moses: et dictum est ei, Sta in loco alto petrae .

. non enim videt homo faciem meam et vivet: utraque significans, quoniam et impossibilis est homo videre deum, et quoniam per sapientiam dei in novissimis temporibus videbit eum homo, in altitudine petrae, hoc est in eo qui est secundum hominem eius adventu. et propter hoc facie ad faciem confabulatus est cum eo in altitudine montis, adsistente etiam Helia, quemadmodum evangelium retulit, restituens in fine pristinam repromissionem: and as regards the other prophets, a little lower down, quoting Ezek. 1. 1 sqq. he comments, ne quis putaret forte eum in his proprie vidisse deum intulit, Haec visio similitudinis gloriae domini . .

. quae autem ab his videbantur erant similitudines claritatis domini et prophetiae futurorum.

Et ipse quidem dominus, etc.

Tertullian will £o even further than his adversaries wish to press him: "And though it is true that the Lord himself spoke face to face, yet a man would not see his face as he is (1 John 3. 2), but at the most in a mirror, darkly". Even during his earthly life, our Lord was not really seen.

Si forte, nisi forte, generally have lost the sense of "perhaps" and have taken on the function of admitting a suggestion with which the writer does not disagree, e.g. adv. Val. 2, si forte praestat minus sapere quam peius, errare quam fallere: see Oehler's index.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Denique si sic Moysi, etc.

A final contrast of texts to be considered: at Exod. 33. 11 it is said that the Lord spake to Moses face to face, and yet statim atque ibidem (Exod. 33. 13, 18) Moses is still asking to see God's face and having his request refused.

Moreover Jacob had long ago . seen God's face and lived (Gen. 32. 30) at Peniel.

Aut quae est facies, etc.

In these sentences, which clinch the question and state Tertullian's answer, Kroymann's punctuation is preferable:

Turner suggests alia debet esse facies quae (visa est, alia quae» si videatur occidit, which Kroymann's punctuation would make unnecessary.

Etsi facie : the MSS. have facies.

Quis enim pater ?

The sentences to the end of the chapter are meant to justify the equation facies filii—invisibilis pater.

Common idiom gives the equation facies=auctoritas: it is the greater who gives authority to the lesser: the Father is greater than the Son, and gives the Son authority: therefore the Father is the Son's face: and this conclusion is in conformity with Scripture (Lam. 4.20). Tertullian has taken the idiom faciem mihi praestat and (no doubt illicitly) equated it with facies mea est, so as to lead to the conclusion facies filii erit pater: which is more resourceful than convincing.

A mark of interrogation is needed after praestat.

Nam et scriptura, etc.

There seems no precedent for Tertullian's reading »ersonae eius: LXX has mveUpa Tpoccomov yuav: the Hebrew is fairly represented by LXX.

Justin, apol. i. 35, has wvedua po vpogcov nav: IRENAEUS, haer. iv. 11. 22, spiritus faciei nostrae.

Ergo si Christus, etc.

The editors have made heavy weather of this sentence:

Kroymann has altered the text almost beyond recognition.

Much of its difficulty vanishes with the moving of a few commas (as in the present text) and on observing that suam, though not a. common substitute for eius, is not unknown.

So we translate:

"If then Christ is the spirit of the Father's person, rightly did the Spirit (as the author of the Old Testament) declare that he

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

whose the person was—namely, the Father—is his (i.e. the Son's) face, ex unitate scilicet, because persona and facies are synonymous terms".

'The unexpressed antecedent of cuius is the object of pronuntiavit.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, strom. vii. 58, makes a similar deduction from a different text, Ps. 24. 6, (mrovvTov TO Tpdcwtov ToU Üco) 'lakoB : cuvTdpws otpar Tov yvocTwkü» eunvucev 6 mpodnjrgs KaTa mapaOpourv ws €oucev Huy Ücàv elvar rüv GwTHpa aréde~ev 6 AaBid tpdawTov avróv eitav tov Oeod 'lakdB, róv evayyeduodpevov kai Sid€avta mepi Tov maTpós.

XV. Our interpretation of these Old Testament texts is confirmed by the New Testament, in which the apostles and evangelists on the one hand declare that God is invisible, and on the other hand testify that Christ has been seen.

Our adversaries reply that that is their position: that the Father, invisible before the Incarnation, is the same person as the Son, visible in the Incarnation.

In that case what do they make of the appearances before the Incarnation, and what of the statements, made after the Incarnation, that God is stillinvisible?

Who was it the apostles said they had seen?

It was, according to fohn, the Word of life, the only-begotten Son, whom he declares to be God: and yet he immediately adds (to confound our opponents) that no man hath seen

God.

What God has not been seen? Not God the Word: for concerning him he says, "We have seen and heard and handled". Him

Paul also saw—not the Father—and him he calls ** God over all, blessed for ever": him he " openly sets forth", namely Fesus Christ the visible Son of God, the Word of God ( for '* Christ" is an appellation of the Word made flesh).

The Father, he says, is invisible, alone has immortality, dwells in light unapproachable: to the end that, again on his testimony, we might affirm the opposites of these of the Son, visibility, mortality, approachable light—though even this approachable light was scarcely tolerable to Paul, or to Peter and fames and John, who, hardly bearing the glory of the Son, would at once have died if they had seen the Father.

Thus the Scripture is consistent with itself: in both the Old and the New Testaments it is the Son who is seen, converses, works—of course by the Father's authority and will, since the Son can do nothing of himself; but what he sees the Father doing in thought, that he accomplishes in act, and so "all things were made" by the Son, and "without him was not anything made".

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Si hunc articulum, etc.

Articulus: means "text" or "passage of scripture": see Oehler's index, e.g. adv. Marc. ii. 24, nam et apud Graecos interdum malitiae pro vexationibus et laesuris, non pro malignitatibus ponuntur, sicut et in isto articulo, i.e. "the passage under discussion", viz.

Jonah' 3. 10, paenituit dominum de malitia quam dixerat facturum se "lis. Quaestiones scripturae veteris seems to mean "enquiries made of the Old Testament": Oehler's index gives no help here.

Reputare is used by Tertullian for deputare: see Oehler's note de carne Christi, 3: and defendere is used for vindicare: adv.

Marc. 1. 26, cur enim prohibet admitti quod non defendit admissum ?

Condicionis utriusque.

Condicio seems to mean something more than "attribute".

Cf. adv. Marc. i. 7, non nomini sed statui, nec appellationi sed condicioni eius, summum magnum et adscribo et vindico, where condicio is coextensive with status which (cf. § 2) is one and the same in the case of all three divine Persons.

In the present passage Tertullian seems to go back somewhat from that position, maintaining a distinction which almost amounts to a difference of quality, the difference between absolute invisibility and potential visibility—"with an evident personal distinction between the two qualities".

See a note on § 3.

Exclamat quodammodo.

Tertullian seems to mean that the text Deum nemo vidit unquam at John 1. 18 comes almost (quodammodo) as a surprise, not being led up to by what precedes.

Later in this chapter he quotes the same text from 1 John 4. 12 (as is clear from the next sentence, praedictum est, referring to 1 John 1. 1): there, he observes, the statement is ex abundanti, "there being no special need for the remark "—which is true in the sense that the connexion of thought would have been clear without it.

Sed nec videri potest.

Pamelius, perhaps rightly, read videre as below in this chapter, when the text is quoted again.

Porro si ipse est Christus, etc.

"Further, if Christ himself is both Father and Son".

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

Qui ex diverso nobis, "our opponent": 'urner's improvement on quis ex diverso non.

Cf. de res. carn. 19, diversa pars, * my opponents" ; and supr. § 14, ex diverso dicet aliquis.

Aeque si idem, etc.

* Likewise, if the same one is visible after the Incarnation, how is he even now pronounced invisible by the apostles?

Unless it is that there is one who even of old was seen darkly, and whom now the Incarnation has made more fully visible—namely, the Word who was also made flesh—and another whom no man hath ever seen—namely the Father, whose the Word is."

|Nzsi before pater is rightly omitted by Kroymann, and the comma must be removed from after pater.

Glorificati a patre invisibili.

Evidently a reference to John 12. 28, xai édd€aca kal mau 9o£ác'o.

\ Ne adiuvaret adversariorum praesumptionem.

Praesumptio apparently means no more than "assumption", as at apol. 25, illa praesumptio dicentium Romanos pro merito religiositatis diligentissimae in tantum sublimitatis elatos ut orbem occuparint : de pud. 7, diversae partis praesumptionem.

At apol. 21, quasi sub umbraculo insignissimae religionis certe licitae aliquid propriae praesumptionis abscondat, the sense perhaps is "something it has assumed and made its own", though Souter translates

"some of its own arrogance"', and at ibid. 25 "' prejudiced assertion": both of which seem too strong.

Apud quem deus erat sermo, etc.

This is the MS. reading: there was no need to alter deus to deum (Ursinus, followed by Oehler) "In whose presence (i.e.

"with whom," John 1. 1) the Word, the only-begotten Son, who himself hath declared the bosom of the Father, was God."

Qui sinum patris, etc.

'This, the reading of MF, is evidently correct: cf. John 1. 18 and the note on $ 8. P reads est in sinu, which has caused more trouble than it need have done: see Oehler's footnote.

Phantasma .

. contrectatus refers to Luke 24. 39, /gAadnjo'aTé pe kai (Gere, OTe mveUpa.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

cápka Kal óoTéa o)k exe, as well as to 1 John 1. 1, at XEtpes Nav emrddyaar.

Quorum patres, etc.

See the note of Sanday and Headlam, Romans, pp. 233 sqq... who observe that the fathers almost without exception take the whole of this text as referring to Christ: and indeed, as Bull remarks, there is no sense in taking it otherwise.

Ostendit et ipse, etc.

Perhaps bears a reference to Gal. 3. 1, tpoeypagy.

A se novissime visum.

1 Cor. 15. 8, écyarov de mávrov .

. abOn Kapoi.

Sine rationis et amentia.

Kroymann would omit et amentia qui: needlessly, for (as Rigaltius remarked) the phrase means szne periculo rationis et sine amentia, with reference to €xpoBou yap éyévovro and p) cides

6 Aéye in the accounts of the Transfiguration.

Qui si non passuri filii gloriam.

Oehler appears to take passuri for a nominative plural: there is no doubt that it is a genitive singular: delete the commas after sz and after gloriam, and insert essent before credo (Engelbrecht),

* who, if they had seen the Father, and not (just? the glory of the Son who was due to suffer, would, I believe, have died on the spot".

Pater enim sensu agit.

Sensus means "mind" or "thought" as in § 6, immo et facta iam quantum in dei sensu: also $ 24, pater in filio non visu sed sensu videbatur.

'The conjecture quod for qui (Ursinus) improves the sense.

There is a reference to John 5.19.

"For the Father acts by thought; but the Son, while he sees what is in the Father's thought, makes it an actuality", or (retaining qui) "but the Son, who is in the mind of the Father, sees and makes actual".

These last sentences lead to the next step in the argument, that at the beginning, and since the beginning, all things done by God in the world have been carried out by the Son as agent.

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

XVI. Not only the creation of the world but also all divine acts in the world since the beginning have been wrought by the agency of the Son.

The texts which state that the Father has delivered to the Son all power, all judgement, and so forth, imply that the Son at all times holds and has held these prerogatives: for "all" includes all time.

The theophanies of the Old Testament had the Son for their subject.

He was by them preparing for the Incarnation—preparing himself and preparing our faith. He who at length assumed human substance, flesh and soul, prepared for that by assuming human affections.

Hence all those Old Testament episodes which heretics lay hold upon as unworthy of God.

What these reject as unworthy even of the Son, our present opponents ascribe to the Father.

But how could the invisible God, whose attributes are so transcendent, have appeared among men in human form and in human activities?

It would not have been proper to believe such things of the Son unless they had been written: perhaps we should have been wrong to believe them of the Father though they had been written.

Yet our opponents bring the Father down into Mary's womb, to Pilate's judgement seat, to Joseph's sepulchre.

Forgetting that, since the beginning, all divine acts in the world have been administered by the Son, they fall into the error of attributing to the Father the human affections which the Son assumed.

In sinu eius.

The same text is quoted at $ 21 with in manu, which may be the true reading here.

Ex quo a primordio .

. a primordio tamen.

Kroymann tries to remove the awkwardness of the sentence by omitting the first a primordio.

But both appear necessary: the real difficulty is tamen where one would have expected utique.

Linguasque disperdens.

Ursinus suggested dispertiens, which however receives no support from LXX, avyxéopev .

. avvéxeev: but LXX also have xai Su€omeipev avro)s k)puos, and in view of that Tertullian may have written dispergens.

Quem erat persecuturus.

Quem is due to Ursinus: the MSS. read quae: possibly qui would be right.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Ediscebat.

Cf. adv. Marc. iii. 9, ideoque et ipse cum angelis in veritate quidem carnis apparuit, sed nondum natae quia nondum moriturae, sed et discentis iam inter homines conversari, where if discentis is right

(the MS. reads discentes) Tertullian has made a curious slip in-: volving a contradiction with the whole argument of de carne Christi

(perhaps we should read discens etiam): de carne Christi 6, Christum ... qui iam tunc et liberare et iudicare humanum genus ediscebat in carnis habitu.

Possibly there is a reminiscence of Heb. 5. 8, ewabev ad' àv émaÜev.

Si qua haeretici adprehendunt.

'The Marcionites are here meant: cf. adv. Marc. ii. 27, a chapter which has some verbal similarities with the present.

Marcion objected to such expressions as "it repented God", "the evil which God said he would do", to his apparent ignorance of facts, as in the questions, "Where art thou?" " Where is thy brother ?" and in *I will go down now and see.

. and if not I will know", and to statements that the Lord sware by himself: to all of which Tertullian gives something rather better than the obvious commonsense answers (§§ 24-26) and proceeds (§ 27) to solve cetera... quaecunque adhuc ut pusilla et infirma et indigna colligitis ad destructionem creatoris.

(1) God could not have entered into human relationships except by assuming human thoughts and passions

(humanos et sensus et affectus), so as to mitigate the force of his majesty by a humility unworthy indeed of God but necessary for man, and so also worthy of God, since nothing is so worthy of God as man's salvation.

Marcion himself admits that God humbled himself to the death of the cross: and the humilities of the Old Testament create a presumption that Christ, who was made the sport of human passions (humanis passionibus obiectum), belongs to that God of the Old Testament whose humilities

Marcion thinks so. objectionable.

Nam et profitemur. Christum semper egisse in dei patris nomine, ipsum ab initio conversatum, ipsum congressum cum patriarchis et prophetis .

. quem .

. exinde omni dispositioni suae voluntatique praefecit, diminuens illum modico citra angelos .

. qua diminutione in haec quoque dispositus est a patre quae ut humana reprehenditis, ediscens iam inde a primordio

Tiam inde hominem quod erat futurus in fine. .

. . (2) All these acts are sacramentum humanae salutis:

God conversed with man on

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

man's terms so that man might learn to converse with God on God's terms.

Minoratus a patre, etc.

Ps. 8. 5: Heb. 2. 9: adv. Marc. ii. 27: and below, § 23, minoravit filium modico citra angelos ad terram dimittendo, gloria tamen et honore coronaturus illum in caelos resumendo.

Quae tu ipsi patri inducis, "with which you becloud the Father himself".

Quanquam filius hominis, etc.

Kroymann makes a period at apparuerit, and thereafter punctuates as follows: quanquam filius hominis est dictus et in imagine et. speculo et aenigmate scilicet et haec, nec de filio dei credenda fuissent, si scripta mom essent, fortasse non credenda de patre, licet scripta, quem isti in vulvam, etc.

What he snpposes this to mean is not very evident, and he is clearly in error in separating quanquam filius hominis est dictus from quartus apparuerit: the most that can be said is that he departs from the . MSS. only in writing fuzssent for fuisse.

Oehler's text, which follows the old editors, is not much more intelligible: nmi haec in imagine, etc., can hardly be right, for what Tertullian means is that under no circumstances could the Father be thought to have made these appearances, and a conditional clause is therefore out of place.

'The easiest way out, possibly too rash, would be to omit et in imagine et speculo et aenigmate as having crept in from elsewhere or as being the intelligent criticism of some reader who thinks he is answering Tertullian out of his own previous language; and to read: .

. dictus? scilicet et haec nec de filio dei credenda fuissent si scripta nom essent, fortasse non credenda de patre licet scripta, etc.

'lhis at least makes sense.

Dan. 3. 25 actually says, "the form of the fourth is like a son of the gods": LXX, ouoiwpa ayyédov co: Theodotion, dota vid Oeo.

It is just possible that quanquam filius hominis est dictus is a mistaken marginal objection to Tertullian's inclusion of this episode (the objector thinking of Dan. 7. 13: 10. 16), and that et zn imagine is a further comment based on dpoiwpa, to which et speculo et aenigmate could have been added through recollection of $ 14. If everything from quanquam to aenigmate were omitted all trouble would disappear.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Omnem ordinem divinae dispositionis per filium decucurrisse.

So Tertullian summarises his contention that all the theophanies of the Old Testament were theophanies of God the Son, and, more than that, that from the creation onwards the whole course. of the world and the progressive revelation of God has been administered by the Son.

That this was already established doctrine is evident from the passages cited in the notes to $ 14: that it has at least some scriptural basis would appear from such places as John 8. 56-58 and 1 Cor. 10. 4, where the very allusiveness of the language is an indication of how deep the doctrine already was in the Christian mind.

This is not the place to trace in detail the influence of Eusebius of Caesarea in causing to sink into the background of Christian thought, and eventually almost to vanish from it, a theory which previous generations had accepted as an evident truth.

XVH. They have been more ready to think that the Father has acted in the Son's name than that the Son has acted in the Father's name, although the latter is what our Lord says of himself and what the Scripture testifies of him.

The Name of the Father involves the titles God Almighty, the Most High, the Lord of Hosts, the King of Israel, I am.

On scriptural authority we say that these titles belong to the Son also: for he says "all things that the Father hath are mine", and "all things" must include the names.

The titles belong to the Son because he fulfils the functions indicated by each of them.

I shall reply elsewhere to their suggestion that the name of Christ belongs to the Father: meanwhile, since they doubt the propriety of giving the Son the title " Almighty", I remark that the Son of the - Almighty is almighty for precisely the same reason as the Son of God ts God.

The argument here is in three stages:

(1) The monarchian contention, if admitted, would require that in the theophanies, as in the Incarnation, it was the Father who was acting, albeit in the name of (i.e. under pretence of being) the Son. The scriptural statements are however to the opposite effect, that the Son is acting in the name (i.e. with the authority) of the Father.

At this point Tertullian takes a step which is by

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

no means essential to the argument, though it makes an easier transition to what follows. The idiomatic phrase "in my Father's name" probably means only a little more than "as my Father's representative", "with my Father's authority": Tertullian gives the word "name" its full sense in all the texts quoted, John 5. 43:

Matt. 21. 9: John 17. 6. In this last," I have manifested thy name", that interpretation seems natural and necessary: its transference to the other texts is in accordance with the common tendency to try to make the same word have the same meaning wherever it occurs—a tendency sufficiently common in interpreters both ancient and modern to need no illustration. The connexion recurs

$23: glorifica nomen tuum—in quo erat filius.

At de orat. 3

Tertullian goes even further and almost personifies the name, suggesting that the Name of the Father is the Son himself: nomen dei patris nemini proditum fuit. etiam qui de ipso interrogaverat Moyses aliud quidem nomen audierat. nobis revelatum est in filto. iam enim filius novum patris nomen est. Ego vent, inquit, in nomine patris: et rursus, Pater, glorifica nomen tuum: et apertius, Nomen tuum manifestavi hominibus. See the discussion of $wv7) Boóvros,

Origen, comm. in Ioa. vi. 17 sqq., where there is first a personification of dwr7 as being the Baptist himself, but finally the commonsense suggestion that the phrase means 'Eyo epi mepi ov yéyparac porn Bowvros, Os Boavra elvai TOV lo&vvmv,

Kal TovToU THY $oviyv év tH épnpw Bogv, EvOvvare TQv 600v Kupiov.

(2) The divine name involves the divine attributes.

The name is not a fortuitous appendage, but is the peculiar property of the person, essentially descriptive of the person: and consequently it summarises all those descriptive titles which indicate the essential attributes of the person.

Since the Son,is come in the Father's name, these titles and the attributes they imply are his also.

(3) Actually each of these titles can be shown, on scriptural authority, to be applicable to the Son: from which it follows that the God of the Old Testament is not, as the monarchians and others alleged, God the Father only, but is God, namely the Son revealing the Father.

See below, § 21, 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 inei nomine et non me recepistis:

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

adeo semper filius erat in dei et regis et domini ommipotentis et altissimi nomine.

Condicente etiam scriptura.

Condicere in Tertullian means not "promise" but "agree" ado. Hermog.

11, cum pecora condixerint bestiis, "when lambs dwell with wolves": adv. Mare. ii. 2, cui et apostolus condicet,

"the apostle will be found to agree with Isaiah".

See Oehler's note, scorp. 14, condixerat Petrus.

'The Scripture here referred to is Ps. 118. 26, not Matt. 21. 9 and its parallels, which are not Scripture but the shout of a fickle multitude.

Deus omnipotens:

'Ww 5x, Gen. 17. 1, etc., Exod. 6. 3.

Altissimus: jv», Gen. 14. 18, etc.

Dominus virtutum: mwiy mm, 1 Sam. 17. 45, etc.

Rex Israelis, 1 Sam. 12. 12:

Deut. 33. 5, but only by implication, not as an express title.

Qui est: nnw, ó ov, Exod. 3. 14.

Filius suo iure deus omnipotens.

Omnipotens is inserted by the editors: it appears to be required by the general tenor of the sentence.

Suo iure cannot mean "without reference to or derivation from the Father"— which would involve ditheism: it apparently means "in his own proper person". The sentence Cum ergo legis .

. et non sunt means that when these titles are read in the Old Testament it is the Son who is meant, and that they are to be taken as strong evidence for his existence suo ture, as a Person distinct from the Father.

Omnium accepit potestatem : Matt. 28. 18: the Son is God Almighty on two grounds, by nature as sermo omnipotentis (see below) and because ali authority has been given to him. Dextera dei exaltatus : Acts 2. 33. Omnia subiecta sunt illi : 1 Cor. 15.

27, quoted from Ps. 8.6. Sors gentis istius, Deut. 32. 9. Filii dicuntur et non sunt, Rom. 9. 8 sqq.

Si autem volunt, etc.

Some of the monarchians seem, like the adoptionists, to have, distinguished a divine Christ from a human Jesus, and to have identified (as the adoptionists did not) the former with the Father: see below, $ 28.

" COMMENTARY AND NOTES

Ego dominus qui est, etc.

The monarchians' argument seems to have been that this sentence of the Apocalypse is spoken by Christ: that the title

"Almighty" is not appropriate in the mouth of any except the Father: and that therefore Christ must be regarded as identical with the Father.

Tertullian replies that omnipotence, like deity, belongs to Christ by virtue of his sonship, there being as good reason for the one as for the other.

Quasi qui venturus, etc.

The meaning of the sentence seems clear enough, though the text is in some disorder: the MSS. read quasi qui venturus sit omnipotens, which will not construe:

Oehler inserts non after sit, which is hardly better: Kroymann reads quasi qui venturus sit omnipotentis filius non sit omnipotens, which makes sense: the simplest alteration would be to read, quas? qui venturus sit (non sit» omnipotens, and to translate, as though he who is to come were not almighty, the fact being that the Son of the Almighty is almighty precisely as the Son of God is God". xvi. They hesitate to acknowledge that the Son shares the Father's titles, on the ground that the Scripture pronounces that there ts one only God.

When we reply, as we have done, that the same Scripture sets forth two (who are» God and Lord, they reply that those two are therefore one and the same.

But the Scripture does not need human subtlety to help it not to contradict itself: it has its reasons in both cases and is competent to explain itself. God does not cease to be the only God by having a Son: for he is named alone, without the Son, when reference is to the Father as the primary

Person.

So "there is one God, the Father" and " beside him there is none else".

When God said that, he said it not to deny the Son, but to exclude another god: and the Son is not another god. If statements of this kind are carefully examined they are seen to be directed against idolatry: and the Son is to be understood as included in the unity, inseparable from the Father, the more so as he is not mentioned.

The mere mention of him in such circumstances would have implied separation, or would have been otiose, since the Son ts in the Father.

The insistence upon one God is therefore directed against idolaters and against heretics, who fabricate other gods, the former with their hands, the latter with words: it is intended to preclude the idea that Christ came from any other god except him who declared his own unity, a unity which includes the Son.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Ideo ambo unus, etc.

This seems the best way to punctuate: Oehler and Kroymann place the comma after idem, making a very awkward sentence.

| De tua argumentatione succurras, * come to itsassistance with yoursubtleties". Oehler (index s.v.) remarks that argumentari is equivalent to arguttiis agere.

Of the references given, the following seem to bear that sense: adv.

Prax, 26, volent quidem et hic argumentari, sed veritas praevalebit: de carne Christi, 16, argumentandi libidine ex forma ingenii haeretici : de res. carn. 37, peccatores .

. quos monumenta (i.e. John 5. 28) intellegendos argumentantur | haeretici: ibid. 53, corpus animale animam quidam argumentantur: ibid. 60, de officiis quoque membrorum argumentantur: adv. Hermog. 3, argumentari tibi videor? de anima, 37, ego ad deum potius argumentabor hunc modum temporis, ut decem menses decalogo magis inaugurent hominem, ut tanto temporis numero nascamur quanto disciplinae numero renascimur.

Possibly also de carne Christi, 6, his vero quae insuper argumentantur nos resistemus: and, adv. Prax. 15, quts non ex diverso argumentabitur?, probably has the same meaning.

In the present passage the substantive seems to mean "subtle reasoning" : so ad nat. ii. 2, in incertum abiit etiam quod invenerant, et facta est argumentationum inundatio de stillicidio uno atque alio veritatis: ibid. 4, sed quid ego cum argumentationibus physiologicis.

But, de anima, 3, where he opposes argumentationes originales id est philosophicas to definitiones caelestes id est dominicas the word seems to mean "inductions'': cf. adv. Marc. ii. 5, haec sunt argumentationum ossa quae obroditis, where it appears from what follows that the word means "arguments", or perhaps "cavils".

"Tertullian seems never to use argumentari, argumentatio, for reasoning of which he approves.

Habet rationem.

Rationem habere apparently means "has reasonable cause", cf. Cicero, in Verrem, V1. ii. 115, quid tandem habuit argumenti aut rationis res quam ob rem in eo potissimum . . . praemium poneretur?

Non enim desinit esse, etc.

Delete the comma after filium, and translate, "For he who has a son does not cease to be himself singular, I mean when considered in himself, as often as he is mentioned without his son "'.

The reference here and in the following sentence is to fathers and

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

^— agi sons in general: the particular reference to God is resumed at igitur unus deus.

Unus deus pater: 1 Cor. 8. 6. Absque eo alius non est, Is. 44. 6: 45. 5,18. Ipse inferens, God himself who introduces this statement, being himself the speaker in Is. 45.

Ceterum alius a patre, etc.

Supply deus from the previous sentence: otherwise ise s case is given away.

Habens tamen filium.

| '

A construction according to sense: the participle depends on unio divinitatis, which is equivalent to unus deus.

| Individuum, "undivided'', synonymous with inseparatum: cf. $ 6, habentem in se individuas suas rationem et sophiam. In patre reputandum,

" must be supposed to be included in (the mention: of) the Father, although not specifically named".

St nominasset.

Such a mention would either (a) stultify the Préiiodieiddht by suggesting the existence of another even while denying it, or (b) would be otiose, as in the illustration which follows.

Propter haereticos.

Both Marcionites and gnostics deduced their Christ from another god who was not the God of the Old Testament, and so fabricated a second god and a second so-called christ.

Caelum solus extendit.

Is. 45. 18, oras Mye KUptos 6 Toujcas TOY ovpavor .

"Eyó epi Kat ovx écTw ér, suggests Is. 44. 24, éférewa Tov ovpavoy póvos, and so provides the transition to the next chapter: cf. Job 9. 8, 6 ravígas Tov ovpavoy povos.

The Hebrew in both cases reads 783, "stretcheth out". xix. "J alone have spread out the heavens?! (Is. 44. 24), which our adversaries use to support their case, was intended to guard against gnosticism. It will only suit the monarchians if they are prepared to forget that at the creation Wisdom was also present (Prov. 8. 30).

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

When the prophet says "Who hath known the mind of the Lord or been his counsellor?'' he evidently means, "Who besides Wisdom", that is "besides the Son", Christ who alone knows the mind of the Father.

Therefore at the creation God was not alone, for he had a companion within himself: he was alone, in that there were no other. gods present.

The evangelist (John 1. 1) and the psalmist (Ps. 33. 6) testify that the Word, i.e. the Son, was present at the creation: so again proving that God was not alone except in the sense that no other gods were there.

The verses which follow "I alone have spread out the heavens", mention the Son— establishing the words of his

Son", which God did when he said " Hear him" (Matt. 17. 5): by adding this reference to the Son he shows in what sense we must understand the word "alone".

Moreover it is the Son who says, "T alone have spread out the heavens", as is proved by the text of Proverbs and by what is said in this same discourse, "I am the first"

(Is. 41. 4): the first must be the Son, since the Father is outside the order of numeration.

If then they are anxious to safeguard the divine unity, it is safeguarded by the statement that God, being one, has also a Son, as the Scripture testifies: we have already drawn attention to this testimony, and have explained how the fact that there are two who are called God and Lord does not mean that there are two gods or two lords: for the Son must be called God because of his unity with the Father.

; ; Qui et ipsum creatorem, etc.

The MS. reading, Oehler's text, seems to mean: "They make out that the creator is either an angel, or else a being contrived for other external purposes such as the fabrication of the world— ignorant (of the true God) in either case".

"The Valentinians distinguished between the creation of the suprasensible ideal world and the subsequent creation of the actual visible world:

Tertullian here seems to be hinting at that distinction.

There is however nothing in the Valentinian system which suggests that the supramundane creator was an angel or that the maker of the visible world was a being specially fabricated or suborned for the purpose: though gnostic speculations were so elastic that it is impossible to say that such a theory was not held by someone or other.

Kroymann's suggestion, aut ab aliqua extrinsecus virtute volunt ad opera mundi, is therefore unnecessary, though his reference to Achamoth is to the point: Engelbrecht's ad alia

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

quae extrinsecus sunt opera mundi preserves the necessary distinction, and may be correct: but it has nothing to balance the previous aut.

Isti .

. haeretici.

Tertullian here for the first time calls the monarchians heretics: but their doctrine is called heresy in § 1.

Et st dixit.

Oehler, following Ursinus, adds apostolus, referring to Rom. 11.

34: Engelbrecht suggests Esaias, referring to Is. 40. 13. Possibly both are wrong: Tertullian may have forgotten that the speaker in Is. 40. 13 is the prophet in his own person.

If God were the speaker, as in the previous quotations, praeter sophiam non fuit, the reading of one MS., would stand.

Praeter sophiam fuit (PM) would also stand: the question is whether praeter means "without" or "besides".

Consilio fuit (for LXX ovpBovdos) occurs only here: adv. Marc. v. 14. 18, adv. Hermog. 17, scorp. 7, consiliarius.

In ipso tamen et cum illo, etc.

The sentences are somewhat interlaced:

7n ipso tamen is the apodosis of et si dixit, as though utique praeter sophiam, etc., had not intervened: praeter sophiam autem, etc., develops utique praeter sophiam, as though zn ipso tamen, etc., had not been there.

The natural subject of compingebat is sophia:

"yet in him and in company with him (Wisdom) established all things, seeing he was not ignorant of what he was doing".

But there may conceivably be a constructio ad sensum, ipso and illo being masculine by anticipation of the equation sophia=filius: "Yet in the Son and with the Son for associate he established all things, and the Son was not (like the supposed demiurge of the gnostic> ignorant of what he was doing".

But the sequence would be easier if we could read in ipso etenim. | Dicit cannot mean "he means" since praeter sophiam is not a quotation but a supposition: translate **without Wisdom' means 'without the Son'"'.

Spiritus qui in ipso est.

Here, as elsewhere, "the Spirit" is Ay as meaning "the Son".

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Atque adeo statim, ie. in the verses immediately following Extendi caelum solus,

Is. 44. 25, 26, Tis érepos Oaa keOda ev onpeta éyyao TpuiÜov xai pavtelas aro Kapdlas, àmoaTpéQov ppovipovs eis Ta éticw kai Tv Bovlny avTOv pwpevwr, Kal La TOv prpara qavoos avrov; where mais, as the Hebrew shows, means not Son but Servant.

The same collocation of Is. 44. 26 with Luke 9. 35 occurs adv. Marc. iv. 22, Sistens enim, inquit, verba filüi sui, dicendo scilicet, Hic est filius meus dilectus, hunc audite.

Proinde et filii erit vox.

The divine discourse Is. 41. 1-50. 3 is, like the other theophanies, a theophany of the Son.

Since the Father is cum filio unum (not unus), and since the Son alone ministered the Father's activity, the Son also can say, Extendi caelum solus.

In sermone .

. paratum est caelum comes from Ps. 33. 6: sophia... adsistente from Prov. 8. 30, cvpaapyynv.

But Tertullian will carry his case further: unless the Son is the speaker in this discourse the language is unsuitable to the Father, for it contains the sentence Ego primus, etc. (Is. 41. 4), and the Father cannot be the first, seeing that he is outside all order of numeration.

Ceterum. pater .

. non potest videri: primus non potest videri is evidently what is mearit, and probably primus should be restored to the text (so Kroymann).

| Duos deos . .

. duos dominos.

The sequence shows that, as in several similar passages, the numerals are to be taken as the direct object and the substantives as predicative. Tertullian can, if he wishes, choose his phraseology carefully, as in cum filio solus, cum filio unum earlier in this chapter, and as in dei non duo nec domini later in this sentence: and it is difficult to resist the impression that by such a collocation as duos deos he is making a deliberately provocative phrase with the intention of shocking his opponents into attention to his explanation. The end of this sentence repeats the substance of §§ 2 and 9.

Vocari habeat.

Habere with the infinitive may mean either "may" or * must": in many of the instances quoted by Oehler, de fuga, 12 note, possibly "must" is the meaning, though "may"? is all one could insist on: but de cult. fem, i. 1, propter tuum meritum, id est mortem,

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

etiam filius dei mori habuit, the meaning is certainly "had to die".

So probably here, not "may be called God" but "has to be called God"—his unity with the Father necessarily, not permissively, involves his being called by the divine name.

But below, § 21, quid retro fuerit qui caro fieri habebat, perhaps no necessity is. implied, but only contingent futurity, "who was to be made flesh". Ex unitate patris, probably "because of his unity with the Father": or else, the very fact that the Father's unity is so categorically stated makes the deity of the Son a necessary deduction: the former seems preferable.

XX. But (for all we have given this explanation» we still need to rebut their subtleties: we have to attend to whatever they will extract. from the New Testament to suit. their purpose, while they overlook all those other texts which observe the rule while yet. the divine unity is safeguarded. Fust as in the Old Testament they reject all else in favour of, ' I am God and beside me there is none else", so in the Gospel they cling to three sentences in our Lord's reply to Philip, and expect the whole of both Testaments to yield to these— though the few instances ought to be understood in the light of the many.

But all heretics do that: they advocate a few texts against the many, and take up the cause of later instances in disregard of precedents—whereas in every sphere the rule as originally established in precedents prescribes also for later instances, as of course for the fewer in number.

Si quid de scripturis.

Probably read novis scripturis. We leave here the discussion of Old Testament texts and pass on to consider the three New

Testament texts put forward by the monarchians, and to give them an interpretation in accordance with the general sense of the Gospel.

Regulam servant: either the Rule of the Faith, rehearsed in § 2, which states the fact of the Trinity, or perhaps the rule enuntiated at the end of this chapter that earlier instances prescribe for later ones and the larger number for the smaller.

The former interpretation gives a better connexion with what follows: the gospel texts observe the trinitarian rule of the faith while yet not denying the divine unity and the impressive sound of monarchy.

So read salva and sonitu with P. Sonitus, which refers back to monarchiam sonare in $ 3, means not a mere sound

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

but a loud or impressive sound: cf. Cicero, ad Alt. i. 14. 4, nosti iam in hac materia sonitus nostros.

Kroymann, reading salvo and substituting statu for sonitu, produces a text which can only mean "preserving also the fact of the case by the unity of divinity and monarchy", which is probably not what he intended it to. mean.

For unione one would at first sight have expected unitate: but cf. de res. carn. 2, sic multos inretitos videmus, dum ante de resurrectione carnis eliduntur quam de unione divinitatis elidunt: de monog. 4, perseveravit unio coniugii in auctoribus generis ad finem usque, i.e. Adam never had any wife except Eve: from which it appears that unio means "singularity"' and is somewhat stronger than umtas—certainly it has not its original sense, "act of uniting"'.

Ego et pater unum sumus.

John ro. 30, not from the reply to Philip but from a controversy with the Jews: the other two texts, John 14. 9, 10, were spoken to Philip.

Proprium omnium haereticorum.

Cf. adv. Marc. iv. 19, ipse, inquiunt, contestatur se non esse natum dicendo, Quae mihi mater et qui mihi fratres? ita semper haeretici aut nudas et simplices voces coniecturis quo volunt rapiunt, aut rursus condicionales et rationales simplicitatis condicione dissolount, ut hoc in loco: adv. Hermog. 19, itaque occasiones sibi sumpsit quorundam verborum, ut haereticis fere mos est simplicia quaeque torquere: nam et ipsum principium in quo deus fecit et caelum et terram aliquid

— volunt fuisse quasi substantivum et corpulentum quod in materiam interpretari possit: ibid. 27, hae sunt argutiae et subtilitates haereticorum | simplicitatem communium | verborum | torquentes in quaestionem.

Utique et in paucioribus.

So the MSS.: editors, following Ursinus, have read pauciora, which still leaves the sentence one-sided.

Engelbrecht would omit the four words.

They will however make sense as they stand, if they are taken not grammatically but as a summary statement of the "greater and lesser number" parallel to regula

.. . constituta in prioribus et in posteriora praescribit: this, written out in full, would have been uti et quae in pluribus constituta et in pauciora praescribit, which would have made a very awkward sentence and is briefly, perhaps somewhat impatiently, summarised

* and likewise in the case of the fewer".

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

XXI. A multitude of texts in the Gospel before Philip's question establish the precedent.

The Evangelist's preface indicates two Persons: the Word who was from the beginning, and God with whom he was.

It was the Word, not he whose Word he is, who was made flesh, whose glory was seen, who hath declared the bosom of the Father: for God, it says, no man hath seen.

The Lamb of God means the Son of God, not God whose Son he is. Nathanael's confession, which our Lord approved, as he did Peter's elsewhere, was " Thou art the Son of God".

The Temple is * my Father's house".

In conversation with Nicodemus our Lord says that God gave his only-begotten Son, and that God sent his Son into the world. John the Baptist again says " The Father loveth the Son and hath delivered all things into his hand", and what follows.

To the Samaritan woman our Lord declared himself the Messiah, which means Christ the Son, not the Father.

To his disciples he says that his work is to do the will of his Father, and to the Jews he says, * My Father worketh hitherto, and I work": indeed in the whole of that discourse concerning the paralytic he distinguishes between the Father and the Son, as he does also in the discourse concerning the Bread of Life: and at the end of both these discourses he affirms that no man has seen the Father, thus distinguishing the Father from himself whom they then saw. And again Peter acknowledges him to be the Christ, which means the Son, not the Father.

In this collection of the texts of St John's Gospel which indicate the distinction of the Father and the Son, Tertullian's principle of interpretation is the sound one, Haec non aliter accipi licet quam quomodo scripta sunt.

In the one place where his deduction seems a little fanciful (i.e. in his explanation of Deus glorificatus est in illo, § 23 ad fin.) he errs through too much, not too little, adherence to his rule, giving the preposition more weight than it was perhaps intended to bear. The same principle can be seen working, on a broader field, in his anti-Marcionite comments on the Marcionite

New Testament (adv. Marc. iv. v.). What scriptural interpretation could become in the hands of gnostics whose imagination was stronger than their understanding is apparent in the specimens of their work which Irenaeus quotes as their own sufficient refutation: the Valentinian exposition of John 1. 1-3 (haer. i. 1. 18) is a fair sample. How suggestive, though often unpersuasive, it could become in the hands of a reverent Christian seeker, is evident

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

from the almost contemporary work of Origen.

If by the side of this Tertullian seems dull and pedestrian, he has at least the merit of having made an exhaustive collection of texts bearing on his thesis, and of insisting on their being understood in je natural and literal sense.

The Johannine evidence is taken first, and exhaustively "

2125) because the three stock monarchian texts came from this gospel.

In accordance with the rule that the less usual must be interpreted in terms of the more usual, it was necessary first to discover what the general Johannine usage is, and to apply it to the three debated texts.

In subsequent chapters the concurrence of the other gospels and of St Paul is summarily exemplified.

—— Fieri habebat.

See note on $ 19.

Alium sermonem dei, etc.

The accusatives in this sentence have no government, a fact which does not seem to have troubled the editors—except Kroymann, who has changed them all to nominatives.

Quo alium dicamus, etc.

Quo can only here mean "where". The second non eundem is Oehler's addition: alium would have done just as well.

Hic unicus sinum patris, etc.

Reading unicus with Engelbrecht (representing novo'yevys in John 1. 18). As already remarked, Tertullian takes kóAzov as the object of é£yyjaaro.

Inde et si agnus det, etc.:

* Next also, if by John he is called Lamb of God, he is not called God whose beloved he is."

'The Baptist's language is of course sacrificial, as Tertullian himself observes, adv. lud. 9, lucerna ardens et lucens qui non tantum vias eius parabat in eremo, sed et agnum dei demonstrando illuminabat mentes hominum praeconio suo, ut eum esse intellegerent agnum quem Moyses passurum nuntiabat.

How he arrives at the equation agnus-— dilectus it would be difficult to say, unless there is an implied reference to Nathan's parable.

In Irenaeus, haer. iii. 11. 9, Ecce filius meus dilectissimus is quoted in close connexion with Nathaniel's Tw es filius dei and a reference to Peter's confession.

Possibly Tertullian had this passage in mind.

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

Quod et patrem senserat seems meaningless, and perhaps should be ejected, if one could explain how the interpolation arose.

Kroymann brackets for removal et patrem, thus making sense.

Engelbrecht makes the four words a parenthesis, "To whom flesh and blood had not revealed it—because he had perceived the Father—but the Father".

Qui Petro revelaverat, etc., "who had revealed to Peter what Peter acknowledged, that Christ is the Son of God".

Quod is a relative pronoun, not a conjunction, and the accusatives are of indirect speech.

Quid de Iesu cum tingeret.

Cum tingeret is Engelbrecht's conjecture for the MSS. contingeret.

Kroymann, taking this a step further, reads cum interrogaret qui de Iesu cur tingeret: this is hardly in accordance with John 3. 26, for no one asked the Baptist why Jesus was baptizing.

He was hardly asked a question at all, but presented with a piece of information involving an implied question, which is sufficiently indicated by interrogaretur quid.

Si Messiam . . . filium utique.

The equation Christus—filius comes from Matt.

16. 17 as Tertullian here says: see again at the end of this chapter, and $ 22, nunquam Christus pater scriptus est venturus.

Pater et ego, filius dicit.

The sense is quite general—'

My father and I" is what a son says.

Pater enim diligit filium.

The second demonstravit should be demonstrabit: John 5. 20, Oe(fev.

After quomodo enim insert pater.

Transit stands for transiit, peraBéBnxev.

Vitam aeternam : the adjective, both times, is Tertullian's addition to the text.

Et iudicium dedit, etc., a paraphrase for (or a quotation from memory of) kat éfovaiav éOmkev abrQ Kpiow Tow.

Sicut et filius dei per spiritum eius.

See a note on $ 2.

Subiungens autem, etc.

This sentence and the next claim the authority of the Gospel \

"TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

for the theses maintained in §§ 16, 17: (a) that the Son was the subject of the theophanies, and (b) that he there appeared not only with the Father's authority but with the Father's dignity and titles.

Retro... semper "always in the past": cf. § 22, at cum subiungit, Abraham diem meum vidit et laetatus est, nempe de- . monstrat filium Abrahae retro visum, non patrem.

Offert si velint, etc., a pregnant expression for "suggests that they also may like to go away", offert et ipsis ut discedere liceat si velint, which goes a little beyond the strict meaning of 1.7) kai duets Oedere vadryew;

Patrem illum esse, etc., depends on respondit, the intervening quotation being parenthetic. xxi. In the conversations which took place at the Feast of Tabernacles, namely with the Fews who marvelled at his doctrine, with the servants of the high priests and Pharisees sent to take him, and with the Fews who believed on him: again in the matter of the man blind from birth, and in the parable of the Door of the sheep: and again at the Encaenia: our Lord preserves the distinction between himself and his Father.

When we reach the text, "I and my Father are one', our opponents wish to make a stand: though this text also is in our favour, since "I and my Father" and "are" are plural expressions, and "one" in the neuter gender signifies not singularity but unity, community, equality.

Moreover, in the same conversation in which this text occurs, our Lord stresses the duality; and it appears that the Father and the Son are one (unum) by community of work (per opera) being two in one exercise of power

(in una virtute).

Cuius autem doctrinam, etc., * Whose does he say that doctrine was that they marvelled at?"',

John 7. 15-17 (a reference omitted by Oehler).

Utique non pater, etc., " evidently not the Father, but the Son". Any Jew (and it was

Jews who were discussing him) knew that Christ is not the Father: therefore they must (without being aware of it) have meant the Son: so below: nam usque in hodiernum diem Iudaei Christum dei, non ipsum patrem sperant, quia nunquam Christus pater scriptus est venturus. — Neque nescitis (Oehler) is rather far-fetched, though

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

it gives the sense of the Greek xdpé oidare: the MSS. read neque me scitis, for which Kroymann substitutes meque scitis: perhaps read Meque scitis, inquit, et scitis unde sim, Kape oiQare kai oldate móÜev eipé.

Apud illum, as though the Greek were wap avro instead of rap' avro).

Ad invadendum eum.

John 7. 32, tva mudowow avrov, which Tertullian apparently misread as émíeguw avr.

Duos dixit ignotos, quod si.

Kroymann punctuates .

. duos dixit ignotos, quod, si ipsum nossent, etc., he said there were two whom they did not know, because, if they had known him they would have known the Father". A period after sine altero potest. Per individuitatem,

"because of their inseparability": so below, individuorum duorum, "two who are inseparable".

Interpretante extrinsecus scriptura, i.e. the evangelist's words as distinguished from our Lord's, extrinsecus, "from outside", as an interpolation". Ecce dedi, etc., Jer. 1. 9, is evidently not a Messianic text: Dominus dat, etc., Is. 5o. 4, may be so regarded.

Sed sicut me docuit.

Perhaps add pater (Kroymann).

Ut quidam arripiunt huius dicti occasionem.

John 8. 42, éyà yap éx Tod 0co0 é£zA0ov Kai jo. These are apparently the same people as those referred to by ORIGEN, comm. in Ioa. xx. 18, p. 331, dÀAov 0€ 76, 'E£gA0ov dmó Tov

0co9, Sunyjoavro avi Tov, Teyévynpar amo tov ÜcoU' ots dkoXovÜet €x THS ovatas Packew ToU marpós yeyerynobar

TOV viov, Olovel pecovpevov Kal helmovTOS TH ovaíq. 3) mpórepov eiye ToU vioU [so Brooke: perhaps read warpos] émav yevvíjoy TOv viv, egi vonTaL Tus TOUTO Kal emt TÓV éykvpóvov. dkoXovÜet 96 ajrois kai apa héyew Tov matépa kai Tov. viov, kai OwptjocÜa. tov maTépa, amep féoTi Sdypata avOpdrwv pnd dvap pvow dóparov xai dccparov Tepavtacpevwr, otcav KUpiws ovoiay. ovToL 86 Sprov 6m €v copatike Tóm Occovgi Tüv Tartépa,

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Kal TOv viov TómOV ék TóTOU Gpeipavra THPATIKAS émuSednpnevar TQ Bie, Kal ovyt KaTdotacw €k karacTáceos WOTEP HLELS é£eovjapev.

Origen takes the whole text to refer to the Incarnation: AUGUSTINE (quoted by Westcott, ad loc.—no reference given) takes processi to refer to the eternal generation, and veni to the Incarnation.

[Westcott's note on the subtle difference between é€x, wapa, and amo must be reviewed in the light of the fact that Origen uses the three prepositions indiscriminately without a suggestion of any difference between them (comm. in Ioa. xx. pp. 330, 331).] Tertullian, as the three similes show, refers the text to the eternal generation.

The variation ex semine for the more usual ex radice is probably no more than accidental.

Pater enim quod mihi dedit, etc.

So PM, agreeing with cod. Vat., ó TaTHp pov 0 Oé8nkév pot rávrov. petlov éaTw: the reading of F almost corresponds with cod. Alex. and the received text, 6 matyp pov 0s dédwxev pou peilwy mávrov éorw.

The reading of F would better suit the reference to the sheep: if the better attested reading is adopted this reference is only obtained by making omnibus apply to the sheep, "than they all".

Tum quod Unum sumus, non Unus sumus.

Kroymann adds <dicit): possibly the missing word is sit, and the meaning, "lastly that Unum sumus is not the same as Unus sumus".

In the next sentence a period i is required after videtur and only a comma after generis: "and so, since there are two of the masculine gender, he says unum in the neuter, which pertains not to singularity, but to unity, to likeness, to conjointness, etc.". Cf. de res. carn. 55: at the resurrection, by the change that takes place, the man . .

. non ita alius efficitur ut cesset idem esse, immo nec alius efficitur sed aliud, i.e. he will differ in quality, not in personality.

The phraseology used here and a little later (per opera .

. in una virtute) does not necessarily imply much more than a moral unity: but Tertullian's position as regards unity of substance is sufficiently expressed elsewhere.

Unum esse patrem.

Add et filium (Ursinus).

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

Adeo totum hoc, etc.

"And so his consistent purpose was to reach this result and this alone (totum hoc), that they might believe in two, yet two in one operative act, because it was impossible for them to believe in the Son unless it were the case that there were two to believe in."

For perseverare see $ 25, quae in finem evangelii perseverant in eodem genere sermonis : and de pall. 4, sí post incentivum ( Achilles) puellam perseverasset. On in una virtute see John 5. 19, where it is said not that the Son's works are similar to the Father's, but that they are identical: and 14. ro (quoted below, § 24), pater autem manens in me facit opera. xxii. Not only was Martha not in error when she confessed jesus to be Christ the Son of God, but our Lord also on the same occasion addressed himself as Son to the Father.

Further, when his soul was troubled (when the Greeks came desiring to see him), he both spoke to the Father and was answered by the Father from heaven.

Of course the Father is everywhere, and the Son is with him everywhere: yet in the Dispensation it was the Father's will for the Son to be on earth, the Father being in heaven. Heaven is God's throne: the Son he made a little lower than the angels by sending him down on earth, but with the purpose of glorifying him— as it says here, "Glorify thy name", and "I have both glorified it and will glorify it again", for the Son is in the Father's Name. Any suggestion that the Father in heaven is identical with the Son on earth accuses both of mendacity: and besides, why should the Son pray to himself or the Father make promises to himself?

Even if, as our opponents say, we are making two separate gods, better two separate gods than one chameleon god.

It was for their sake, as our Lord here says, that that Voice came—so that they might believe in the Father and the Son, each in his own name and person and location.

Again, irt sohat follows, our Lord distinguishes himself, as sent, from the Father who sent him, explaining that belief in the Son is the way to belief in the Father, since the Son conveys the Father's message.

The evangelist—a better authority than Praxeas—explains this when he says that Jesus knew that the Father had given all things into his hand, and that he was come from God and was going to God.

If Praxeas were right Judas would have been the betrayer of the Father, whereas in fact it was the Son who was betrayed and the Son who was glorified: for " God ts glorified in the

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Son of Man", i.e. God the Word is glorified in the flesh: and moreover '' God shall glorify him", i.e. the Father shall glorify the Son (whom he has in himself" even while on earth) by the conquest of death through the Resurrection.

Martha was substituted for Maria by Pameliis, in view of John 11. 27.

The mistake may be Tertullian's: that he was capable of such a slip of memory is shown by his wrong attribution of John 1o.

30 ($ 20) and by im Aegypto (§ 14), where im eremo would have been correct. Statim didicisset means not "she would have been told she was mistaken", but that if she had been mistaken and had not called our Lord the Son of God, she would have learned to call him so from his address to the Father in verse 41.

In conturbatione animae.

John 12. 27, v)v 7) Vvy?j pov rerápakraa.

In quo erat filius.

Tertullian slightly personifies the Name, by taking literally the idiomatic expression "in the name" : cf. $ 17. A similar literalism is often found in interpretations of év apyn, Gen. 1. 1 and John 1. 1 (see a note on $ 5).

Inde scilicet suffecerat, etc.

The note of Junius, quoted by Oehler, is beside the point, which is: that the Son's address to the Father (Glorify thy name) would have been sufficient to establish our argument; but, ex abundantia, for more abundant proof, the Father, who had already (at the Baptism and the Transfiguration) testified from heaven to the Son, here again refers to that testimony (glorificavt), and promises further glorifying, by which he meant "at the Resurrection" (see at the end of this chapter): the Son's address to the Father would have been sufficient, and so the Father's answer to the Son is more than sufficient.

Contestaturus is Oehler's correction of the MSS. reading contesiatur: contestatus would be better, since the Baptism and the Transfiguration had preceded the present episode.

For the identification, the Son zs the Father's name, see note on $ 17.

Sed vi et potestate.

Tertullian is no pantheist, and therefore thus qualifies his

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

statement of God's ubiquity—a ubiquity in which the Son, as individuus, shares.

By the Father's will, in the Incarnation (in ipsa oikovopia) the Son is on earth, and the Father in heaven:

(haberi meaning both "to be" and "to be seen to be"): yet this is not a separation of the Son from the Father, but a divine dispensation: even such appearance of separation as is involved in the distinction "on earth", "in heaven", will be brought to an end at the Ascension.

Meanwhile the possibility of the distinction "on earth"', "in heaven", is proof that Father and Son are two Persons.

Hanc sedem suam voluit pater .

. minoravit, etc.

This is the reading of the two eleventh-century MSS. PM: the fifteenth-century MS. F, which occasionally preserves traces of an older text, reads .

. . voluit pater mihi turmis minoravit, etc., on the ground of which Kroymann brilliantly conjectures .

. voluit pater: In caelo, inquit, mihi thronus. — hinc et) minoravit, etc.

N Itaque ad istos, etc.

Isti are those who stood by and said that it ihütiáered or that an angel spoke to him: Ai, in the next sentence, are the ' monarchians.

Auctoritas credendi filio pater est, i.e. by the command Audite illum.

Dominus enim .

. sermonem.

Kroymann takes the quotation from Is. 50. 4 as a parenthesis explanatory of mandatum dedit, and, reading quae for the MSS. quem, understands it as beginning a new quotation from John

12.50. But the MS. text will construe if the quotation from Isaiah is made parenthetic and sermonem quem, etc., is regarded as a comment on it.

* De suo sensu, "of his own mind": i.e. John 13. 1-3 are not words of our Lord, but the evangelist's comment.

Et se ex deo esse: Ursinus (followed by Kroymann) perhaps needlessly reads exisse (Greek eéqA0ev).

Deus glorificatus est in illo.

Tertullian's explanation of this text seems to be his own idea: the expression filius dei qui erat in filio hominis is one which U

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

would have pleased Nestorius.

ORIGEN's explanation is no doubt the correct one, comm. in Ioa. xxxii. p. 446, etr. émet oUk eveote

9ofaoÜQva. Tov xpwrróv pr évOofalouévov ev avrà To matpos, Sia rovro mpóakevra, TO Nov é9o£da n 6 vids ToU avOpwmov TÓ Kai 6 beds ed0€dcbn £v air@: the whole comment, §§ 25-29, is worth consultation.

But Tertullian was concerned to preclude a possible monarchian suggestion that God being glorified in the Son of Man implies that the Son of Man is the Father, himself incarnate: and the expression to which we have taken exception is safeguarded by the paraphrase sermo patris, qui erat in filio hominis, id est in carne, which is almost scriptural.

In qua et glorificatus, etc.

The MSS. read et ante Iesum: the nominative is evidently required: Jesus had already, even before this, been glorified, that is to say, by his miracles (virtute) and by the voice from heaven

(sermone).

Tertullian misses the point, which Origen sees, that the exit of Judas was a glorification of the Son of Man because it was to occasion that uplifting by which he would draw all men to himself: he makes éd0€doy refer entirely to the past, reserving do€acex for the future as indicating the Resurrection. xxiv. Our Lord, in his answer to Thomas, ' I am the way, etc."', says that he is the way to the Father, whom from henceforth the disciples have known and seen: which brings us to Philip's request,

* Shew us the Father", and our Lord's reply.

The disciples ought by that time to have known Jesus; but is there any reason for thinking that they ought to have known him to be the Father? The prophecies of the Old Testament pointed to him as the Christ of God: our

Lord's own pronouncement and the Father's testimony declared him to be the Son of God.

It was as Christ the Son that the disciples believed in him and the Fews disbelieved: as such he had represented himself to them, giving the Father preference and honour: and his expostulation, " Have I been so long time with you, etc.", implies that they had not yet fully apprehended the meaning of his sonship.

* He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" must be understood in the same sense as "I and my Father are one"—namely that Jesus came from the Father, and is the way to the Father, and is the Father's deputy both in act and in word, the Father himself being

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

invisible.

That is why Philip is rebuked for asking to see the Father, because the Father is to be seen in the Son—in mighty works, but not in person.

Moreover the sentence which follows, "I am in my Father and my Father in me", quite overthrows the monarchian contention: for it would have been quite easy; if it had been true, to say "I am my Father" : swhile this that he does say he proceeds to interpret, showing how the Father, abiding in the Son, seen through the Son's works of power and words of doctrine, is seen in the Son, not with the eyes but with the mind.

Nec intellegens quomodo visum patrem audisset, "not understanding in what sense he had just heard Jesus say

* Ye have seen him'"', Quem dicit cognosci ab illis debuisse, etc.

With Oehler's (the MS.) reading, quem is a relative pronoun:

"Him whom he says they ought to have known—this alone is at issue between us—does he say they ought to have known as Father or as Son?"

Engelbrecht suggests debuisse se, making quem an interrogative pronoun.

''As whom does he say they ought to have known him ...as Father or as Son?" Non dico intellegi : understanding is concerned with the truth, and is too good a word for such an error as Praxeas would here make: aestimari (the Platonic 8ó£a) is good enough.

Nobis omnes scripturae, etc.

This distinction here drawn, between the Old Testament as prophesying concerning the Christ of God and the pronouncements recorded in the New Testament that Jesus is the Son of God, will be admitted to be for the most part true; though there are in the Old Testament a few passages commonly regarded as Messianic where *' Son" is the term used, e.g. Ps. 2. 7: 2 Sam. 7.

I4: I Chron. 22. 10: 28. 6: Ps. 89. 26, 27 (cf. Heb. 1. 5). The New Testament pronouncements quoted are from the narrative of the Transfiguration (Matt. 17. 5) and the reference to it and confirmation of it at John 12. 28 (referred to already, $ 23). But Tertullian's point here is not the distinction between the two

Testaments, but their concurrence in using the genitive phrase "Christ of God", Son of God".

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Et apparere iam potest, etc.

Here Tertullian comes to the point, the true explanation of the saying, "He that seeth me seeth the Father".

(a) It must be taken as parallel to I and my Father are one" and receive a similar interpretation.

(5) This interpretation will be on the lines of the texts, "I came forth from God" and the others quoted: which indicate that the Son came from the Father, is the way which leads to the Father, receives to himself those whom the Father draws to him, has received all authority from the Father, and gives life even as the Father does: so that the knowledge of the Son carries with it the knowledge of the Father.

(c) The text last quoted, "If ye know me, ye know my Father also", is the climax of a series which shows the Son as vicarius patris, in whose works the Father is seen, in whose words he is heard, and in whom he is known; not that the Son displays the Father's Person, but that the Father is manifested in his own acts which the Son does.

Consequently, if the Son is repraesentator patris, that is because the Father, abiding in the Son, doeth the works, as our Lord says, I am in my Father, and my Father in me".

Denique si patrem eundem filium, etc.

Tertullian regularly writes eundem et, as $ 25, ad fin., demonstrationem. eiusdem patris et filii: but he is capable of omitting the conjunction altogether, as $ 26, hic spiritus dei idem erit sermo.

* If he wished the Father to be understood to be the same as the Son... why does he add .

. .?" Quomodo apparently means quare, as does quo in quo exaggeravit.

Aut quo exaggeravit, etc.

"Or why did he repeat himself, except that he made clear what he wished to be understood, namely, that he is the Son."

The "exaggeration", or piling up of sentences, is the repetition, John 14. 11, of "I am in the Father and the Father in me"', from verse IO: this, says Tertullian, is explained by the fact that our

Lord is anxious that a wrong meaning should not be put upon * He that hath seen me hath seen the Father".

Filius repraesentator patris.

The duarum personarum coniunctio makes it otiose for Philip to ask "Show us the Father": the Son makes the Father present.

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

But this also needs to be safeguarded by the interpretation which our Lord gave when he showed in what sense the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, namely by means of the words and the works.

Filius repraesentator patris is in (apparently) designed contradiction with non ex personae repraesentatione above: the latter represents the theological accuracy of the matter, while the present phrase is a paradoxical exaggeration introduced because it demands and gives occasion for the explanation that follows.

Repraesentator means more than "representative"—which is vicarius: it means one who patrem repraesentat, " makes the Father present" or one in whom the Father is present: cf. de anima, 57, atquin in resurrectionis exemplis, cum dei virtus sive per prophetas sive per Christum sive per apostolos in corpora animas repraesentat, solida et contrectabili et satiata veritate praeiudicatum est hanc esse formam veritatis, ut omnem mortuorum exhibitionem incorporalem praestigias iudices: de res. carn.

14, plenitudinem perfectionemque iudicii non nisi de totius hominis repraesentatione constare, totum porro hominem ex utriusque substantiae concretione parere (where repraesentatio almost means production in court: parere, to appear in court): ibid. 17, carnem repraesentandam: ibid. 22, (resurrectio? etsi in agnitione sacramenti fruticat, sed in domini repraesentatione florescit atque frugescit (where repraesentatio means the vapovaía): ibid. 23, adeo contemplatio est spei in hoc spatio per fidem, non repraesentatio nec possessio, sed expectatio ("real presence").

'Tertullian is a realist, and in such a phrase as (de poen. 3) animus sibi repraesentat, he means (in terms of Stoic psychology) that in the act of memory or imagination the mind does in some sort of quasi-physical way make present to itself the things it remembers or imagines: so that adv. Marc. i. 14, panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat, means "the bread in which he makes his body present" in a physical or quasi-physical sense which need not necessarily differ from what we should mean by a mental sense, though possibly in this case that is not the whole meaning : see pages 215 and 321.

Hoc quoque interpretatus est.

. The interpretation or explanation of "I am in my Father and my Father in me" (the text which makes the Son repraesentator atris) is that "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: the Father abiding in me doeth the works" (a text in

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

which appears the proprietas utriusque personae): which gives the conclusion, as against the monarchians, that the Father is seen in the Son by identity of operation but not in identity of person, and that he is so seen non visu sed sensu, not with the eyes but with the mind.

For the meaning of sensus see a note on § 6. xxv. To the end of this gospel the distinction is maintained between the Father and the Son, with the added distinction of " another"

Paraclete, whom the Son promises to send from the Father.

We have already explained what is meant by "another".

The Paraclete, he says, will receive from the Son, as the Son receives from the Father: so there is a series of three, and the three are unum, one substance, not unus, one person.

The distinction recurs in the parable of the vine and the husbandman, as also when the Son on earth lifts up his eyes to the Father in heaven when commending the disciples to him.

The words from the cross addressed to the Father are not recorded in this gospel; but after the Resurrection, when the time of his humility was past and our Lord, if he had been the Father, could have openly professed to be he, he speaks once and again of ascending to the Father, Finally, the evangelist's concluding words expressly describe jesus as Christ the Son of God, and consequently those who identify the Son with the Father are striving against the clear sense of the Gospel.

Post Philippum, etc.

Substantia seems here to mean "occasion" or "attendant circumstances".

Kroymann, following Latinius, reads perseverat ; but the sentence as it stands makes a perfectly good sense, if it is understood that perseverant does double service, as the predicate both of the relative clause and of the principal sentence.

Ita connexus, etc.

Cf. $8 2, 7.

Percurre adhuc, etc.

Kroymann's correction, vifern for vice, is so evidently right that one can only wonder that it did not occur to earlier editors.

Uti is equivalent to sicut et.

Exposita necessitate, etc.

Exponere is frequently used by Tertullian for deponere, exuere: e.g. de res. carn. 45, Expone enim, inquit, secundum pristinam con-

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

31I versationem veterem hominem—non secundum alicuius. substantiae senium, neque enim carnem praecipit deponamus. The Resurrection marks the term of Christ's voluntary humiliation (Phil. 2. 8), and if that humiliation had been such as the monarchians supposed, a humiliation of Father into Son, then would have been the time for him again to call himself the Father—which, on the evidence of the two texts quoted, he did not do.

Clausula evangelii.

Westcott, Commentary, vol. ii. p. 359, says "there is no evidence to show that the Gospel was published before the appendix

[i.e. chapter 21] was added to it": Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 258, he refers to differences of language which by no means amount to a proof of difference of authorship, but only of a difference of date, and affirms the "universal concurrence of all outward evidence".

It is good enough reason for Tertullian's omission to refer here to chapter 21, that there is nothing in it which bears on the present subject: that the chapter was known to him is evident from de anima, 50, obut et Ioannes quem in adventum domini remansurum frustra fuerat spes.

'The index to CLEM. ALEX. does not refer to the chapter: though it was known to ORIGEN (see Brooke's index).

But the expression clausula evangelii still needs explaining: is it possible that in Tertullian's copy John 20. 31 had been transferred to the end of 21?

Ad demonstrationem eiusdem patris et filii, ie. ad demonstrandum eundem esse patrem atque filum: the substitution of substantive for gerund throws the dependent substantives into the genitive, and et is for atque in Tertullian's usual manner. xxvi. On account of Philips question and our Lord's answer we have made a tour of St John's Gospel. I need add no more from the other gospels, except the angelic annunciation that, because of the action of the Spirit of the Lord and the power of the Most High, the virgin's Son would be called the Son of God.

Our adversaries will quibble even here: they say that the Spirit of God is God, the power of the Most High is the Most High. But in that case why did not the angel say openly "God shall come upon thee and the Most High shall overshadow thee"? By "Spirit" in this text is meant what

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

john means by "Word", since spirit is the substance of the Word and word is an operation of the Spirit: so that when John says " Word" we understand "spirit", and when the angel says "the Spirit" we understand "the Word".

But the Word and the Spirit are not identical with God whose Spirit and Word they are: for nothing which is "of" anything is the same thing as that of which or whose it is.

Certainly, when something is "from God" and is his because it is " from him", it is of the same quality as he from whom it is and whose it is. So the Spirit is God and the Word is God, as being

* from God", yet is not he from whom heis. Since the Spirit of God, which is substance, while being God, is not God himself, even less will the power of the Most High, which is not substance but attribute, be identical with the Most High. Because the. Spirit, the Word, the power, came upon the virgin, that which is born of her is the Son of God.

He himself testifies to this as a boy in the Temple: Satan acknowledges it at the temptation: the devils confess it: he prays to the Father: he accepts Peter's profession: and so on through the Gospel, which ends with the command to baptize in the name of three Persons, not one only.

Secundum omnia, etc.

Cf. § 20 ad fin. and de res. carn. 19, et haec itaque dispectio tituli et praeconii ipsius, fidem utique defendens vocabulorum, illuc proficere debebit ut si quid pars diversa turbat obtentu figurarum et aenigmatum, manifestiora quaeque praevaleant et de incertis certiora praescribant: ibid. 21, et utique aequum est, quod et supra demandavimus, incerta de certis et obscura de manifestis praeiudic ari, vel ne inter discordiam certorum et incertorum, manifestorum et obscurorum,

— fides dissipatur, veritas periclitetur, ipsa divinitas ut inconstans denotetur.

Etiam adversus suos sensus could, but evidently should not, be construed closely with interpretandus, "even though our interpretation should contradict the plain sense of the passage".

Ceterum ut alia, etc.

On the subject of this chapter see the Introduction, pp. 63-70. .

For annuntiari Kroymann plausibly suggests annuntiali: but if annuntiaris is a possible side-form of annuntiarius, the MS. reading should be retained as having an active sense, which is here required, not the passive sense ("announced" or "object of

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

announcement"), which is the natural meaning of the -alis termination.

Inicere.

Perhaps here it has its natural sense "foist in". But cf. apol. 23, quid autem inici potest adversus id quod ostenditur nuda sinceritate? where it means "suggest", or "allege": de anima, 34, imecerat angelos condere, "suggested to himself", "decided": de praesc. haer. 22, Christum reprehensioni inicientes (— Christo reprehensionem imictentes), "casting blame upon".

Below, $ 27, haec iniectio eorum, " this suggestion (theory) of theirs".

Dicens autem, etc.

The MSS. reading ets spiritus dei is evidently wrong, and Pamelius writing spiritum does not improve matters:

Ursinus reads esi spiritus dei deus, which makes sense, but I have preferred to read etsi spiritus deus, which is equally near the MSS. and is a deduction by simple conversion from the frequently quoted text John 4. 24, deus spiritus est.

Directo, a grammatical term meaning "in the upright case", ie. the nominative or accusative, as opposed to the casus obliqui, the genitive, dative, and ablative: the expression spiritus dei uses the word deus not directo, but in genitive dependence, and so indicates portionem totius.

On portio see note on $ 9. In filii nomen, a term of accountancy: "was to pass to the Son's account".

This cannot mean that a portion of the whole deity was going to be separated off and designated 'son": the Son already existed before the Incarnation, as Tertullian maintains throughout.

It must be admitted that the language here used is dangerously liable to misunderstanding: similar language, equally dangerous, is used in $ 9 of the eternal generation of the Word: but in both cases the danger is less if portio means not "part" but "assignment" and totius is a descriptive, not a partitive, genitive—a testamentary sense which is included in the verb cessura erat.

Hic spiritus dei idem erit sermo.

Hic is probably here the demonstrative pronoun, not the adverb, and atque must be understood before sermo.

Tertullian's failure to understand that the function of the Holy Spirit at the incarnation of the Word is the miracle of the virginal conception, causes him to need at all costs to reconcile Luke 1. 35 with John 1.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

14, and so to identify "Spirit" and " Word".

This is not to say that he identifies the Word with the Holy Spirit, but only that he claims that when St Luke says "the Spirit of the Lord"' he means the same as St John means by "the Word", for since the Word is

God and God is spirit, spirit is the substance of the Word and word (discourse or reason) is an operation of Spirit, which is the kind of substance God is: i.e. "Spirit" is a common term which can refer to any one or all of the three Persons, and in this text of St Luke, if he is to agree with St John, it must be taken as referring to the Second Person.

But his treatment of the two texts is subsidiary to his main argument here, that whether you say

"Spirit of God" or "Word of God" the genitive relationship precludes the personal identification of the Word or the Spirit with God himself of whom they are. Nulla res alicuius, etc., states the general rule, that nothing in genitive dependence can be that on which it is dependent: plane cum quid, etc., qualifies this by allowing that though the two are not identical, yet when the possessor is not only possessor but is also the source or origin of the being of the other, there is a likeness of character (tale quid quale) between them: et ideo, etc., draws from plane cum quid, etc., the conclusion that the Spirit and the Word, being ex deo, are God, and from nulla res alicuius, etc., the reservation that yet they are not personally identical with him who is their source or origin.

Quodsi spiritus dei, etc.

The MSS. reading is meaningless: quodsi is due to Ursinus: spiritus seems to me so obvious that I have presumed to substitute it for deus.

The Stoic logic recognised four categories (mpóra yévn) namely Ümoke(p.evov (=substantia), moióv, mas €xov, and Tpós ti mws €xov, the last three being cupBaivorvta rà vmokeutévo (accidentia uniuscuiusque substantiae): see Ritter and Preller (8th ed.), pp. 404-5.

There is however some reason to think that Tertullian was not unacquainted with Aristotelian logic, with which his language here is equally consistent.

Quod est spiritus: quod is a relative pronoun, not a conjunction: it is in the neuter, in spite of the fact that its antecedent is feminine, for the same reason as fioc (two sentences further on) is neuter though its reference is to filius, namely, to generalise the sense: substantiva res quae est spiritus would have meant *' that particular substantive

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

thing which is spirit", but what Tertullian wants to say is "it is not a substantive thing, as spirit is", and that is what quod enables him to say.

Hic quoque, ie. in the same context as the preceding quotation: but affirmat supplies a verb for a series of oblique quotations from the rest of the Gospel.

A patre defensi, "avenged": cf. adv. Marc. i. 26, cur enim prohibet admitti quod mon defendit admissum, and frequently, of the punishment of crime; but | Oehler's index gives no parallel to the present use, of the avenging of an injured person.

Nec semel sed ter .

. tinguimur.

Apparently in the African Churches baptism was administered by threefold immersion accompanying the recipient's confession of faith: cf. de cor. 3, dehinc ter mergitamur, amplius aliquid respondentes quam dominus in evangelüs determinavit, i.e. something more than the bare trinitarian formula.

This, if the Egyptian Church Order is the work of Hippolytus, was the practice of the Roman Church in the third century: in the second century, according to Justin, the minister pronounced the formula (émuXéyovros)—in this case also a somewhat expanded one

(apol. i. 61).

Lf. xxvi. They introduce further darkness into things manifest by attempting a distinction between the Flesh, which they say is the Son, namely Jesus, and the Spirit, which they say is God or Christ. Here they are dividing things inseparable, whereas hitherto they have been attempting to identify Persons distinct.

Moreover, the idea of a distinction between _Fesus and, Christ is gnostic in conception.

We have already shown that they are wrong in identifying the Word, Wisdom, and power of God with the Father: they make it necessary to say more.

" That thing which shall be born shall be called the Son of God": see, they say, that which is born is the flesh, and there-. fore the Flesh is the Son. But, we reply, the Virgin conceived of the Holy Spirit, and what she conceived is what was born, namely

Emmanuel.

The flesh is not God, but he who was born in the flesh is God, and he is no other than the Word or Spirit. The Word was not changed into flesh, but was clothed with the flesh: for the Word,

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

being God, cannot change.

Nor can 'there be any question of such a mixture of deity and humanity as would result in neither the one nor the other, but something between.

For Jesus is both God and Man, as the psalmist says, "God as man was born in her", and as the apostle confirms (Rom. 1. 3, 4). In the apostle's two sentences we observe a double status, not by confusion but by conjunction, God and Man in one Person, conserving the attributes and activities of both

— substances, the miracles showing the godhead, the sufferings the manhood.

Otherwise, if there had been confusion or mutation, the characteristics of one nature or the other, or of both, would have disappeared.

Flesh cannot become spirit, nor spirit flesh, though the facts show that both can coexist in one Person.

Therefore the angel calls him, according to the Spirit, the Son of God, reserving for the flesh the designation Son of Man: and the apostle, calling him mediator, agrees.

Finally, if you say that " Son of God" means the Flesh, what will you say "Son of Man" means?—evidently not the Spirit, for you have already said that the Spirit is the Father.

The attempt of a section of the monarchians to distinguish between a divine Christ (whom they identify with the Father) and a human Jesus, is a conflation (not apparently elsewhere mentioned) of the doctrines of Noetus with those of Theodotus the adoptionist.

Tertullian reserves for the next chapter his exposition of the evident fact that the office of Messiah is by the nature of the case a human office and that to attempt to distinguish between a divine Christ and a human Jesus is culpable ignorance.

Here he remarks (1) that there is some inconsistency in thcse who, having made a point of combining three divine Persons into one, now attempt to divide one Person into two: and (2) that the idea is akin to gnosticism.

HiPPOLYTUS, after his custom of suggesting in such cases direct and conscious borrowing, expressly states that Theodotus of Byzantium stole his opinion from the school of. the gnostics and Cerinthus and Ebion, describing it in these terms:

Kal Tov pev "Inoovy elvar dvOpurrov €K "rapÜévov yeyevmpévov Kara. Bovhny TOU TaTpos, Bidcavra be KOLVOS

Taow dv Oparrous Kai evoeBerrarov yeyovóra vortepov émi ToU Bamtiopatos émi TO "opBávy Kexapnkévau TOV

XpiaTóv avober katehyrvObra ev eiBei vep.a repas (philos. vii.

35).

Neither this nor the similar but rather more fanciful opinion of Theodotus the tanner (ibid. 36) is precisely what

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

Tertullian here describes: these placed the union between the divine Christ and the human Jesus at the occasion of the baptism by John, whereas Tertullian's opponents placed it at the Annunciation.

(3) Tertullian has already confuted the opinion which identifies Christ with the Father: he now deals with it in another way (aliter) by explaining what did happen at the Incarnation.

This exposition, which anticipates the language of Cyril of Alexandria and the Council of Chalcedon, rejecting in passing opinions afterwards proposed by Apollinarius and by Eutyches, and expressing itself in terms similar to those of Leo's Epistle to Flavian, is notable in that it answers in advance questions which a later age needed to settle by controversy.

It is somewhat surprising that it was not quoted as authority by the orthodox theologians of the fifth century, as for example among the testimonia cited by Leo at the end of his 134th epistle, ad Leonem

Augustum: though probably the Pope thought it good policy to quote only doctors of undoubted orthodoxy.

'The attitude of posterity to Tertullian generally coincided with that\of HiLARY oF PorrIERS, a much broader-minded man than Leo: comm. in Matth. v. 1, de orationis autem sacramento necessitate nos commentandi Cyprianus vir sanctae memoriae liberavit. quamquam et Tertullianus hinc volumen aptissimum scripserit: sed consequens error hominis detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem.

Tertullian's contemporaries express their positive teaching in similar though not identical terms, and without his remarkable anticipation of later errors.

If Tertullian suggests the language of Leo, HiPPOLYTUS writes in terms which might have appealed to Cyril: c. Noet. I7 18, KaAvós dvO perros yevópevos, 70 pev ovpavioy Exwv TO Tat p@ov T Aóyos, TO O€ é emriyevov @s €K mahaLov Eo dua" mrapÜévov TAPKOVPLEVOS. oUros mpoehOav eis KO LOV Geos ev TOpare epavepadn, dvOpurros TENELOS mpoeh Oey ov yàp Kata pavraciav 1, 7 Tpomny, ann' adn bas yevóp.evos &vÜporos. oUrGs Ov kai T ávÜpdmwo, € cavroU ovK amavaiverar évóewvüp.evos Ücós àv, OTE mewd kai kou,

«ré.

But whereas Tertullian, as afterwards Leo, describes the virtutes and the passiones as distincta documenta utriusque substantiae,

Hippolytus describes both the one and the other as acts of one and the same Person, ovtos 6 0cós, 6 avOpwros Ov Tas yeyovas, à Távra vméra£ev mar.

That NovaTIAN was acquainted with Tertullian's work can

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

hardly be denied, though he approaches the subject at a different angle. He is in controversy not with monarchians of a Noetian type, but with humanitarians who were apparently not even adoptionists.

His purpose is not to prove the distinctness of three divine Persons, but to establish the deity of Christ. He says

(de trin. 11): si probatio haec ex infirmitatibus Christi illuc. proficit ut homo ex infirmitatibus comprobetur, probatio divinitatis in illo collecta ex virtutibus illuc proficiet ut etiam deus ex operibus asseratur.

. But he makes his case not, like Tertullian and Hippolytus, by reference to the Gospel narrative, but by reference to the Old

Testament prophecies and to the theological statements of the New Testament: tam enim scriptura etiam deum annuntiat Christum, quam etiam hominem ipsum annuntiat deum

. nam quomodo est qua homo ex Abraham, sic est etiam qua deus ante ipsum Abraham .

. et quomodo ad patrem qua homo vadit, sic oboediens patri qua filius inde descensurus est. ita st mediocritates in illo approbant humanam fragilitatem, maiestates in illo affirmant divinam potestatem.

Novatian's opponents having maintained that the Son of Man is as such Son of God, and having cited the angel's annunciation to prove their case, he expounds that text as follows: (1) The Scripture does not say propterea quod ex te nascetur sanctum: if it did, we could still disprove their suggestion: it says, Propterea et quod, etc., and the addition of the conjunction signifies non principaliter hoc sanctum quod ex illa nascitur, id est istam carnis corporisque substantiam, filium dei esse, sed consequenter et in secundo loco: principaliter autem filium dei esse verbum dei incarnatum per illum spiritum de quo angelus refert, Spiritus veniet in te, etc. (2) Novatian, ibid. 24 (as it were in passing, and without discussion), takes the same view as Tertullian of the meaning of Spiritus dei veniet in te: Legitimus filius dei .

. . dum sanctum istud. assumit. et sibi filium hominis annectit et illum ad se rapit atque transducit, conexione sua et permixtione sociata praestat,. et filium illum dei facit, quod ille naturaliter non fuit: ut principalitas nominis istius filius dei in spiritu sit domini qui descendit et venit . . . ut dum filius hominis adhaeret in nativitate filio dei, ipsa permixtione faeneratum et mutuatum teneret quod ex natura propria possidere non

1 Fausset, ad loc., suggests that praestat—xvpoi or else that et filium illum dei facit should be moved to the end of the sentence so that praestat may govern quod ille naturaliter non fuit. I suspect rather that praestat means "' has the preeminence," sc. over the human nature.

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

posset. This language is evidently not Nestorian, even superficially: filius hominis means no more than fifth-century doctors meant by homo illius, or what Cyril (following St John) preferred to call 6 vaós avro).

Neither is permixtio intended to have a Eutychian sense: Novatian is feeling for the best language, and wisely balances the possible danger of this word by adding faeneratum et mutuatum, which by themselves might have : suggested the opposite error.

(3) Tertullian's argument makes 'it advisable for him to insist on the reality and permanence of the substantiae of both godhead and manhood:

Novatian is more . concerned to maintain the unity of Christ's Person. Ac sic facta est angeli voce . .

. inter filium dei hominisque cum sua tamen sociatione distinctio, urgendo illos uti Christum, hominis filium hominem, intellegant quoque dei filium, et hominem dei filium (id est dei verbum

. deum) accipiant, atque ideo Christum lesum dominum ut ita dixerim ex utroque contextum atque concretum, et in eadem utriusque substantiae concordia mutui ad invicem foederis confibulatione sociatum, hominem et deum .

. . cognoscant.

Undique enim obducti, etc.

Obducere, "confute", "convince": see Oehler's note to apol. 46, where examples are given, including de res. carn. 2, obducti dehinc de deo carnis auctore et Christo carnis redemptore iam et de resurrectione carnis revincentur.

Distinctione:

Oehler's insertion of de is only necessary if obducti means "convinced" and if the distinction referred to is the objective distinction between the divine Persons; but obducti here means "'confuted"', as at de teiunio, 11, altercatio diversae partis obducitur (for there is no reason to suppose that his opponents were convinced), and the distinctio is the scriptural practice of referring to the divine Persons as not identical, "by" which (not "concerning" which) the monarchian position is shown to be false.

Unare occurs only here.

It was apparently invented by Tertullian to avoid the objectivity of unire, which would mean unite in fact, whereas all that is needed here is the allegation of a non-existent unity.

Non enim ipse, etc.

This point has already been made, ex praetractatis, i.e. in the

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

preceding chapter.

In isto capitulo, "in the present chapter" : iste=hic is sufficiently common, e.g. § 1, im isto commeatu.

Revincentur: observe the close juxaposition of obducti and revincentur at de res. carn. 2 (quoted above).

Propterea quod nascetur, etc.

That sanctum should be construed with vocabitur, not with quod nascetur, appears from the citation below, vocabitur sanctum filius dei.

'lertullian omits, or allows his opponents to omit, the kai of which Novatian makes much. Caro itaque nata est, etc., is the monarchians' explanation of the text: "lertullian's follows, immo de spiritu, etc. Twice more in this chapter immo introduces a statement which Tertullian regards as evidently true.

Quoniam deus homo, etc.

Ps. 87. 5. Where Tertullian found the text in this form does not appear: no previous writer quotes it in any form, and neither deus homo nor voluntate patris seems to occur except in this chapter.

'The Latin vulgate has: Numquid Sion dicet, Homo et homo natus est in ea et ipse fundavit eam Altissimus?, which (except for numquid) well enough represents the Hebrew.

LXX has Myznp Yer, épet dvÜporros, kai" AvÜporros éyevij0n ev adty, Kat AvTos €epedinoey avTnv 6 vjuoTos.

'Tertullian takes in ea to mean in carne: de patris voluntate natus est would naturally tefer to the Incarnation, by which the Word or Spirit was born in the flesh; but sermo et spiritus qui cum sermone

. natus est would better apply to the eternal generation of the Word and the procession of the Spirit: if cum sermone were removed al! would be well.

Igitur sermo in carne, etc.

Dum et seems to mean ut interea.

Indutus carnem is the correct answer to the question: if that is rejected, the alternative is transfiguratus in carne, which would give two possible theories:

(1) such a change of godhead into flesh as would involve the destruction (Znteremptio) of godhead, or (2) such a mixture of godhead and manhood as would produce tertium quid, neither the one nor the other.

The former seems, in a modified form, to have been the theory of the later Apollinarians, to exclude which capkoÜévra éx mvevpatos ayiov kai Mapías ths vrapÜévov was inserted in the Constantinopolitan form of the Nicene Creed:

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

the latter was the theory of Eutyches rejected at Chalcedon and tacitly dropped by the monophysites.

Both theories, says Tertullian, are untenable in view of the immutability of the divine nature: the second also because in that case Jesus will be neither God nor man.

He adds that by the former alternative also Jesus will not be man, since ** Word" converted into flesh will not be true flesh.

He has not with his usual precision disentangled the two theories: they are dealt with in alternate sentences.

Transfiguratus, transfiguratio, involve more than a mere change of appearance: figura in Tertullian means "shape", including the essential reality of a thing: cf. adv. Marc. iv. 40, acceptum panem et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est figura corporis mei: figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus: ceterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset: where the whole point of the argument is lost if figura means no more than "type", for it is Tertullian's intention to show that the Old "Testament types of the Passion had to be realities so that they could be types of a reality. Hence figura is allied to forma: see the notes on $ 2, where forma appertains to each divine Person distinctively, while substantia appertains to God as God: and so here, Sermo . .

. manet in aevum (Is. 40. 8), perseverando scilicet in sua forma.

Consequently transfiguratio, either as conversion of something into something else or as mixture with something else, would be interemptio pristini, not a , mere change of appearance, but utter destruction.

Informabilis (deum inmutabilem et informabilem) must, by the context, mean intransformabilis, just as configurart (st non capit configurar) would imply change of shape, as at de anima, 9, in Adam concreta et configurata corpori amma: so that it is unnecessary (with Ursinus and Kroymann) to alter the word.

Quia et cetera, etc., "because the other texts also demand this interpretation", i.e. the rest of the Gospel, not merely the words of the Annunciation.

Neque homo caro.

| Kroymann's omission of caro is unnecessary: intelligent punctuation is all the alteration needed: there is a balanced antithesis between "for neither will Jesus be God" and "nor will his manhood be flesh", and the reason given in each case.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Sed enim invenimus, etc.

Directo "in the accusative or nominative case", i.e. not in genitive dependence: cf. note on § 26. Secundum utramque substantiam, etc.:. 'The proof of the permanence of both the divine and the human substance in the Word incarnate consists of - (1) the proof texts Ps. 87. 5, deus homo, etc., and Rom. 1. 3, ex semine David (i.e. homo et filius hominis), combined with 1. 4, definitus filius dei secundum spiritum (i.e. deus et sermo, dei filius): and (2) the general tenor of the Gospel narrative which shows the operation of one who is both God and Man. Rom. 1. 3, 4 is quoted by IRENAEUS, haer. iii. 31. 1, to prove the reality of Christ's human nature taken from Mary, as against gnostic docetism. Distantem must be construed with substantiam (not with illum or with deum et hominem).

Videmus duplicem statum, etc., * we observe a double quality, not by confusion but by conjunction, Jesus in one person God and Man".

"This anticipation of fifth-century language collects the sense of the two texts just quoted.

Status appertains to deity as deity ($ 2) and to manhood as manhood: it also (§ 2) is consequent upon substantia, and carries with it in each case its distinctive potestas.

Hence, salva est, etc., "that which each substance specifically is (including its attributes and activities) is preserved", as is clear from the Gospel narrative which exhibits distincta documenta utriusque substantiae.

The question of the meaning of the title "Christ" is deferred to the next chapter.

On non confusum cf. de anima, 12, where it is said that animus and anima are one: et quaeretur quomodo unum utrumque, ex duarum substantiarum -confusione an ex unius dispositione: nos autem animum ita dicimus animae concretum, non ut

E substantia alium sed ut substantiae officium (where concretus means condensation or congelation: i.e. animus is anima in the same way as ice is water).

Ex translatione.

Tertullian is still discussing at the same time the two possible theories (1) of conversion of the godhead into flesh, and (2) of confusion of substance, though the latter is chiefly in his mind: in such a case either (1) the two substances would exchange properties and activities or (2) an intermediate substance

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

would be formed with the properties and activities of neither.

Tertullian's exposition, like Leo's, fails (except verbally) to do complete justice to the unity of Christ's Person: there is a sense, ex translatione, in which it is possible to say "The Son of Man ascended up where he was before"', and "The Son of God laid down his life for us", because of the communicatio idiomatum, the fact that the proprietas utriusque substantiae is communicated or held in common by one Person.

'Tertullian's exposition therefore, like Leo's, answers no questions, but serves to safeguard the important fact of the truth of both the divine and the human substances and the permanence of their attributes and activities, each zn statu suo.

There can, of the nature of things, be no change of flesh into spirit or of spirit into flesh: but both can exist in one person, evidently, plane, because the Gospel narrative shows the coexistence of their operae et exitus. Exitus (pl.), as appears from $ 29, means the departure of the spirit and the death of the flesh.

[| Dei et hominum sequestrem.

1 Tim. 2. 5, pecitns coU kai avÜpevrov, can only by implication bear on the present subject.

It is quoted de carne Christi, 15, to controvert the Valentinian notion that the flesh of Christ was of spiritual origin: and again, de res. carn. 51, to prove that human flesh has a place in heaven, hic sequester dei atque hominum appellatus ex utriusque partis deposito commisso sibi carnis quoque depositum servat in semetipso, arrabonem summae totius: quemadmodum enim nobis arrabonem spiritus reliquit, ita et a nobis arrabonem carnis accepit, et vexit in caelum pignus totius summae illuc quandoque redigendae. Sequester, meaning "' partaker of both", is not a satisfactory equivalent for ueargs: de carne Christi, 15, has mediator. lrenaeus, haer. v. 17. 1, uses the text in the sense in which the apostle intended it: propitians quidem pro nobis patrem in quem peccaveramus, et nostram inobedientiam per suam obedientiam consolatus: nobis autem donans eam quae est ad factorem nostrum conversationem et subiectionem.

Novissime, etc.

A final argument, a «ies ad absurdum. xxvi. In equating " Christ" with the Father, you show your

324; TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

ignorance of the meaning of this name, or rather this appellation: for "anointed" is a participle like other participles, not a personal name.

Further, how could the Father be anointed, and by whom?

The scriptural testimony is to the effect that the Son of God is "anointed" by the Father— thy holy Son whom thou hast anointed"

- —''God hath made this Jesus both Lord and Christ". Fohn stresses the importance of believing that Jesus is the Christ: and Paul invariably speaks of God the Father and the Lord fesus Christ as two Persons, and of fesus as the Christ, one Person.

The name Jesus is a proper name: the appellation Christ is descriptive of the effect of anointing and can only be appropriate to the Son, not the Father.

Also, if Christ were the Father, the text "I ascend to my Father" would point to another god superior to the Father, as would other texts of Scripture: and "God who raised up Christ from the dead" would mean that the Father died and was raised again by some other god superior to him.

Tertullian's language, of the general correctness of which there can be no doubt, needs strengthening in one respect.

The appellation '"'Christ" is not a mere participle, but has become a title of office: yet "the office of Christ is the office of a man", or, as he says in § 29, Christus humanae naturae vocabulum.

The subject is discussed adv. Marc. iii. 15, on the same principles but with a different purpose:

"The name of God is a kind of natural noun, which can be applied to everything for which divinity is claimed, even to idols—so 1 Cor. 8. 5, *gods many .

. either in heaven or on earth"; but the name of Christ belongs to the Old Testament revelation, and could not be used with propriety by one who (as Marcion alleged) was unconnected with the God of the Old Testament: Christi vero nomen, non ex natura veniens sed ex dispositione, proprium eius efficitur a quo dispositum invenitur.

'The deficiencies of human language sometimes lead us to use terms in an improper sense, by xaráxpyoaus: but God does not suffer from deficiencies, and would have used a new term for a new thing, if it had been new.

Moreover, s Christus unctus est, ungui utique corporis passio est: which is another argument against Marcion, who denies the reality of our Lord's body.

Cf. de bapt.

7, Christus dicitur a chrismate, quod est unctio, quae domino nomen accommodavit, facta spiritalis quia spiritu unctus est a deo patre, quoting Acts 4. 27 (as here).

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

Et habes — per> totum instrumentum eius, etc.

This (Kroymann's) reading is nearer to the MSS. than the traditional tota instrumenta.

"And throughout the Pauline collection you have statements couched in this form, setting forth two, God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ."

For instrumentum see de res. carn. 39, resurrectionem apostolica quoque instrumenta testantur: ibid. 38, instrumentum Ioannis (the Apocalypse): de carne Christi, 2, his opinor consilüis tot originalia instrumenta Christi delere, Marcion, ausus es (all the narratives of the — Nativity). The MSS. read deum patrem : et was added by the early editors, who no doubt had in mind róv Üeóv kai marépa

TOU Kupiov Qv 'lycoU XpuToU.

Qui solidat tonitruum, etc.

Amos 4. 13 LXX, Oir orepedy Bpovtyy kai krilwv Tveüpa Kal dmayyéAXov eis dv Oparrous TOV xpi Tàv QUTOU, through a misreading of inwn for inw-n "what is his MEAE lat. vg. eloquium suum.

\ Haec dicit dominus, etc.

Is. 45. 1, quoted already, § 11, to prove the distinction between two who are called dominus.

We must read Christum with Kroymann: the whole passage is couched in monarchian terms, so as to reduce to absurdity by applying it in all cases their contention that Jesus qua Christ is the Father.

Qui suscitavit Christum, etc.

Kroymann by omitting est (after suscitaturus)—which could easily have slipped in through the copyist's recollection of Rom.

8. 11—gives a meaning to the MS. reading tanquam, for which previous editors had substituted zamque. xxix. Which is blasphemy.

Let tt be sufficient that it was Christ the Son of God that died: and that only because the Scripture says so.

Even the apostle, when he says that Christ died, has to add "according to the Scriptures".

In Christ are two substances, an immortal and a mortal: it was the mortal, the human, that died: and therefore when the apostle says that Christ died he indicates that the appellation "Christ" applies to the human nature.

That, say our adversaries, is what we mean when we say that the human

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

nature is the Son: how then do we blaspheme?

But they do, for they transfer to the Father the curse which attaches to one crucified : whereas we, when we say that Christ was crucified, are quoting the curse of the Law (as the apostle did) and are not blaspheming: there is no blasphemy in speaking the truth.

An alternative suggestion is. that the Father "suffered with" the Son: this is blasphemy by implication, and moreover it admits the distinction of Father and Son which our adversaries have hitherto denied.

To "suffer with" is to suffer: and if the Father is impassible he can do neither.

The Father, as also the Son, is impassible in his godhead: and when the Son suffered the Father was no more affected by suffering than the fountain is defiled when the stream becomes turbid.

Moreover the Spirit suffered not in itself: for we also cannot suffer for God's sake unless the Spirit of God be in us, yet the Spirit does not suffer in us, but gives us the strength to suffer.

| Non sine onere.

Onerare occurs as a quasi-legal term meaning "accuse"', de spect. 26, cum oneraretur immundus spiritus: de pat. 10, si levius defendaris insanies, si uberius oneraberis: de pud. 5, oneravit moechiam.

Hence perhaps, "not without risk of objection", against which he guards himself by claiming scriptural authority.

Duritiam pronuntiationis is a reminiscence of John 6. 60, oKAnpos €oTW OUTOS 6 Aóyos, "hard to bear" (not "hard to understand").

Quanquam cum duae substantiae, etc.

Tertullian's language is carefully chosen:

Christ died qua caro et homo et filius hominis, not qua spiritus et sermo et dei filius.

There is some risk of a Nestorian dualism in all these attempts to distinguish, but against this Tertullian guards himself by insisting that, though in his godhead Christ did not die, he did as one

Person bear the curse of the cross.

Censeantur.

See note on $ 5.

Maledictione enim, etc.

Oehler's text will translate, if maledictione is treated as equivalent to Propter maledictionem or as instrumental to 'blasphematis.

Kroymann reads maledictionem enim, and omits

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

Christum, which gives a clear sense and is perhaps preferable The MSS. read maledictio: Engelbrecht would read in Christum patrem.

Ergo nec compassus.

Modern discussion of the impassibility of God has got into difficulties through failure to distinguish impassibility from impassivity. No living religion can have any use for an impassive god. But when it is said that God is impassible and that Christ in his divine nature,is impassible, ít is not meant that God is incapable of feeling but that he is incapable of being injured from without: which is what Tertullian has in mind here.

Hence compassus does not mean "have compassion" but "be injured in company with".

Clearly the divine nature of Christ is not injured along with the human nature: yet it is against Christ as one Person that the injury is directed, albeit it is only the human nature which is affected by the injury.

Compati is quoted in Oehler's index only from de res. carn. 40, and scorp. 13, both of them quotations of Rom. 8. 17.

Separatur a filio, non a deo.

It is not easy to find a satisfactory meaning for this sentence.

Possibly the argument is: But, you object, how could the Son suffer, if the Father could not suffer with him? I answer that the distinction begins from (separatur a) the Son's Person, not from the Deity itself...

. The divine nature in the Son is impassible, the human nature is passible.

Ita et spiritus dei, etc.

The MSS. read: ita et 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 quidem erat ut pater cum filio pateretur in carne quia hoc retractatus (retractatum, PF).

I would suggest the following punctuation: ita et 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, quin hoc retractatum, nec quisquam negabit.

"So also how could the Spirit of God (i.e. the divine Word) suffer in the Son?

Because he was not suffering in the Father but in the Son, would

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

/ it appear that the Father had not suffered?

Perhaps: but it is / enough that the Spirit of God suffered nothing as Spirit of God: since if he did suffer aught in the Son, it was feasible for the Father to have suffered along with the Son, in the flesh.

But we have dealt with this question, and no one will gainsay us."

'This involves the insertion of only one word, possibile, and the alteration of one letter, quin for quia: and it gives a sense which seems to hang together with what precedes and what follows.

If quidem had not required some significant word preceding it, possibile would not have been necessary: esse in the sense of "be possible" is sufficiently common, e.g. de res. carn. 3, est quidem et de communibus sensibus sapere in dei rebus: ibid. 49, de antecedentibus discere est.

XXX. Our opponents will have difficulty in interpreting the cry, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" If it was the Son suffering, forsaken by the Father, evidently it was not the Father suffering.

If it was the Father suffering, to what god did he cry? The cry is the cry of flesh and soul, i.e. of manhood, not of godhead, and shows the impassibility of the godhead which forsook the manhood in delivering it to death.

So the apostle says, "God spared not his own son" and Isaiah agrees, * He delivered him for our offences".

However, the Father did not forsake the Son; for the Son commended to him his own spirit: and so to be forsaken by the Father meant that the Son died.

Consequently, according to the Scriptures, the Son's death as well as his resurrection was the Father's act.

Having descended into the lower parts of the earth, the Son ascended into the highest heaven and sits at the Father's right hand—not the Father at his own right hand.

Stephen saw him still standing at God's right hand: thereafter he sat, and will sit, until the Father puts all enemies under his feet: also he will come again in like manner as he ascended.

Meanwhile he has received from the Father, and has poured forth, the Holy Spirit, the third divine Person, preacher of one God, interpreter of the economy, and leader into all the truth.

Committere, A "bring into conflict with"—a classical use of the word.

Uti dicam quid de isto quaeris?

I can make no satisfactory sense of this. Dicam can perhaps mean rogem, though one would have preferred uti quaeram

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

dicas. But de isto can hardly refer to pronuntiatione, which would require 7s£a: and iste is not a word which even Tertullian would use for z7/le— Christus.

Ut quid me dereliquisti ?

The monarchians' interpretation of this text, as signifying the dereliction of the human Jesus by the divine Christ-Father, has a gnostic flavour, though something like it was to some extent current in orthodox circles as late as the fourth century: see a discussion by the Benedictine editors of Hilary of Poitiers, praef. gen. $ 4 (Migne, p. 78). IRENAEUS, haer. i. 1. 16, gives this from the Valentinians: kai ra 7dOn 9€ avriüjs (sc. Achamoth), à émaÜev emureonperda Bau TOV «piov Qáckovauw ev TQ cTavpQ' kai év pev TO eireiv, 'O Óeós pov;. eis T €ykaréwrés pe p.epayvvkévau avrüv OTL dareheipOn amd TOU patos 7 Xoía kal éxwhvOn vad ToU "Opov ris eis ror poa Dev Oppns: which is so far-fetched as not to require an answer.

A view widely held among orthodox writers is thus expressed by HiLary or Poitiers, in Matth. comm. 33: clamor vero ad deum corporis vox est recedentis a se verbi dei contestata dissidium.

Elsewhere, however, Hilary writes (comm. in psalm.

141), quanquam enim potestatem haberet ponendi animam suam et resumendi, tamen semper per reverentiam filii honorem paternae maiestati reservavit, cum orat, Pater, clarifica me; cum proclamat,

Deus meus, quare me dereliquisti? in his enim non est infirmitatis suae confessio sed paternae virtutis praedicatio.

'l'ERTULLIAN seems to reject this interpretation and, by his citation of Rom. 8. 32 (see below), to suggest that the dereliction of the Son by the Father was in some sense a moral one: and with this CHRYSOSTOM

(hom. in Matth. 88) is, somewhat briefly, in agreement, remarking also that Jesus afterwards (Matt. 27. 50) cried again with a loud voice, showing that he was still alive, and that he was laying down his life car' é£ovoíav, 'of himself" (quoting

John ro. 18).

OricEN, zx Matth. comm. 35, comes nearer to the root of the matter, saying that the dereliction of the Son by the Father began when he caused him to take the form of a servant, and was continued in the crucifixion, the reviling, the indignity of being numbered with malefactors, and that its climax is indicated by the darkening of the sun.

He concludes: forsitan autem et videns peccata hominum pro quibus patiebatur dicebat,

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Quare me dereliquisti ut fierem quasi qui colligit stipulam in messe et sicut qui colligit racemos in vindemia, cum non sit botrio ad manducandum primitiva? et haec dico, Quia perit timoratus a terra, et qui corrigat inter homines non est (Micah 7. 1, 2). unde non existimes humano more saloatorem ista dixisse propter calamitatem quae comprehenderat eum in cruce: si enim ita acceperis non eris audiens magnam vocem in qua ista locutus est, nec digna voce divina requires.

This still leaves room for something dignum voce divina.

As it is the case that Christ bare our sins in his own body on the tree, he bore also the consequences of sin, one of which is separation from God, which to him would be utter desolation: hence the cry represents no mere periphrasis for dying, nor is it a mere quotation from a psalm, but the expression of a real moral experience—which in this context is perhaps more important than metaphysics.

Hominem eius, :

"his humanity".

The phrase is commonly used by Latin writers in this sense.

Strictly speaking it involves Nestorianism, "his man", but it is continually used without any such intention by writers of unimpeachable orthodoxy, and even in controversy with Nestorius was used without any sense of danger: so, Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem non horruisti virginis uterum, which probably was intended to mean " when thou tookest upon thee manhood to deliver it, etc.": cf. AuGusTINE, de fide et symbolo 8: ut totum hominem credat a verbo dei esse susceptum, id est corpus, animam, spiritum.

'lhe Latin writers had in fact no other word they could use: humanitas can only mean, not the physical or metaphysical constitution of man, but the social virtues of civilised men.

Si pater filio non pepercit.

This mistranslation of Rom. 8. 32, ds ye Tod idSiov viod oUk épeioato, has through the Latin vulgate suggested, or been used in support of, that theory of the Atonement which regards it as involving vicarious punishment or retribution.

A better translation would be proprii filii parcus non fuit: for ook épeioaro does not mean "was ruthless with" but "was generous of": cf.

| Aristophanes, Acharn. 319, ti $eiópeaÜa Ttav diOwv; and Euripides, Herc. Fur., 1146, ri dy7a peldopar vy] euns; In this sense it is understood by CnunvsosroM, ad Rom. hom. 16,

COMMENTARY AND NOTES

a 6 de Reyer TOLOvTOV €gTwW' €i TOV viov AUTOU éxapíaao, Kal Ovx amas € €xapioato àAÀAà kai obayy Tapéowke, Tí Aovràv

"epi Tov addov apdpiBadrdeis, Tov Ocomórqv AafBóv; Adhuc stantem .

. . exinde sessurum.

Tertullian apparently thinks that our Lord had remained standing until Stephen saw him, and shortly afterwards sat down.

I know of no parallel to this view, but cf. Hebrews 10. 11, 12.

Tertium nomen, etc.

See previous notes, §§ 2,8. Sacramentum apparently means the Creed, or the regula fidei: cf. de praescr. haer. 20, eiusdem sacramenti una traditio.

XXXI. To believe in one God while refusing to believe in the Son and the Spirit is Judaism.

Apart from that, what difference is there between the fews and us?

To what purpose is the Gospel, unless from thenceforth we believe one God in three Persons? \ God renewed the covenant in order that his unity might be understood in a new way by the mediation of the Son and the Spirit, so that he who aforetime was preached by the Son and the Spirit and not understood might now be known face to face in his own names and Persons.

Let then these antichrists see to it, for they deny the Father and the Son: they deny the Father by identifying him with the Son, and the Son by identifyihg him with the Father.

We, confessing Christ the Son of God, have God abiding in us: we believe the witness of God, which he testified concerning his Son, " He that hath not the Son hath not life": and no one has the Son who regards him as other than Son.

Substantia novi testamenti.

Substantia here goes back almost to one of the primary senses of imdaracis, firm ground beneath the mire, Ps. 69. 2, €verdynv eis iAUv. BuOod kai ovk éaw vmóoracus: hence Heb. 11. 1, eiritopévov vmóoTacus "certainty concerning things hoped for": and here "raison d'étre"'.

Novare sacramentum, * make a new covenant",

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS

Genesis

218, 292 29, 36, 211, 217, 226 30, 70, 263 sqq.

39, 331

320, 322

202, 207, 253, 256, 263 29, 226, 228 sqq.

30, 260 209, 259 34, 36, 224

30, 260, 269 sqq.

30, 260, 266

^ "I es coos MAHN DH ARR oo Pe] N e. N M

91. II, I2

148. 5

Proverbs 8. 22 sqq.

8. 25

8. 30

34, 216 sqq., 224, 259

30, 260, 291

Isaiah

^ [^ Numbers ah te) ; 12. 6

Aah we bh OO Deuteronomy

nb M an 32. 9

Joshua BN 12, 30, 264, 265

256, 263, 266

5. 13 SQq.

6. 3

34, 259

OO OLE E 1 Samuel I2. 12

17. 45

BÉ Axe ee WN 61. I Jeremiah

23. 18

Lamentations

2 Samuel 7. 14

4. 20

Daniel 30, 46, 278 1 Chronicles 22. 10

28. 6

3. 25

7. 13

IO. 16

Hosea

II. 9

Amos 4. 13

Jonah

228, 307

248, 285 ad 10

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS

Micah 281, 307

12, 28, 29, 296, 303

7. 1,2

Zechariah

4.14

Baruch

3. 35

St Matthew 2. 33

7. 59

9. 14

13. 33

4. 4

4. 6

5. 37

II. 27

I3. 24

16. 17

17. 5

21.09

22. 44

27. 46

27: 50

28. 18

203, 241, 270

292, 307

207, 228, 253

Romans 3.4

DAD IO Go OD La ML

329, 330 12, 30, 282

St Mark 16. 12

St Luke I Corinthians 42,

184, 312 sqq.

253, 255

203, 241

I. 35 sqq.,

202, 204, 256, 288

a TOs IY 4. 18

6. 20

9. 35

10. 22

20. 41-44 23. 46

24. 39

15. 24-28 I5. 44

St. John iat 31, 210, 217, 292 36, 297 30, 260

63 sqq., 312 sqq.

225, 24I 299.

63, 66 282, 303

12, 28, 29, 217, 296

2 Corinthians 3. 17

. 1-3 3o Galatians 2.6

3. uE 4.4

Ephesians 4. 23

5. 16

» 39 o oo Philippians 2. 6

2.8

55, 232, 234

9 goo AMAR O Ho nn Colossians 204, 225 30, 260 DIS I. 16

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

1 Timothy 2.

10. 17, I2

II Ir226

39, 331

2 Timothy 3.

1 Peter I. IO

Hebrews 1 John Pd 2:423

4. 9

4. I2 204, 262 228, 307 226, 264

280, 282

HM o?

Apocalypse I9. I3 22. I

194, 242 CUYD Don NW ODO tn CoM WwW

INDEX SCRIPTORUM ANTIQUORUM

Aphraates [Clemens Romanus] tractatus xviii Apollinarius ap. Euseb.

Apollonius ap. Euseb.

Appuleius epistula i. 9 homiliae xvii. 7

Clemens Alexandrinus

77 sqq.

77 Sqq.

6, 75 n.

stromata irs iii. 4

Asclepius 20 Aristophanes

V. 3. 16 vii. 7 vii. 58

Constitutiones Apostolicae Acharnenses 319 Aristoteles

categoriae 4. X Athanasius viii. 12. 10

Cyprianus

oratio c. Arianos de POM vanitate i. 43

7n.,9n.

13 D., 195

I3 n.

testimonia ii. 1

Cyrillus Alexandrinus

commentarii in Ioannem p. 366

P. 993

iv. iv. 3 de decretis Synodi Demosthenes

77 n. prooemia

Didymus Diogenes Laertius 20 n., 221 20 n.

Nicaenae de sententia Dionysii de synodis

Athenagoras bibliotheca historica

20, 28 sqq.

242, 250, 251 20, 28 sqq.

Vii. 134

Dionysius Alexandrinus supplicatio pro Christianis 4I n.

36 sqq., 197, 203, 212, 218, 239

56, 200

7 n.

IO epistula quadripartita Dionysius Romanus Epiphanius

Augustinus adv. haereses 48. 11

62. 1

Euripides

I3 n.

Hercules furens 1146 Eusebius Pamphili

historia ecclesiastica adv. haereses 7 n.

76 n., 185 7 ie

iv. 18 iv. 26

de fide et symbolo v. 3 v. 20 v. 28 vii. 27-30 contra Marcellum . 225

Aulus Gellius

noctes Atticae v. 15

ii. 3 de ecclesiastica theologia 69, 206

Cicero epist. ad Atticumi. 14.4 296 academica i. 10 ii. 7 ii. 9 lii. 2 iii. 15

206 sqq.

i. 39 topica '7 orat. in Verrem

II. ii. IIS

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Gaius ap. Euseb.

77 n.

Gennadius Massiliensis ii. ii. iii. iii. lii. iii. iii. iii.

207, 263

273 sq.

43. 3 de ecclesiastico dogmate

Hermas similitudines — v. 6

Hieronymus de viris illustribus iv. 6 iv. iv. iv. iv. iv. iv.

25 n. epistula 9.2

345-7 34. 8

37. 1

55. I I. 3

^79 quaestiones Hebraicae in Genesim

Hilarius Pictaviensis tractatus in Psalmum v.

I Mo Up7E praedicatio apostolica il

cxli

cxlviii

commentaru in Matthaeum

209, 229

5.1

33. 6

de trinitate iv. 16

Hippolytus Iustinus Martyr

196, 197

192, 315

66:

apologia i. 6 contra Noetum I3 [533 I, 2 I27n5 19:925 sqq.

56, 192

17, 18

philosophumena

apologia ii. 5

Vil. 35, 36 I5 n., 316 viii. 19

1x. 7

11, 186 ix. 10

7 n., 12 1x. 1:2

1339, 23'n. canon eucharisticus

dialogus cum Tryphone Iudaeo I n.

207, 271 33 SqQq., 204, 218, 239, 242 239, 259

34, 216, 242 34, 218

6 n.

32, 33

Ignatius Antiochenus epistula ad Ephesios

Ioannes Chrysostomus homilia in Matthaeum

ad Romanos homilia

Irenaeus adv. haereses i. 1. 16

Kk Tres

I cohortatio ad gentes 17 i. 18

i. 28: 3

Iuvenalis li. 2. 4

satura lii. 93

ii. 42. 3

ii. 42. 4

21I ix. 128

XV. 144

INDEX SCRIPTORUM ANTIQUORUM

dex Lactantius Petronius Arbiter divinae institutiones

saturae

Philo Iudaeus

iv. 12

Leo Papa 1. de cherubim epistula ad Leonem Augustum [Longinus]

quis rerum divinarum

77 n. haeres

Philastrius Plato

75 n. de sublimitate 9.9

Lucianus Samosatensis Lucretius Timaeus — p. 67b

de natura rerum iv. 824 sqq.

Quintilianus

institutio oratoria Marcellus Ancyranus Vi. I. 24

ap. Euseb.

Melito Sardensis 69, 206 sqq. mepi évacouárov Oeo

Militiades ap. Euseb.

77 n.

Sarapion af. Euseb.

Seneca 77 n. epistula 21. 6

106. 3

Stobaeus

Novatianus de trinitate LOye25) 0544-5

51, 52

53, 235

II 17, 55, 246,

55, 261

67, 318

9 n.

232, Sq. eclogae i. 45, 46 Synodus Antiochena anno 270 20, 30 Sq., 260 Tatianus oratio ad Graecos 5 35, 193, 212,

36, 242 6 n.

[ex opere deperdito] Theodoretus set aes s fabulae i quaestiones in Genesim 20I Origenes 77 n. commentarii in Genesim 235 in Leviticum . homilia vii. 2

commentarii in Mat-

Theophilus

212, 219

6 n.

6 n.

36, 203, 210, Pag.

Ae,

(bis), 2277, 234 36, 272 7 n.

6 n.

6 n.

6 n. ad Autolycum 1. 3

1. IO i. 15 i. 18 ii. 4 ii. 8 ii. 10 thaeum 35

commentarii in Ioannem i. 21

1.24

11.2

Teen ii. 10

ii. 14

vi. 17

xx. 18

xxxii. 25 de principiis i.2.6

219, 238, 239 11-22 ii. 27 ii. 35 ii. 38

11.7 i. 4.4

iii. 5.6

iii, 5.7

iv. 4.1

204, 221, 238,

iv. 4.8

[Victorinus Petaviensis]

adv. omnes haereses

INDEX LOCORUM IPSIUS TERTULLIANI

de poenitentia

II de cuitu feminarum i. 1 i ii. 2 de spectaculis

de idololatria

50, 54 apologeticus I

32, 59, 244,

32, 313

ad nationes 1 12

ii 2

de testimonio | animae ' naturaliter Christianae 53, 309

7n. de exhortatione castitatis IO de monogamia

de pudicitia

de ieiunio adv. psychicos

50, 51 53, 281

81, 246 I II de virginibus velandis 8o

I de pallio I

de praescriptione haereti80, 190, 196 I n., 5 ¢

corum

adversus Marcionem i. 7

190, 194, 196

183, 315

54, 290

49, 51,230,

47, 53 47, 280 46, 315 248, 269, 284,

de corona militis I

A LE TODAS I

de fuga in persecutione

82, 188 scorptace

12.

"267

10327

de oratione

de patientia

de baptismo

INDEX LOCORUM IPSIUS TERTULLIANI

215, 234, 258

281, 312

80, 309

42, 213, 327 41, 310

73, 323 235, 290

183, 184 iii. 6

270, 284

iv. 6

v. 6

192, 293

adversus Hermogenem 210, 290 42, 215

216 sq.,

210, 296 Y 217, 219

210, 258

217, 236

y/ II

226,

adversus Valentinianos de anima 51, 54, 290

199, 215 54, 82, 321 40, 43, 51

210, 215

40, 215 188, 313 245, 290 215, 232

201, 212,215

192, 2IO, 212,

aT 234, 236

183, 309 76 n.

45, 50, 65

de carne Christi

72, 267

64, 201, 212 201, 270, 284,

46, 194, 235

64, 73, 248 62, 73, 248 73, 290 64, 75

64, 213

de resurrectione carnis 296, 319 adversus Praxean

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

adversus Praxean 44, 53 32, 35, 37; 43;

42 8Qq., 53, 57 37; 44, 53, 55, 57,

41, 44

44, 48 45, 48 46, 47

42, 44, 49, 63, 71 sqq.

14 n., 49, 62, 64,

39, 49 270, 298 6 5

adversus Iudaeos

INDEX VERBORUM LATINORUM ATQUE

GRAECORUM

ex abundanti, ex abundantia, 280, 304 adfectare, 183 administrare, 197 aemulari, 183 aestimari, 307 alius et alius, 45 alterum ex altero, 251 ex alterutro, 250 anima, 73 animalis, 187 animus, 322 annuntiaris, 312 apud, 266 arbiter, 251 argumentari, argumentatio, 290 articulus, 280 avenae, 187 dispersio, 199 dispositio, 193, 204, 219 distinctio, 245, 319 distributio, 244 diversus, diversitas, 244, 275, 281 divisio, 199, 244 efficere, 232 effigies, 234, 236 existentia, 51 exitus, 323 extrinsecus, 301 facere, factus, 64 sq., 230, 251 facies, 278 figura, 321 forma, 54 sq., 57, 74, 209, 252 habere, c. infin., 204, 294, 298 haberi, 251 hominem indutus, 72 homo eius, 330 humus, 185 bene quod, 249, capere, 232 capitulum, 208 causa, 267 censere, census, 200, 214, 240 commeatus, 188 committere, 328 compati, 327 competere, 276 condere, conditio, 201, 225 condicere, 288 condicio, 52, 201, 280 configurare, 321 congressus, 257 conscientia, 267 consors, 200 constitutus, 204, 232, 234 constructus, 231 conversus, 72 corpus, 234 sqq. creare, 221 idem et, 308, 311, 313 individuus, individuitas, 223, 291, 301 inducere, 285 indutus, 72 infamare, 206 informabilis, 321 inicere, iniectio, 313 instructus, 62, 81 instrumentum, 200, 325 invadere, 301 matrix, 60, 62, 243 membrum, 200 minister, 261 mixtus, 62 modulus, 59 n., 245, 275 natura, 38, 40, 201 nomen, 47 Sqq., 204, 229, 313 dare, 231 deducere, 210 defendere, 280, 315 deputare, 195 derivare, derivatio, 184, 196 sq., 246 dicere, 62, 293, 299 directo, 313, 322 dispensatio, 192 sq., 204 obducere, 319 observare, observatio, 249 offerre si velint, 300 officialis, 198 onerare, 326

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

parcere, 330 penes, 265 perfectus, 224 perseverare, 303 pees 43, 46 sqq., 228, 229, 256, 257, transfigurare, 321 translatio, 322 unare, 319 unicus, 196 unitas, 42, 196 unitus, 199

perversitas, 254 pignus, 200 portio, 246, 275 posteritas, 194 potestas, 55 sqq. praecessores, 186 praescribere, praescriptio, 194, 254 praesumptio, 281 praeter, 267 princeps, principaliter, 199 principium, 209 procedere, 193 proferre, prolatus, prolatio, 37, 239 sqq. proinde, 216 proprie, 225, 243 proprietas, 52, 74, 231, 257 psychici, 81, 187 putare, 203 verbum, 60 sqq. vereri, 254 viderit, viderint, 184 virtus, 306 vis, 200, 219, 230, 304 G\Xos kal &XXos, 24 TO dpxaiov ác $aMqea0a«, 187 n. apx7, 9, 209 ddvasus, I5, 16, 55 sq., 219 évdiaderos, 36 évvénua, 67 é£epebyea 8a, 227 é£ova(a, 55 sq émiKaAetg Oat, E n, quasi non, 230 quia, 267 quodammodo, 280 quomodo, 222, 308 idéa ddnOelas, 67 Kotvwvol, 79 ktlfew, 221 ratio, 43 rationem habere, 290 repraesentare, repraesentatio, 309 reputare, 280 res, 45, 47, 231, 240 retractare, retractatus, 194 retro, 277 Aéyyos, 29, 31-38, 61, 216 sqq. uovapxía, 6 n.

Mopgoh, wdppwors, 55 vous, 29 olkovoula, 192 sq. olxovoula cuugwyrlas, 24 Omoovovos, 29 ovaia, 40 sqq. sacramentum, 45, 331 secundus, 216, 232, 236 sensus, 212, 219, 282, 305 sermo, 43, 216 sqq., 306, et passim sermonalis, 213 si forte, 277 solium, 198 sonare, sonitus, 198, 295 sortiri, 199 species, 44, 57, 224 spiritus, 62, 63 sqq., 236 stare, 51 status, 50 Sqq., 74, 20I, 322 substantia, 40 sqq., 53, 74, 310, 331 substantialis, 41 sqq. substantivus, 42 sq. superseminare, 186 sustinere, 255 TEpixwpnots, 9, 28 mpoBadrew, "poo, 239 mpdyvwots, 30 n. mwpbowrov, 13 n., I4 m pooopikós, 36 cooía, 219 Ürap£is, 51 varokeluevov, 40, 314 brdcragis, 14, 29, 39 sqq. ióloracÓat, 39 Qelàüea0al Tiv0s, 330 temperatura, 275 tempus, 267 tradere, traditus, 252 xapleuara, 187 Vvxuwós, 184

LI L ELATUM

ME à as AW Me e v.

EL :

| Un, as , Canis s. woe. sh a Se = Safes d c o£* "a m us y» as SR WS si) eta 4^1 LA Vi, ey sd M"

S x M NS T

- ; inpr SEU j Tete BURGE A :

^ SN. ij Sun D "S Bs HS TOSS Tet v eA. ex SN TUI.

V Le SN us i Ripa E :

es :

Dm a :

Boe t "33 v i PRO Ens :

T URUEDTME patted m

"s S .

MIertiipe Tre IT ; ; :

EN T UP t

↑ Back to top