Opening the library…

Search the Bible

Against Praxeas

Tertullian

Chapter 27

About this work

A polemical Latin treatise opposing a modalist account of God and articulating distinctions among Father, Son, and Spirit while insisting on divine unity and the reality of Christ’s incarnation.

Author: Tertullian
Date: Early 3rd century
Origin: Carthage, North Africa
Genre: Theological Treatise

Chapter XXVII.—The Distinction of the Father and the Son, Thus Established, He Now Proves the Distinction of the Two Natures, Which Were, Without Confusion, United in the Person of the Son. The Subterfuges of Praxeas Thus Exposed.

But why should I linger over matters which are

‹ Chapter 26 Chapter 28 ›

so

evident

,

when

I

ought

to

be

attacking

points

on

which

they

seek

to

obscure

the

plainest

proof

?

For

,

confuted

on

all

sides

on

the

distinction

between

the

Father

and

the

Son

,

which

we

maintain

without

destroying

their

inseparable

union

—

as

(

by

the

examples

)

of

the

sun

and

the

ray

,

and

the

fountain

and

the

river

—

yet

,

by

help

of

(

their

conceit

)

an

indivisible

number

,

(

with

issues

)

of

two

and

three

,

they

endeavour

to

interpret

this

distinction

in

a

way

which

shall

nevertheless

tally

with

their

own

opinions

:

so

that

,

all

in

one

Person

,

they

distinguish

two

,

Father

and

Son

,

understanding

the

Son

to

be

flesh

,

that

is

man

,

that

is

Jesus

;

and

the

Father

to

be

spirit

,

that

is

God

,

that

is

Christ

.

Thus

they

,

while

contending

that

the

Father

and

the

Son

are

one

and

the

same

,

do

in

fact

begin

by

dividing

them

rather

than

uniting

them

.

For

if

Jesus

is

one

,

and

Christ

is

another

,

then

the

Son

will

be

different

from

the

Father

,

because

the

Son

is

Jesus

,

and

the

Father

is

Christ

.

Such

a

monarchy

as

this

they

learnt

,

I

suppose

,

in

the

school

of

Valentinus

,

making

two

—

Jesus

and

Christ

.

But

this

conception

of

theirs

has

been

,

in

fact

,

already

confuted

in

what

we

have

previously

advanced

,

because

the

Word

of

God

or

the

Spirit

of

God

is

also

called

the

power

of

the

Highest

,

whom

they

make

the

Father

;

whereas

these

relations

are

not

themselves

the

same

as

He

whose

relations

they

are

said

to

be

,

but

they

proceed

from

Him

and

appertain

to

Him

.

However

,

another

refutation

awaits

them

on

this

point

of

their

heresy

.

See

,

say

they

,

it

was

announced

by

the

angel

:

“

Therefore

that

Holy

Thing

which

shall

be

born

of

thee

shall

be

called

the

Son

of

God

.

”

Therefore

,

(

they

argue

,

)

as

it

was

the

flesh

that

was

born

,

it

must

be

the

flesh

that

is

the

Son

of

God

.

Nay

,

(

I

answer

,

)

this

is

spoken

concerning

the

Spirit

of

God

.

For

it

was

certainly

of

the

Holy

Spirit

that

the

virgin

conceived

;

and

that

which

He

conceived

,

she

brought

forth

.

That

,

therefore

,

had

to

be

born

which

was

conceived

and

was

to

be

brought

forth

;

that

is

to

say

,

the

Spirit

,

whose

“

name

should

be

called

Emmanuel

which

,

being

interpreted

,

is

,

God

with

us

.

”

Besides

,

the

flesh

is

not

God

,

so

that

it

could

not

have

been

said

concerning

it

,

“

That

Holy

Thing

shall

be

called

the

Son

of

God

,

”

but

only

that

Divine

Being

who

was

born

in

the

flesh

,

of

whom

the

psalm

also

says

,

“

Since

God

became

man

in

the

midst

of

it

,

and

established

it

by

the

will

of

the

Father

.

”

Now

what

Divine

Person

was

born

in

it

?

The

Word

,

and

the

Spirit

which

became

incarnate

with

the

Word

by

the

will

of

the

Father

.

The

Word

,

therefore

,

is

incarnate

;

and

this

must

be

the

point

of

our

inquiry

:

How

the

Word

became

flesh

,

—

whether

it

was

by

having

been

transfigured

,

as

it

were

,

in

the

flesh

,

or

by

having

really

clothed

Himself

in

flesh

.

Certainly

it

was

by

a

real

clothing

of

Himself

in

flesh

.

For

the

rest

,

we

must

needs

believe

God

to

be

unchangeable

,

and

incapable

of

form

,

as

being

eternal

.

But

transfiguration

is

the

destruction

of

that

which

previously

existed

.

For

whatsoever

is

transfigured

into

some

other

thing

ceases

to

be

that

which

it

had

been

,

and

begins

to

be

that

which

it

previously

was

not

.

God

,

however

,

neither

ceases

to

be

what

He

was

,

nor

can

He

be

any

other

thing

than

what

He

is

.

The

Word

is

God

,

and

“

the

Word

of

the

Lord

remaineth

for

ever

,

”

—

even

by

holding

on

unchangeably

in

His

own

proper

form

.

Now

,

if

He

admits

not

of

being

transfigured

,

it

must

follow

that

He

be

understood

in

this

sense

to

have

become

flesh

,

when

He

comes

to

be

in

the

flesh

,

and

is

manifested

,

and

is

seen

,

and

is

handled

by

means

of

the

flesh

;

since

all

the

other

points

likewise

require

to

be

thus

understood

.

For

if

the

Word

became

flesh

by

a

transfiguration

and

change

of

substance

,

it

follows

at

once

that

Jesus

must

be

a

substance

compounded

of

two

substances

—

of

flesh

and

spirit

,

—

a

kind

of

mixture

,

like

electrum

,

composed

of

gold

and

silver

;

and

it

begins

to

be

neither

gold

(

that

is

to

say

,

spirit

)

nor

silver

(

that

is

to

say

,

flesh

)

,

—

the

one

being

changed

by

the

other

,

and

a

third

substance

produced

.

Jesus

,

therefore

,

cannot

at

this

rate

be

God

for

He

has

ceased

to

be

the

Word

,

which

was

made

flesh

;

nor

can

He

be

Man

incarnate

for

He

is

not

properly

flesh

,

and

it

was

flesh

which

the

Word

became

.

Being

compounded

,

therefore

,

of

both

,

He

actually

is

neither

;

He

is

rather

some

third

substance

,

very

different

from

either

.

But

the

truth

is

,

we

find

that

He

is

expressly

set

forth

as

both

God

and

Man

;

the

very

psalm

which

we

have

quoted

intimating

(

of

the

flesh

)

,

that

“

God

became

Man

in

the

midst

of

it

,

He

therefore

established

it

by

the

will

of

the

Father

,

”

—

certainly

in

all

respects

as

the

Son

of

God

and

the

Son

of

Man

,

being

God

and

Man

,

differing

no

doubt

according

to

each

substance

in

its

own

especial

property

,

inasmuch

as

the

Word

is

nothing

else

but

God

,

and

the

flesh

nothing

else

but

Man

.

Thus

does

the

apostle

also

teach

respecting

His

two

substances

,

saying

,

“

who

was

made

of

the

seed

of

David

;

”

in

which

words

He

will

be

Man

and

Son

of

Man

.

“

Who

was

declared

to

be

the

Son

of

God

,

according

to

the

Spirit

;

”

in

which

words

He

will

be

God

,

and

the

Word

—

the

Son

of

God

.

We

see

plainly

the

twofold

state

,

which

is

not

confounded

,

but

conjoined

in

One

Person

—

Jesus

,

God

and

Man

.

Concerning

Christ

,

indeed

,

I

defer

what

I

have

to

say

.

(

I

remark

here

)

,

that

the

property

of

each

nature

is

so

wholly

preserved

,

that

the

Spirit

on

the

one

hand

did

all

things

in

Jesus

suitable

to

Itself

,

such

as

miracles

,

and

mighty

deeds

,

and

wonders

;

and

the

Flesh

,

on

the

other

hand

,

exhibited

the

affections

which

belong

to

it

.

It

was

hungry

under

the

devil’s

temptation

,

thirsty

with

the

Samaritan

woman

,

wept

over

Lazarus

,

was

troubled

even

unto

death

,

and

at

last

actually

died

.

If

,

however

,

it

was

only

a

tertium

quid

,

some

composite

essence

formed

out

of

the

Two

substances

,

like

the

electrum

(

which

we

have

mentioned

)

,

there

would

be

no

distinct

proofs

apparent

of

either

nature

.

But

by

a

transfer

of

functions

,

the

Spirit

would

have

done

things

to

be

done

by

the

Flesh

,

and

the

Flesh

such

as

are

effected

by

the

Spirit

;

or

else

such

things

as

are

suited

neither

to

the

Flesh

nor

to

the

Spirit

,

but

confusedly

of

some

third

character

.

Nay

more

,

on

this

supposition

,

either

the

Word

underwent

death

,

or

the

flesh

did

not

die

,

if

so

be

the

Word

was

converted

into

flesh

;

because

either

the

flesh

was

immortal

,

or

the

Word

was

mortal

.

Forasmuch

,

however

,

as

the

two

substances

acted

distinctly

,

each

in

its

own

character

,

there

necessarily

accrued

to

them

severally

their

own

operations

,

and

their

own

issues

.

Learn

then

,

together

with

Nicodemus

,

that

“

that

which

is

born

in

the

flesh

is

flesh

,

and

that

which

is

born

of

the

Spirit

is

Spirit

.

”

Neither

the

flesh

becomes

Spirit

,

nor

the

Spirit

flesh

.

In

one

Person

they

no

doubt

are

well

able

to

be

co

-

existent

.

Of

them

Jesus

consists

—

Man

,

of

the

flesh

;

of

the

Spirit

,

God

—

and

the

angel

designated

Him

as

“

the

Son

of

God

,

”

in

respect

of

that

nature

,

in

which

He

was

Spirit

,

reserving

for

the

flesh

the

appellation

“

Son

of

Man

.

”

In

like

manner

,

again

,

the

apostle

calls

Him

“

the

Mediator

between

God

and

Men

,

”

and

so

affirmed

His

participation

of

both

substances

.

Now

,

to

end

the

matter

,

will

you

,

who

interpret

the

Son

of

God

to

be

flesh

,

be

so

good

as

to

show

us

what

the

Son

of

Man

is

?

Will

He

then

,

I

want

to

know

,

be

the

Spirit

?

But

you

insist

upon

it

that

the

Father

Himself

is

the

Spirit

,

on

the

ground

that

“

God

is

a

Spirit

,

”

just

as

if

we

did

not

read

also

that

there

is

“

the

Spirit

of

God

;

”

in

the

same

manner

as

we

find

that

as

“

the

Word

was

God

,

”

so

also

there

is

“

the

Word

of

God

.

”

Notes

1
Ipsæ.
2
Luke i. 35.
3
Matt. i. 23.
4
His version of Ps. lxxxvii. 5.
5
Ex.
6
Rom. i. 3.
7
Ver. 4.
8
See next chapter.
9
i.e., Christ’s divine nature.
10
John iii. 6.
11
Luke i. 35.
12
1 Tim. ii. 5.