Opening the library…

Search the Bible

Against Praxeas

Tertullian

Chapter 29

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 XXIX.—It Was Christ that Died. The Father is Incapable of Suffering Either Solely or with Another. Blasphemous Conclusions Spring from Praxeas’ Premises.

Silence! Silence on such blasphemy. Let us be

‹ Chapter 28 Chapter 30 ›

content

with

saying

that

Christ

died

,

the

Son

of

the

Father

;

and

let

this

suffice

,

because

the

Scriptures

have

told

us

so

much

.

For

even

the

apostle

,

to

his

declaration

—

which

he

makes

not

without

feeling

the

weight

of

it

—

that

“

Christ

died

,

”

immediately

adds

,

“

according

to

the

Scriptures

,

”

in

order

that

he

may

alleviate

the

harshness

of

the

statement

by

the

authority

of

the

Scriptures

,

and

so

remove

offence

from

the

reader

.

Now

,

although

when

two

substances

are

alleged

to

be

in

Christ

—

namely

,

the

divine

and

the

human

—

it

plainly

follows

that

the

divine

nature

is

immortal

,

and

that

which

is

human

is

mortal

,

it

is

manifest

in

what

sense

he

declares

“

Christ

died

”

—

even

in

the

sense

in

which

He

was

flesh

and

Man

and

the

Son

of

Man

,

not

as

being

the

Spirit

and

the

Word

and

the

Son

of

God

.

In

short

,

since

he

says

that

it

was

Christ

(

that

is

,

the

Anointed

One

)

that

died

,

he

shows

us

that

which

died

was

the

nature

which

was

anointed

;

in

a

word

,

the

flesh

.

Very

well

,

say

you

;

since

we

on

our

side

affirm

our

doctrine

in

precisely

the

same

terms

which

you

use

on

your

side

respecting

the

Son

,

we

are

not

guilty

of

blasphemy

against

the

Lord

God

,

for

we

do

not

maintain

that

He

died

after

the

divine

nature

,

but

only

after

the

human

.

Nay

,

but

you

do

blaspheme

;

because

you

allege

not

only

that

the

Father

died

,

but

that

He

died

the

death

of

the

cross

.

For

“

cursed

are

they

which

are

hanged

on

a

tree

,

”

—

a

curse

which

,

after

the

law

,

is

compatible

to

the

Son

(

inasmuch

as

“

Christ

has

been

made

a

curse

for

us

,

”

but

certainly

not

the

Father

)

;

since

,

however

,

you

convert

Christ

into

the

Father

,

you

are

chargeable

with

blasphemy

against

the

Father

.

But

when

we

assert

that

Christ

was

crucified

,

we

do

not

malign

Him

with

a

curse

;

we

only

re

-

affirm

the

curse

pronounced

by

the

law

:

nor

indeed

did

the

apostle

utter

blasphemy

when

he

said

the

same

thing

as

we

.

Besides

,

as

there

is

no

blasphemy

in

predicating

of

the

subject

that

which

is

fairly

applicable

to

it

;

so

,

on

the

other

hand

,

it

is

blasphemy

when

that

is

alleged

concerning

the

subject

which

is

unsuitable

to

it

.

On

this

principle

,

too

,

the

Father

was

not

associated

in

suffering

with

the

Son

.

The

heretics

,

indeed

,

fearing

to

incur

direct

blasphemy

against

the

Father

,

hope

to

diminish

it

by

this

expedient

:

they

grant

us

so

far

that

the

Father

and

the

Son

are

Two

;

adding

that

,

since

it

is

the

Son

indeed

who

suffers

,

the

Father

is

only

His

fellow

-

sufferer

.

But

how

absurd

are

they

even

in

this

conceit

!

For

what

is

the

meaning

of

“

fellow

-

suffering

,

”

but

the

endurance

of

suffering

along

with

another

?

Now

if

the

Father

is

incapable

of

suffering

,

He

.

is

incapable

of

suffering

in

company

with

another

;

otherwise

,

if

He

can

suffer

with

another

,

He

is

of

course

capable

of

suffering

.

You

,

in

fact

,

yield

Him

nothing

by

this

subterfuge

of

your

fears

.

You

are

afraid

to

say

that

He

is

capable

of

suffering

whom

you

make

to

be

capable

of

fellow

-

suffering

.

Then

,

again

,

the

Father

is

as

incapable

of

fellow

-

suffering

as

the

Son

even

is

of

suffering

under

the

conditions

of

His

existence

as

God

.

Well

,

but

how

could

the

Son

suffer

,

if

the

Father

did

not

suffer

with

Him

?

My

answer

is

,

The

Father

is

separate

from

the

Son

,

though

not

from

Him

as

God

.

For

even

if

a

river

be

soiled

with

mire

and

mud

,

although

it

flows

from

the

fountain

identical

in

nature

with

it

,

and

is

not

separated

from

the

fountain

,

yet

the

injury

which

affects

the

stream

reaches

not

to

the

fountain

;

and

although

it

is

the

water

of

the

fountain

which

suffers

down

the

stream

,

still

,

since

it

is

not

affected

at

the

fountain

,

but

only

in

the

river

,

the

fountain

suffers

nothing

,

but

only

the

river

which

issues

from

the

fountain

.

So

likewise

the

Spirit

of

God

,

whatever

suffering

it

might

be

capable

of

in

the

Son

,

yet

,

inasmuch

as

it

could

not

suffer

in

the

Father

,

the

fountain

of

the

Godhead

,

but

only

in

the

Son

,

it

evidently

could

not

have

suffered

,

as

the

Father

.

But

it

is

enough

for

me

that

the

Spirit

of

God

suffered

nothing

as

the

Spirit

of

God

,

since

all

that

It

suffered

It

suffered

in

the

Son

.

It

was

quite

another

matter

for

the

Father

to

suffer

with

the

Son

in

the

flesh

.

This

likewise

has

been

treated

by

us

.

Nor

will

any

one

deny

this

,

since

even

we

are

ourselves

unable

to

suffer

for

God

,

unless

the

Spirit

of

God

be

in

us

,

who

also

utters

by

our

instrumentality

whatever

pertains

to

our

own

conduct

and

suffering

;

not

,

however

,

that

He

Himself

suffers

in

our

suffering

,

only

He

bestows

on

us

the

power

and

capacity

of

suffering

.

Notes

1
1 Cor. xv. 3.
2
Gal. iii. 13.
3
Same ver.
4
Referimus: or, “Recite and record.”
5
Deut. xxi. 23.
6
Gal. iii. 13.
7
[This passage convinces Lardner that Praxeas was not a Patripassian. Credib. Vol. VIII. p. 607.]
8
That is, the divine nature in general in this place.
9
That which was open to it to suffer in the Son.
10
Suo nomine.
11
De nobis.