Against Praxeas.

 Chapter I.—Satan’s Wiles Against the Truth. How They Take the Form of the Praxean Heresy. Account of the Publication of This Heresy.

 Chapter II.—The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and Unity, Sometimes Called the Divine Economy, or Dispensation of the Personal Relations of the Godh

 Chapter III.—Sundry Popular Fears and Prejudices. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity Rescued from These Misapprehensions.

 Chapter IV.—The Unity of the Godhead and the Supremacy and Sole Government of the Divine Being. The Monarchy Not at All Impaired by the Catholic Doctr

 Chapter V.—The Evolution of the Son or Word of God from the Father by a Divine Procession. Illustrated by the Operation of the Human Thought and Consc

 Chapter VI.—The Word of God is Also the Wisdom of God. The Going Forth of Wisdom to Create the Universe, According to the Divine Plan.

 Chapter VII.—The Son by Being Designated Word and Wisdom, (According to the Imperfection of Human Thought and Language) Liable to Be Deemed a Mere Att

 Chapter VIII.—Though the Son or Word of God Emanates from the Father, He is Not, Like the Emanations of Valentinus, Separable from the Father.  Nor is

 Chapter IX.—The Catholic Rule of Faith Expounded in Some of Its Points.  Especially in the Unconfused Distinction of the Several Persons of the Blesse

 Chapter X.—The Very Names of Father and Son Prove the Personal Distinction of the Two. They Cannot Possibly Be Identical, Nor is Their Identity Necess

 Chapter XI.—The Identity of the Father and the Son, as Praxeas Held It, Shown to Be Full of Perplexity and Absurdity. Many Scriptures Quoted in Proof

 Chapter XII.—Other Quotations from Holy Scripture Adduced in Proof of the Plurality of Persons in the Godhead.

 Chapter XIII.—The Force of Sundry Passages of Scripture Illustrated in Relation to the Plurality of Persons and Unity of Substance. There is No Polyth

 Chapter XIV.—The Natural Invisibility of the Father, and the Visibility of the Son Witnessed in Many Passages of the Old Testament. Arguments of Their

 Chapter XV.—New Testament Passages Quoted. They Attest the Same Truth of the Son’s Visibility Contrasted with the Father’s Invisibility.

 Chapter XVI.—Early Manifestations of the Son of God, as Recorded in the Old Testament Rehearsals of His Subsequent Incarnation.

 Chapter XVII.—Sundry August Titles, Descriptive of Deity, Applied to the Son, Not, as Praxeas Would Have It, Only to the Father.

 Chapter XVIII.—The Designation of the One God in the Prophetic Scriptures. Intended as a Protest Against Heathen Idolatry, It Does Not Preclude the Co

 Chapter XIX.—The Son in Union with the Father in the Creation of All Things. This Union of the Two in Co-Operation is Not Opposed to the True Unity of

 Chapter XX.—The Scriptures Relied on by Praxeas to Support His Heresy But Few. They are Mentioned by Tertullian.

 Chapter XXI.—In This and the Four Following Chapters It is Shewn, by a Minute Analysis of St. John’s Gospel, that the Father and Son are Constantly Sp

 Chapter XXII.—Sundry Passages of St. John Quoted, to Show the Distinction Between the Father and the Son. Even Praxeas’ Classic Text—I and My Father a

 Chapter XXIII.—More Passages from the Same Gospel in Proof of the Same Portion of the Catholic Faith. Praxeas’ Taunt of Worshipping Two Gods Repudiate

 Chapter XXIV.—On St. Philip’s Conversation with Christ. He that Hath Seen Me, Hath Seen the Father. This Text Explained in an Anti-Praxean Sense.

 Chapter XXV.—The Paraclete, or Holy Ghost. He is Distinct from the Father and the Son as to Their Personal Existence. One and Inseparable from Them as

 Chapter XXVI.—A Brief Reference to the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke. Their Agreement with St. John, in Respect to the Distinct Personality of t

 Chapter XXVII.—The Distinction of the Father and the Son, Thus Established, He Now Proves the Distinction of the Two Natures, Which Were, Without Conf

 Chapter XXVIII.—Christ Not the Father, as Praxeas Said. The Inconsistency of This Opinion, No Less Than Its Absurdity, Exposed. The True Doctrine of J

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

 Chapter XXX.—How the Son Was Forsaken by the Father Upon the Cross. The True Meaning Thereof Fatal to Praxeas. So Too, the Resurrection of Christ, His

 Chapter XXXI.—Retrograde Character of the Heresy of Praxeas. The Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity Constitutes the Great Difference Between Judaism and

Chapter VII.—The Son by Being Designated Word and Wisdom, (According to the Imperfection of Human Thought and Language) Liable to Be Deemed a Mere Attribute. He is Shown to Be a Personal Being.

Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb,56    Ornatum.His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, “Let there be light.”57    Gen. i. 3. This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God—formed58    Conditus. [See Theophilus To Autolycus, cap. x. note 1, p. 98, Vol. II. of this series. Also Ibid. p. 103, note 5. On the whole subject, Bp. Bull, Defensio Fid. Nicænæ. Vol. V. pp. 585–592.] by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom—“The Lord created or formed59    Condidit. me as the beginning of His ways;”60    Prov. viii. 22. then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect—“When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him.”61    Ver. 27. Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things;62    Col. i. 15. and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart—even as the Father Himself testifies: “My heart,” says He, “hath emitted my most excellent Word.”63    Ps. xlv. 1. See this reading, and its application, fully discussed in our note 5, p. 66, of the Anti-Marcion, Edin.The Father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a reciprocal gladness in the Father’s presence:  “Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten Thee;”64    Ps. ii. 7. even before the morning star did I beget Thee. The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in His own person, under the name of Wisdom: “The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills did He beget Me.”65    Prov. viii. 22, 25. For if indeed Wisdom in this passage seems to say that She was created by the Lord with a view to His works, and to accomplish His ways, yet proof is given in another Scripture that “all things were made by the Word, and without Him was there nothing made;”66    John i. 3. as, again, in another place (it is said), “By His word were the heavens established, and all the powers thereof by His Spirit”67    Ps. xxxiii. 6.—that is to say, by the Spirit (or Divine Nature) which was in the Word: thus is it evident that it is one and the same power which is in one place described under the name of Wisdom, and in another passage under the appellation of the Word, which was initiated for the works of God68    Prov. viii. 22. which “strengthened the heavens;”69    Ver. 28. “by which all things were made,”70    John i. 3. “and without which nothing was made.”71    John i. 3. Nor need we dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name both of Wisdom and of Reason, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit. He became also the Son of God, and was begotten when He proceeded forth from Him.  Do you then, (you ask,) grant that the Word is a certain substance, constructed by the Spirit and the communication of Wisdom? Certainly I do. But you will not allow Him to be really a substantive being, by having a substance of His own; in such a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a person, and so be able (as being constituted second to God the Father,) to make two, the Father and the Son, God and the Word. For you will say, what is a word, but a voice and sound of the mouth, and (as the grammarians teach) air when struck against,72    Offensus. intelligible to the ear, but for the rest a sort of void, empty, and incorporeal thing. I, on the contrary, contend that nothing empty and void could have come forth from God, seeing that it is not put forth from that which is empty and void; nor could that possibly be devoid of substance which has proceeded from so great a substance, and has produced such mighty substances: for all things which were made through Him, He Himself (personally) made. How could it be, that He Himself is nothing, without whom nothing was made? How could He who is empty have made things which are solid, and He who is void have made things which are full, and He who is incorporeal have made things which have body? For although a thing may sometimes be made different from him by whom it is made, yet nothing can be made by that which is a void and empty thing. Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself is designated God? “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”73    John i. 1. It is written, “Thou shalt not take God’s name in vain.”74    Ex. xx. 7. This for certain is He “who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.”75    Phil. ii. 6. In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none. For who will deny that God is a body, although “God is a Spirit?”76    John iv. 24. For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form.77    This doctrine of the soul’s corporeality in a certain sense is treated by Tertullian in his De Resurr. Carn. xvii., and De Anima v. By Tertullian, spirit and soul were considered identical. See our Anti-Marcion, p. 451, note 4, Edin. Now, even if invisible things, whatsoever they be, have both their substance and their form in God, whereby they are visible to God alone, how much more shall that which has been sent forth from His substance not be without substance!  Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father.78    [On Tertullian’s orthodoxy, here, see Kaye, p. 502.]

CAPUT VII.

Tunc igitur etiam ipse sermo speciem et ornatum suum sumit, sonum et vocem, cum dicit Deus: Fiat lux. Haec est nativitas perfecta sermonis, dum ex Deo 0161C procedit: conditus ab eo primum ab cogitatum in nomine Sophiae: Dominus condidit me initium viarum. Dehinc generatus ad effectum: Cum pararet coelum, aderam illi simul. Exinde eum parem sibi faciens, de quo procedendo Filius factus est, primogenitus (Col. I, 15), ut ante omnia genitus; et unigenitus (I Joan., IV, 9), ut solus ex Deo genitus: proprie de vulva cordis ipsius, secundum quod et Pater ipse testatur: Eructavit cor meum sermonem optimum (Ps. XLIV, 1). Ad quem deinceps gaudens proinde gaudentem in persona illius (Ps. II, 7): Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te. Et: Ante luciferum genui te. Sic et Filius ex sua persona profitetur Patrem in nomine Sophiae: Dominus condidit me initium viarum in opera sua. Ante omnes autem colles generavit me. Nam si hic quidem 0161D Sophia videtur dicere conditam se a Domino in opera et vias ejus; alibi autem per sermonem ostenditur omnia facta esse, et sine illo nihil factum; sicut et 0162A rursum (Ps. XXXIII, 6): Sermone ejus coeli confirmati sunt, et spiritu ejus omnes vires eorum; utique eo spiritu qui sermoni inerat: apparet unam eamdemque vim esse nunc in nomine Sophiae, nunc in appellatione Sermonis; quae initium accepit viarum in Dei opera; et quae coelum confirmavit; per quam omnia facta sunt, et sine qua nihil factum est (Joan. I, 3). Nec diutius de isto, quasi non de ipso sit sermo, et in sophiae, et in rationis, et in omnis divini animi et spiritus nomine, qui filius factus est Dei, de quo prodeundo generatus est. Ergo inquis, das aliquam substantiam esse Sermonem, spiritu et Sophiae traditione constructam? Plane. Non vis enim eum substantivum habere in re per substantiae proprietatem, ut res et persona quaedam videri possit, et ita capiat 0162B secundus a Deo constitutus duos efficere, Patrem et Flium, Deum et Sermonem. Quid est enim, dices, sermo, nisi vox et sonus oris, et (sicut Grammatici tradunt) aer offensus, intelligibilis auditu; caeterum, vacuum nescio quid, et inane, et incorporale? At ego nihil dico de Deo inane et vacuum prodire potuisse, ut non de inani et vacuo prolatum; nec carere substantia, quod de tanta substantia processit, et tantas substantias fecit, fecit enim et ipse quae facta sunt per illum. Quale est ut nihil sit ipse, sine quo nihil factum est? ut inanis solida, et vacuus plena, et incorporalis corporalia sit operatus? Nam etsi potest aliquando quid fieri diversum ejus per quod fit, nihil tamen potest fieri per id quod vacuum et inane est. Vacua et inanis res est Sermo Dei, qui Filius dictus 0162C est, qui ipse Deus cognominatus est, Et Sermo erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Sermo (Joan. I, 1)? Scriptum est (Exod. XX, 7): Non sumes nomen Dei in vanum. Hic certe est, qui in effigie Dei constitutus, non rapinam existimavit esse se aequalem Deo (Philip, II, 6). In qua effigie Dei? utique in alia, non tamen in nulla. Quis enim negabit Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est? Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie. Sed et invisibilia illa quaecumque sunt, habent apud Deum et suum corpus et suam formam, per quae soli Deo visibilia sunt; quanto magis quod ex ipsius substantia missum est, sine substantia non erit! Quaecumque ergo substantia Sermonis fuit, illam dico personam, et illi nomen Filii vindico; et dum Filium agnosco, secundum a Patre 0162D defendo.