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 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 Spoken of as Distinct Persons.

Consider, therefore, how many passages present their prescriptive authority to you in this very Gospel before this inquiry of Philip, and previous to any discussion on your part. And first of all there comes at once to hand the preamble of John to his Gospel, which shows us what He previously was who had to become flesh.  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.”242    John i. 1–3. Now, since these words may not be taken otherwise than as they are written, there is without doubt shown to be One who was from the beginning, and also One with whom He always was: one the Word of God, the other God (although the Word is also God, but God regarded as the Son of God, not as the Father); One through whom were all things, Another by whom were all things.  But in what sense we call Him Another we have already often described. In that we called Him Another, we must needs imply that He is not identical—not identical indeed, yet not as if separate; Other by dispensation, not by division. He, therefore, who became flesh was not the very same as He from whom the Word came.  “His glory was beheld—the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father;”243    John i. 14. not, (observe,) as of the Father. He “declared” (what was in) “the bosom of the Father alone;”244    Unius sinum Patris. Another reading makes: “He alone (unus) declared,” etc. See John i. 18. the Father did not divulge the secrets of His own bosom. For this is preceded by another statement: “No man hath seen God at any time.”245    John i. 18, first clause. Then, again, when He is designated by John (the Baptist) as “the Lamb of God,”246    John i. 29. He is not described as Himself the same with Him of whom He is the beloved Son. He is, no doubt, ever the Son of God, but yet not He Himself of whom He is the Son.  This (divine relationship) Nathanæl at once recognised in Him,247    John i. 49. even as Peter did on another occasion:  “Thou art the Son of God.”248    Matt. xvi. 16. And He affirmed Himself that they were quite right in their convictions; for He answered Nathanæl: “Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, therefore dost thou believe?”249    John i. 50. And in the same manner He pronounced Peter to be “blessed,” inasmuch as “flesh and blood had not revealed it to him”—that he had perceived the Father—“but the Father which is in heaven.”250    Matt. xvi. 17. By asserting all this, He determined the distinction which is between the two Persons:  that is, the Son then on earth, whom Peter had confessed to be the Son of God; and the Father in heaven, who had revealed to Peter the discovery which he had made, that Christ was the Son of God.  When He entered the temple, He called it “His Father’s house,”251    John ii. 16.speaking as the Son. In His address to Nicodemus He says: “So God loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”252    John iii. 16. And again:  “For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.”253    John iii. 17, 18. Moreover, when John (the Baptist) was asked what he happened to know of Jesus, he said: “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.”254    John iii. 35, 36. Whom, indeed, did He reveal to the woman of Samaria? Was it not “the Messias which is called Christ?”255    John iv. 25. And so He showed, of course, that He was not the Father, but the Son; and elsewhere He is expressly called “the Christ, the Son of God,”256    John xx. 31. and not the Father. He says, therefore,” My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish His work;”257    John iv. 34. whilst to the Jews He remarks respecting the cure of the impotent man, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.”258    John v. 17. “My Father and I”—these are the Son’s words. And it was on this very account that “the Jews sought the more intently to kill Him, not only because He broke the Sabbath, but also because He said that God was His Father, thus making Himself equal with God. Then indeed did He answer and say unto them, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that He Himself doeth; and He will also show Him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.  For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son also quickeneth whom He will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent the Son. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my words, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life. Verily I say unto you, that the hour is coming, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and when they have heard it, they shall live. For as the Father hath eternal life in Himself, so also hath He given to the Son to have eternal life in Himself; and He hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man”259    John v. 19–27.—that is, according to the flesh, even as He is also the Son of God through His Spirit.260    i.e. His divine nature. Afterwards He goes on to say: “But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish—those very works bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me. And the Father Himself, which hath sent me, hath also borne witness of me.”261    John v. 36, 37. But He at once adds, “Ye have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His shape;”262    Ver. 37. thus affirming that in former times it was not the Father, but the Son, who used to be seen and heard. Then He says at last: “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye have not received me.”263    Ver. 43. It was therefore always the Son (of whom we read) under the designation of the Almighty and Most High God, and King, and Lord. To those also who inquired “what they should do to work the works of God,”264    John vi. 29. He answered, “This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent.”265    Ver. 30. He also declares Himself to be “the bread which the Father sent from heaven;”266    Ver. 32. and adds, that “all that the Father gave Him should come to Him, and that He Himself would not reject them,267    The expression is in the neuter collective form in the original. because He had come down from heaven not to do His own will, but the will of the Father; and that the will of the Father was that every one who saw the Son, and believed on Him, should obtain the life (everlasting,) and the resurrection at the last day. No man indeed was able to come to Him, except the Father attracted him; whereas every one who had heard and learnt of the Father came to Him.”268    John vi. 37–45. He goes on then expressly to say, “Not that any man hath seen the Father;”269    Ver. 46. thus showing us that it was through the Word of the Father that men were instructed and taught. Then, when many departed from Him,270    Ver. 66. and He turned to the apostles with the inquiry whether “they also would go away,”271    Ver. 67. what was Simon Peter’s answer? “To whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life, and we believe that Thou art the Christ.”272    Ver. 68. (Tell me now, did they believe) Him to be the Father, or the Christ of the Father?

CAPUT XXI.

Adspice itaque quanta praescribat tibi etiam in Evangelio, ante Philippi consultationem, et ante omnem argumentationem tuam. Et in primis, ipsa statim praefatio Joannis Evangelizatoris demonstrat, quod retro fuerit, qui caro fieri habebat: In principio erat Sermo (Joan. I, 1), et Sermo erat apud Deum, et Deus erat sermo. Hic erat in principio apud Deum. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est 0180Anihil. Nam si haec non aliter accipi licet, quam quomodo scripta sunt, indubitanter alius ostenditur, qui fuerit a principio, alius apud quem fuit: alium Sermonem esse, alium Deum (licet et Deus Sermo, sed qua Dei Filius, non qua Pater); alium per quem omnia, alium a quo omnia. Alium autem quomodo dicamus, saepe jam edidimus; quo alium dicamus necesse est, ne eumdem; alium autem, non quasi separatum, sed dispositione alium, non divisione. Hic ergo factus est caro, non ipse cujus erat Sermo. Hujus gloria visa est tanquam unici a Patre, non tanquam Patris. Hic unus sinum Patris disseruit, non sinum suum Pater. Praecedit enim; Deum nemo vidit unquam. Idem et agnus Dei ab Joanne designatur, non ipse cujus est dilectus. Certe Filius Dei 0180B semper, sed non ipse cujus est Filius. Hoc eum Nathanael statim sensit, sicut et alibi Petrus: Tu es Filius Dei. (Joan. I, 50; Matt. XVI, 16). Hoc et ipse recte sensisse illos confirmat, Nathanaeli quidem respondens: Quia dixi , Vidi te sub ficu, ideo credis (Joan. II, 50); Petrum vero beatum affirmans, cui non caro, neque sanguis revelasset (quod et Patrem senserat), sed Pater qui in coelis est (Matt. XVI, 17). Quo dicto utriusque personae constituit distinctionem, et Filii in terris, quem Petrus agnoverat Dei Filium, et Patris qui in coelis, qui Petro revelaverat quod Petrus agnoverat Dei Filium Christum. Cum in templum introiit, aedem Patris appellat, ut Filius. Cum ad Nicodemum dicit: Ita dilexit Deus mundum, ut Filium suum unicum dederit, in quem 0180Comnis qui crediderit, non pereat, sed habeat vitam sempiternam (Joan. III, 16). Et rursus (Ibid. 17): Non enim misit Deus Filium suum in mundum, ut judicet mundum, sed ut salvus sit mundus per eum. Qui crediderit in illum, non judicatur; qui non crediderit in illum, jam judicatus est, quia non credidit in nomine unici Filii Dei. Joannes autem cum interrogaretur quidde Jesu contingeret: Pater, inquit, diligitFilium, et omnia tradidit in manu ejus. Qui creditin Filium, habet vitam aeternam; qui non credit in FiliumDei, non videbit Deum, sed ira Dei manebit super eum (Joan. III, 35, 36). Quem vero Samaritidi ostendit? Si Messiam qui dicitur Christus, Filium utique 0181A se, non Patrem demonstravit, qui et alibi Christus Dei Filius, non Pater dictus est. Exinde discipulis: Meum est, inquit, ut faciam voluntatem ejus qui me misit, ut consummem opus ejus. Et ad Judaeos, de paralytici sanitate: Pater meus usque modo operatur, et ego operor (Joan. V, 17). Pater et ego, Filius dicit. Denique, propter hoc magis Judaei illum interficere volebant, non tantumquod solveret sabbatum, sed quod patrem suum Deum diceret, aequans se Deo. Tunc ergo dicebat ad eos: Nihil Filius facere potest a semetipso, nisi videritPatrem facientem (Joan. V, 19). Quae enim ille facit, eadem et Filius facit. Pater enim diligit Filium, et omnia demonstravit illi quae ille fecit, et majora istisopera demonstravit illi, ut vos miremini. Quomodo enim suscitat mortuos et vivificat, 0181Bita et Filius quos vult vivificat . Neque enim Pater judicat, sed omne judicium dedit Filio, uti omnes honorent Filium, sicut honorant Patrem. Qui non honorat Filium, non honorat Patrem, qui Filium misit. Amen, amen dico vobis, quod qui auditsermones meos , et credit ei qui me misit, habet vitam aeternam; et in judicium non venit , sed transitde morte in vitam. Amen dico vobis, quod veniet hora, qua mortui audient vocem Filii Dei; et cum audierint, vivent. Sicut enim Pater habet vitam aeternama semetipso, ita et Filio dedit vitam aeternam habere in semetipso, etjudicium dedit illi facere in potestate, qua filius hominis est; per carnem scilicet, sicut et Filius Dei per spiritum ejus. Adhuc adjicit: Ego autem habeo majus quam Joannis testimonium (Joan. V, 36, 37). Opera 0181Cenim quae Pater mihi dedit consummare, illa ipsa de me testimonium perhibent, quod me Pater miserit. Et qui me misit Pater, ipse testimonium dixit de me. Subjungens autem: Neque vocem ejus audistis unquam, neque formam ejus vidistis; confirmat retro non Patrem, sed Filium fuisse, qui videbatur et audiebatur. Denique dicit: Ego veni in Patris mei nomine, et non me recepistis (Joan. V, 43). Adeo semper Filius erat in Dei et Regis et Domini, et Omnipotentis, et Altissimi nomine. Interrogantibus autem quid facere debeant, respondit: Ut credatis in eum quem Deus misit (Joan. VI, 29). Panem quoque se affirmat, quem Pater praestaret de coelo (Joan. VI, 32). Ergo omne quod ei daret Pater ad se venire, nec rejecturum se, quia de coelo descendisset, non ut suam, sed ut Patris faceret voluntatem: voluntatem autem Patris esse, uti qui viderit 0181DFilium, et crediderit in eum, vitam et resurrectionem consequatur (Joan. VI, 35): neminem porro ad se venire 0182Aposse, nisi quem Pater adducat : omnem qui a Patre audisset et didicisset, venire ad se (Joan. VI, 14). Non quasi Patrem aliquis viderit, adjiciens et hic, ut ostenderet Patris esse Sermonem per quem docti fiant. At cum discedunt ab eo multi (Joan. VI, 66), et Apostolis suis offert, si velint discedere et ipsi, quid respondit Simon Petrus? Quo discedimus ? verba vitae habes, et nos credimus quod tu sis Christus. Patrem illum esse, an Patris Christum?