Against Praxeas 29
Summary: Christ died in his human, not his divine, substance; the Monarchians blaspheme by making the Father suffer and be accursed, and even their claim that the Father “suffered with” the Son makes him passible.
Textual problem in this passage: the printed text is uncertain or disputed here. See the notes.
Latin text · CSEL 47:285–287
Obmutescat, obmutescat ista blasphemia. sufficiat Christum, filium dei, mortuum dici, et hoc, quia ita scriptum est. nam et apostolus, non sine onere pronuntians Christum mortuum, adiecit secundum scripturas, ut duritiam pronuntiationis scripturarum auctoritate molliret et scandalum auditori euerteret. quamquam cum duae substantiae censeantur in Christo Iesu, diuina et humana, constet autem inmortalem esse diuinam, cum mortalem quae humana sit, apparet quatenus eum mortuum dicat, id est qua carnem et hominem et filium hominis, non qua spiritum et sermonem et dei filium. dicendo denique: Christus mortuus est, id est unctus, id quod unctum est mortuum ostendit, id est carnem. ergo, inquis, et nos eadem ratione (patrem mortuum) dicentes qua uos filium, non blasphemamus in dominum deum; non enim ex diuina. sed ex humana substantia mortuum dicimus. at tamen blasphematis, non tantum quia mortuum dicitis patrem, sed et quia crucifixum, maledictionem enim crucifixi, quae ex lege in filium competit, - quia christus pro nobis maledictio factus est, non pater - [Christum] in patrem conuertentes in patrem blasphematis. nos autem dicentes Christum crucifixum non maledicimus illum, sed maledictum legis referimus, quia nec apostolus hoc dicens blasphemauit. sicut autem de quo quid capit dici sine blasphemia dicitur, ita (de) quo non capit. blasphemia est, si dicatur. ergo nec compassus est pater filio. scilicet directam blasphemiam in patrem ueriti, diminui eam hoc modo sperant, — concedentes iam patrem et filium duos esse — si filius quidem patitur, pater uero compatitur. stulti et in hoc. quid est enim compati quam cum alio pati? porro si impassibilis pater, utique et incompassibilis; aut si compassibilis, utique passibilis. nihil ei uel timore tuo praestas. times dicere passibilem quem dicis compassibilem. tam autem (in)compassibilis pater est quam impassibilis etiam filius ex ea condicione, qua deus est. sed quomodo, si filius passus est, non compassus est et pater? separatur a filio, non a deo. nam et fluuius si aliqua turbulentia contaminatur, quamquam una substantia de fonte decurrat nec secernatur a fonte, tamen fluuii iniuria non pertinebit ad fontem; et licet aqua fontis sit quae patiatur in fluuio, dum non in fonte patitur, sed in fluuio, non fons patitur, sed fluuius, qui ex fonte est. ita et spiritus dei, ut pati possit in filio, quia non in patre pateretur, sed in filio, pater passus non uideretur. sed sufficit nihil spiritum dei passum suo nomine, quia, si quid passus est in filio t quidem erat, ut pater cum filio pateretur in carne. t quia hoc retractatus. nec quisquam negabit, quando nec nos pati pro deo possumus, nisi spiritus dei sit in nobis, qui et loquitur de nobis quae sunt confessionis, non ipse tamen patiens, sed pati posse praestans.
English · Claude translation
Let this blasphemy be silent, let it be silent! Let it be enough to say that Christ, the Son of God, died, and this because it is so written. For the apostle too, not without a sense of its weight, declaring that Christ died, added “according to the Scriptures,” so as to soften the harshness of the statement by the authority of the Scriptures and remove the stumbling block for the hearer. And since two substances are recognized in Christ Jesus, the divine and the human, and it is agreed that the divine is immortal while the human is mortal, it is clear in what sense he says he died: that is, as flesh and man and Son of Man, not as Spirit and Word and Son of God. In short, by saying “Christ died,” that is, the anointed one, he shows that what was anointed died, that is, the flesh. “Then,” you say, “when we say that the Father died, in the same sense as you say the Son did, we do not blaspheme against the Lord God; for we say that he died not in his divine but in his human substance.” But you do blaspheme, not only because you say the Father died, but also because you say he was crucified. For the curse on one crucified, which by the law belongs to the Son (since “Christ became a curse for us,” not the Father), you blaspheme against the Father by turning it onto the Father. But we, saying that Christ was crucified, do not curse him, but repeat the curse of the law; for the apostle did not blaspheme by saying it either. And as what may properly be said of someone is said without blasphemy, so it is blasphemy if it is said of one of whom it may not properly be said. “Then neither did the Father suffer with the Son.” That is, fearing direct blasphemy against the Father, they hope to lessen it in this way, conceding now that the Father and the Son are two: if the Son suffers, while the Father suffers with him. Fools in this too. For what is suffering with but suffering together with another? And if the Father is impassible, he is certainly incapable of suffering with; or if capable of suffering with, he is certainly passible. You grant him nothing even by your fear. You fear to call passible the one you call capable of suffering with. But the Father is as incapable of suffering with as the Son too is impassible, by the condition by which he is God. “But how, if the Son suffered, did not the Father suffer with him?” He is distinguished from the Son, not from God. For if a river is fouled by some turbidity, although one substance flows down from the spring and is not cut off from the spring, yet the river's injury will not reach the spring; and although it is the spring's water that suffers in the river, since it suffers not in the spring but in the river, it is not the spring that suffers but the river, which is from the spring. So too the Spirit of God, even if it could suffer in the Son, yet, since it would suffer not in the Father but in the Son, the Father would not be seen to have suffered. But it is enough that the Spirit of God suffered nothing in its own name, because, if it suffered anything, it suffered in the Son. … [It was another matter] for the Father to suffer with the Son in the flesh. … This has been discussed. No one will deny this, since we cannot suffer for God either unless the Spirit of God is in us, who also speaks from us the things of confession; not suffering himself, however, but granting us the ability to suffer.
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- The quotations and allusions are 1 Cor 15:3, Gal 3:13 (Deut 21:23), and Matt 10:20. Here “Spirit” (spiritus) again means the divine nature in the Son. The words “t quidem erat, ut pater cum filio pateretur in carne. t quia hoc retractatus” are marked corrupt by the editor (daggers); they are rendered by the probable sense (older editions read “aliud quidem erat … et hoc retractatum est,” as ANF translates), with the corrupt points shown as “…” and supplied words in square brackets. The editor deletes “Christum” before “in patrem conuertentes”; it is omitted. The digital text's “ch ris tus” and “coDlpassibilis” are corrected.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (letters misread in the digital text; split word in the digital text): quia ch ris tus pro → quia christus pro; coDlpassibilis → compassibilis.
Cite this passage
Tertullian, Prax. 29 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-praxean/29/).
Plain text
Tertullian, Prax. 29 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-praxean/29/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text