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 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 God. It is Opposed Only to Praxeas’ Identification Theory.

But this very declaration of His they will hastily pervert into an argument of His singleness. “I have,” says He, “stretched out the heaven alone.”  Undoubtedly alone as regards all other powers; and He thus gives a premonitory evidence against the conjectures of the heretics, who maintain that the world was constructed by various angels and powers, who also make the Creator Himself to have been either an angel or some subordinate agent sent to form external things, such as the constituent parts of the world, but who was at the same time ignorant of the divine purpose. If, now, it is in this sense that He stretches out the heavens alone, how is it that these heretics assume their position so perversely, as to render inadmissible the singleness of that Wisdom which says, “When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him?”222    Prov. viii. 27.—even though the apostle asks, “Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor?”223    Rom. xi. 34. meaning, of course, to except that wisdom which was present with Him.224    Prov. viii. 30. In Him, at any rate, and with Him, did (Wisdom) construct the universe, He not being ignorant of what she was making. “Except Wisdom,” however, is a phrase of the same sense exactly as “except the Son,” who is Christ, “the Wisdom and Power of God,”225    1 Cor. i. 24. according to the apostle, who only knows the mind of the Father. “For who knoweth the things that be in God, except the Spirit which is in Him?”226    1 Cor ii. 11. Not, observe, without Him. There was therefore One who caused God to be not alone, except “alone” from all other gods.  But (if we are to follow the heretics), the Gospel itself will have to be rejected, because it tells us that all things were made by God through the Word, without whom nothing was made.227    John i. 3. And if I am not mistaken, there is also another passage in which it is written:  “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by His Spirit.”228    Ps. xxxiii. 6. Now this Word, the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, must be the very Son of God.  So that, if (He did) all things by the Son, He must have stretched out the heavens by the Son, and so not have stretched them out alone, except in the sense in which He is “alone” (and apart) from all other gods. Accordingly He says, concerning the Son, immediately afterwards: “Who else is it that frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad, turning wise men backward, and making their knowledge foolish, and confirming the words229    Isa. xliv. 25. of His Son?”230    On this reading, see our Anti-Marcion, p. 207, note 9. Edin.—as, for instance, when He said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him.”231    Matt. iii. 17. By thus attaching the Son to Himself, He becomes His own interpreter in what sense He stretched out the heavens alone, meaning alone with His Son, even as He is one with His Son. The utterance, therefore, will be in like manner the Son’s, “I have stretched out the heavens alone,”232    Isa. xliv. 24. because by the Word were the heavens established.233    Ps. xxxiii. 6. Inasmuch, then, as the heaven was prepared when Wisdom was present in the Word, and since all things were made by the Word, it is quite correct to say that even the Son stretched out the heaven alone, because He alone ministered to the Father’s work. It must also be He who says, “I am the First, and to all futurity I AM.”234    Isa. xli. 4 (Sept.). The Word, no doubt, was before all things. “In the beginning was the Word;”235    John i. 1. and in that beginning He was sent forth236    Prolatus. by the Father. The Father, however, has no beginning, as proceeding from none; nor can He be seen, since He was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have had order or rank.  Therefore, if they have determined that the Father and the Son must be regarded as one and the same, for the express purpose of vindicating the unity of God, that unity of His is preserved intact; for He is one, and yet He has a Son, who is equally with Himself comprehended in the same Scriptures. Since they are unwilling to allow that the Son is a distinct Person, second from the Father, lest, being thus second, He should cause two Gods to be spoken of, we have shown above237    See ch. xiii. p. 107. that Two are actually described in Scripture as God and Lord. And to prevent their being offended at this fact, we give a reason why they are not said to be two Gods and two Lords, but that they are two as Father and Son; and this not by severance of their substance, but from the dispensation wherein we declare the Son to be undivided and inseparable from the Father,—distinct in degree, not in state. And although, when named apart, He is called God, He does not thereby constitute two Gods, but one; and that from the very circumstance that He is entitled to be called God, from His union with the Father.

CAPUT XIX.

0177D Quin et hoc dictum ejus, in argumentum singularitatis 0178A arripient: Extendi, inquit, coelum solus. Quantum ad caeteras virtutes, solus, praestruens adversus conjecturas haereticorum, qui mundum ab angelis et potestatibus diversis volunt structum; qui et ipsum Creatorem aut angelum faciunt, aut ad alia quae extrinsecus, ut opera mundi, ignorantem quoque subornatum. Aut si sic solus coelum extendit, quomodo isti praesumunt in perversum haeretici, quasi singularis non admittatur Sophia illa dicens: Cum pararet coelosego aderam illi simul . Et si dixit Apostolus: Quis cognovit sensum Domini, et quis illi consilio fuit (I Cor. II, 15)? utique praeter Sophiam ait , quae illi aderat. In ipso tamen et cum illo universa compingebat, non ignorante quid faceret. Praeter Sophiam autem, praeter Filium dicit, qui est Christus, Sophia et Virtus Dei secundum Apostolum, solus 0178B sciens sensum patris: Quis enim scit quae sunt in Deo nisi spiritus qui in ipso est? Non qui extra ipsum . Erat ergo qui non solum Deum faceret, nisi a caeteris solum. Sed et Evangelium recusetur, quod dicat omnia per Sermonem a Deo facta esse, et sine eo nihil factum. Nisi enim fallor, et alibi scriptum est: Sermone ejus coeli firmati sunt, et spiritu orisejus omnes virtutes eorum. Et Sermo autem, Virtus et Sophia, ipse erit Dei Filius. Ita si per Filium omnia, coelum quoque per Filium extendens, non solus extendit, nisi illa ratione qua a caeteris solus. Atque adeo statim de Filio loquitur: Quis alius dejecit signa ventriloquorum, et divinationes a corde, avertens sapientes retrorsum, et consilium eorum infatuans? Sistens verba Filii sui, discendo scilicet: Hic est Filius 0178Cmeus dilectus; hunc audite. Ita Filium subjungens ipse interpretator est, quomodo coelum solus extenderit, scilicet cum Filio solus, sicut cum Filio unum. Proinde et filii erit vox, Extendi coelum solus; quia Sermone coeli confirmati sunt. Quia Sophia, id est , Sermone assistente, paratum est coelum, et omnia per Sermonem sunt facta, competit et Filium solum extendisse coelum, quia solus operationi Patris ministravit. Idem erit dicens: Ego primus, et insuper venturaego sum. Primum scilicet omnium, Sermo: In principio erat Sermo; in quo principio prolatus a Patre est. Caeterum Pater non habens initium, ut a nullo prolatus, ut innatus, non potest videri. Qui solus fuit semper, ordinem habere non potuit. Igitur si propterea eumdem et Patrem et Filium credendum 0178D putaverunt, ut unum Deum vindicent, salva 0179A est unio ejus, qui cum sit unus, habet et Filium, aeque et ipsum eisdem Scripturis comprehensum. Si Filium nolunt secundum a Patre reputari, ne secundus duos faciat deos dici, ostendimus etiam duos deos in Scriptura relatos, et duos dominos; et tamen ne de isto scandalizentur , rationem reddidimus, qua Dei non duo dicantur, nec Domini , sed qua Pater et Filius duo; et hoc non ex separatione substantiae, sed ex dispositione, cum individuum et inseparatum Filium a Patre pronuntiamus; nec statu, sed gradu alium; qui etsi Deus dicatur, quando nominatur singularis, non ideo duos deos faciat, sed unum, hoc ipso quod et Deus ex unitate Patris vocari habeat.