Edition ausblenden
Adversus Praxean

CAP. 29.

[1] 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, adicit Secundum scripturas, ut duritiam pronuntiationis scriptu- rarum auctoritate molliret et scandalum auditori everteret.

[2] quanquam cum duae substantiae censeantur in Christo Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam, ut 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.

[3] ergo, inquis, et nos eadem ratione dicentes qua vos filium non blasphemamus in dominum deum; non enim ex divina sed ex humana substantia mortuum dicimus. atquin blasphematis, non tantum quia mortuum dicitis patrem sed et quia crucifixum. maledictione enim crucifixi quae ex lege in filium competit, quia Christus pro nobis maledictio factus est, non pater, Christum in patrem convertentes in patrem blasphe- matis.

[4] nos autem, dicentes Christum crucifixum, non male- dicimus illum sed maledictum legis referimus, quia nec apostolus hoc dicens blasphemavit. sicut autem de quo quid capit dici sine blasphemia dicitur, ita quod non capit blasphemia est si dicatur.

[5] ergo nec compassus est pater filio. scilicet directam blasphemiam in patrem veriti, diminui eam hoc modo sperant, concedentes iam patrem et filium duos esse, si filius sic quidem patitur pater vero compatitur. stulti et in hoc. quid est enim compati quam cum alio pati? porro si impassibilis pater utique et incompas- sibilis; aut si compassibilis utique passibilis. nihil ei vel hoc timore tuo praestas.

[6] times dicere passibilem quem dicis com- passibilem. tam autem incompassibilis pater est quam im- passibilis etiam filius ex ea condicione qua deus est. sed quomodo filius passus est si non compassus est et pater? separatur a filio, non a deo. nam et fluvius si aliqua turbulentia contaminatur, quanquam una substantia de fonte decurrat nec secernatur a fonte, tamen fluvii iniuria non pertinebit ad fontem; et licet aqua fontis sit quae patiatur in fluvio, dum non in fonte patitur sed in fluvio non fons patitur sed fluvius qui ex fonte est.

[7] ita et spiritus dei qui pati possit in filio? quia non in patre pateretur sed in filio, pater passus non videretur? sed sufficit nihil spiritum dei passum suo nomine: quia si quid passus est in filio quidem erat ut pater cum filio pateretur in carne. quin hoc re- tractatum, 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.

Übersetzung ausblenden
Against Praxeas

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 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," ¹ 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 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," ² --a curse which, after the law, is compatible to the Son (inasmuch as "Christ has been made a curse for us," ³ 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 ⁴ the curse pronounced by the law: ⁵ nor indeed did the apostle utter blasphemy when he said the same thing as we. ⁶ 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. ⁷ 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, ⁸ 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, ⁹ as the Father. But it is enough for me that the Spirit of God suffered nothing as the Spirit of God, ¹⁰ 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 ¹¹ 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.