Footnote 595:[ (return) ]
De carne I, cf. ad nat. II. 4: "ut iure consistat collegium nominis communione substantiæ."
Footnote 596:[ (return) ]
De carne 18 fin.
Footnote 597:[ (return) ]
Adv. Prax. 27: "Sed enim invenimus illum diiecto et deum et hominem expositum, ipso hoc psalmo suggerente (Ps. LXXXVII. 5) ... hic erit homo et filius hominis, qui definitus est filius dei secundum spiritum ... Videmus duplicem statum, non confusum sed coniunctum in una persona deum et hominem Iesum. De Christo autem differo. Et adeo salva est utriusque proprietas substantiæ, ut et spiritus res suas egerit in illo, id est virtutes et opera et signa, et caro passiones suas functa sit, esuriens sub diabolo ... denique et mortua est. Quodsi tertium quid esset, ex utroque confusum, ut electrum, non tam distincta documenta parerent utrinsque substantiæ." In what follows the actus utriusque substantiæ are sharply demarcated: "ambæ substantiæ in statu suo quæque distincte agebant, ideo illis et operæ et exitus sui occurrerunt ... neque caro spiritus fit neque spiritus caro: in uno plane esse possunt." See also c. 29: "Quamquam cum duæ substantiæ censeantur in Christo Iesu, divina et humana, constet autem immortalem esse divinam" etc.
Footnote 598:[ (return) ]
Of this in a future volume. Here also two substances in Christ are always spoken of (there are virtually three, since, according to de anima 35, men have already two substances in themselves) I know only one passage where Tertullian speaks of natures in reference to Christ, and this passage in reality proves nothing; de carne 5: "Itaque utriusque substantiæ census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem" etc. Then: "Quæ proprietas conditionum, divinæ et humanæ, æqua utique naturæ cuiusque veritate disjuncta est."
Footnote 599:[ (return) ]
In the West up to the time of Leo I. the formula "deus et homo," or, after Tertullian's time "duæ substantiæ," was always a simple expression of the facts acknowledged in the Symbol, and not a speculation derived from the doctrine of redemption. This is shown just from the fact of stress being laid on the unmixedness. With this was associated a theoretic and apologetic interest on the part of theologians, so that they began to dwell at greater length on the unmixedness after the appearance of that Patripassianism, which professed to recognise the filius dei in the caro, that is in the deus so far as he is incarnatus or has changed himself into flesh. As to Tertullian's opposition to this view see what follows. In contradistinction to this Western formula the monophysite one was calculated to satisfy both the salvation interest and the understanding. The Chalcedonian creed, as is admitted by Schulz, l.c., pp. 64 ff., 71 ff., is consequently to be explained from Tertullian's view, not from that of the Alexandrians. Our readers will excuse us for thus anticipating.
Footnote 600:[ (return) ]
"Quare," says Irenæus III. 21. 10—"igitur non iterum sumpsit limum deus sed ex Maria operatus est plasmationem fieri? Ut non alia plasmatio fieret neque alia, esset plasmatio quæ salvaietur, sed eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine?"
Footnote 601:[ (return) ]
See de carne 18. Oehler has misunderstood the passage and therefore mispointed it. It is as follows: "Vox ista (Joh. I. 14) quid caro factum sit contestatur, nec tamen periclitatur, quasi statim aliud sit (verbum), factum caro, et non verbum.... Cum scriptura non dicat nisi quod factum sit, non et unde sit factum, ergo ex alio, non ex semetipso suggerit factum" etc.
Footnote 602:[ (return) ]
Adv. Prax. 27 sq. In de carne 3 sq. and elsewhere Tertullian indeed argues against Marcion that God in contradistinction to all creatures can transform himself into anything and yet remain God. Hence we are not to think of a transformation in the strict sense, but of an adunitio.
Footnote 603:[ (return) ]
So I think I ought to express myself. It does not seem to me proper to read a twofold conception into Irenæus' Christological utterances under the pretext that Christ according to him was also the perfect man, with all the modern ideas that are usually associated with this thought (Bohringer, l.c., p. 542 ff., see Thomasius in opposition to him).
Footnote 604:[ (return) ]
See, e.g., V. 1. 3. Nitzch, Dogmengeschichte I. p. 309. Tertullian, in his own peculiar fashion, developed still more clearly the thought transmitted to him by Irenæus. See adv. Prax. 12: "Quibus faciebat deus hominem similem? Filio quidem, qui erat induturus hominem.... Erat autem ad cuius imaginem faciebat, ad filii scilicet, qui homo futurus certior et verior imaginem suam fecerat dici hominem, qui tunc de limo formari habebat, imago veri et similitudo." Adv. Marc. V. 8: "Creator Christum, sermonem suum, intuens hominem futurum, Faciamus, inquit, hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram"; the same in de resurr. 6. But with Tertullian, too, this thought was a sudden idea and did not become the basis of further speculation.