constet autem immortalem esse divinam" etc.]

[Footnote 598: 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 substantiae census hominem et deum exhibuit, hinc natum, inde
non natum (!), hinc carneum, inde spiritalem" etc. Then: "Quae proprietas
conditionum, divinae et humanae, aequa utique _naturae_ cuiusque veritate
disjuncta est."]

[Footnote 599: In the West up to the time of Leo I. the formula "deus et
homo," or, after Tertullian's time "duae substantiae," 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: "Quare," says Irenaeus 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 quae salvaietur, sed
eadem ipsa recapitularetur, servata similitudine?"]

[Footnote 601: 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: Adv. Prax. 27 sq. In de carne 3 sq.