Opening the library…

Search the Bible

Against Praxeas

Tertullian

Chapter 15

About this work

A polemical Latin treatise opposing a modalist account of God and articulating distinctions among Father, Son, and Spirit while insisting on divine unity and the reality of Christ’s incarnation.

Author: Tertullian
Date: Early 3rd century
Origin: Carthage, North Africa
Genre: Theological Treatise

Chapter XV.—New Testament Passages Quoted. They Attest the Same Truth of the Son’s Visibility Contrasted with the Father’s Invisibility.

If I fail in resolving this article (of our

‹ Chapter 14 Chapter 16 ›

faith

)

by

passages

which

may

admit

of

dispute

out

of

the

Old

Testament

,

I

will

take

out

of

the

New

Testament

a

confirmation

of

our

view

,

that

you

may

not

straightway

attribute

to

the

Father

every

possible

(

relation

and

condition

)

which

I

ascribe

to

the

Son

.

Behold

,

then

,

I

find

both

in

the

Gospels

and

in

the

(

writings

of

the

)

apostles

a

visible

and

an

invisible

God

(

revealed

to

us

)

,

under

a

manifest

and

personal

distinction

in

the

condition

of

both

.

There

is

a

certain

emphatic

saying

by

John

:

“

No

man

hath

seen

God

at

any

time

;

”

meaning

,

of

course

,

at

any

.

But

he

has

indeed

taken

away

all

question

of

time

,

by

saying

that

God

had

never

been

seen

.

The

apostle

confirms

this

statement

;

for

,

speaking

of

God

,

he

says

,

“

Whom

no

man

hath

seen

,

nor

can

see

;

”

because

the

man

indeed

would

die

who

should

see

Him

.

But

the

very

same

apostles

testify

that

they

had

both

seen

and

“

handled

”

Christ

.

Now

,

if

Christ

is

Himself

both

the

Father

and

the

Son

,

how

can

He

be

both

the

Visible

and

the

Invisible

?

In

order

,

however

,

to

reconcile

this

diversity

between

the

Visible

and

the

Invisible

,

will

not

some

one

on

the

other

side

argue

that

the

two

statements

are

quite

correct

:

that

He

was

visible

indeed

in

the

flesh

,

but

was

invisible

before

His

appearance

in

the

flesh

;

so

that

He

who

as

the

Father

was

invisible

before

the

flesh

,

is

the

same

as

the

Son

who

was

visible

in

the

flesh

?

If

,

however

,

He

is

the

same

who

was

invisible

before

the

incarnation

,

how

comes

it

that

He

was

actually

seen

in

ancient

times

before

(

coming

in

)

the

flesh

?

And

by

parity

of

reasoning

,

if

He

is

the

same

who

was

visible

after

(

coming

in

)

the

flesh

,

how

happens

it

that

He

is

now

declared

to

be

invisible

by

the

apostles

?

How

,

I

repeat

,

can

all

this

be

,

unless

it

be

that

He

is

one

,

who

anciently

was

visible

only

in

mystery

and

enigma

,

and

became

more

clearly

visible

by

His

incarnation

,

even

the

Word

who

was

also

made

flesh

;

whilst

He

is

another

whom

no

man

has

seen

at

any

time

,

being

none

else

than

the

Father

,

even

Him

to

whom

the

Word

belongs

?

Let

us

,

in

short

,

examine

who

it

is

whom

the

apostles

saw

.

“

That

,

”

says

John

,

“

which

we

have

seen

with

our

eyes

,

which

we

have

looked

upon

,

and

our

hands

have

handled

,

of

the

Word

of

life

.

”

Now

the

Word

of

life

became

flesh

,

and

was

heard

,

and

was

seen

,

and

was

handled

,

because

He

was

flesh

who

,

before

He

came

in

the

flesh

,

was

the

“

Word

in

the

beginning

with

God

”

the

Father

,

and

not

the

Father

with

the

Word

.

For

although

the

Word

was

God

,

yet

was

He

with

God

,

because

He

is

God

of

God

;

and

being

joined

to

the

Father

,

is

with

the

Father

.

“

And

we

have

seen

His

glory

,

the

glory

as

of

the

only

begotten

of

the

Father

;

”

that

is

,

of

course

,

(

the

glory

)

of

the

Son

,

even

Him

who

was

visible

,

and

was

glorified

by

the

invisible

Father

.

And

therefore

,

inasmuch

as

he

had

said

that

the

Word

of

God

was

God

,

in

order

that

he

might

give

no

help

to

the

presumption

of

the

adversary

,

(

which

pretended

)

that

he

had

seen

the

Father

Himself

and

in

order

to

draw

a

distinction

between

the

invisible

Father

and

the

visible

Son

,

he

makes

the

additional

assertion

,

ex

abundanti

as

it

were

:

“

No

man

hath

seen

God

at

any

time

.

”

What

God

does

he

mean

?

The

Word

?

But

he

has

already

said

:

“

Him

we

have

seen

and

heard

,

and

our

hands

have

handled

the

Word

of

life

.

”

Well

,

(

I

must

again

ask

,

)

what

God

does

he

mean

?

It

is

of

course

the

Father

,

with

whom

was

the

Word

,

the

only

begotten

Son

,

who

is

in

the

bosom

of

the

Father

,

and

has

Himself

declared

Him

.

He

was

both

heard

and

seen

and

,

that

He

might

not

be

supposed

to

be

a

phantom

,

was

actually

handled

.

Him

,

too

,

did

Paul

behold

;

but

yet

he

saw

not

the

Father

.

“

Have

I

not

,

”

he

says

,

“

seen

Jesus

Christ

our

Lord

?

”

Moreover

,

he

expressly

called

Christ

God

,

saying

:

“

Of

whom

are

the

fathers

,

and

of

whom

as

concerning

the

flesh

Christ

came

,

who

is

over

all

,

God

blessed

for

ever

.

”

He

shows

us

also

that

the

Son

of

God

,

which

is

the

Word

of

God

,

is

visible

,

because

He

who

became

flesh

was

called

Christ

.

Of

the

Father

,

however

,

he

says

to

Timothy

:

“

Whom

none

among

men

hath

seen

,

nor

indeed

can

see

;

”

and

he

accumulates

the

description

in

still

ampler

terms

:

“

Who

only

hath

immortality

,

and

dwelleth

in

the

light

which

no

man

can

approach

unto

.

”

It

was

of

Him

,

too

,

that

he

had

said

in

a

:

“

Now

unto

the

King

eternal

,

immortal

,

invisible

,

to

the

only

God

;

”

so

that

we

might

apply

even

the

contrary

qualities

to

the

Son

Himself

—

mortality

,

accessibility

—

of

whom

the

apostle

testifies

that

“

He

died

according

to

the

Scriptures

,

”

and

that

“

He

was

seen

by

himself

last

of

all

,

”

—

by

means

,

of

course

,

of

the

light

which

was

accessible

,

although

it

was

not

without

imperilling

his

sight

that

he

experienced

that

light

.

A

like

danger

to

which

also

befell

Peter

,

and

John

,

and

James

,

(

who

confronted

not

the

same

light

)

without

risking

the

loss

of

their

reason

and

mind

;

and

if

they

,

who

were

unable

to

endure

the

glory

of

the

Son

,

had

only

seen

the

Father

,

they

must

have

died

then

and

there

:

“

For

no

man

shall

see

God

,

and

live

.

”

This

being

the

case

,

it

is

evident

that

He

was

always

seen

from

the

beginning

,

who

became

visible

in

the

end

;

and

that

He

,

(

on

the

contrary

,

)

was

not

seen

in

the

end

who

had

never

been

visible

from

the

beginning

;

and

that

accordingly

there

are

two

—

the

Visible

and

the

Invisible

.

It

was

the

Son

,

therefore

,

who

was

always

seen

,

and

the

Son

who

always

conversed

with

men

,

and

the

Son

who

has

always

worked

by

the

authority

and

will

of

the

Father

;

because

“

the

Son

can

do

nothing

of

Himself

,

but

what

He

seeth

the

Father

do

”

—

“

do

”

that

is

,

in

His

mind

and

thought

.

For

the

Father

acts

by

mind

and

thought

;

whilst

the

Son

,

who

is

in

the

Father’s

mind

and

thought

,

gives

effect

and

form

to

what

He

sees

.

Thus

all

things

were

made

by

the

Son

,

and

without

Him

was

not

anything

made

.

Notes

1
Quæstionibus.
2
John i. 18.
3
1 Tim. vi. 16.
4
Ex. xxxiii. 20; Deut. v. 26; Judg. xiii. 22.
5
1 John i. 1.
6
1 John i. 1.
7
John i. 1, 2.
8
Quia cum Patre apud Patrem.
9
John i. 14.
10
1 John iv. 12.
11
John i. 18.
12
1 Cor. ix. 1.
13
Rom. ix. 5.
14
1 Tim. vi. 16.
15
1 Tim. i. 17.
16
1 Cor. xv. 3.
17
Ver. 8.
18
Acts xxii. 11.
19
Matt. xvii. 6; Mark ix. 6.
20
Ex. xxxiii. 20.
21
John v. 19.
22
In sensu.
23
The reading is, “in Patris sensu;” another reading substitutes “sinu” for “sensu;” q.d. “the Father’s bosom.”
24
John i. 3.