Opening the library…

Search the Bible

Against Praxeas

Tertullian

Chapter 23

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 XXIII.—More Passages from the Same Gospel in Proof of the Same Portion of the Catholic Faith. Praxeas’ Taunt of Worshipping Two Gods Repudiated.

Again, when Martha in a later passage acknowledged

‹ Chapter 22 Chapter 24 ›

Him

to

be

the

Son

of

God

,

she

no

more

made

a

mistake

than

Peter

and

Nathanæl

had

;

and

yet

,

even

if

she

had

made

a

mistake

,

she

would

at

once

have

learnt

the

truth

:

for

,

behold

,

when

about

to

raise

her

brother

from

the

dead

,

the

Lord

looked

up

to

heaven

,

and

,

addressing

the

Father

,

said

—

as

the

Son

,

of

course

:

“

Father

,

I

thank

Thee

that

Thou

always

hearest

me

;

it

is

because

of

these

crowds

that

are

standing

by

that

I

have

spoken

to

Thee

,

that

they

may

believe

that

Thou

hast

sent

me

.

”

But

in

the

trouble

of

His

soul

,

(

on

a

later

occasion

,

)

He

said

:

“

What

shall

I

say

?

Father

,

save

me

from

this

hour

:

but

for

this

cause

is

it

that

I

am

come

to

this

hour

;

only

,

O

Father

,

do

Thou

glorify

Thy

name

”

—

in

which

He

spake

as

the

Son

.

(

At

another

time

)

He

said

:

“

I

am

come

in

my

Father’s

name

.

”

Accordingly

,

the

Son’s

voice

was

indeed

alone

sufficient

,

(

when

addressed

)

to

the

Father

.

But

,

behold

,

with

an

abundance

(

of

evidence

)

the

Father

from

heaven

replies

,

for

the

purpose

of

testifying

to

the

Son

:

“

This

is

my

beloved

Son

,

in

whom

I

am

well

pleased

;

hear

ye

Him

.

”

So

,

again

,

in

that

asseveration

,

“

I

have

both

glorified

,

and

will

glorify

again

,

”

how

many

Persons

do

you

discover

,

obstinate

Praxeas

?

Are

there

not

as

many

as

there

are

voices

?

You

have

the

Son

on

earth

,

you

have

the

Father

in

heaven

.

Now

this

is

not

a

separation

;

it

is

nothing

but

the

divine

dispensation

.

We

know

,

however

,

that

God

is

in

the

bottomless

depths

,

and

exists

everywhere

;

but

then

it

is

by

power

and

authority

.

We

are

also

sure

that

the

Son

,

being

indivisible

from

Him

,

is

everywhere

with

Him

.

Nevertheless

,

in

the

Economy

or

Dispensation

itself

,

the

Father

willed

that

the

Son

should

be

regarded

as

on

earth

,

and

Himself

in

heaven

;

whither

the

Son

also

Himself

looked

up

,

and

prayed

,

and

made

supplication

of

the

Father

;

whither

also

He

taught

us

to

raise

ourselves

,

and

pray

,

“

Our

Father

which

art

in

heaven

,

”

etc

.

,

—

although

,

indeed

,

He

is

everywhere

present

.

This

heaven

the

Father

willed

to

be

His

own

throne

;

while

He

made

the

Son

to

be

“

a

little

lower

than

the

angels

,

”

by

sending

Him

down

to

the

earth

,

but

meaning

at

the

same

time

to

“

crown

Him

with

glory

and

honour

,

”

even

by

taking

Him

back

to

heaven

.

This

He

now

made

good

to

Him

when

He

said

:

“

I

have

both

glorified

Thee

,

and

will

glorify

Thee

again

.

”

The

Son

offers

His

request

from

earth

,

the

Father

gives

His

promise

from

heaven

.

Why

,

then

,

do

you

make

liars

of

both

the

Father

and

the

Son

?

If

either

the

Father

spake

from

heaven

to

the

Son

when

He

Himself

was

the

Son

on

earth

,

or

the

Son

prayed

to

the

Father

when

He

was

Himself

the

Son

in

heaven

,

how

happens

it

that

the

Son

made

a

request

of

His

own

very

self

,

by

asking

it

of

the

Father

,

since

the

Son

was

the

Father

?

Or

,

on

the

other

hand

,

how

is

it

that

the

Father

made

a

promise

to

Himself

,

by

making

it

to

the

Son

,

since

the

Father

was

the

Son

?

Were

we

even

to

maintain

that

they

are

two

separate

gods

,

as

you

are

so

fond

of

throwing

out

against

us

,

it

would

be

a

more

tolerable

assertion

than

the

maintenance

of

so

versatile

and

changeful

a

God

as

yours

!

Therefore

it

was

that

in

the

passage

before

us

the

Lord

declared

to

the

people

present

:

“

Not

on

my

own

account

has

this

voice

addressed

me

,

but

for

your

sakes

,

”

that

these

likewise

may

believe

both

in

the

Father

and

in

the

Son

,

severally

,

in

their

own

names

and

persons

and

positions

.

“

Then

again

,

Jesus

exclaims

,

and

says

,

He

that

believeth

on

me

,

believeth

not

on

me

,

but

on

Him

that

sent

me

;

”

because

it

is

through

the

Son

that

men

believe

in

the

Father

,

while

the

Father

also

is

the

authority

whence

springs

belief

in

the

Son

.

“

And

he

that

seeth

me

,

seeth

Him

that

sent

me

.

”

How

so

?

Even

because

,

(

as

He

afterwards

declares

,

)

“

I

have

not

spoken

from

myself

,

but

the

Father

which

sent

me

:

He

hath

given

me

a

commandment

what

I

should

say

,

and

what

I

should

speak

.

”

For

“

the

Lord

God

hath

given

me

the

tongue

of

the

learned

,

that

I

should

know

when

I

ought

to

speak

”

the

word

which

I

actually

speak

.

“

Even

as

the

Father

hath

said

unto

me

,

so

do

I

speak

.

”

Now

,

in

what

way

these

things

were

said

to

Him

,

the

evangelist

and

beloved

disciple

John

knew

better

than

Praxeas

;

and

therefore

he

adds

concerning

his

own

meaning

:

“

Now

before

the

feast

of

the

passover

,

Jesus

knew

that

the

Father

had

given

all

things

into

His

hands

,

and

that

He

had

come

from

God

,

and

was

going

to

God

.

”

Praxeas

,

however

,

would

have

it

that

it

was

the

Father

who

proceeded

forth

from

Himself

,

and

had

returned

to

Himself

;

so

that

what

the

devil

put

into

the

heart

of

Judas

was

the

betrayal

,

not

of

the

Son

,

but

of

the

Father

Himself

.

But

for

the

matter

of

that

,

things

have

not

turned

out

well

either

for

the

devil

or

the

heretic

;

because

,

even

in

the

Son’s

case

,

the

treason

which

the

devil

wrought

against

Him

contributed

nothing

to

his

advantage

.

It

was

,

then

,

the

Son

of

God

,

who

was

in

the

Son

of

man

,

that

was

betrayed

,

as

the

Scripture

says

afterwards

:

“

Now

is

the

Son

of

man

glorified

,

and

God

is

glorified

in

Him

.

”

Who

is

here

meant

by

“

God

?

”

Certainly

not

the

Father

,

but

the

Word

of

the

Father

,

who

was

in

the

Son

of

man

—

that

is

in

the

flesh

,

in

which

Jesus

had

been

already

glorified

by

the

divine

power

and

word

.

“

And

God

,

”

says

He

,

“

shall

also

glorify

Him

in

Himself

;

”

that

is

to

say

,

the

Father

shall

glorify

the

Son

,

because

He

has

Him

within

Himself

;

and

even

though

prostrated

to

the

earth

,

and

put

to

death

,

He

would

soon

glorify

Him

by

His

resurrection

,

and

making

Him

conqueror

over

death

.

Notes

1
John xi. 27.
2
Matt. xvi. 16.
3
John i. 49.
4
John xi. 41, 42.
5
John xii. 27, 28.
6
John v. 43.
7
Or, “by way of excess.”
8
Matt. xvii. 5.
9
John xii. 28.
10
Or, held (haberi).
11
Matt. vi. 9.
12
Ps. viii. 5.
13
Same ver.
14
John xii. 30.
15
John xii. 44.
16
Ver. 45.
17
John xii. 49.
18
Isa. l. 4.
19
John xii. 50.
20
John xiii. 1, 3.
21
Ver. 31.
22
Ver. 32.