Opening the library…

Search the Bible

Against Praxeas

Tertullian

Chapter 24

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 XXIV.—On St. Philip’s Conversation with Christ. He that Hath Seen Me, Hath Seen the Father. This Text Explained in an Anti-Praxean Sense.

But there were some who even then did not

‹ Chapter 23 Chapter 25 ›

understand

.

For

Thomas

,

who

was

so

long

incredulous

,

said

:

“

Lord

,

we

know

not

whither

Thou

goest

;

and

how

can

we

know

the

way

?

Jesus

saith

unto

him

,

I

am

the

way

,

the

truth

,

and

the

life

:

no

man

cometh

unto

the

Father

,

but

by

me

.

If

ye

had

known

me

,

ye

would

have

known

the

Father

also

:

but

henceforth

ye

know

Him

,

and

have

seen

Him

.

”

And

now

we

come

to

Philip

,

who

,

roused

with

the

expectation

of

seeing

the

Father

,

and

not

understanding

in

what

sense

he

was

to

take

“

seeing

the

Father

,

”

says

:

“

Show

us

the

Father

,

and

it

sufficeth

us

.

”

Then

the

Lord

answered

him

:

“

Have

I

been

so

long

time

with

you

,

and

yet

hast

thou

not

known

me

,

Philip

?

”

Now

whom

does

He

say

that

they

ought

to

have

known

?

—

for

this

is

the

sole

point

of

discussion

.

Was

it

as

the

Father

that

they

ought

to

have

known

Him

,

or

as

the

Son

?

If

it

was

as

the

Father

,

Praxeas

must

tell

us

how

Christ

,

who

had

been

so

long

time

with

them

,

could

have

possibly

ever

been

(

I

will

not

say

understood

,

but

even

)

supposed

to

have

been

the

Father

.

He

is

clearly

defined

to

us

in

all

Scriptures

—

in

the

Old

Testament

as

the

Christ

of

God

,

in

the

New

Testament

as

the

Son

of

God

.

In

this

character

was

He

anciently

predicted

,

in

this

was

He

also

declared

even

by

Christ

Himself

;

nay

,

by

the

very

Father

also

,

who

openly

confesses

Him

from

heaven

as

His

Son

,

and

as

His

Son

glorifies

Him

.

“

This

is

my

beloved

Son

;

”

“

I

have

glorified

Him

,

and

I

will

glorify

Him

.

”

In

this

character

,

too

,

was

He

believed

on

by

His

disciples

,

and

rejected

by

the

Jews

.

It

was

,

moreover

,

in

this

character

that

He

wished

to

be

accepted

by

them

whenever

He

named

the

Father

,

and

gave

preference

to

the

Father

,

and

honoured

the

Father

.

This

,

then

,

being

the

case

,

it

was

not

the

Father

whom

,

after

His

lengthened

intercourse

with

them

,

they

were

ignorant

of

,

but

it

was

the

Son

;

and

accordingly

the

Lord

,

while

upbraiding

Philip

for

not

knowing

Himself

who

was

the

object

of

their

ignorance

,

wished

Himself

to

be

acknowledged

indeed

as

that

Being

whom

He

had

reproached

them

for

being

ignorant

of

after

so

long

a

time

—

in

a

word

,

as

the

Son

.

And

now

it

may

be

seen

in

what

sense

it

was

said

,

“

He

that

hath

seen

me

hath

seen

the

Father

,

”

—

even

in

the

same

in

which

it

was

said

in

a

,

“

I

and

my

Father

are

one

.

”

Wherefore

?

Because

“

I

came

forth

from

the

Father

,

and

am

come

into

the

world

”

and

,

“

I

am

the

way

:

no

man

cometh

unto

the

Father

,

but

by

me

;

”

and

,

“

No

man

can

come

to

me

,

except

the

Father

draw

him

;

”

and

,

“

All

things

are

delivered

unto

me

by

the

Father

;

”

and

,

“

As

the

Father

quickeneth

(

the

dead

)

,

so

also

doth

the

Son

;

”

and

again

,

“

If

ye

had

known

me

,

ye

would

have

known

the

Father

also

.

”

For

in

all

these

passages

He

had

shown

Himself

to

be

the

Father’s

Commissioner

,

through

whose

agency

even

the

Father

could

be

seen

in

His

works

,

and

heard

in

His

words

,

and

recognised

in

the

Son’s

administration

of

the

Father’s

words

and

deeds

.

The

Father

indeed

was

invisible

,

as

Philip

had

learnt

in

the

law

,

and

ought

at

the

moment

to

have

remembered

:

“

No

man

shall

see

God

,

and

live

.

”

So

he

is

reproved

for

desiring

to

see

the

Father

,

as

if

He

were

a

visible

Being

,

and

is

taught

that

He

only

becomes

visible

in

the

Son

from

His

mighty

works

,

and

not

in

the

manifestation

of

His

person

.

If

,

indeed

,

He

meant

the

Father

to

be

understood

as

the

same

with

the

Son

,

by

saying

,

“

He

who

seeth

me

seeth

the

Father

,

”

how

is

it

that

He

adds

immediately

afterwards

,

“

Believest

thou

not

that

I

am

in

the

Father

,

and

the

Father

in

me

?

”

He

ought

rather

to

have

said

:

“

Believest

thou

not

that

I

am

the

Father

?

”

With

what

view

else

did

He

so

emphatically

dwell

on

this

point

,

if

it

were

not

to

clear

up

that

which

He

wished

men

to

understand

—

namely

,

that

He

was

the

Son

?

And

then

,

again

,

by

saying

,

“

Believest

thou

not

that

I

am

in

the

Father

,

and

the

Father

in

me

,

”

He

laid

the

greater

stress

on

His

question

on

this

very

account

,

that

He

should

not

,

because

He

had

said

,

“

He

that

hath

seen

me

,

hath

seen

the

Father

,

”

be

supposed

to

be

the

Father

;

because

He

had

never

wished

Himself

to

be

so

regarded

,

having

always

professed

Himself

to

be

the

Son

,

and

to

have

come

from

the

Father

.

And

then

He

also

set

the

conjunction

of

the

two

Persons

in

the

clearest

light

,

in

order

that

no

wish

might

be

entertained

of

seeing

the

Father

as

if

He

were

separately

visible

,

and

that

the

Son

might

be

regarded

as

the

representative

of

the

Father

.

And

yet

He

omitted

not

to

explain

how

the

Father

was

in

the

Son

and

the

Son

in

the

Father

.

“

The

words

,

”

says

He

,

“

which

I

speak

unto

you

,

are

not

mine

,

”

because

indeed

they

were

the

Father’s

words

;

“

but

the

Father

that

dwelleth

in

me

,

He

doeth

the

works

.

”

It

is

therefore

by

His

mighty

works

,

and

by

the

words

of

His

doctrine

,

that

the

Father

who

dwells

in

the

Son

makes

Himself

visible

—

even

by

those

words

and

works

whereby

He

abides

in

Him

,

and

also

by

Him

in

whom

He

abides

;

the

special

properties

of

Both

the

Persons

being

apparent

from

this

very

circumstance

,

that

He

says

,

“

I

am

in

the

Father

,

and

the

Father

is

in

me

.

”

Accordingly

He

adds

:

“

Believe

—

”

What

?

That

I

am

the

Father

?

I

do

not

find

that

it

is

so

written

,

but

rather

,

“

that

I

am

in

the

Father

,

and

the

Father

in

me

;

or

else

believe

me

for

my

works

’

sake

;

”

meaning

those

works

by

which

the

Father

manifested

Himself

to

be

in

the

Son

,

not

indeed

to

the

sight

of

man

,

but

to

his

intelligence

.

Notes

1
John xiv. 5–7.
2
Ver. 8.
3
Ver. 9.
4
John xiv. 9.
5
John x. 30.
6
John xvi. 28.
7
John xiv. 6.
8
John vi. 44.
9
Matt. xi. 27.
10
John v. 21.
11
John xiv. 7.
12
Vicarium.
13
Ex. xxxiii. 20.
14
John xiv. 10.
15
John xiv. 11.
16
John xiv. 10.
17
Same ver.
18
Same ver.
19
Ver. 11.