Opening the library…

Search the Bible

Against Praxeas

Tertullian

Chapter 14

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 XIV.—The Natural Invisibility of the Father, and the Visibility of the Son Witnessed in Many Passages of the Old Testament. Arguments of Their Distinctness, Thus Supplied.

Moreover, there comes to our aid, when we

‹ Chapter 13 Chapter 15 ›

insist

upon

the

Father

and

the

Son

as

being

Two

,

that

regulating

principle

which

has

determined

God

to

be

invisible

.

When

Moses

in

Egypt

desired

to

see

the

face

of

the

Lord

,

saying

,

“

If

therefore

I

have

found

grace

in

Thy

sight

,

manifest

Thyself

unto

me

,

that

I

may

see

Thee

and

know

Thee

,

”

God

said

,

“

Thou

canst

not

see

my

face

;

for

there

shall

no

man

see

me

,

and

live

:

”

in

other

words

,

he

who

sees

me

shall

die

.

Now

we

find

that

God

has

been

seen

by

many

persons

,

and

yet

that

no

one

who

saw

Him

died

(

at

the

sight

)

.

The

truth

is

,

they

saw

God

according

to

the

faculties

of

men

,

but

not

in

accordance

with

the

full

glory

of

the

Godhead

.

For

the

patriarchs

are

said

to

have

seen

God

(

as

Abraham

and

Jacob

)

,

and

the

prophets

(

as

,

for

instance

Isaiah

and

Ezekiel

)

,

and

yet

they

did

not

die

.

Either

,

then

,

they

ought

to

have

died

,

since

they

had

seen

Him

—

for

(

the

sentence

runs

)

,

“

No

man

shall

see

God

,

and

live

;

”

or

else

if

they

saw

God

,

and

yet

did

not

die

,

the

Scripture

is

false

in

stating

that

God

said

,

“

If

a

man

see

my

face

,

he

shall

not

live

.

”

Either

way

,

the

Scripture

misleads

us

,

when

it

makes

God

invisible

,

and

when

it

produces

Him

to

our

sight

.

Now

,

then

,

He

must

be

a

different

Being

who

was

seen

,

because

of

one

who

was

seen

it

could

not

be

predicated

that

He

is

invisible

.

It

will

therefore

follow

,

that

by

Him

who

is

invisible

we

must

understand

the

Father

in

the

fulness

of

His

majesty

,

while

we

recognise

the

Son

as

visible

by

reason

of

the

dispensation

of

His

derived

existence

;

even

as

it

is

not

permitted

us

to

contemplate

the

sun

,

in

the

full

amount

of

his

substance

which

is

in

the

heavens

,

but

we

can

only

endure

with

our

eyes

a

ray

,

by

reason

of

the

tempered

condition

of

this

portion

which

is

projected

from

him

to

the

earth

.

Here

some

one

on

the

other

side

may

be

disposed

to

contend

that

the

Son

is

also

invisible

as

being

the

Word

,

and

as

being

also

the

Spirit

;

and

,

while

claiming

one

nature

for

the

Father

and

the

Son

,

to

affirm

that

the

Father

is

rather

One

and

the

Same

Person

with

the

Son

.

But

the

Scripture

,

as

we

have

said

,

maintains

their

difference

by

the

distinction

it

makes

between

the

Visible

and

the

Invisible

.

They

then

go

on

to

argue

to

this

effect

,

that

if

it

was

the

Son

who

then

spake

to

Moses

,

He

must

mean

it

of

Himself

that

His

face

was

visible

to

no

one

,

because

He

was

Himself

indeed

the

invisible

Father

in

the

name

of

the

Son

.

And

by

this

means

they

will

have

it

that

the

Visible

and

the

Invisible

are

one

and

the

same

,

just

as

the

Father

and

the

Son

are

the

same

;

(

and

this

they

maintain

)

because

in

a

preceding

passage

,

before

He

had

refused

(

the

sight

of

)

His

face

to

Moses

,

the

Scripture

informs

us

that

“

the

Lord

spake

face

to

face

with

Moses

,

even

as

a

man

speaketh

unto

his

friend

;

”

just

as

Jacob

also

says

,

“

I

have

seen

God

face

to

face

.

”

Therefore

the

Visible

and

the

Invisible

are

one

and

the

same

;

and

both

being

thus

the

same

,

it

follows

that

He

is

invisible

as

the

Father

,

and

visible

as

the

Son

.

As

if

the

Scripture

,

according

to

our

exposition

of

it

,

were

inapplicable

to

the

Son

,

when

the

Father

is

set

aside

in

His

own

invisibility

.

We

declare

,

however

,

that

the

Son

also

,

considered

in

Himself

(

as

the

Son

)

,

is

invisible

,

in

that

He

is

God

,

and

the

Word

and

Spirit

of

God

;

but

that

He

was

visible

before

the

days

of

His

flesh

,

in

the

way

that

He

says

to

Aaron

and

Miriam

,

“

And

if

there

shall

be

a

prophet

amongst

you

,

I

will

make

myself

known

to

him

in

a

vision

,

and

will

speak

to

him

in

a

dream

;

not

as

with

Moses

,

with

whom

I

shall

speak

mouth

to

mouth

,

even

apparently

,

that

is

to

say

,

in

truth

,

and

not

enigmatically

,

”

that

is

to

say

,

in

image

;

as

the

apostle

also

expresses

it

,

“

Now

we

see

through

a

glass

,

darkly

(

or

enigmatically

)

,

but

then

face

to

face

.

”

Since

,

therefore

,

He

reserves

to

some

future

time

His

presence

and

speech

face

to

face

with

Moses

—

a

promise

which

was

afterwards

fulfilled

in

the

retirement

of

the

mount

(

of

transfiguration

)

,

when

as

we

read

in

the

Gospel

,

“

Moses

appeared

talking

with

Jesus

”

—

it

is

evident

that

in

early

times

it

was

always

in

a

glass

,

(

as

it

were

,

)

and

an

enigma

,

in

vision

and

dream

,

that

God

,

I

mean

the

Son

of

God

,

appeared

—

to

the

prophets

and

the

patriarchs

,

as

also

to

Moses

indeed

himself

.

And

even

if

the

Lord

did

possibly

speak

with

him

face

to

face

,

yet

it

was

not

as

man

that

he

could

behold

His

face

,

unless

indeed

it

was

in

a

glass

,

(

as

it

were

,

)

and

by

enigma

.

Besides

,

if

the

Lord

so

spake

with

Moses

,

that

Moses

actually

discerned

His

face

,

eye

to

eye

,

how

comes

it

to

pass

that

immediately

afterwards

,

on

the

same

occasion

,

he

desires

to

see

His

face

,

which

he

ought

not

to

have

desired

,

because

he

had

already

seen

it

?

And

how

,

in

like

manner

,

does

the

Lord

also

say

that

His

face

cannot

be

seen

,

because

He

had

shown

it

,

if

indeed

He

really

had

,

(

as

our

opponents

suppose

)

.

Or

what

is

that

face

of

God

,

the

sight

of

which

is

refused

,

if

there

was

one

which

was

visible

to

man

?

“

I

have

seen

God

,

”

says

Jacob

,

“

face

to

face

,

and

my

life

is

preserved

.

”

There

ought

to

be

some

other

face

which

kills

if

it

be

only

seen

.

Well

,

then

,

was

the

Son

visible

?

(

Certainly

not

,

)

although

He

was

the

face

of

God

,

except

only

in

vision

and

dream

,

and

in

a

glass

and

enigma

,

because

the

Word

and

Spirit

(

of

God

)

cannot

be

seen

except

in

an

imaginary

form

.

But

,

(

they

say

,

)

He

calls

the

invisible

Father

His

face

.

For

who

is

the

Father

?

Must

He

not

be

the

face

of

the

Son

,

by

reason

of

that

authority

which

He

obtains

as

the

begotten

of

the

Father

?

For

is

there

not

a

natural

propriety

in

saying

of

some

personage

greater

(

than

yourself

)

,

That

man

is

my

face

;

he

gives

me

his

countenance

?

“

My

Father

,

”

says

Christ

,

“

is

greater

than

I

.

”

Therefore

the

Father

must

be

the

face

of

the

Son

.

For

what

does

the

Scripture

say

?

“

The

Spirit

of

His

person

is

Christ

the

Lord

.

”

As

therefore

Christ

is

the

Spirit

of

the

Father’s

person

,

there

is

good

reason

why

,

in

virtue

indeed

of

the

unity

,

the

Spirit

of

Him

to

whose

person

He

belonged

—

that

is

to

say

,

the

Father

—

pronounced

Him

to

be

His

“

face

.

”

Now

this

,

to

be

sure

,

is

an

astonishing

thing

,

that

the

Father

can

be

taken

to

be

the

face

of

the

Son

,

when

He

is

His

head

;

for

“

the

head

of

Christ

is

God

.

”

Notes

1
Ex. xxxiii. 13.
2
Ver. 20.
3
Pro modulo derivationis.
4
Spiritus here is the divine nature of Christ.
5
Ex. xxxiii. 11.
6
Gen. xxxii. 30.
7
Num. xii. 6–8.
8
1 Cor. xiii. 12.
9
Mark ix. 4; Matt. xvii. 3.
10
Si forte.
11
Cominus sciret.
12
Comp. ver. 13 with ver. 11 of Ex. xxxiii.
13
Gen. xxii. 30.
14
Involved in the nunquid.
15
John xiv. 28.
16
Lam. iv. 20. Tertullian reads, “Spiritus personæ ejus Christus Dominus.” This varies only in the pronoun from the Septuagint, which runs, Πνεῦμα προσώπου ἡμῶν Χριστὸς Κύριος. According to our A.V., “the breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord” (or, “our anointed Lord”), allusion is made, in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, to the capture of the king—the last of David’s line, “as an anointed prince.” Comp. Jer. lii. 9.
17
1 Cor. xi. 3.