Opening the library…

Search the Bible

Against Praxeas

Tertullian

Chapter 18

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 XVIII.—The Designation of the One God in the Prophetic Scriptures. Intended as a Protest Against Heathen Idolatry, It Does Not Preclude the Correlative Idea of the Son of God. The Son is in the Father.

But what hinders them from readily perceiving this community

‹ Chapter 17 Chapter 19 ›

of

the

Father’s

titles

in

the

Son

,

is

the

statement

of

Scripture

,

whenever

it

determines

God

to

be

but

One

;

as

if

the

selfsame

Scripture

had

not

also

set

forth

Two

both

as

God

and

Lord

,

as

we

have

shown

above

.

Their

argument

is

:

Since

we

find

Two

and

One

,

therefore

Both

are

One

and

the

Same

,

both

Father

and

Son

.

Now

the

Scripture

is

not

in

danger

of

requiring

the

aid

of

any

one’s

argument

,

lest

it

should

seem

to

be

self

-

contradictory

.

It

has

a

method

of

its

own

,

both

when

it

sets

forth

one

only

God

,

and

also

when

it

shows

that

there

are

Two

,

Father

and

Son

;

and

is

consistent

with

itself

.

It

is

clear

that

the

Son

is

mentioned

by

it

.

For

,

without

any

detriment

to

the

Son

,

it

is

quite

possible

for

it

to

have

rightly

determined

that

God

is

only

One

,

to

whom

the

Son

belongs

;

since

He

who

has

a

Son

ceases

not

on

that

account

to

exist

,

—

Himself

being

One

only

,

that

is

,

on

His

own

account

,

whenever

He

is

named

without

the

Son

.

And

He

is

named

without

the

Son

whensoever

He

is

defined

as

the

principle

(

of

Deity

)

in

the

character

of

“

its

first

Person

,

”

which

had

to

be

mentioned

before

the

name

of

the

Son

;

because

it

is

the

Father

who

is

acknowledged

in

the

first

place

,

and

after

the

Father

the

Son

is

named

.

Therefore

“

there

is

one

God

,

”

the

Father

,

“

and

without

Him

there

is

none

else

.

”

And

when

He

Himself

makes

this

declaration

,

He

denies

not

the

Son

,

but

says

that

there

is

no

other

God

;

and

the

Son

is

not

different

from

the

Father

.

Indeed

,

if

you

only

look

carefully

at

the

contexts

which

follow

such

statements

as

this

,

you

will

find

that

they

nearly

always

have

distinct

reference

to

the

makers

of

idols

and

the

worshippers

thereof

,

with

a

view

to

the

multitude

of

false

gods

being

expelled

by

the

unity

of

the

Godhead

,

which

nevertheless

has

a

Son

;

and

inasmuch

as

this

Son

is

undivided

and

inseparable

from

the

Father

,

so

is

He

to

be

reckoned

as

being

in

the

Father

,

even

when

He

is

not

named

.

The

fact

is

,

if

He

had

named

Him

expressly

,

He

would

have

separated

Him

,

saying

in

so

many

words

:

“

Beside

me

there

is

none

else

,

except

my

Son

.

”

In

short

He

would

have

made

His

Son

actually

another

,

after

excepting

Him

from

others

.

Suppose

the

sun

to

say

,

“

I

am

the

Sun

,

and

there

is

none

other

besides

me

,

except

my

ray

,

”

would

you

not

have

remarked

how

useless

was

such

a

statement

,

as

if

the

ray

were

not

itself

reckoned

in

the

sun

?

He

says

,

then

,

that

there

is

no

God

besides

Himself

in

respect

of

the

idolatry

both

of

the

Gentiles

as

well

as

of

Israel

;

nay

,

even

on

account

of

our

heretics

also

,

who

fabricate

idols

with

their

words

,

just

as

the

heathen

do

with

their

hands

;

that

is

to

say

,

they

make

another

God

and

another

Christ

.

When

,

therefore

,

He

attested

His

own

unity

,

the

Father

took

care

of

the

Son’s

interests

,

that

Christ

should

not

be

supposed

to

have

come

from

another

God

,

but

from

Him

who

had

already

said

,

“

I

am

God

and

there

is

none

other

beside

me

,

”

who

shows

us

that

He

is

the

only

God

,

but

in

company

with

His

Son

,

with

whom

“

He

stretcheth

out

the

heavens

alone

.

”

Notes

1
See above ch. xiii. p. 607.
2
Isa. xlv. 5.
3
Isa. xlv. 5, 18; xliv. 6.
4
Isa. xliv. 24.