Opening the library…

Search the Bible

Against Praxeas

Tertullian

Chapter 7

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 VII.—The Son by Being Designated Word and Wisdom, (According to the Imperfection of Human Thought and Language) Liable to Be Deemed a Mere Attribute. He is Shown to Be a Personal Being.

Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself

‹ Chapter 6 Chapter 8 ›

assume

His

own

form

and

glorious

garb

,

His

own

sound

and

vocal

utterance

,

when

God

says

,

“

Let

there

be

light

.

”

This

is

the

perfect

nativity

of

the

Word

,

when

He

proceeds

forth

from

God

—

formed

by

Him

first

to

devise

and

think

out

all

things

under

the

name

of

Wisdom

—

“

The

Lord

created

or

formed

me

as

the

beginning

of

His

ways

;

”

then

afterward

begotten

,

to

carry

all

into

effect

—

“

When

He

prepared

the

heaven

,

I

was

present

with

Him

.

”

Thus

does

He

make

Him

equal

to

Him

:

for

by

proceeding

from

Himself

He

became

His

first

-

begotten

Son

,

because

begotten

before

all

things

;

and

His

only

-

begotten

also

,

because

alone

begotten

of

God

,

in

a

way

peculiar

to

Himself

,

from

the

womb

of

His

own

heart

—

even

as

the

Father

Himself

testifies

:

“

My

heart

,

”

says

He

,

“

hath

emitted

my

most

excellent

Word

.

”

The

Father

took

pleasure

evermore

in

Him

,

who

equally

rejoiced

with

a

reciprocal

gladness

in

the

Father’s

presence

:

“

Thou

art

my

Son

,

to

-

day

have

I

begotten

Thee

;

”

even

before

the

morning

star

did

I

beget

Thee

.

The

Son

likewise

acknowledges

the

Father

,

speaking

in

His

own

person

,

under

the

name

of

Wisdom

:

“

The

Lord

formed

Me

as

the

beginning

of

His

ways

,

with

a

view

to

His

own

works

;

before

all

the

hills

did

He

beget

Me

.

”

For

if

indeed

Wisdom

in

this

passage

seems

to

say

that

She

was

created

by

the

Lord

with

a

view

to

His

works

,

and

to

accomplish

His

ways

,

yet

proof

is

given

in

another

Scripture

that

“

all

things

were

made

by

the

Word

,

and

without

Him

was

there

nothing

made

;

”

as

,

again

,

in

another

place

(

it

is

said

)

,

“

By

His

word

were

the

heavens

established

,

and

all

the

powers

thereof

by

His

Spirit

”

—

that

is

to

say

,

by

the

Spirit

(

or

Divine

Nature

)

which

was

in

the

Word

:

thus

is

it

evident

that

it

is

one

and

the

same

power

which

is

in

one

place

described

under

the

name

of

Wisdom

,

and

in

another

passage

under

the

appellation

of

the

Word

,

which

was

initiated

for

the

works

of

God

which

“

strengthened

the

heavens

;

”

“

by

which

all

things

were

made

,

”

“

and

without

which

nothing

was

made

.

”

Nor

need

we

dwell

any

longer

on

this

point

,

as

if

it

were

not

the

very

Word

Himself

,

who

is

spoken

of

under

the

name

both

of

Wisdom

and

of

Reason

,

and

of

the

entire

Divine

Soul

and

Spirit

.

He

became

also

the

Son

of

God

,

and

was

begotten

when

He

proceeded

forth

from

Him

.

Do

you

then

,

(

you

ask

,

)

grant

that

the

Word

is

a

certain

substance

,

constructed

by

the

Spirit

and

the

communication

of

Wisdom

?

Certainly

I

do

.

But

you

will

not

allow

Him

to

be

really

a

substantive

being

,

by

having

a

substance

of

His

own

;

in

such

a

way

that

He

may

be

regarded

as

an

objective

thing

and

a

person

,

and

so

be

able

(

as

being

constituted

second

to

God

the

Father

,

)

to

make

two

,

the

Father

and

the

Son

,

God

and

the

Word

.

For

you

will

say

,

what

is

a

word

,

but

a

voice

and

sound

of

the

mouth

,

and

(

as

the

grammarians

teach

)

air

when

struck

against

,

intelligible

to

the

ear

,

but

for

the

rest

a

sort

of

void

,

empty

,

and

incorporeal

thing

.

I

,

on

the

contrary

,

contend

that

nothing

empty

and

void

could

have

come

forth

from

God

,

seeing

that

it

is

not

put

forth

from

that

which

is

empty

and

void

;

nor

could

that

possibly

be

devoid

of

substance

which

has

proceeded

from

so

great

a

substance

,

and

has

produced

such

mighty

substances

:

for

all

things

which

were

made

through

Him

,

He

Himself

(

personally

)

made

.

How

could

it

be

,

that

He

Himself

is

nothing

,

without

whom

nothing

was

made

?

How

could

He

who

is

empty

have

made

things

which

are

solid

,

and

He

who

is

void

have

made

things

which

are

full

,

and

He

who

is

incorporeal

have

made

things

which

have

body

?

For

although

a

thing

may

sometimes

be

made

different

from

him

by

whom

it

is

made

,

yet

nothing

can

be

made

by

that

which

is

a

void

and

empty

thing

.

Is

that

Word

of

God

,

then

,

a

void

and

empty

thing

,

which

is

called

the

Son

,

who

Himself

is

designated

God

?

“

The

Word

was

with

God

,

and

the

Word

was

God

.

”

It

is

written

,

“

Thou

shalt

not

take

God’s

name

in

vain

.

”

This

for

certain

is

He

“

who

,

being

in

the

form

of

God

,

thought

it

not

robbery

to

be

equal

with

God

.

”

In

what

form

of

God

?

Of

course

he

means

in

some

form

,

not

in

none

.

For

who

will

deny

that

God

is

a

body

,

although

“

God

is

a

Spirit

?

”

For

Spirit

has

a

bodily

substance

of

its

own

kind

,

in

its

own

form

.

Now

,

even

if

invisible

things

,

whatsoever

they

be

,

have

both

their

substance

and

their

form

in

God

,

whereby

they

are

visible

to

God

alone

,

how

much

more

shall

that

which

has

been

sent

forth

from

His

substance

not

be

without

substance

!

Whatever

,

therefore

,

was

the

substance

of

the

Word

that

I

designate

a

Person

,

I

claim

for

it

the

name

of

Son

;

and

while

I

recognize

the

Son

,

I

assert

His

distinction

as

second

to

the

Father

.

Notes

1
Ornatum.
2
Gen. i. 3.
3
Conditus. [See Theophilus To Autolycus, cap. x. note 1, p. 98, Vol. II. of this series. Also Ibid. p. 103, note 5. On the whole subject, Bp. Bull, Defensio Fid. Nicænæ. Vol. V. pp. 585–592.]
4
Condidit.
5
Prov. viii. 22.
6
Ver. 27.
7
Col. i. 15.
8
Ps. xlv. 1. See this reading, and its application, fully discussed in our note 5, p. 66, of the Anti-Marcion, Edin.
9
Ps. ii. 7.
10
Prov. viii. 22, 25.
11
John i. 3.
12
Ps. xxxiii. 6.
13
Prov. viii. 22.
14
Ver. 28.
15
John i. 3.
16
John i. 3.
17
Offensus.
18
John i. 1.
19
Ex. xx. 7.
20
Phil. ii. 6.
21
John iv. 24.
22
This doctrine of the soul’s corporeality in a certain sense is treated by Tertullian in his De Resurr. Carn. xvii., and De Anima v. By Tertullian, spirit and soul were considered identical. See our Anti-Marcion, p. 451, note 4, Edin.
23
[On Tertullian’s orthodoxy, here, see Kaye, p. 502.]