130 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

AGAINST PRAXEAS 

  1. In divers ways has the devil shown hostility to the Truth.
At times he has tried to shake it by pretending to defend it.
He is the champion of the one Lord, the Almighty, the creator
of the world, so that he may make a heresy out of the unity. He
says that the Father himself came down into the virgin, himself
was born of her, himself suffered, in short himself is Jesus Christ.
The serpent has forgotten himself: for when he tempted Jesus
Christ after the baptism of John it was as Son of God that he
attacked him, being assured that God has a son at least from
those very scriptures out of which he was then constructing the
temptation : If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones
be made bread ¹: again, If thou art the Son of God cast thyself down
from hence, for it is written that he - the Father, of course - hath
given his angels charge concerning thee, that in their hands they
should bear thee up, lest in any place thou dash thy foot against a 
stone.² Or will he accuse the gospels of lying, and say, "Let
Matthew and Luke see to it: I for my part approached God
himself, I tempted the Almighty hand to hand: that was the
reason for my approach, that was the reason for the temptation:
otherwise, if it had been <only> God's son, perhaps I should not 
have demeaned myself < to tempt> him"?  Nay but he himself
rather is a liar from, the beginning,³ and so is any man whom he
has suborned with his own <coin>, like Praxeas. For this person
was the first to import to Rome out of Asia this kind of wrong
headedness-a man generally of restless character, and moreover
puffed up with boasting of his confessorship on account of nothing
more than a mere short discomfort of imprisonment: though 
even if he had given his body to be burned he would have profited
nothing, since he had not the love of God⁴ whose spiritual gifts 
he also drove out by assault. For at that time the bishop of Rome
was on the point of recognising the prophecies of Montanus and
Prisca and Maximilla, and as a result of that recognition was
offering peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygia; but this man,
by false assertions concerning the prophets themselves and their
churches, and by insistence on the decisions of the bishop's
predecessors, forced him both to recall the letters of peace already 

¹ Matt. 4. 3 .  

² Matt. 4. 6; Ps. 91. 11,12. 

³ Cf. John 8. 44.  

⁴ 1 Cor. 13, 3.

TRANSLATION 131 

issued and to desist from his project of receiving the spiritual gifts.
Thus Praxeas at Rome managed two pieces of the devil's business:
he drove out prophecy and introduced heresy: he put to flight the
Paraclete and crucified the Father. Praxean tares ¹ were sown
above the wheat and had germinated here also, while many were
asleep in simplicity of doctrine. Thereafter they were brought
to light, by whom God would, and seemed even to have been
rooted up. In fact the teacher gave security for amendment by
return to his former opinions, and his bond remains in the custody
of the natural men, ² in whose presence the transaction was then
carried out. After that, silence. I for my part was subsequently 
separated from the natural men by my acknowledgement and
defence of the Paraclete. But those tares had at that time scattered
their seed everywhere, and so for a time it lay hid, deceptively
dissembling its life, and has now burst forth anew. But it shall
also be plucked up anew, if the Lord will, in the time now at my
disposal: if not, then in its due time all counterfeit grain will be
gathered and,. along with other offences, be burned up in un-
quenchable fire. 

   2. And so, after all this time, a Father who was born, a
Father who suffered, God himself the Lord Almighty, is preached
as Jesus Christ. We however as always, the more so now as
better equipped through the Paraclete, that leader into all truth,³
believe (as these do) in one only God, yet subject to this dispensation 
(which is our word for "economy") that the one only God
has also a Son, his Word who has proceeded from himself, by
whom all things were made; and without whom nothing has been
made : ⁴ that this <Son> was sent by the Father into the virgin
and was born of her both man and God, Son of man and Son of
God, and was named Jesus Christ: that he suffered, died, and
was buried, according to the scriptures,⁵ and, having been raised
up by the Father and taken back into heaven, sits at the right
hand of the Father ⁶ and will come to judge the quick and the
dead ⁷ : and that thereafter he, according to his promise,⁸ sent
from the Father the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the
faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit. That this Rule has come down from the beginning 

¹ Matt. 13. 24. ff. 

² 1 Cor. 2. 14.   

³ John 16. 13.  

⁴ John 1. 1-3.  

⁵ 1 Cor. 15. 3, 4. 

⁶ Mark 16. 19.  

⁷ Acts 10. 42. 

⁸ John 16. 7. 

132 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

of the Gospel, even before all former heretics, not to speak of
Praxeas of yesterday, will be proved as well by the comparative
lateness of all heretics as by the very novelty of Praxeas of
yesterday. So equally against all heretics let it from now on be
taken as already proven that whatever is earliest is true and 
whatever is later is counterfeit. Still, saving that demurrer, yet
everywhere, for the offensive and defensive equipment of certain
persons, place must be granted also for further discussions, if for
no other reason lest each several piece of wrong-headedness seem
to be condemned not after examination but by previous judgement 
- and in particular this one which supposes itself to possess
truth unadulterated while it thinks it impossible to believe in one
God unless it says that both Father and Son and Holy Spirit are
one and the same: as though the one <God> were not all <these
things> in this way also, that they are all of the one, namely by
unity of substance, while none the less is guarded the mystery of
that economy which disposes the unity into trinity, setting forth
Father and Son and Spirit as three, three however not in quality
but in sequence, not in substance but in aspect, not in power but 
in <its> manifestation, yet of one substance and one quality and
one power, seeing it is one God from whom those sequences and
aspects and manifestations are reckoned out in the name of the 
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. How they admit of
plurality without division the discussion will show as it proceeds. 

  3. For all the simple people, that I say not the thoughtless and
ignorant (who are always the majority of the faithful), since the
Rule of the Faith itself brings <us> over from the many gods of
the world to the one only true God, not understanding that while
they must believe in one only <God> yet they must believe in
him along with his economy, shy at the economy. They claim
that the plurality and ordinance of trinity is a division of unity - 
although a unity which derives from itself a trinity is not destroyed
but administered by it. And so <people> put it about that by
us two or even three <gods> are preached, while they, they claim,
are worshippers of one God - as though unity irrationally summed
up did not make heresy and trinity rationally counted out 
constitute truth. "We hold", they say, "to the monarchy": and
even Latins so expressively frame the sound, and in so masterly
a fashion, that you would think they understood monarchy as

TRANSLATION 133 

well as they pronounce it: but while Latins are intent to shout out
" monarchy ", even Greeks refuse to understand the economy.
But if I have gathered any small knowledge of both languages,
I know that monarchy indicates neither more nor less than a
single and sole empire, yet that monarchy because it belongs to
one man does not for that reason make a standing rule that he
whose it is may not have a son or must have made himself his
own son or may not administer his monarchy by the agency of
whom he will. Nay more, I say that no kingdom is in such a
sense one man's own, in such a sense single, in such a sense a
monarchy, as not to be administered also through those other
closely related persons whom it has provided for itself as officers
and if moreover he whose the monarchy is has a son, it is not ipso
facto divided, does not cease to be a monarchy, if the son also
is assumed as partner in it, but it continues to belong in first
instance to him by whom it is passed on to the son: and so long as
it is his, that continues to be a monarchy which is jointly held
by two who are so closely united. Therefore if also the divine
monarchy is administered by the agency of so many legions and
hosts of angels (as it is written, Ten thousand times ten thousand
stood before him and thousand thousands ministered unto him),¹ yet
has not therefore ceased to belong to one, so as to cease to be a
monarchy because it has for its provincial governors so many
thousand authorities, how should God be thought, in the Son
and in the Holy Spirit occupying second and third place, while
they are to such a degree conjoint of the Father's substance,
to experience a division and a dispersion such as he does not
experience in the plurality of all those angels, alien as they are
from the Father's substance? Do you account provinces and
family connexions and officials and the very forces and the whole
trappings of empire to be the overthrow of it? You are wrong if
you do. I prefer you to busy yourself about the meaning of a fact
rather than the sound of a word. Overthrow of monarchy you
should understand as <taking place> when there is superimposed
another kingship of its own character and its own quality, and
consequently hostile, when another god is introduced to oppose
the Creator, as with Marcion, or many gods according to people
like Valentinus and Prodicus : then is it for the overthrow of the
monarchy when it is for the destruction of the Creator. 

¹ Dan. 7. 10.

134 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

    4. Yet how can I, who derive the Son from no alien <source>,
but from the Father's substance, <who say> he does nothing
without the Father's will ¹ and that he has received from the
Father all authority ² - how can I in the matter of the faith be
destroying that monarchy which I say has been delivered by the
Father to the Son and is conserved in the Son? Let this be taken
to apply also to the third sequence, for I reckon the Spirit from
nowhere else than from the Father through the Son. Beware
therefore lest you rather are destroying the monarchy, who are
overthrowing that ordinance and dispensation of it which consists
in as many names as God would. But to such a degree does it
abide in its own quality, though a trinity be introduced, that it 
has even to be restored to the Father by the Son, inasmuch as
the apostle writes concerning the last end, When he shall have
delivered up the kingdom to the God and Father. For he must reign
until God put all his enemies under his feet,³ evidently according to
the psalm, Sit thou at my right hand until I make all thine enemies
the footstool of thy feet.⁴ But when all things have been made subject
to him, except him who hath subjected all things to him, then also
he himself will be subjected to him who hash subjected all things to
him, that God may be all things in all. ⁵ We see then that the Son
is not prejudicial to the monarchy, although today it is in the Son's
hands, because it is both in its own quality in the Son's hands,
and retaining its own quality will be restored to the Father by the
Son. Thus no one will on this account destroy it by admitting a
Son, when it is agreed both that it has been delivered to him by the
Father and that sometime it is to be restored by him to the Father.
By this one passage of the apostolic epistle we have already been
able to show that Father and Son are two, besides <by deduction>
from the names Father and Son, also from the fact that he who has
delivered the kingdom and he to whom he has delivered it, as
also he who has subjected it and he to whom he has subjected it,
must of necessity be two. 

    5. But seeing they will have it that the two are one, so that the
Father and the Son are to be considered identical, we must also
examine the whole <question> concerning the Son, whether he is,
and who he is, and in what manner he is, and thus the fact itself
will establish its own legality by the advocacy of , the scriptures 

¹ John 5. 19.

² Matt. 28. 18.

³ 1 Cor. 15. 24 ff

⁴ Ps. 110. 1.

⁵ 1 Cor. 15. 27, 28. 

TRANSLATION 135 

and the interpretations of them. Certain people affirm that in
Hebrew Genesis begins, In the beginning God made for himself a 
son.¹ Against the ratification of this I am persuaded by other
arguments from God's ordinance in which he was before the
foundation of the world until the generation of the Son. For
before all things God was alone, himself his own world and
location and everything - alone however because there was
nothing external beside him. Yet not even then was he alone : 
for he had with him that Reason which he had in himself - his
own, of course. For God is rational, and reason is primarily in
him and thus from him are all things: and that Reason is his 
consciousness. This the Greeks call Logos, by which expression
we also designate discourse: and consequently our people are
already wont, through the artlessness of the translation, to say
that Discourse was in the beginning with God,² though it would be
more appropriate to consider Reason of older standing, seeing
that God is [not] discursive from the beginning but is rational even 
before the beginning, and because discourse itself, having its
ground in reason, shows reason to be prior as being its substance. 
Yet even so it makes no difference. For although God had not
yet uttered his Discourse, he always had it within himself along
with and in his Reason, while he silently thought out and ordained 
with himself the things which he was shortly to say by the agency
of Discourse: for while thinking out and ordaining them in
company of his Reason, he converted into Discourse that <Reason>
which he was discussing in discourse. And that you may understand 
this the more easily, observe first from yourself, as from the
image and likeness of God,³ how you also have reason within
yourself, who are a rational animal not only as having been made
by a rational Creator but also as out of his substance having been 
made a living soul.⁴ See how, when you by reason argue silently
with yourself, this same action takes place within you, while
reason accompanied by discourse meets you at every movement
of your thought, at every impression of your consciousness : 
your every thought is discourse, your every consciousness is
reason: you must perforce speak it in your mind, and while you
speak it you experience as a partner in conversation that discourse
which has in it this very reason by which you speak when you
think in company of that <discourse> in speaking by means of 

¹ Gen. 1. 1. 

² John 1. 1, 2.

³ Gen. 1. 26.

⁴ Gen. 2. 7.

136 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

which you think. So in a sort of way you have in you as a second
<person> discourse by means of which you speak by thinking
and by means of which you think by speaking: discourse itself
is another than your. How much more completely therefore
does this action take place in God whose image and similitude
you are authoritatively declared to be, that even while silent he
has in himself reason, and in <that> reason discourse. So I have 
been able without rashness to conclude that even then, before the
establishment of the universe, God was not alone, seeing he
continually had in himself Reason, and in Reason Discourse,
which he made another beside himself by activity within himself. 

    6. This function and this ordinance of the divine consciousness
is in the scriptures also displayed under the name of Wisdom.
For what is wiser than the Reason or Discourse of God? So
listen also to Wisdom, established as a second person. First,
The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways for his works'
sake, before he made the earth, before the mountains were set in
their places; yea, before all the hills he begat me ¹ - establishing
and begetting, of course, in his own consciousness. Afterwards
observe her, by the fact of being separate, standing by him: When
he was preparing the heaven, she says, I was present with him, and
as he made strong above the winds the clouds on high, and as he
made safe the fountains of <the earth> which is under heaven, I was
with him as a fellow-worker, I was she in whose presence he delighted;
for daily did I delight in his person. For when first God's will
was to produce in their own substances and species those things
which in company of Wisdom and Reason and Discourse he had
ordained within himself, he first brought forth Discourse, which
had within it its own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, so that
the universe of things might come into existence by the agency of 
none other than him by whose agency they had been thought out
and ordained, yea even already made as far as concerns the 
consciousness of God: for this <only> they lacked, to be openly also
recognised and apprehended in their own species and substances. 

    7. At that point therefore Discourse also itself receives its
manifestation and equipment, namely sound and voice, when God
says, Let there be light.² This is the complete nativity of Discourse,
when it comes forth from God: it was first established by him 

¹ Prov. 8. 22 ff. 

² Gen. 1. 3.

TRANSLATION 137

for thought under the name of Wisdom - The Lord established
me as the beginning of his ways ¹: then begotten for activity - When
he prepared the heaven I was present with him ² : thereafter
causing him to be his Father by proceeding from whom he became
Son, the first-begotten as begotten before all things,³ the only-
begotten as alone begotten out of God in a true sense from the
womb of his heart, according as the Father himself testifies,
My heart hath disgorged a good Discourse ⁴ : and to him thenceforth
us he rejoices in his person <the Father> himself rejoicing <says>,
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,⁵ and, Before the
daystar I begat thee.⁶ So also the Son in his own person, under
the name of Wisdom, confesses the Father, The Lord established
me as the beginning of his ways for his works' sake, yea before the
hills he begat me.⁷ For if in this place it appears that Wisdom says
she was established by the Lord for the sake of his works and
ways, but elsewhere it is revealed that by Discourse were all 
things made and without him was not anything made,⁸ as also
again By the Discourse of the Lord were the heavens confirmed, and
all their host by his Spirit ⁹ - that Spirit of course which was
present in Discourse - it is clear that it is one and the same function,
now under the name of Wisdom, now under the designation of
Discourse, which received the beginning of ways for God's works'
sake, which confirmed the heaven, by which all things were made
and without which nothing was made. And enough of that, for
evidently under the name of Wisdom and of Reason and of the
whole divine mind and spirit <we are to understand> Discourse,
who became Son of God when by proceeding from him he was
begotten. " So", you say, "you postulate that Discourse is a sort of 
substance, consisting of spirit and wisdom and reason." Certainly.
For you refuse to consider him substantive in objectivity, as being
a substance which is himself, that <thus> he may be seen to be an  
object and a person, and so may be capable, inasmuch as he
is another beside God, of causing there to be two, the Father and
the Son, God and the Word ¹⁰ : for what, you will say, is a word
except voice and oral sound and (as the grammarians' tradition
has it) smitten air intelligible in the hearing, for the rest an empty

¹ Prov. 8. 22. 

² Prov. 8. 27. 

³ Col. 1. 15 : John 1. 18. 

⁴ Ps. 45. 1. 

⁵ Ps. 2. 7. 

⁶ Ps. 110. 3. 

⁷ Prov. 8. 22. 

⁸ John 1. 3. 

⁹ Ps. 33. 6. 

¹⁰ From now onwards we translate sermo, which we have 
hitherto represented by "discourse", by its usual English 
equivalent, "the Word"

138 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

something, void and incorporal ? But I affirm that from God 
nothing void and empty can have come forth - for he is not void
and empty from whom it has been brought forth: and that that
cannot lack substance which has proceeded from so great a
substance and is the maker of such great substances - for he
himself is the maker of things which were made through him. 
How can he be nothing without whom no thing was made, so that
one void should have wrought solid things, and one empty full
things, and one incorporal corporal things? For although at times
something can be made which is the opposite of that whereby it
is made, yet by what is empty and void nothing can be made. 
<Can you describe as> an empty and void object that Word
of God whom scripture calls the Son, who also is designated 
God - And the Word was with God and the Word was God? ¹  
It is written, Thou shalt not take the name of God ,for an empty
thing.² Certainly this is he who, being in the form of God, thought
it not robbery to be equal with God.³ In what form of God?
Evidently in some form, not in none: for who will deny that God
is body, although God is a spirit ? ⁴ . For spirit is body, of its
own kind, in its own form. Moreover if those invisible things,⁵  
whatever they are, have in God's presence both their own body
and their own shape by which they are visible to God alone, how
much more will that which has been sent forth from his substance
not be devoid of substance. Whatever therefore the substance of
the Word was, that I call a Person, and for it I claim the name
of Son: and while I acknowledge him as Son I maintain he is
another beside the Father. 

    8. If anyone thinks that hereby I introduce some "projection",
that is, prolation of one thing from another, as Valentinus does
who produces aeon from aeon one after another, in the first place 
I shall say to you, "The Truth does not abstain from using that
word and the fact and the origin represented by it, on the ground
that heresy uses it: nay rather, heresy has taken over from the
Truth that which it might build up into its own lie". Was the
Word of God brought forth, or not? Meet me on that ground.
If he was brought forth, acknowledge "projection" as the Truth  
understands it, and let heresy beware what it has copied from the 

¹ John 1. 1. 

² Exod. 20. 7. 

³ Phil. 2. 6.

⁴ John 4. 24. 

⁵ Rom. 1. 20.

TRANSLATION 139

Truth. The question now before us is who uses, and in what
sense he uses, any fact and the term that denotes it. Valentinus
secludes and separates his "projections" from their originator,
and places them so far from him that an aeon is ignorant of its
father: at length it desires to know him and is unable, in fact it
is almost consumed and dissolved into residuary substance.
But with us the Son alone knows the Father,¹ and himself has
declared the bosom of the Father, ² and has both heard and seen
all things in the Father's presence ³: and whatsoever things
he has been commanded by the Father, those he also speaks ⁴:
and has accomplished not his own will but the Father's,⁵ which
he knew intimately, yea from the beginning. For who knows
the things which be in God, except the Spirit who is in him? ⁶  
But the Word consists of spirit, and (so to speak) spirit is the body
of the Word. Therefore the Word is always in the Father, as he
says, I am in the Father ⁷ : and always with God, as it is written,
And the Word was with God⁸: and never separate from the
Father or other than the Father, because, I and the Father are 
one.⁹ This will be the Truth's "projection", the guardian of
unity, that projections by which we say that the Son was brought
forth from the Father, but not made separate. For God brought
forth the Word, as also the Paraclete teaches, as a root brings
forth the ground shoot, and a spring the river, and the sun its
beam: for these manifestations also are "projections" of those
substances from which they proceed. You need not hesitate to
say that the shoot is son of the root and the river son of the spring
and the beam son of the sun, for every source is a parent and
everything that is brought forth from a source is its offspring - 
and especially the Word of God, who also in an exact sense has
received the name of Son: yet the shoot is not shut off from the
root nor the river from the spring nor the beam from the sun, any
more than the Word is shut off from God. Therefore according
to the precedent of these examples I profess that I say that God
and his Word, the Father .and his Son, are two: for the root
and the shoot are two things, but conjoined; and the spring and
the river are two manifestations, but undivided; and the sun
and its beam are two aspects, but they cohere. Everything that

¹ Matt. 11. 27.

² John 1. 18.

³ John 8. 38.

⁴ Cf. John 14. 31.

⁵ John 6. 38.

⁶ Cf. 1 Cor. 2. 11.

⁷ John 14. 11 .

⁸ John 1. 1.

⁹ John 10. 30. 

140 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

proceeds from something must of necessity be another beside
that from which it proceeds, but it is not for that reason separated
from its. But where there is a second <one> there are two,
and where there is a third there are three. For the Spirit is
third with God and <his> Son, as the fruit out of the shoot is
third from the root, and the irrigation canal out of the river
third from the spring, and the illumination point out of the beam
third from the sun: yet in no respect is he alienated from that
origin from which he derives his proper attributes. In this way
the Trinity, proceeding by intermingled and connected degrees
from the Father, in no respect challenges the monarchy, while
it conserves the quality of the economy.

    9.  Remember at every point that I have professed this rule,
by which I testify that Father and Son and Spirit are unseparated
from one another, and in that case you will recognise what I
say and in what sense I say it. For look now, I say that the
Father is one, and the Son another, and the Spirit another (every
unlearned or self-willed person takes this statement in bad part,
as though it proclaimed diversity and because of diversity
threatened a separation of Father and Son and Spirit: but I am
bound to make it, so long as they maintain that Father and Son
and Spirit are identical, favouring the monarchy at the expense
of the economy), riot however that the Son is other than the Father
by diversity, but by distribution, not by division but by distinction, 
because the Father is not identical with . the Son, they even
being numerically one and another. For the Father is the whole
substance, while the Son is an outflow and assignment of the
whole, as he himself professes, Because my Father is greater
than I¹: and by him, it is sung in the psalm, he has also been
made less, a little on this side of the angels.² So also the Father
is other than the Son as being greater than the Son, as he who
begets is other than he who is begotten, as he who sends is other
than he who is sent, as he who makes is other than he through
whom a thing is made. It suits my case also that when our
Lord used this word regarding the person of the Paraclete, he
signified not division but ordinance: for he says, I will pray
the Father and he will send you another advocate, the Spirit of
truth.³ Thus the calls the Paraclete other than himself, as we say 

¹ John 14. 28. 

² Ps. 8. 6. 

³ John 14. 16.

TRANSLATION 141

the Son is other than the Father, so as to display the third sequence 
in the Paraclete as we the second in the Son, and so to preserve
the economy. Is not the very fact that they are spoken of as
Father and Son <a statement that they are> one thing beside
another? Surely all facts will correspond with their designations,
and diversity of designation can by no means be confused, since
neither can < the diversity> of the things of which they are the 
designations. " Is" is " is" , and " not" is "not": for what is
more than this is on the side of evil.¹

    10. Thus <one> "is" either father or son, and day is not
identical with night, nor is the Father identical with the Son
in the sense that both are one <person> and each is both <terms
of the relationship>, as those very silly monarchians will have
it. He himself, say they, made himself his own son. Nay,
but father makes son, and son makes father, and those who
become what they are by relationship with one another cannot 
by any means so become by relationship with themselves, as
that a father should make himself his own son or a son cause
himself to be his own father. The rules God has made, he himself
observes. A father must have a son so as to be a father, and a
son must have a father so as to be a son. For to have is one thing,
to be is another: for example, to be a husband I must have a
wife, I shall not be my own wife. So also, that I may be a father
I have a son, I shall not be my own son: and that I may be a son
I have a father, I shall not be my own father. For if I have those
things that make me <what I am> I shall be <what I am>, a father
if I have a son, a son if I have a father. Moreover, whatever of
those I am, I have not that which I myself am, no father since
I shall be the father, no son since I shall be the son. To what
degree I must have one of these things so as to be the other, to
that degree if I am both I cease to be the one because I have not
the other. For if I am son who also am father, I already have no
son but am myself son. But as not having a son because I am
myself the son, how shall I be a father? For I must have a son
so as to be a father, and consequently I am no son, because I have
no father and father makes son. Equally, if I am father who also
am son, already I have no father but am myself father. But as not
having a father because I myself am the father, how shall I

¹ Matt. 5. 37.

142 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

be a son? For I must have a father so as to be a son, and 
consequently I shall be no father, because I have no son and son
makes father. This will be the sum of the devil's ability, to make
the two mutually destructive, while by locking up both in one
to please the monarchy he causes neither <father nor son> to be
had, with the result that <God> is no father as not having a son,
and the Sony is no son as equally having no father: for so long
as he is the Father he will not be the Son. This is how these
maintain the monarchy, who retain neither the Father nor the Son.
"But", they says, "to God nothing is difficult." Who does
not know it? and who is not aware that things impossible with the
world are possible with God ? ¹ Also God hath chosen the foolish
things of the world to confound the things that are wise.² We have
read it all. "Consequently", they say, "it was not difficult for
God to make himself both father and son, contrary to the law,
traditional in human affairs: for it was not difficult for God,
contrary to nature, to cause the barren woman to bear - or even
the virgin." Certainly nothing is difficult for God: but if in our
assumptions we so rashly make use of this judgement, we shall
be able to invent any manner of thing concerning God, as that
he has done it, on the ground that he was able to do it. But we
must not, on the ground that he can do all things, for that reason
believe that he has done even what he has not done, but must
enquire whether he has done it. God could, if he had wished,
have equipped men with wings for flying - a faculty he has
also provided kites with: yet, because he could, he did not as a
matter of course also do it. He could at once have blotted out
of existence both Praxeas and all heretics alike: yet he has not,
because he could, blotted them out. For there had to be kites,
and heretics,³ and the Father had to be crucified. On this reckoning 
there will be something even difficult for God, that in fact
which he has refrained from doing, not because he could not
but because he would not. For God's power is his will, and
his inability is his absence of will: and what his will was, that
was in his power, and he has shown what it wash. Therefore,
because if he wished he could have made himself his own son,
and because if he could he did it, you will prove that he could
have done it and wished to do it only when you have proved that
he did do it.

¹ Matt. 19. 26. 

² 1 Cor. 1. 27. 

³ 1 Cor. 11. 19.

TRANSLATION 143

    11. But it will be your duty to prove it as openly from the
scriptures as we prove that he made his own Word his Son. For
if he calls him Son, while the Son will be no other than he who
came forth from him, and the Word came forth from him, this
<Word> will be the Son, not he from whom the Wordy came
forth: for he did not himself come forth from himself. Further,
you who identify Father and Son, cause the same one both to
have brought forth from himself that which is God, and as such.
to have come forth. If he could have done so, yet he did not do
so. Or else display the proof which I demand, like mine, that is
that the scriptures so represent the Son as identical with the
Father as among us the Father and the Son are demonstrated in
distinction: in distinction, I say, not in division. Just as I allege
as spoken by God, My heart hath disgorged a good Word,¹ against
this do you object that God somewhere said, My heart hath
disgorged myself as a good word, so that he himself may be
both he who disgorged and what he disgorged, himself both
he who brought forth and he who was brought forth, if he himself
is Word and God. Look now, I allege that the Father said to the
Son, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ²: if you will
have me believe that the Father himself is also the Son, show me
that it is stated elsewhere in this form, The Lord said to himself,
I am my son, today have I begotten myself: consequently also,
Before the daystar have I begotten myself ³ : and, I the Lord have
established myself as the beginning of ways for my works' sake,
yea before all the hills have I begotten myself ⁴ : and any others
there are in this fashion. Before whose disapproval was God,
the Lord of the universe, afraid of so stating it, if so the fact
was? Or was he afraid of not being believed if he plainly stated
that he was both the Father and the Son? One thing however
he was afraid of, to belie himself the author of truth, and to belie
his own truth.⁵ And so, believing that God is true, I know that
his statements are consonant with his ordinance, and his ordinance
consonant with his statements. You however would make him a
liar and a deceiver ⁶ a disappointer of this faith <of mine>, if being
himself his own son he assigned the role of son to another, since
all the scriptures display both the demonstration and the distinctness 
of the Trinity: and from them is derived also our standing

¹  Ps. 45. 1. 

²  Ps. 2.7.

³ Cf. Ps. 110. 3.

⁴ Cf. Prov. 8. 22. 

⁵ Rom. 3. 4. 

⁶ 1 John 1. 10. 

144 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

rule, that speaker and person spoken of and person spoken to
cannot be regarded as one and the same, for as much as neither
wilfulness nor deception befits God as that, being himself the one
spoken to, he should prefer to speak to another and not to himself.
Hear therefore also other words of the Father concerning the Son,
<spoken> through Isaiah: Behold my son whom I have chosen,
my beloved in whom I am well pleased; I will place my spirit upon
him and he will announce judgement to the gentiles.¹ Hear also what
he says to him : It is a great thing for thee to be called my son for
the establishment of the tribes of Jacob and the conversion of the
dispersion of Israel; I have set thee for a light of the gentiles, that
thou mayest be salvation unto the end of the earth.² Hear next
also the Son's words concerning the Father: The Spirit of the
Lord is upon me, wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel
to men.³ Also in a psalm the speaks to the Father concerning
the same <Spirit>: Forsake me not, until I announce thy arm to the
whole generation to come.⁴ Also in another <psalm>: Lord, why
are they increased that repress me ? ⁵ Nay but almost all the
psalms which sustain the role of Christ represent the Son as
speaking to the Father, that is, Christ as speaking to God. Observe
also the Spirit speaking in the third person concerning the Father
and the Son: The Lord said unto my lord, Sit thou at my right
hand until I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. ⁶ Again,
through Isaiah: Thus saith the Lord to my lord Christ.⁷ Also
through the same <prophet> the Spirit speaks to the Father
concerning the Son: Lord, who hath believed our report, and to
whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have announced 
concerning him like a young boy, like a root in a thirsty land, and there
was no beauty or glory of his.⁸ These are a few out of many: for
we make no pretence of turning up the whole of the Scriptures,
since even in one passage at a time we bring to witness their
plenary majesty and authority, and thus have the advantage in
argument in <these> discussions. So in these <texts>, few though
they be, yet the distinctiveness of the Trinity is clearly expounded:
for there is the Spirit himself who makes the statement, the
Father to whom he makes it, and the Son of whom he makes it.
So also the rest, which are statements made sometimes by the
Father concerning the Son or to the Son, sometimes by the Son

¹ Is. 42. 1. 

² Is. 49. 6. 

³ Is. 61. 1.

⁴ Ps. 71. 18. 

⁵ Ps. 3. 1. 

⁶ Ps. 110. 1.

⁷ Is. 45. 1. 

⁸ Is. 53. 1 :  John 12. 38 :  Rom. 10. 16. 

TRANSLATION 145

concerning the Father or to the Father, sometimes by the Spirit,
establish each several Person as being himself and none other.

    12. If you are still offended by the plurality of the Trinity, on
the ground that it is not combined in simple unity, I ask you how
it, is that one only single <person> speaks in the plural, Let us
make man after our image and likeness,¹ when he ought to have said,
Let me make man after my image and likeness, as being one only
single <person>. Also in what follows, Behold, Adam is become as
one of us,² he is deceptive or joking in speaking in the plural while
being one and alone and singular. Or was he speaking to the
angels, as the Jews explain it, because they, like you, do not
recognise the Son? Or, because he was himself father-son-spirit,
did he for that reason make himself plural and speak to himself in
the plural? Nay rather, because there already was attached to
him the Son, a second Person, his Word, and a third Person, the
Spirit in the Word, for that reason he spoke in the plural, Let us
make, and Our, and Of us. For in whose company was he making
man, and like whom was he making him? He was speaking with
the Son who was to assume manhood, and the Spirit who was to
sanctify man, as with ministers and mediators in consequence of
the unity of the Trinity. Then again the scripture that follows
distinguishes between the Persons: And God made man, in the
image of God made he him.³ Why not "his own image", if the
maker was one, and there was none in whose image he was making
him? But there was one in whose image he was making him, the
Son's in fact, who because he was to be the surer and truer man
caused that man to be called his image who at that time had to be
formed of clay, as the image and similitude of the true.⁴ But also
in the preceding works of the world, how is it written ? At first,
while the Son is not yet on the scene, And God said, Let there be
light, and it was made.⁵ The Word himself is in first instance the
true light that lighteneth the man that cometh into this world ⁶ and
through him also the mundane light comes to bed. But from
then on in the Word, <that is>, with Christ as assistant and
minister, God wished things to be made, and God made them: 
And God said, Let a firmament be made, and God made a firma-
ment ⁷: And God said, Let lights be made, and God made the greater

¹ Gen. 1. 26. 

² Gen. 3. 22. 

³ Gen. 1. 27.

⁴ Heb. 9. 24. 

⁵ Gen. 1. 3. 

⁶ John 1. 9.

⁷ Gen. 1. 6, 7.

146 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

and the lesser light.¹ So also the rest of things the very same one
made as made the earlier, that is, the Word of God by whom all
things were made and without whom nothing was made.² And if he
himself is God, as John says - the Word was God ³ - you have two,
one commanding a thing to be made, another making it. But
how you must understand "another" I have already professed,
in the sense of person, not of substance, for distinctiveness, not
for division. Yet although I always maintain one substance in
three who cohere, I must still, as a necessary consequence of the
meaning <of the passage>, say that he who commands is other
than he who makes. For he would not be commanding if he
himself were making while commanding things to be made.
Yet he did command <them to be made> by him, since he would
not have commanded himself if he had been one <alone>: or he
would have made them without command, for he would not have
waited to command himself.

    13. "Consequently", you say, "if God spake and God made,
if one God spake and another made, two gods are preached."
If you are so stubborn, keep on thinking so for a time. And, to
give you more cause to think it, hear how also in a psalm two are
called gods: Thy throne, O God, is for ever, a sceptre of direction
is the sceptre of thy kingdom ; thou hast loved righteousness and
hatest iniquity, wherefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee.⁴
If he is speaking to God, and to God anointed by God, here also
he affirms that two are gods. Concerning this also Isaiah <speaks>,
regarding the person of Christ, And the Sabaans, men of stature,
shall come over unto thee and shall follow after thee with their hands
in chains and shall worship thee because God is in thee; for thou art
our God and we knew it not, O God of Israel.⁵ For here also, by
saying God is in thee, and Thou O God, he sets forth two, him
who was in Christ, and Christ himself. It is of more moment
that in the Gospel you will find the same number: In the beginning
was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God ⁶:
there is one who "was", and another "within whom" he was.
Also I read the name Lord applied to two: The Lord said unto
my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand.⁷ And Isaiah says this: Lord,
who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord

¹ Gen. 1. 14,16.

² John 1. 2. 

³ John 1. 1.

⁴ Ps. 45. 6, 7.

⁵ Is. 45. 14. 

⁶ John 1. 1.

⁷ Ps. 110. 1.

TRANSLATION 147 

revealed? ¹ For he would have said "thy arm", not "arm of
the Lord", unless he had wished us to understand Lord the
Father and Lord the Son. Also Genesis, of still older date:
And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire
out of heaven from the Lord.² Either deny that these things are
written, or who are you that you should think they must not be
accepted as they are written, especially those which have their
meaning not in allegories and parables but in clearly defined and
simple statements? But if you are of those who on one occasion
did not tolerate our Lord when he showed himself to be the Son
of God, for fear of having to believe that he is the Lord,³ recollect,
along with them that it is written, I said, Ye are gods and sons of
the Most High ⁴; and, God standeth in the congregation of the gods ⁵: 
so that, if scripture has not been afraid to pronounce to be gods
those men who by faith have been made sons of God, you may
know that much more has it by right applied the name of God and
Lord to the true and only Son of God. "Therefore", you say,
"I will challenge you, today also by the authority of those
scriptures consistently to preach two gods and two lords."
God forbid. For we, who by the grace of God examine both the
occasions and the intentions of the scriptures, especially as being
disciples not of men but of the Paraclete, do indeed specify two,
the Father and the Son, and even three with the Holy Spirit,
according to that calculation of the economy which makes plurality,
lest, as your selfwill imports, the Father himself be believed
to have been born and to have died - which is not lawful to
be believed, seeing it has not been so delivered. Yet "two gods"
or " two lords" we never let issue from our mouth: not but that
both the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is
God, and each several one <of them> is God; but that of old time
two were preached as Gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ
came he should both be recognised as God and have the name of
Lord, because he is the son of <him who is> God and Lord.
For if there were found in the scriptures one Person both of God
and of the Lord, rightly would Christ not have been admitted
to the name of God and Lord (because none other besides one
God and one Lord was preached), and it would have come about
that the Father himself would have seemed to have come down

¹ Is. 53. 1. 

² Gen. 19. 24. 

³ John 10. 33.

⁴ Ps. 82. 6. 

⁵ Ps. 82. 1.

148 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

<from heaven> (because we were reading of one God and one
Lord), and darkness would have fallen upon his whole economy
which was designed and administered for material of faith. But
when Christ came and was known by us as being he who of old
time had caused plurality by being made a second beside the
Father, and a third along with the Spirit, and now that through
him the Father was more fully made manifest, the name of God
and of Lord was reduced again to union: with the result that,
since the gentiles were passing over from a multitude of idols to
the one only God, a difference was established between
worshippers of one divinity and worshippers of many. For
it was necessary also that Christians should shine in the
world as sons of light,¹ while worshipping and calling upon the
name of the light of the world,² one God as also one Lord. 
Otherwise, if as a result of the private knowledge by which we know
that the name of God and of Lord is applicable to both Father
and Son and Spirit, we had been calling upon the name of gods
and lords, we should have put out our candle ³ by being also less
bold in face of martyrdom; for at every turn - opportunity would
lie open for us to escape by immediately swearing by gods and
lords, as do certain heretics whose gods are more than one.
Consequently I shall in no case say either "gods" or "lords", but
shall follow the apostle, with the result that if the Father and the
Son are to be mentioned together, I call the Father "God"
and name Jesus Christ " the Lord ".⁴ But Christ by himself  I
shall be able to call God, as does the same apostle <when> he
says, Of whom is Christ, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.⁵
For also the sun's beam, when by itself, I shall call "the sun":
but when naming the sun, whose the beam is, I shall not
immediately call the beam "the sun". For though I make two
suns, yet the sun and its beam I shall count as two objects, and
two manifestations of one undivided substance, in the same sense
as <I count> God and his Word, the Father and the Son.

    14. Once more, we have the support, in our vindication of the
duality of the Father and the Son, of that rule which has defined
God as invisible. For when Moses in Egypt had expressed a
desire for the sight of God, saying, If therefore I have found grace
in thy sight shew thyself to me that I may knowledgeably see thee,⁶

¹ Eph. 5. 8. 

² John 8. 12. 

³ Cf. Ps. 18. 28.

⁴ Rom. 1. 7. 

⁵ Rom. 9. 5. 

⁶ Exod. 33. 13.

TRANSLATION 149 

<God> said, Thou canst not see my face, for a man will not see my .
face and live ¹ - that is, he who, sees it will die. For we find that
God was seen, even by many, yet that none of those who had seen 
him died-that God was seen, of course, according to men's 
capacity, not according to the fulness of his divinity. For
patriarchs are related to have seen God, as Abraham and Jacob,
and prophets, as Isaiah, as Ezekiel, yet they did not die. Therefore
they either ought to have died, if they had seen him - for no man 
will see God and live: or, if they saw God and did not die, the
scripture says falsely that God said, If a man sees my face he shall
not live ²: or else the scripture speaks falsely when it alleges that
God was seen. So then it will be another who was seen, for it is
impossible for the same one who was seen, to be characterised
as invisible: and it will follow that we must understand the Father
as invisible because of the fulness of his majesty, but must acknow-
ledge the Son as visible because of the enumeration of his deriva-
tion, just as we may not look upon the sun in respect of the total
of its substance which is in the sky, though we can with our eyes
bear its beam because of the moderation of the assignment which
from thence reaches out to the earth. Here one of our adversaries
will wish to contend that the Son also is invisible as Word and
as Spirit, and, maintaining that the Father and the Son are in like
case, to affirm rather that Father and Son are one and the same.
But we have deposed that the scripture, by its distinguishing of
visible and invisible, advocates a difference. For they also add
this to their quibbling, that if on that occasion it was the Son
speaking toMoses³ he pronounced his own face visible to no
man, because of course he was the invisible Father himself under
the name of Son. And consequently they wish the visible one
and the invisible one to be taken as identical, in the same way
as < they wish> Father and Son <to be taken as> identical, because
also a little earlier, before he refused Moses < the sight of> his
face, it is written that the Lord spake to Moses face to face as a
man speaks to his friend, ⁴ and furthermore that Jacob says, I have 
seen the Lord face to face ⁵: consequently the same one is visible
and invisible: and because the same one has both attributes,
therefore also the invisible Father is himself visible, as being also
Son. As though the explanation of the scripture which we offer

¹ Exod. 33. 20. 

² Exod. 33. 20. 

³ Exod. 33. 20.

⁴ Exod. 33. 11. 

⁵ Gen. 32. 30.

150 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

did not, leaving the Father out of question, befit the Son in his
own visibility. For we say that the Son also on his own account is,
as Word and Spirit, invisible even now by the quality of his
substance; but that he was visible before the incarnation in the 
manner in which he says to Aaron and Miriam, Although there be
a prophet among you, I shall become known to him in a vision and
shall speak to him in a dream; not as with my servant Moses shall I
speak to him mouth to mouth in manifestation ¹ - that is, in truth - 
and not in an enigma - that is, not in imagination: as also says the
apostle, Now we see as in a mirror in an enigma, but then face to
face. Therefore since for Moses he reserves for the future the
sight of himself and conversation with himself face to face (for
this was fulfilled afterwards when he withdrew into a mountain,
as we read in the Gospel that Moses was seen talking with him),³
it is clear that always aforetime God - that is, the Son of God - 
was seen in a mirror and an enigma and a vision and a dream,
both by prophets and patriarchs and Moses himself till that time:
and if perchance the Lord did speak in visual presence, yet a
man would not see his face as he really is, but only perchance in a
mirror and in an enigma. Lastly, if the Lord spoke to Moses in
such sort that Moses knew his face from near to, why does he
immediately at the same moment ask to see his face, which if he
had seen he would not ask to see? Equally, why does the Lord
deny that his face can be seen,⁴ though he had let him see it, if
indeed he had let him see it? Or what face of God is that, the 
sight of which is refused? If there was <a face> which was seen - 
I have seen, says Jacob, God face to face and my life is preserved ⁵ - 
there must be another face which slays if it is seen. Or is it that
the Son indeed was seen - albeit in face, yet even this in a vision
and a dream and a mirror and an enigma, because Word and Spirit
cannot be seen except in imaginary aspect - yet by his face he
means the invisible Father? For who is the Father? Shall he be
the Son's face, on account of the authority which he obtains as,
begotten of the Father? For is it not of some greater personage
that it befits one to say, " That man is my face", or " He gives
me face" ? The Father, he says, is greater than I ⁶ : therefore the
Father will be the Son's face. For also what says the scripture?
The spirit of his countenance, Christ the Lord.⁷ Therefore if Christ

¹ Num. 12. 6. 

² 1 Cor. 13. 12.

³ Matt. 17. 3 : Mark 9. 4 : Luke 9. 30. 

⁴ Exod. 33. 20.

⁵ Gen. 32. 30. 

⁶ John 14. 28. 

⁷ Lam. 4. 20.

TRANSLATION 151 

is the spirit of the Father's countenance, rightly has the Spirit
pronounced him whose the countenance is, namely his Father,
to be his face - evidently because of their unity. Can you be
surprised if the Father can be understood to be the Son's face,
when he is his head? For the head of Christ is God.¹

    15 . If I do not clear this point by enquiries made of the old
scriptures, I shall take from the New Testament confirmation of
our interpretation, lest whatever I account to the Son you 
immediately claim for the Father. For both in the gospels and in the
apostles I discover God visible and invisible, with an evident
personal distinction betwen these two qualities. John as it were
cries out, No man hath seen God at any time ² - clearly not in the
past, for he has precluded question of time by saying that God
was never seen. The apostle also confirms this, <speaking> of
God whom no man hath seen, nor can he be seen ³ - obviously because
he who sees him will die. Those very same apostles testify both
that they have seen Christ and that they have handled him.⁴
Consequently if Christ is himself both Father and Son, how is he
both seen and unseen? So as to confer upon one <Person> this
diversity of "seen" and "unseen", our adversary will argue that
both are rightly spoken, since he wash visible in the incarnation
but invisible before the incarnation; and that consequently the
Father, invisible before the incarnation, is the same <Person> as
the Son, visible in the incarnation. And yet, if the same <Person>
was invisible before the incarnation, how is it he is found to have
been seen also aforetime before the incarnation? Equally, if the
same <Person> is visible after the incarnation, how is he even now
pronounced invisible by the apostles, unless there is one whom,
aforetime seen in an enigma, the incarnation his made more fully
visible - the Word in fact, who also was made flesh ⁵ - and another
whom no one hath ever seen ⁶ - the Father in fact, whose the Word
is? Once for all let us examine who it was the apostles saw. That
which we have seen, says John, which we have heard, have seen
with our eyes, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.⁷
For the Word of life was made flesh, and was heard and seen and
handled because <he was> flesh, <the same> who before the
incarnation as Word only was in the beginning in the presence of

¹ 1 Cor. 11. 3. 

² John 1. 18. 

³ 1 Tim. 6. 16.

⁴ 1 John 1. 1 : 1 Cor. 9. 1. 

⁵ John 1. 14. 

⁶ 1 Tim. 6. 16.

⁷ 1 John 1. 1. 

152 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

God the Father, not the Father in the presence of himself. For
although the Word was God, yet he was <God> in the presence
of God, because he was God from God, because he was along with
the Father, in the Father's presence. And we beheld his glory,
<the glory> as of the only-begotten of the Father ¹ - evidently of
course the glory of the visible Son, glorified by the invisible
Father. And consequently, because he had said that the Word of
God was God, so as not to assist our adversaries' assumption
as that he had seen the Father himself, but so as to distinguish
between the invisible Father and the visible Son, he adds of
superfluity, No one hath seen God at any time.² Which God?
The Word? Nay but, it was said before, We have seen and heard
and handled, of the Word of life.³ But which God? Evidently
the Father, in whose presence the Word, the only-begotten Son,
who himself hath declared the bosom ⁴ of the Father, was God. He
himself was both heard and seen, and lest he should be taken for a
phantom was even handled. Him also Paul had sight of, yet he
saw not the Father. Have I not, he says, seen Jesus ? ⁵ But he
also has applied to Christ the name of God: Whose are the fathers,
and out of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all,
blessed for ever ⁶. He also presents as visible the Son of God, that
is, the Word of God, because he who was made flesh is called
Christ.⁷ But of the Father <he says> to Timothy, Whom no man
hath seen nor can see 8 : and he piles it up even more, Who alone
hath immortality and dwelleth in light unapproachable ⁹ : and of
him he had previously said, To the king eternal, immortal, invisible,
the only God,⁹ so that to the Son we might ourselves also ascribe
the contrary, mortality and approachability. Him also he testifies
to have died according to the scriptures, and to have been seen
of himself last of all ¹⁰ - evidently by means of approachable light: 
though even that he did not. experience without danger to his
sight,¹¹ as neither did Peter and John and James without danger to
their reason and without astonishment,^l2 and if they had seen,
not the glory of the Son who was to suffer, but the Father, I
think they would have died on the spot: for no one will see God
and live. As this is so, our case stands, that from the beginning
he always was seen who was seen at the end, and that he was not 

¹ John 1. 14. 

² John 1. 18. 

³ 1 John 1. 1.

⁴ John 1. 18. 

⁵ 1 Cor. 9. 1. 

⁶ Rom. 9. 5.

⁷ Gal. 3. 1. 

⁸ 1 Tim. 6. 16. 

⁹ 1 Tim. 1. 17.

¹⁰ 1 Cor. 15. 3, 8. 

¹¹ Acts 9. 8. 

¹² Matt. 17. 6.

TRANSLATION 153 

seen at the end who from the beginning had not been seen, and
that thus there are two, one seen and one unseen. Therefore it
was the Son always who was seen and the Son always who 
conversed and the Son always who wrought, by the authority and will
of the Father; because The Son can do nothing of himself, unless he
have seen the Father doing it ¹ -doing it, of course, in his 
consciousness. For the Father acts by consciousness, whereas the
Son sees and accomplishes that which is in the Father's con-
sciousness. Thus all things were made by the Son, and without
him nothing was made.

    16. And think not that solely the works of the world were
made by the Son,, but those also which from then on were per-
formed by God. For the Father, who loveth the Son and hath
delivered all things into his bosom,² right from the beginning 
loves him, and from the beginning has delivered them. Ever
since from the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was
God,³ and to him was given by the Father all power in heaven
and in earth,⁴ The Father judgeth no man, but hath delivered all
judgement to the Son,⁵ yes, from the beginning: for when he says
"all power" and "all judgement", and that all things were made
by him, and that all things are delivered into his hand, he allows
no exception of time, for they will not be "all" unless they
have been of all time. And so it is the Son who from the beginning
has judged, smashing down the tower of pride and confounding
the tongues,⁶ punishing the whole world by the violence of the
waters,⁷ raining down upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and 
brimstone ⁸ - the Lord <raining it down> from the Lord. For he it
always was who came down to converse with men, from Adam
even to the patriarchs and prophets,⁹ always from the beginning
preparing beforehand in dream and in a mirror and in an enigma
that course which he was going to follow out to the end. Thus he
was always also learning how as God to company with men, being
none other than the Word who was to be flesh. But he was learn-
ing with the purpose of laying. a foundation of faith for us, that we
might the more easily believe that the Son of God has come down
into the world, if we knew that something of the sort had previously
been done. For, as things were written, so also they were done,

¹ John 5. 19. 

² John 3. 35. 

³ John 1. 1.

⁴ Matt. 28. 18. 

⁵ John 5. 22. 

⁶ Gen. 11. 7.

⁷ Gen. 6. 17. 

⁸ Gen. 19. 24. 

⁹ Bar. 3. 37.

154 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

for our sake upon whom the ends of the world are come.¹ Thus also
he already at that time knew human affections, as he was going
to take upon himself also man's substances, flesh and soul, asking
Adam a question as though he did not know - Adam, where art
thou ? ² - repenting that he had made man,³ as though he had no
foreknowledge; tempting Abraham,⁴ as though ignorant what is
in a man ⁵ ; angry, and reconciled with the same persons ; and all
those things which heretics, for the destruction of the Creator,
seize upon as unworthy of God, ignorant that these things befitted
the Son, who was also going to undergo human passions, both
thirst and hunger and tears and nativity itself and death itself, for
this purpose made by the Father a little lower than the angels.⁶
But the heretics indeed will refuse to count proper even for the
Son things with which you becloud the Father himself, as though
he had himself made himself lower for our sakes, though the
scripture says that one was made lower by another, not himself by
himself. Moreover it is one who was crowned with glory and
honour, and it is another who crowned him, evidently the Father
<crowning> the Son. Besides, how can it be that God Almighty,
that invisible one whom none of men hath seen nor can see, he
who dwelleth in light unapproachable,⁷ he who dwelleth not in
things made with hands,⁸ before whose aspect the earth trembleth,⁹
and the mountains melt as wax,^l0 who graspeth the whole world
in his hand like a nest,¹¹ whose throne is the heaven and the earth
his footstool,¹² in whom is all space but he not in space, who is
the boundary line of the universe, he the Most High, should have
walked in paradise in the evening looking for Adam,¹³ should
have shut up the ark after Noah had gone in, ¹⁴ should have rested
under an oak with Abraham,¹⁵ should have called to Moses from
the burning bush,¹⁶ and should have appeared with three others
in the Babylonian king's furnace ¹⁷ - although it says he was a
son of man? Certainly these things ought not to have been
believed of the Son of God unless they had been written, and
perhaps not to have been believed of the Father though they had
been written: yet these people bring him down into Mary's womb,

¹ 1 Cor. 10. 11. 

² Gen. 3. 9. 

³ Gen. 6, 6.

⁴ Gen. 22. 1. 

⁵ John 2. 25. 

⁶ Ps. 8. 5.

⁷ 1 Tim. 6. 16. 

⁸ Acts 17. 24. 

⁹ Joel 2. 20.

¹⁰ Ps. 97. 5. 

¹¹ Is. 10. 14. 

¹² Is. 66. 1.

¹³ Gen. 3. 8. 

¹⁴ Gen. 7. 16. 

¹⁵ Gen. 18. 4.

¹⁶ Exod. 3. 4. 

¹⁷ Dan. 3. 25.

TRANSLATION 155

and set him at Pilate's judgement seat, and shut him up in Joseph's
sepulchre. Hence therefore it is evident that they are astray.
For not knowing that from the beginning the whole course of the
divine ordinance has come down through the Son, they believe
that the Father himself both was seen and conversed and wrought,
and suffered thirst and hunger, in spite of the prophet who says
The eternal God shall never thirst nor hunger at all ¹ - and how
much more shall he neither die nor be buried-and that thus the
one God, that is, the Father, has always done those things which 
<in fact> have been performed by <the agency of> the Son.

    17. They have found it easier to think that the Father has
acted in the Son's name than the Son in the Father's though the
Lord himself says, I am come in my Father's name ²: and again, 
to the Father himself <he says>, I have manifested thy name to
men ³ : and the scripture also agrees, Blessed is he that cometh in
the name of the Lord ⁴ - evidently the Son in the name of the
Father. And the Father's name is God Almighty, the Most High, 
the Lord of hosts, the King of Israel, I am. In as much as the
scriptures so teach, we say that these also have applied to the Son,
and that in these the Son came, and in these always acted, and
thus in himself manifested them to men. All things that the
Father hath, he says, are mine ⁵ : and why not also the names?
When therefore you read of God Almighty, and the Most High,
and the God of hosts, and the King of Israel, and I am, beware 
lest by these the Son also is shown to be of his own right God
Almighty as, being the Word of God Almighty and as having
received power over all ⁶ ; and the Most High as having been by
the right hand of God exalted,⁷ as Peter preached in the Acts;
and the Lord of Hosts because all things are subjected to him 
by the Father ⁸ ; and the King of Israel because to him especially ,
has fallen the lot of that nation ⁹; and also "I am" because there
are many that are called sons and art not.¹⁰ But if they will have it
that Christ's name also is the Father's, they will hear <my answer>
in its proper place. Meantime let this be my ready response
against that which they allege from the Revelation of John, I am
the Lord, who is and who was and is to come, the Almighty,¹¹

¹ Is. 40. 28. 

² John 5. 43. 

³ John 17. 6.

⁴ Ps. 118. 26. 

⁵ John 16. 15. 

⁶ Matt. 28. 18.

⁷ Acts 2. 33. 

⁸ 1 Cor. 15. 27. 

⁹ Deut. 32. 9. 

¹⁰ Cf. Rev. 2. 9. 

¹¹ Rev. 1 . 8.

156 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

and wherever else they think the designation "Almighty" not
appropriate to the Son: as if he who is to come were not the
Almighty, when the Son of the Almighty is no less almighty than
the Son of God is God.

    18. But they are thrust out of the way of easily seeing in the Son
this partnership in the Father's names by those occasions when
the scripture has stated that God is one alone-as though the same
scripture had not set before us two Gods and Lords, as we have
already shown. Therefore, say they, because we find two as well
as one, consequently both are one <Person>, and the same one
is both Son and Father. Surely the scripture is not in such
jeopardy that you have to come to its rescue by your quibbling
to prevent it from appearing to be contrary to itself: it is correct
both when it states that God is one only and when it reveals
Father and Son as two, and it needs no help but its own. It is
agreed that by it the name of the Son is mentioned: for without
prejudice to the Son it can be right in having defined as one only,
God whose <son> the Son is. For he who has a son does not
cease to be one only, on his own account of course as often as he
is named without his son: and he is named without his son when
he is primarily defined as the first person who must needs be
premised before the name of the son, because the father is first,
recognised, end after the father the son is named. Therefore
there is one God, the Father,¹ and besides him there is no other,²
and he himself who introduces this <statement> is denying, not
the Son, but another god: whereas the Son is not another <god>
than the Father. Finally, look at the contexts -of statements like
this, and you will find that their pronouncement has an eye to
makers and worshippers of idols, so that a multitude of false gods
may be ejected by the unity of the divine, the one Gods, who
yet has a Son who, precisely because he is indivisible and 
inseparable from the Father, must be accounted as in the Father
even when his name is not mentioned. And moreover, if he had
mentioned him he would have made him separate - if he had
spoken in this manner, Beside me there is none other except my
Son: for he would have made the Son another <god> by excepting
him from those others who are no gods. Imagine the sun saying,
I am the sun and beside me there is none other except my beam

¹ 1 Cor. 8. 6. 

² Is. 45. 5. 

TRANSLATION 157 

would you not have remarked adversely upon his futility, as
though the beam were not accounted in the sun? And so <the
statement> that besides himself there is no other god is <made>
on account of the idolatry both of the gentiles and of Israel: also
on account of the heretics, who manufacture idols with words as
the gentiles do with their hands - that is, another God and another
Christ. Therefore even when pronouncing himself one the
Father was serving the Son's interest, lest Christ should be
believed to have come from any other God than him who had
already said, I am God, and other beside me there is not,¹ <God>
who reveals himself as one only, yet <one only> with the Son,
with whom also he alone has spread out the heaven.²

    19. Yes, and also this saying of his they will seize upon for a
proof of his singularity. I alone, he says, have spread out the
heaven ³ - alone in respect of the other powers, erecting a barrier
against the guesses of the heretics, who will have it that the world
was built by angels and hostile powers, <heretics> who make the
creator himself either an angel or one suborned for other external
acts, like the making of the world, and ignorant at that. Or if
in their sense he alone spread out the heaven, why do these
<present> heretics perversely assume the exclusion of that singular
Wisdom who says, When he prepared the heaven I was present with
him? ⁴ And if one has said, Who hath known the mind of the Lord
and who hath been his counsellor?,⁵ evidently he means "besides
Wisdom who was present with him". In him, however, and with
him she fashioned all things, seeing he was not ignorant what he
was doing. But "besides Wisdom" means "besides the Son ",
who is Christ the Wisdom and the Power of God,⁶ as the apostle
says, he who alone knoweth the mind of the Father: for who
knoweth the things which be in God; except the Spirit which is
in him ? ⁷ - not which is outside him. There was then one who
made God not alone, except as alone in respect of other gods.
But also let the Gospel be refused <a hearing> because it says that
all things were made by God through the Word, and that without
him was nothing made.⁸ For, if I mistake not, it is also elsewhere
written, By his Word were the heavens established, and all their
powers by his Spirit.⁹ But the Word also, the Power and the

1 Is. 45. 5 : 44. 6. 

2 Is. 44. 24. 

3 Is. 44.24.

4 Prov. 8. 27. 

5 Is. 40. 13: Rom. 11. 34. 

6 1 Cor. 1 . 24.

7 Cf. 1 Cor. 2. 11 . 

8 John 1. 3. 

9 Ps. 33. 6.

158 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

Wisdom, will himself be the Son of God. Thus if all things are
by the Son, when he spreads out the heaven also by the Son he
is not alone in spreading it out, except on that reckoning that he
is alone in respect of the other <gods>. And consequently he
immediately speaks concerning the Son: Who else hath cast down
the tokens of the ventriloquists, and divinations away from the heart,
turning the wise backward and making their counsel foolish, 
establishing the words of his Son? ¹- by saying, of course, This is my beloved
Son, hear him.² By thus subjoining the Son, he himself is the
interpreter of how he alone has spread out the heaven, that is,
alone with his Son, even as he is one thing with his Son. And
further, it will be the Son's voice <which says> I alone have spread
out the heaven,³ because by the Word were the heavens established:,
because with the assistance of Wisdom in the Word the heaven
was prepared, and because all things were made by the Word, it
is feasible for the Son also alone to have spread out the heaven,
because he alone ministered to the Father's operation. He also
it will be who says, I am the first, and unto things that are to come
after, I am he.⁴ Evidently the Word is the first thing of all: In
the beginning was the Word,⁵ and in that beginning he was brought
forth by the Father: whereas the Father, having no beginning, as
having been brought forth by none, as being unborn, cannot be
regarded as first: he who was always alone could have no
<numerical> order. Therefore if their reason for thinking
they must believe the identity of the Father and the Son has been.
that they may prove their case for the unity of God, the unity is
safe of him who, being one, has also a Son himself also no less
<than the Father> included in the same scriptures. If they are,
unwilling for the Son to be accounted a second beside the Father,
lest the second give rise to the expression "two gods", we have
shown that even two Gods are referred to in scripture, and two
Lords: and yet, that they be not offended at that, we are
rendering an account how the expressions "two gods" or "two
lords" are not used, but how the Father and the Son are two,
and this not as a result of separation of substance, but as a result
of ordinance, while we declare the Son indivisible and inseparable
from the Father, another not in quality but in sequence, who,
although he is called God when he is named by himself, yet does

¹ Is. 44. 25, 26. 

² Luke 9. 35. 

³ Is. 44. 24.

⁴ Is. 41. 4. 

⁵ John 1. 1. 

TRANSLATION 159 

not for that reason make a duality of gods, but one God, by this
very fact that he has to be called God as a result of his unity with
the Father. 

    20. But for the further rebutment of their quibblings we must
pay attention to whatever they will glean from the <new> scriptures
to support their opinion, while they refuse to look at the other
<places> which themselves also observe the rule, and that while
safeguarding the divine unity and the impressiveness of the
monarchy. For as in the old <scriptures> they retain nothing else
but, I am God and other beside me there is not,¹ so in the Gospel they
uphold the Lord's answer to Philip, I and the Father are one, ² and,
He that hath seen me hath also seen the Father, and, I am in the
Father and the Father in me. ³ To these three citations they wish the
whole appurtenance of both testaments to yield, though the smaller
number ought to be understood in accordance with the greater.
But this is the characteristic of all heretics. For because there are
a few <instances> which can be found among the undergrowth,
they maintain the cause of <these) few against the many and
become advocates of the later against the earlier. But the rule
determined for every subject in earlier instances ever since the
beginning, makes a precedent for the later also-and the same in
the case of the fewer.

    21. See therefore how many <instances> set the precedent for
you even in the Gospel, before Philip's consultation and before all
your quibbling. And to begin with, the very preface of John the
Evangelist shows what he who had to be made flesh had 
aforetime been: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with
God and the Word was God; the same was in the beginning with
God; all things were made through him, and without him was
nothing made.⁴ For if this may not otherwise be received than as
it is written, undoubtedly one is revealed who was from the
beginning, and another with whom he was. the reveals one the
Word of God, and God another-though the Word also is God,
but as God's Son, not as the Father: one through whom are all
things, another by whom are all things. But what we mean by
"another" we have already often explained. When we say
" another" we necessarily mean "not the same" : "not the same"

¹ Is. 45. 5. 

² John 10. 30. 

³ John 14. 9, 10, 11.

⁴ John 1. 1-3. 

160 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

however not as separated, another by ordinance, not by division.
He therefore it was who was made flesh, not he whose Word he
was. His was the glory seen, as of the only one of the Father,¹ not
as of the Father. He, the only one, has revealed the bosom of
the Father, not the Father his own bosom: for there comes first,
No one hath seen God at any time. ² Therefore even if he is pointed
out by John as the Lamb of God ³ <he is> not <pointed out as> he
whose beloved he is. Certainly he is always God's Son, not he
whose Son he is. Nathanael immediately perceived this of him,
as also did Peter elsewhere: Thou art the Son of God.⁴ And that
this they rightly perceived he himself confirms, replying to
Nathanael, Because I said I saw thee under the fig tree, therefore
thou believest ⁵; and affirming the blessedness of Peter, to whom 
not flesh or blood had revealed what he had perceived, the Father
as well <as the Son>, but the Father who is in heaven.⁶ And by
this saying he determined the distinction of both Persons, the Son
on earth whom Peter had recognised as God's Son, and the Father
in heaven who had revealed to Peter what Peter had recognised,
that Christ is God's Son. When he has entered into the Temple
he calls it his Father's house,⁷ as a son <would>. When he speaks
to Nicodemus he says, God so loved the world that he gave his only
Son that every one who believeth in him should not perish but have
everlasting life ⁸ : and again, For God sent not his Son into the world
to judge the world, but that the world may be saved through him; he
that believeth in him is not judged; he that believeth not in him is,
judged already; because he hath not believed in the name of the only
Son of God.⁹ When John moreover was being asked what <he
thought> of Jesus when he was baptizing, he said, The Father hath 
loved the Son and hath delivered all things into his hand; he that
believeth in the Son hath eternal life; he that believeth not in the ,Son
of God shall not see God, but the wrath of God shall abide upon him.¹⁰
Whom moreover did he reveal to the Samaritan woman ? If it
was the Messiah who is called Christ,¹¹ evidently he showed himself
to be the Son, not the Father, for elsewhere also Christ is called 
the Son of God, not the Father. Thereafter to the disciples he
says, Mine it is to do the will of him that sent me, that I may accomplish
his work. ^l2 And to the Jews concerning the healing of the paralytic

¹ John 1. 14.

² John 1. 18. 

³ John 1. 29, 36.

⁴ John 1. 49: Matt. 14. 33 : 16. 6. 

⁵ John 1. 50. 

⁶ Matt. 16. 17.

⁷ John 2. 16. 

⁸ John 3. 16. 

⁹ John 3. 17, 18.

¹⁰ John 3. 35, 36. 

¹¹ John 4. 25.

¹² John 4.34. 

TRANSLATION 161 

<he says>, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work ¹: "my father
and I " is what a son says. At length for this cause the Jews the
more sought to kill him, not only because he relaxed the sabbath,
but because he called God his Father, making himself equal with
God.² Then therefore he said to them, The Son can do nothing
of himself, except he see the Father doing it; for the things which he
doeth, the same also the Son doeth; for the Father loveth the Son
and hath shewn him all things which he hath done, and greater works
than these shall he shew him, that ye may marvel; for as the Father
raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, so also the Son quickeneth
whom he will. For neither doth the Father judge, but hath given all
judgement to the Son, that all may honour the Son as they honour
the Father; he that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father
who sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, that he who heareth my
words and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and shall
not come into judgement but hath passed from death into life. Verily
I say unto you, that the hour will come in which the dead shall hear
the voice of the Son of God, and when they have heard shall live;
for as the Father hath eternal life in himself so also hath he given to
the Son to have eternal life in himself, and hath given him to do
judgement with authority, because he is the Son of Man ³ - through
the flesh of course, as he is also Son of God through God's Spirit.
Again he adds, But I have a greater witness than John's; for the
works which the Father hath given me to accomplish, themselves bear
witness concerning me that the Father hath sent me; and the Father
who hath sent me, himself hath borne witness concerning me.⁴ But
when he adds, Ye have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen
his form,⁵ he confirms <our position> that aforetime it was not the
Father but the Son who was seen and heard. At length he says,
I am come in my Father's name and ye have not received me ⁶ - 
consequently the Son always was in the name of God and King
and Lord Almighty and Most High. To those moreover who
asked him what they must do he replied, To believe in him whom
God hath sent.⁷ He affirms also that he is the bread which the
Father was providing from heaven: consequently that everything
which the Father gave him was coming to him, and that he would
not cast it out, because he had come down from heaven not to do

¹ John 5. 17. 

² John 5. 18. 

³ John 5. 19-27

⁴ John 5. 36, 37. 

⁵ John 5. 37. 

⁶ John 5. 43.

⁷ John 6. 29.

162 TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS 

his own will but the Father's; and that the Father's will was that
he who hath seen the Son and believeth in him may obtain life
and resurrection: further, that no one can come to him except
him whom the Father draweth, and that everyone who had heard
and had learned from the Father was coming to him ¹: adding
at this point also, Not that anyone hath seen the Father,² that he
might show that <he> was the Father's Word by whom men
become taught. But when many go away from him, and he gives
his disciples the chance of going away if they wish, what did
Simon Peter answer? Whither go we? Thou hast the words of
life, and we believe that thou art Christ.³ Does he meant that
he is the Father, or the Father's Christ?

    22. But whose doctrine does he say it was at which they
marvelled? His own, or the Father's? ⁴ Likewise when they
were in doubt among themselves whether he were not the Christ - 
evidently not the Fathe