TRANSLATIONS 
OF 

CHRISTIAN UTERATURE 



TERTULLIAN 

AGAINST 

I RAXEAS 



ALEXANDER SOUTER, 



TRANSLATIONS OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE 
SERIES II 

LATIN TEXTS 

GENERAL EDITORS: W. J. SPARROW-SIMPSON, D.D., 
W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D. 



TERTULLIAN 
AGAINST PRAXEAS 



OF 
;RATUKE. SERIES II 

LATIN TEXTS 



TERTULIAN 
AGAINST^ 
PRAXEAS 




A SOUTER,D.LITT. 



SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING 
CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE. London Jill 
The Macmillan Companu. Newark |||, 
1919 l 



PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN nv 

RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED, 

BRUNSWICK ST., STAMFORD ST., S.E. I, 

AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. 



IN 
LOVING MEMORY 

OF 
MY DAUGHTER 

BETH 

SUDDENLY 

CALLED TO HIGHER SERVICE 

IN HER SIXTEENTH YEAR 

DECEMBER 15, 1918 



PREFACE 

BY common consent the Against Praxeas of 
Tertullian is one of its author s most important 
works. Like many other writings which have 
sprung out of controversy, it possesses a positive 
and historic significance also, as the earliest sur 
viving formal statement of the doctrine of the 
Trinity. It is true that the argument, at least so 
far as it is based on passages from the Greek 
version of the Old Testament, or on a Latin 
translation of that Greek, is not so convincing to 
the modern student of Scripture as it must have 
been in Tertullian s own day. Yet the knowledge 
of the Bible shown is amazing, and such as to 
shame most modern readers. At the same time 
the sheer brain power which the work exhibits 
would render it notable in any age. 

The difficulty of interpreting Tertullian is an old 
story. There is no Latin writer for whose study 
an exhaustive concordance or special lexicon is so 
necessary, and yet there are few for whose Latinity 
so little of a comprehensive nature has been done. 
With the exception of the complete vocabulary 
of the works edited in the two volumes of the 



viii PREFACE 

Vienna edition, preserved in Munich for the sake 
of the great Thesaurus Linguae Latinae,3J\& Henen s 
published index to the Apologeticus, no complete 
record of the vocabulary of a single work of Ter- 
tullian is known to me. The translator has there 
fore to depend on the incomplete indexes of words 
in the various editions and the useful, if necessarily 
partial, treatment of the vocabulary in Hoppe s 
Syntax und Stil des Tertullian. It is fortunate, 
however, for the translator of the Adversus Praxean 
that his difficulty arises more from individual 
terms of theological import like sub s tantia^ than 
from the build of clauses or sentences. 

Here, too, as in the case of Tertullian s works 
generally, we are faced with a scanty manuscript 
tradition of somewhat questionable value. Grati 
tude is due to Dr. Emil Kroymann for the fresh 
record of manuscript variants in his two editions 
(Vienna, 1906; Tubingen, 1907). I have not been 
able to adhere, however, either to his or to any 
other single text. In particular I would depre 
cate the theory underlying Kroymann s frequent 
additions to, and excisions from, the text of the 
manuscripts. Words do get lost and added in the 
course of transmission, but if I may venture to say 
so, hardly in the way Kroymann postulates. I have 
consulted in addition to Kroymann, the complete 
editions of De la Barre (Paris, 1580), Rigault 
(Paris, 1634), and Oehler (Leipzig, 1854). I have 
also profited by the notes on the text of chapters 
1-17, contributed by Dr. C. H. Turner to the 



PREFACE ix 

Journal of Theological Studies y vo\. xiv. (1912-1913) 
PP- 55^-564. The monograph of d Ales, La 
Theologie de Tertullien (Paris, 1905), has proved 
most valuable to one who is no theologian. I 
have not seen any previous English translation, 
but I was glad to accept the kind offer of my 
assistant, Mr. James H. Baxter, M.A., of Glasgow 
University, to revise my translation, before I had 
revised it myself. I have been at pains to record 
the Biblical quotations and references with greater 
fulness than the editors. My book is not intended 
for the expert in Tertullian ; he may, however, 
find something in the notes to interest him. The 
general reader is expected to use the translation 
along with the original, but I hope it will be 
intelligible even to readers for whom the original 
is a closed book. 

A. SOUTER. 

Aberdeen, 

February 8, 1919. 



INTRODUCTION 

i. ON TERTULLIAN S LIFE AND WORKS 

OF Tertullian, as of many another who has 
rendered pre-eminent service to humanity, almost 
nothing is known. His full name was Quintus 
Septimius Florens Tertullianus, and he was a 
native of the Roman province of Africa, which 
corresponded roughly in area to the modern Tunis. 
He was of pagan parentage, and underwent a 
complete training as a lawyer. He appears to 
have visited Italy, but he spent the greatest part 
of his life in the city of Carthage, which had been 
refounded by Julius Caesar about a hundred years 
after the younger Scipio had laid it waste. The 
city had become once again a great centre, and 
Christianity must have reached it at an early 
period, probably direct from Italy. In Africa the 
new religion found a favourable soil, a fact not 
altogether undue to the Semitic origin of the old 
Punic stock, which found something akin to itself 
in the daughter of Judaism. The number of 
churches in Africa in Tertullian s time probably 
greatly exceeded the total of Italy itself. And 
this Christianity seems to have been more Latin 
than Greek. The most highly educated of the 



xii INTRODUCTION 

provincials in Africa were acquainted with Greek, 
but the proportion of such persons was far less 
than would have been found in Italy. 

We have no evidence as to the date of Tertul- 
lian s birth, but if we place it about A.D. 160, we 
shall probably not be far wrong. The date of his 
conversion is equally unknown, but it may be 
assigned to the period of mature manhood. He 
was a man of ardent temperament, unbounded 
energy and great creative faculty. In such a man 
conversion was sure to be followed at the earliest 
possible interval by active work on behalf of the 
Faith, and for him the pen was the obvious instru 
ment. All his knowledge of law, literature and 
philosophy was at once enlisted on the side of the 
persecuted religion. Like a later convert from 
paganism, St. Ambrose, he must have taken up 
the study of the Scriptures as eagerly as he had 
followed his earlier pursuits. We have no satis 
factory evidence that he held any office in the 
Church. It is safest to regard him as an early 
forerunner of a succession of Christian laymen, 
men like Pelagius, Marius Mercator, Junilius and 
Cassiodorus, who have had their share in building 
up the body of Christian doctrine. 

The strongly ascetic vein in Tertullian led him 
later to adopt the doctrines of the Montanists. 
This sect took its name from Montanus of Pepuza 
in Phrygia, and among its tenets was the assertion 
of prophetic gifts in opposition to the regularly 
constituted ministry ; millenarism, and abstinence 



INTRODUCTION xiii 

from every sort of union between the sexes. The 
influence of Montanism spread gradually in the 
West, and reached Africa almost certainly from 
Italy, but it is improbable that it had become 
associated with a declared sect in Africa in Ter- 
tullian s time. It represented rather a tendency 
within the bosom of the Church. But that tend 
ency gained more and more power with Tertullian 
himself, and in his later works he accepts the 
doctrine of the new prophecy, and inaugurates the 
arbitrary rule of individual spiritual gifts, thus 
undermining the authority of the Old and New 
Testaments as well as that of the Church. He 
contradicts Scripture in urging the Christian to face 
persecution, in depreciating marriage, in making 
regulations for fasting, and other minor matters. 
But these and other exaggerations, though they 
have deprived Tertullian of canonisation, in no 
way affect his importance as the earliest of the 
Latin Fathers. His great learning, his obvious 
sincerity and his burning eloquence are to be set 
over against such excesses, as well as against the 
occasional coarseness which will break out in the 
writings of a Tertullian, a Jerome and an Augustine, 
who have in their unregenerate days become too 
familiar with uncleanness. In originality he is 
inferior to none of these. In doctrine and in 
language alike he is a pioneer of Western 
Christianity. To him we owe the first formulation 
of the doctrine of the Trinity ; to him we owe a 
great part of the Christian Latin vocabulary. He 



xiv INTRODUCTION 

is the earliest Latin writer to quote Scripture with 
any freedom, and he is the first of that roll of 
noble names, Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose) 
Jerome, Augustine, which no Christian literature in 
any language can match. 

Yet here, also, we have our treasure in earthen 
vessels. Tertullian is the most difficult of all Latin 
prose writers, outdoing the fully developed Tacitean 
style in that brevity which inevitably becomes 
obscurity. His vocabulary is curiously com 
pounded of technical legal language, Grecisms 
and colloquialisms, and in the absence of a special 
lexicon or a concordance to his works it is a task 
of extreme difficulty at times to ascertain precisely 
what shade of meaning to assign to a word. The 
importance of Tertullian is becoming so widely 
recognised now that the task of compiling such a 
lexicon may be commended to a patient scholar as 
one of the most urgent requirements of Latin 
scholarship. But we shall never know his vocabu 
lary and idiom in the way that it is possible to 
know that of Jerome, Augustine or Gregory. The 
comparative neglect of his works in the Middle 
Ages has resulted in the survival of a pathetically 
scanty list of good manuscripts. Much of his text 
will, in consequence, never be restored with absolute 
certainty. 

The list of his surviving works, with the dates 
now generally 1 assigned to them, is as follows : 

1 I follow d Ales, pp. xiii. ff.. slightly different from Harnnck, 
Gesch. altchr. Lift,, II. 2. (Leipzig, 1904), pp. 295 f. 



INTRODUCTION 



xv 



Ad Martyras 

Ad Nationes 

Apologeticus 

De Testimonio Animae 

De Spectaculis 

De Praescriptione Haereti- 

corum .... 
De Oratione 
De Baptismo 
De Patientia . . 
De Paenitentia . . 
De Cultu Feminarum . 
Ad Uxorem 
Adversus Heruwgenen 
Adversiis Indaeos 
De Virginibus Velandis 
Adversus Mardonem, Libri 

I.-IIII 

De Pallia . . . - . 
Adversus Valentinianos 
De Anima .... 
De Carne Christi 
De Resurrectione Carnis 
Adversus Marcionem, Liber 

V 

De Exhortatione Castitatis . 
De Corona .... 
Scorpiace . . . , 
De Idohlatria . 
Ad Scapulain . , , 



Feb. or March 197. 
after Feb. 197. 
autumn 197. 
between . 197 and 

200. 
about 200. 

about 200. 



between 200 and 206. 



about 206. 

207-8. 
209. 



between 208 and 21 



211. 

211 or 212. 
211 or 212. 
end of 212. 



xvi INTRODUCTION 

The following are definitely Montanist : 
De Fuga in Persecutione . 213. 
Adversus Praxean . . \ 
De Monogamia . . .) after 21 3, 
De leiunio . . . . 
De Pudicitia . . . between 217 and 222. 

Besides these, several works by him have been 
lost. It is also to be noted that he issued the 
Apologeticus (probably) and the De Spectaculis 
(certainly) in Greek, as well as a Greek work on 
Baptism. 

Of annotated editions of Tertullian s complete 
works, the best is that by Franciscus Oehler 
(Lipsiae, 3 Vols., 1853, 1854). The best text of 
the following works is to be found in the Vienna 
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticoruin Latinorum, 
Vols. XX. and XLVII. (Vindobonae et Lipsiae), 
1890, 1966) : De Spectaculis ; De Idololatria y Ad 
Nationes, De Testimonio Aniinae, Scorpiace, De 
Oratione, De Baptismo, De Pudicitia^ De leiunio, 
De Anima, De Patientia, De Carnis Resurrect ione, 
Adversus Hermogenen, Adversus Valentinianos, 
Adversus O nines Haereses^- Adversus Praxean 
Adversus Marcionem. The best work on the 
language of Tertullian is H. Hoppe, Syntax und 
Stil des Tertullian (Leipzig, 1903) ; on his theology, 
A. d Ales, La Theologie de Terttillien (Paris, 1905); 
on his New Testament citations, H. Ronsch, Das 
Neue Testament Tertullian s (Leipzig, 1871). 

1 This book is perhaps the work of Victorinus of Pettau (f 303). 



INTRODUCTION xvii 

2. ADVERSUS PRAXEAN 1 

Of the life of Praxeas almost nothing is known. 
We may safely argue that he was a Greek, for the 
name is Greek and not Latin. He lived and 
taught at Rome early in the third century, sharing 
the views of a contemporary, Noetus of Smyrna. 
He gained some reputation in the metropolis for 
his exposure of the Montanist prophets, and would 
thus be far from acceptable to an adherent of their 
views like Tertullian. But Praxeas services in 
this connexion were counterbalanced by heresy 
in another. He insisted on divine unity to such 
a degree that he destroyed the Trinity. Crudely 
expressed, his position was that the Father alone 
was God, and that all the experiences undergone 
by Jesus in His earthly life were undergone by the 
Father. The other two Persons in the Trinity 
were reduced to mere modality. Praxeas later 
recanted, but his heresy was to spring up later 
with Sabellius, from whose name it comes to be 
called Sabellianism. 2 

Tertullian does not find it difficult to make a 
very vigorous defence of the doctrine of the 
Trinity, a defence which loses none of its import 
ance and value from the fact that the author was 

1 In this section I am greatly indebted to d Ales, pp. 67-81. 
Compare also Bp. Kaye, The Ecclesiastical History of the Second 
and Third Centuries (cheap edition), pp. 260-280; Blunt, On the 
Right Use of the Early Fathers (London, 1857), pp. 485-517. 

2 It is also, of course, known as Patripassianism, which may be 
paraphrased " the doctrine that the Father suffered (on the .Cross)." 

B 



xviii INTRODUCTION 

a Montanist at the time he wrote it. He points 
out Praxeas contention that it was the Father 
Himself who was incarnated in the Virgin, that 
it was He who was born and suffered, that the 
Father is Jesus Christ. The Christian tradition, 
however, without surrendering the unity of the 
Godhead, maintains the "economy" (oeconomia, 
dispensatid] of the Trinity. God is one, but His 
activities are exercised by Father, Son and Spirit. 
There is one Son of God, His Word, incarnated 
by Him, who in His turn sent the Holy Spirit or 
Paraclete who comes from the Father, to sanctify 
in the faith those who believe in the Father and 
the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is the faith of 
the Gospel, the creed of the Church. Tertullian 
does not, however, rest content with this statement. 
He proceeds to elaborate a proof of it, and he 
begins by pointing out that divine unity is not 
in question, because the Church admits one divine 
substance in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit. They are one substance ; they differ only 
in degree, form, aspect. The rest of the treatise 
(chap. 3 to the end) is only a development of this 
thesis. 

Ordinary Christians hold fast to the idea of 
" monarchy," from fear of polytheism. Tertullian 
analyses the idea of monarchy and points out how 
in the case of an earthly monarchy the power of 
the sole ruler is not impaired by devolution of 
certain powers to his subordinates. It is his power 
all through, and they are the essential instruments 



INTRODUCTION xix 

of it. So it is with the hierarchy of heaven. The 
Son must restore His kingdom to the Father 
(i Cor. xv. 24, 25, 28). A full study of all the 
Scripture references to the Son is, however, neces 
sary. God existed alone at the beginning of the 
world, but He already carried His thought (ratio, 
sensus] within Himself; this is what the Greeks 
mean by Logos, which the Latins have repre 
sented by Sermo. In His thought was His Word, 
which by mental effort He made distinct from 
Himself. 

This same divine thought is called Wisdom 
(Sophia) in the Book of Proverbs (viii. 22 ff.), 1 
where we find the second person carrying out the 
plan of God s works. This thought is developed 
through a synthesis of a number of passages of 
Scripture. The Word is substance, He is person, 
He is Son of the Father, and has the highest 
position after Him. A possible confusion with 
Valentinus the Gnostic s doctrine is here eluci 
dated, by showing clearly the difference between 
his position and that of the true thinker, in 
particular the real union between the Father and 
Son, which is copiously illustrated, especially from 
St. John s Gospel. The relation of Father to Son 
is compared to that of the tree and its branch, the 
source and the river, the sun and a ray of the sun. 
Keeping the analogy, he compares the Holy Spirit 
to the fruit on the branch. We must hold fast 
to the indissoluble union of Father, Son and Holy 

1 Prax. 6. 



xx INTRODUCTION 

Spirit. Yet the Father and the ,Son are different, 
in that the Father is greater than^the Son. The 
Holy Spirit is also other than the Son, for the Son 
promised to send Him. A father implies a son, 
and a son a father ; to fail to recognise this is 
to destroy the Father as well as the Son. God 
can do everything, but He did not will everything, 
and with Him to will is to do. Scripture proves 
separate identity of the three Persons by introduc 
ing one speaking to another, 1 as well as by the 
occasional use of the plural number. 2 

Tertullian then meets the accusation that these 
passages prove the existence of two gods. 
Scripture has often given the name God to the 
three Persons taken separately, but Christians are 
careful never to speak of " gods" in the plural, lest 
they should be charged with polytheism. The 
distinction between the Divine Persons is also 
proved by the divine appearances in the Old 
Testament. The Son as God is as invisible as 
the Father; the Son is visible only as Man. The 
theophanies of the Old Testament imply a created 
mediator, namely the Son. The reference to God 
appearing to Moses "face to face" (Numb. xix. 
6-8) is taken, with Irenaeus, 3 as referring to the 
Transfiguration by anticipation ; and in Old 
Testament times the Son appeared only "in an 
image or enigma." 

In the New Testament we find it stated more 

1 Prax. II. 2 Prax. 12. 

3 Adv. Haer. V. 20, 9. 



INTRODUCTION xxi 

than once that no one has seen the Father, yet 
there we find equally definite statements that the 
Son has been seen and even touched. And it 
was not only after the incarnation that this took 
place : the Divine appearances of the Old Testa 
ment are appearances of the Son. There is no 
difficulty in supposing that He acted in the 
Father s name, for the Father shares everything 
with Him. 

The Monarchians appeal, however, to some 
passages where monotheism is strongly insisted 
on, for example, Deut. xxxii. 39 ; John x. 30 ; 
xiv. 9-11. But they are really founding their 
doctrine on a few obscure passages to the exclusion 
of many others that are perfectly clear. To these 
few passages Tertullian opposes in detail a large 
number from the Gospels, which represent two 
distinct Persons. He points out how a passage 
like John x. 30, instead of supporting their view, 
actually tells against it. There is moral and 
dynamic union between the three Persons, but 
unity of substance is also clearly affirmed with 
reference to the Paraclete (John xvi. 7, 14), who 
receives His substance from the Son, as the Son 
receives His from the Father. The story of the 
childhood of Jesus equally proves the distinction 
between the Father and the Son. According to 
Tertullian, the expressions spiritus dei, virtus 
altissimi (Luke i. 35), would indicate the Son. 
Spiritus dei and Sermo dei would be in effect two 
names, the one referring to substance, the other to 



xxii INTRODUCTION 

activity, to indicate the one Person of the Word 
Son of God. 

But the Monarchians, even when compelled by 
Scripture to distinguish the Son from the Father, 
destroy the effect of their admission by finding in 
the one person of Jesus Christ both the Son (that 
is, the human being Jesus) and the Father (that is, 
the spiritual being God who is also the Christ). 
But the Acts of the Apostles establishes that Jesus 
is surnamed the Christ because He is the anointed 
of the Father, which is another proof that the 
Father is not the Christ (Acts iv. 27). St. Peter, 
St. John, and St. Paul are also cited in evidence 
that the Father and Son are to be distinguished. 
The most decisive texts are those that mention the 
death of Christ, Son of God l (i Cor. xv. 3). Christ 
being composed of two substances, the one divine 
and immortal, the other human, could die accord 
ing to the flesh alone. And here appears the error 
of those who make the Father die on the cross. 
The Father being God only, could not die, nor 
could He bear the curse attached to crucifixion. 
This fact condemns the Patripassians and even the 
Patricompassians. For, being unable to prove that 
the Father suffered, some try to. make out that He 
was a fellow-sufferer. But this view after all implies 
suffering on the Father s part, and the principle 
must be laid down that the Father is impassible. 
And the Son also is impassible as far as His divinity 
is concerned. He suffered as man, but the man 

1 Prax. 29. 



INTRODUCTION xxiii 

in Him was separated from the Father, while the 
God in Him was still united with the Father. To 
trouble the water of a stream is not necessarily to 
trouble the source : yet it is the water from the 
source that flows in the bed of the stream, and the 
stream is not separated from the source. Even if 
the divinity in the Son had suffered, this suffering 
could not have flowed back to the Father. But 
there is no need to dwell on this supposition, for 
the divine spirit as such did not suffer. Although 
the Son suffered in His flesh, the Father was in 
Him, but did not suffer. Similarly, in proportion, 
we can suffer for God, thanks to the Divine Spirit 
which is in us : yet the Divine Spirit does not suffer. 
Tertullian s last argument is perhaps his most 
powerful a reference to the words of Christ dying 
on the cross : " My God, why hast thou forsaken 
me?" It is not the God we are listening to here, 
but the man who cries to an impassible and in 
flexible God. These words are the effect of the 
inexorable sentence which delivers His human 
nature to death. He delivers up His human soul 
into His Father s hands, and expires. Raised by 
God s power, He ascended to heaven, where Stephen 
saw him on the Father s right hand. One day He 
will come on the clouds. Meantime, He has sent 
the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity, 
for the full revelation of the Christian mystery. 
To refuse to believe in the Trinity, is to become 
a Jew. It is this doctrine alone that separates us 
from the Jews : it is the work of the Gospel, the 



xxiv INTRODUCTION 

kernel of the New Testament. God who revealed 
Himself but obscurely in the Old Testament, pre 
served for these later days this great light on His 
real being. He who will have life, must believe on 
the Son of God. 



TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 

i. MANIFOLD are the ways in which the devil has 
shown his enmity to the truth. He has at length 
striven to shatter it by defending it. He claims 
that there is but one God, the all-powerful Creator 
of the universe, in order to make a heresy even out 
of that one. He says that the Father Himself 
descended into the virgin, that He likewise was 
born of her, and Himself suffered ; even that He 
Himself is Jesus Christ. The serpent forgot 
himself; for when trying Jesus Christ after He had 
been baptised by John, he approached Him as Son 
of God, knowing full well that God had a Son, 
even from the very Scriptures out of which he was 
then building up the temptation. 1 "If thou art the Matt. iv. 3 
Son of God, speak that these stones become 
loaves " ; again : " If thou art the Son of God, cast Matt iv. 6 

thyself down hence; for it is written, that He" p 
. . 1 

that is, the Father "hath given His messengers 

charge over thee, to uphold thee by their hands 
lest anywhere thou shouldst strike thy foot against 
a stone." Or shall he upbraid the Gospels with 
falsehood, and say : " It is Matthew s and Luke s 

1 For the missing present participle of sum to be supplied with 
cert us, cf. Hoppe, pp. 144 f. 

25 



26 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [i 

concern, not mine? It was God Himself that I 
approached, the All-powerful Himself whom I 
assayed hand to hand ; it was for that reason 
that I approached, it was also for that reason that 
I attacked. But if He had been merely the Son 
of God, I should never have deigned to tempt 

cf. John Him." In truth, however, it is rather "he himself" 

vm - 44 w ho "has been a liar" "from the beginning," he 
and any man he has privily sent of his own accord, 
such as Praxeas. For it was Praxeas who first, 
from Asia, 1 imported this kind of perversity to 
Roman soil, a restless being in other 2 respects, and 
puffed up besides with boasting about his martyr 
dom, which consisted merely in an ordinary brief, 
if irksome, 3 period in prison ; whereas, even if he 

cf i Cor. had " surrendered his body to be burnt up," it 
would have " profited him nothing," as he had not 

cf. i Cor. " the love " of God, whose " gifts " he even violated. 

xn. 4, etc. p or ^ w hen the then bishop of Rome 4 was now 
recognising the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca and 
Maximilla, and as the result of that recognition 

1 Asia means, of course, the Roman province of the name, 
roughly the western third of what we call Asia Minor. 

2 For the post-classical use of alias aliter, see Thesatirus s.v., 
and Hoppe, pp. no f. 

3 For the hypallage here, see Hoppe, p. 87. 

4 The bishop referred to was either Victor (so Allix, Oehler) or 
his predecessor Eleutherus (so Blondel, Neander). For the tradi 
tional lists of these bishops see C. H. Turner in Journ. TheoL 
Studies, vol. xviii. pp. 108, 118. The date of Victor s accession is 
put at M. Aurelius XVII (=A.D. 163), cf. Turner, p. 115, but 
the true date appears to be 189. Montanus founded Mon anism in 
Phrygia about the middle of the second century. Prisca and 
Maximilla were women followers of his. All prophesied and 
maintained the superiority of spiritual gifts over official position in 
the Church. See d Ales, chap. ix. 



xiu. 25 
etc. 



i] TERTULLTAN AGAINST PR AXE AS 27 

was seeking to introduce peace to the churches of 
Asia and Phrygia, it was he who did, by making 
false statements about these very prophets and 
their churches, and by defending the authoritative 
acts of his predecessors, compel him both to recall 
the letters of peace that had been already 
despatched and to give up his project of welcoming 
their gifts. So Praxeas managed two pieces of the 
devil s business at Rome ; he drove out prophecy 
and brought in heresy, he put the Paraclete 1 to 
flight and crucified the Father. Praxeas " tares " cf. Matt 
have borne fruit here too, having been "sown 
above " the pure teaching " while " many " slept " ; 
thereafter through him whom God willed, 2 they 
seemed to have been revealed and even pulled up 
by the roots. 3 Furthermore, the presbyter 4 who 
taught them had given sureties for his reform, and 
his signed promise remains in the possession of the 
carnal men in whose presence the transaction took 
place at the time. Ever since there has been 
silence. As for ourselves, the recognition and 
defence of the Paraclete afterwards separated us 
from these carnal men. 5 Those tares 6 had, however, 

1 Remember that Montanus accepted the tide of "the Paraclete" 
(Euseb., Hist. Eccl., v. 14). 

2 /. e. probably a reference to Tertullian himself. 

3 For traductae thus used cf. Lofstedt, Krit. Bemerkungen zu 
Tertullian s Apologeticutn (Lund, 1918), p. 72. 

4 Reading with Turner presbiter istornm : there is no adverb 
pristinum. Yet Hoppe, p. 1 8, explains pristinum doctor as =* 
qui pristinum docet. 

5 The "carnal" men (psychici] are the Catholics, as opposed to 
the Montanists, who are spiritual. Cf. d Ales, pp. 453 f. 

6 For the similes of Tertullian, see Hoppe, pp. 193-220 (this 
one, p. 197). 



28 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [i, 2 

cf. Matt, at that time everywhere " choked " the seed. For 
some time that fact lay hidden through hypocrisy, 
such was its cunning vitality, and now it has burst 
forth again. But it will also be again uprooted ; 
if the Lord wills, in this present age ; l but if 

cf. Matt, not, "at their proper season" all the corrupt crops 

ctVau. "will be gathered together," and "along with all 

cf^Matt 41 other stum bling-blocks " will u be burnt by un- 

iiil 12 quenchable fire." 2 

2. Therefore after a time the Father that was 
born and the Father that suffered, God Himself 

cf. various the " all-powerful " Lord is preached as Jesus 
Christ. But we both always and now more than 
before, 3 as being better instructed by " the Para- 

cf.John clete,""who" of course "leads us into all truth," 

cT NiiLne " believe " indeed " in one God," but subject to 
this arrangement, which we call economy, that to 
the one God there should also belong a Son, His 
own Word, who has come forth from Him, 

John i. 3 " through Whom all things were made, and with 
out Whom nothing was made " 4 ; that it was He 

cf. various who was put by the Father into "the virgin," and 
" born from " her, both man and God, son of man 

cf. Matt, and Son of God, and surnamed "Jesus Christ"; 

1 For this sense of commeatns, see the Thesaurus s.v. Iloppe 
p. 120, d Ales, p. 68. 

- For other examples of the ending _r ^ -_ - ^ , see Iloppe 
PP.- 155 f- 

On the relation of this passage to the official creed of the churches 
of North Africa, see the important section in d Ales, pp. 254-261. 

4 The invariable, or almost invariable, punctuation of this verse 
down to the latter part of the fourth century : see the evidence set 
forth in my critical apparatus to Novum Testamentum Graece, and 
add W (the Freer-Washington codex) to the uncials there cited. 



2] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 29 

that it was He " who suffered, died, and was cf. vaiious 
buried" "according to the Scriptures," and was cf^Cor 
raised again by the Father, and being taken back xv. 3, 4 
" into heaven * is seated at the right hand of the cf. various 
Father, and will come to judge the living and the creeds 
dead"; who afterwards, according to His promise, 
sent from the Father the Holy " Spirit, 2 the cf. John 
Paraclete," the sanctifier of the faith of them who xiv l6 
believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy 
Spirit. That this rule (of faith) has run its course 
from the beginning of the Gospel, even before the 
days of all the earlier heretics, and much more 
before the days of Praxeas, who is but of yesterday, 
will be proved as much by the very succession of 
all the heretics as it will be by the very modernity 
of the Praxeas of yesterday. Just as was done in 
exactly the same way " against all heresies," 3 so let c f. Teit. 
us from the present case also derive the preliminary {J^ sct \ 
judgment that whatsoever is first is true, while 
whatsoever is later is corrupt. But without pre 
judice, however, to this " preliminary declaration," 4 ibid. 

1 For the abl. caelo = ace. caelitiu, see Hoppe, pp. 40 f. 

2 It is surely not fanciful to suppose that in what has just 
preceded Tertullian has had some creed in view. He quotes in a 
fuller form than the Apostles Creed, and curiously anticipates 
certain later forms. The reader should consult Dr. Sanday in 
journal of Theological Studies, vol. i. , pp 3 ff. " Recent Research on 
the Origin of the Creed." 

3 This must be a reference, as C. II. Turner points out, to the 
passage in the De praescripiione haereticornm : "ex ipso ordine 
manifestatur id esse dominicum et uerum quod sit prius traditum, 
id nutem extraneum et falsnm quod sit posterius immissum." 

4 The word praescriptio is borrowed from Law, where it means 
"a preliminary declaration, by which one cuts the arguments of the 
opposite party short " (d Ales, p. 201). 



3 o TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [2 

room for revision of judgment 1 must also be 
everywhere given, for the instruction and fortifica 
tion of certain people, if only to prevent each single 
perversity from the appearance of condemnation, 
not after, but before it has been judged. And this 
applies especially to the perversity that thinks it 
possesses the undiluted truth, in holding the view 
that it must not believe in one God in any other 
way than by saying that this selfsame God is both 
Father and Son and Spirit. As if by parity of 
reasoning one of these were not all, since all come 
from one, of course through unity of nature, and 
as if, nevertheless, the mystery 2 of the economy 
were maintained. This economy arranges unity in 
trinity, regulating three, Father, Son and Spirit 
three, however, not in unchangeable condition, but 
in rank; not in substance, but in attitude; not in 
office, but in appearance ; 3 but of one nature 4 and 
of one reality and of one power, because there is 
one God from whom these ranks and attitudes and 
appearances are derived in the name of Father and 
Son and Holy Spirit. How they are subject 5 to 

1 Hoppe, p. 138 n., classes the meanings of retractatus in 
Tertullian. 

2 On the word sacramentum in Tertullian there has been much 
discussion : see d Ales, pp. 321 ff. 

3 This clause appears to indicate an unequal share of divinity 
between the Three. 

4 The word sitbstantia (= nature) recurs cc. 5, 8, 12, 26, 27 : see 
Dean Strong in Journal Theol. Sttidies, vol. iii. pp. 38^40, Dr. 
J. F. Bethune-Baker, ibid., vol. iv. pp. 440-442, both cited by 
d Ales, p. 81, n. 2, who in n. 3 defines status in Tertullian as 
" nature ou realite." 

5 Yoi the indicative in indirect questions, see Hoppe, p. 72. 



2,3] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 31 

number and are yet not divided, these expositions 
will make clear as they advance. 

3. All simple people, not to say the unwise and 
unprofessional l (who always constitute the majority 
of believers), since even the rule of faith 2 itself 
removes them from the plurality of "the gods" of cf. i Cor. 
this world to " the one true God," become greatly SJjoLn 
terrified through their failure to understand that, *vii. 3 
while He must be believed to be one, it is along 
with His economy, because they judge that 
economy, implying a number and arrangement 
of trinity, is really a division 3 of unity, whereas 4 
unity, deriving trinity from itself, is not destroyed 
by it, but made serviceable. Therefore they now 
circulate the statement that two and three are 
preached by us, while they judge that they are 
worshippers of one God, just as if the irrational 
contraction of unity did not produce heresy and 
the rational expansion of trinity did not establish 
truth. " We hold to monarchy," they say, and 
even Latins, even artisans, 5 give such character to 
the word itself with their voices, that you might 
suppose they understand " monarchy " as well as 
they articulate the word. But the Latins are 

1 " Unprofessional " : possibly " uninitiated " would be better. 

2 Kegula Jideij a regular expression in the early writers for the 
official creed. 

3 Hoppe (p. 168) takes dispositioncm and diuisionem, as an in 
stance of alliteration, a rhetorical device. 

4 For this sense of qttando, see Hoppe, pp. 78 f. 

5 Edam opifices with Kigalt and C. II. Turner, for the impossible 
et tarn optfice of MSS. and editors. 



32 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [3 

anxious to preach l " monarchy," while even the 
Greeks are unwilling to understand "economy." 
But I, if I have culled any knowledge of both 
languages, know that " monarchy " means nothing 
else but the rule of one single person ; but that 
monarchy, nevertheless, does not for the reason 
that it belongs to one, lay it down that he to 
whom it belongs should either not have a son or 
should have made his very self into a son for 
himself, or should not manage his monarchy 
through whom he will. Further I affirm that no 
sovranty belongs so to one in himself, is so 
individual, is so much monarchy, that it cannot 
also be administered through other agents 2 in 
contact with it, whom it has itself looked out to 
perform services for itself. If, moreover, he to 
whom the monarchy belongs, has also had a son, 
you would not at once say that it was divided and 
ceased to be a monarchy, if the son also were 
taken to share in it, but that it was just as before 
chiefly his by whom it is shared with his son, and 
while it is his, it is just as much monarchy, since 
it is held together by two who are so united. 
Therefore, if the divine monarchy also is admin 
istered by so many " legions " and armies " of 
c f . Matt, angels," as it is written : " a hundred thousand 
nan! vu. times a hundred thousand were standing by Him, 
10 and a thousand times a hundred thousand were 

1 Sonare praedicare, significare> is for the most part post- 
classical (Hoppe, p. 15). 

2 "Agents." Personas in theology seems to be derived from 
personas in law, where persona has the meaning "civil personality." 



3,4] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 33 

in attendance upon Him," and if it did not there 
fore cease to belong to one, so as to cease to be 
a monarchy, because its affairs are managed by 
so many thousands of powers, what sort of an idea 
is it that God should seem to suffer division and 
dispersal l in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, who 
have obtained respectively the second and the 
third place, and who are such partners in the 
Father s substance, a division and dispersal which 
He does not suffer in the angels who are so many 
in number, who are moreover no part of the 
Father s substance ! Do you consider that the 
parts and pledges and tools and the very power 
and the whole origin of monarchy are its undoing? 
That is wrong. I would rather you schooled your 
self to understand the thing than to utter the 
word. The undoing of monarchy you must under 
stand to take place when another sovranty is 
superimposed on its circumstances and its own 
special condition, and thus becomes hostile. When 
another god is introduced against the Creator, then 
is it evil, when it leads to the dethronement of the 
Creator ; when a number are introduced, as by 
the Valentini and Prodici, 2 then it leads to the 
overturning of monarchy ; (4) but how can I who 

1 For many such examples of time as diuisionem et dispersionem 
in Tertullian, see Hoppe, pp. 162 ff. (especially p. 163). 

2 That is, people like Valentinus and Prodicus, the Greek 
Gnostics. The former was an Egyptian Greek who lived from 
about A.D. 135 to A.D. 160 in Rome. Prodicus was less important, 
and of him little or nothing is known. Their doctrine set forth 
a plurality of divinities. (Cf. Ircnaeus passim, and Tertullian, 
Aduersus Valentinianos. ) 

C 



34 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [4 

derive the Son from nowhere else, but from the 
cf. John substance of the Father, "doing" nothing without 
S John " th e " Father s " will," obtaining " all power " from 
xvii. 2 the Father, how can I be supposed 1 to be breaking 
up monarchy, which, as handed over by the Father 
to the Son, I preserve in the Son ? May I say 
this too with regard to the third grade, that I do 
cf. John not regard "the Spirit as coming" from anywhere 
else than " from the Father " through the Son. 2 
Beware then lest it be rather you who are breaking 
up monarchy, in overturning its arrangement and 
management, 3 established as they are in as many 
names as God willed. To such a degree, more 
over, does it remain in its established condition, 
though trinity be introduced, that it has even to 
be restored to the Father by the Son, even as the 
i Cor. xv. Apostle writes about the final end : " When He has 
24> 25 handed over the kingdom to His God and Father. 
For He must reign till God put His enemies under 
His feet," of course according to the psalm : "Sit 
Ps. cix. i at my right hand, till I make thine enemies 
i Cor. xv. a footstool to thy feet" "when, moreover, all 
things are subjected to him save Him who sub 
jected all things unto Him, then He Himself also 
will be subjected unto Him who subjected all 

1 Reading with C. II. Turner uideri for de fide of MSS. and edd. 
De fide, however, might conceivably mean "from the vantage 
ground of faith." 

2 Note this careful statement, taken perhaps from the Greeks (cf. 
d Ales, p. 96). The first definite statement in a creed of Procession 
of the Spirit from the Son as well as the Father is in the Fourth 
Council of Toledo (A.D. 589). 

a Note this case of rime : cf. Hoppe, p. 163. 



4, 5] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 35 

things unto Him, that God may be all things in 
all." We see therefore that monarchy is not 
harmed although it be to-day with the Son, 
because it is both in its established condition with 
the Son and along with its established condition 
it will be restored to the Father by the Son. So 
no one will break it up in this way, that is, by 
admitting the Son, to whom it is well known that 
it was handed over by the Father and by whom 
it is well known it will one day be restored to the 
Father. By this one passage 1 of the Apostle s 
letter we have already been able to show 2 that 
the Father and the Son are two, because, apart 
from the fact of the names Father and Son, there 
is the other fact that He who " handed over the cf. i Cor. 
kingdom " and He to whom it was handed over, xv> 24 
and likewise " He who subjected " and He to whom cf. i Cor. 
He was subjected, are of necessity two. 3 xv- 28 

5. But because they make out that the two are 
one, so that the Father and Son are regarded as the 
same, we must weigh also the whole subject of the 
Son, whether He exists and who He is and how He 
comes to be, and thus the fact itself will vindicate its 
outward expression which protects the Scriptures 
and their translations. Some say that even Genesis 
in the Hebrew begins thus : " In the beginning God cf. Gen. i. 

1 Capitulum indicates a section, usually longer than a modern 
verse, but considerably shorter than a modern chapter. 

2 For ostendisse = ostendere, see Hoppe, pp. 52-54, who furnishes 
many parallels. 

3 If we assume synaloepha, as Hoppe does (p. 154 n. 3), this 
is an^ instance of the commonest type of ending in Tertullian 

~~ 



36 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [5 

made for Himself a Son." 1 That this is not 
reliable I am induced to believe by other argu 
ments drawn from God s arrangement itself which 

cf. John He followed from " before the foundation of the 

etc! 24> world" down to the begetting of a Son. 2 For at 
the first God was alone, He was to Himself both 
universe and place and everything, alone, more 
over, because there was nothing outside but Him 
self. 3 But even at that time He was not alone ; 
for He had with Him what He had in Himself, 
namely, His reason. For God is rational, and reason 
was first in Him, and thus it is that from Him it 
comes into all things. 4 This reason is His own 

John i. i thought ; this is what the Greeks call " Logos," 
which word we translate also by "speech," and 
therefore it is now our (Latin) custom by a simple 

John i. 2 translation to declare that " the Word was in the 
beginning with God," although it is more fitting 
that reason should be regarded as the older, because 
a God rational even before the beginning is not 
from the beginning given to speech, 5 and because 
even speech itself, since it depends on reason, 
shows that the latter is earlier, as being its founda 
tion. Yet for all that there is no difference. For 

1 Oehler compares Hil. in Ps. ii. 2, Hier. Quaest. Hebr. in Gen. 
torn. II. p. 507, ed. Bened. 

* The teaching here is derived from the Greek Apologists : the 
parallels are set out in detail by d Ales, pp. 86 f. 

3 For a Hippolytean parallel, see d Ales, p. 89. 

4 Reading in omnia with C. H. Turner, for omnia of MSS. and 
edd. 

6 The word sermonalis appears to be a coinage of Tertullian to 
correspond with rationalis (Hoppe, p. 1 16). Note the rime between 
the two (Hoppe, p. 166). 



5] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 37 

although God " had " not yet " uttered His word," PS. cvi. 20 
all the same He had it both with and in reason 
itself within Himself, while silently meditating and 
arranging with Himself what He was afterwards to 
state in word. For meditating and arranging in 
company with His reason, He made that into word 
which He was dealing with by word. To under 
stand it more easily, take knowledge from yourself, 
I pray you, as from "the image and likeness" ofcf. Gen. i. 
God, that you also have in yourself reason, being a 2 
rational living being, not only made as you are, 
of course by a rational Creator, but also given life cf. Gen. ii. 
from His own nature. See, when you silently meet 
with yourself in the process of thinking, that this 
very process goes on within you by reason meeting 
you along with word at every movement of your 
thought, at every beat of your understanding. 
Whatsoever you think is word ; whatsoever you 
understand is speech. 1 You must speak that within 
your mind, and while you speak, you experience 
in conversation with you the word which contains 
this very reason. By means of reason you think 
in company with word, and speak, and when you 
speak through word, you are thinking. So some 
how there is in you a second word, through which 
you speak when meditating and through which 
you meditate when speaking : the word itself is 
different. With how much more completeness, 

1 Reading oratio with Kroymann ; for the corruption, cf. the 
variants in Ep. Phil. iv. 17, where certain Pelagian MSS. read 
orationem (cf. comment), where the Vulgate has ratione. 



38 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [5, 6 

cf. Gen.i. then, does this take place in God, whose "image 

and likeness " you also are deemed to be ! 1 Since 

He has reason in Himself even when silent, and 

in having reason has word also, it may be, therefore, 

that I have not made a rash beginning by laying 

cf. John down that even then " before the foundation of 

etc. " the universe" God was not alone, having in Himself 

alike reason and word in reason, which (word) He 

had made second to Himself by exercising it within 

Himself. 2 

6. This power and this arrangement of divine 
understanding is indicated in the Scriptures also 
under the name " wisdom." For what could be wiser 
than the reason or word of God ? Therefore listen 
Trov. viii. to wisdom also created as the second person : " At 
22, 23, 25 fi rs ^ ^ e L orc j coated me as a beginning of ways 
for his works, before He made the earth, before the 
mountains were set ; yea, before all the hills He 
begat me," creating and begetting me in His under 
standing of course. Then take knowledge of her 
standing by at the time when He Himself worked 3 : 
Prov. viii. "When He was preparing heaven," she says, "I was 
present with Him at the time; and how strong He 
made the clouds that are overhead, above the 
winds, and how securely He placed the sources of 
that quarter which is under heaven ! I was with 

1 A good collection of examples of ccnseri as used by Tertullian 
in Thes. s.v., also in d Ales, pp. 366 f. 

2 Observe the ending ^ _> ^ (without synaloepha), 
frequent in Tertullian (Hoppe, p. 156). 

3 Read, with C. H. Turner, ipsiiis operationi, for ipsa separationc 
of the MSS. (in ipsa operatione, Kroymann). 



6, 7] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 39 

Him constructing, 1 I it was in whom He rejoiced ; 
and daily was I delighted before His face." Then, 
as soon as God had willed to put forth into 
His own matter and form that which He had in 
company with the reason and word of wisdom 
arranged within Himself, he first brought forth 
the word itself, having in itself its own in 
separable reason and wisdom, that everything 
might be made through the very (word) by which 
all had been planned and arranged, or rather 
already made, so far as God s thought was con 
cerned. 2 For this they still lacked : they had yet 
to become known and remembered before the 
eyes of each person in their appearances and 
substances. 3 

7. It is then, therefore, that even the word itself 4 
takes its own appearance and vesture, namely 
sound and expression ; when " God says : Let Gen. i. 
there be made light. " This is the complete 
birth of the word, since it proceeds out of God. 
Having been first created by Him as far as thought 
is concerned, under the name of wisdom " the rrov. viii. 
Lord created me as a beginning of ways," then p^. ov viii 
begotten to actuality " when He was preparing 27 
heaven, I was with Him," thereafter, making as 

1 For the periphrastic conjugation eram conpingens, see Hoppe, 

PP; 59 f- 

2 This passage is compared with passages from the Greek 
Apologists in d Ales, pp. 87 f. 

3 The same metrical ending as in chapters I, 5, and 7, etc. (see 
Hoppe, p. 156). 

4 The relation of the first part of this chapter to the Greek 
Apologists is set forth by d Ales, pp. 90 ff. 



40 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [7 

Father 1 for Himself Him from whom He proceeds 
cf. Col. i. and thus becomes His Son, He was made " first- 
I5) etc * begotten," as having been begotten before every- 
cf. John i. thing, and " only-begotten," as having been alone 
14, etc. begotten from God, in a real sense from the 
womb of His own mind, according as even the 
Ps. xliv. 2 Father Himself testifies: "My mind hath given 
forth a good word." Rejoicing, He thereupon ad 
dresses Him, who in like manner rejoices in His 
Ps. ii. 7 presence : Thou art my Son, this day have I 
L^eiV) be g tten thee," 2 and: "Before the morning star 
Ps! cix. 3 was, I begat thee." Even so the Son from His 
own person declares the Father under the name 
Prov. viii. of wisdom : " The Lord created me as a beginning 
22 2 5 of ways for His works ; yea, before all the hills 
were, He begat me." And if here indeed wisdom 
seems to say that she was created by the Lord for 
His works and ways, elsewhere, however, it is 
John i. 3 shown that " all things were made through the 
Word, and without it was nothing made/ 3 even 
Ps. xxxii. as again we have the words : " By His word were 
the heavens established, and by His spirit all their 
strength" : by that spirit, of course, which was in 
the word. It is clear that it is one and the same 
power that passes now under the name of wisdom, 
Prov. viii. now under the title "word," which received " a be- 

22 

1 Patrem : d Ales (p. 90) saw that parem of the editions was 
wrong, and conjectured patrem ; Kroymann found the latter in 
MSS. and rightly reads it in his editions. There is no reference to 
equality here, but only to paternity. 

2 Luke iii. 22 as read by Western documents for the most part : 
see my apparatus to N. T. Gr. ad hoc. 

3 See the note on chap. ii. p. 28. 



7] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 41 

ginning of ways for the works " of God, and which 
" established the heaven " " through which all ?s. xxxii. 
things were made, and without which nothing was j h n j 3 
made." Let us dwell no longer on this subject, as 
if the word itself were not meant when we find the 
names " wisdom," " reason," and the whole divine 
" mind " and " spirit," which was made the Son of 
God, from which he proceeded and was begotten. 

" Then," you say, " you argue that the word is 
some material, built up of spirit and wisdom and 
reason ? " l Certainly : for you do not want it to be 
regarded as in itself material through the inde 
pendence of its matter, lest it 2 might appear as a 
sort of object and person and, being second to 
God, might thus be able to make two, Father and 
Son, God and Word. " For what," you say, " is 
word, but voice and a sound of the mouth, and as 
the school teachers teach, a striking against air, cf. Dona- 
intelligible to the hearing, but something empty ^ Ij 
and vain and bodiless ? " But I say that nothing 
could have gone forth from God vain and empty, 
since the source from which it is brought is neither 
vain nor empty, and that what came forth from so 
great a material and made such great materials, 
cannot be immaterial ; for He it was who also 
made what was made through Him. What sort 
of a notion is it that He "without Whom nothing 
was made," should Himself be nothing, that an 

A The true readings were pointed out by C. H. Turner, namely 
sophia et rations (instead of sophiae traditione] and haberi in se (for 
habere in re). 

2 Read ne ut with Kroymann for MSS. tit simply. 



42 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [7 

unsubstantial person should have worked what was 
solid, an empty person what was full, an incorporeal 
person what was corporeal ! For although some 
times a thing can come into being different from that 
through which it comes into being, yet nothing can 
come into being through that which is empty and 
vain. Is the word of God an empty and shadowy 
thing which was called the Son ? which was sur- 
John i. i named God Himself? " And the Word was with 
God, and the Word was God." It is written : 
Exod. xx. "Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain." 
Deut v That is assuredly He who " being in the image of 

ii) God thought it not robbery to be equal to God." 

Phil. ii. 6 _ . . . f ^ j , / 11 

In what image of God ? Assuredly in some image, 

not in none at all. For who will deny that God is 
John iv. body, 1 even though "God is spirit"? For spirit 
is a particular kind of body in its own image, 
cf. Rom. i. But if even those " invisible things," whatsoever 
they are, have with God both their body and their 
shape, by means of which they are visible to God 
alone, how much more will that which has been 
put forth from His own being, have being? 2 For 
whatsoever the being of the Word was, I call it a 
person and I claim the name "Son" for Him, and 
in recognising Him as Son, I claim that He is 
second to the Father. 3 

1 " Body," render perhaps rather by "substance " : passages illus 
trating the uses of this word in Tei tullian are given by d Ales, p. 62. 

2 This thought is paralleled in the early Greek Apologists : see 
the evidence in d Ales, p. 92. The sentence is explained in some 
detail by Dr. J. F. Bethune-Baker in Jon> <n. TheoL Studies, vol. iv. 
pp. 441 f. 

3 See the note at the end of chap. 6. 



8] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 43 

8. If any one thinks that herein I am intro 
ducing some probole} that is, projection of one 
thing from another, as Valentinus 2 does, when he 
brings forth from an Aeon one and another Aeon, 
in the first place I will tell you this : truth does 
not refrain from using this word and the thing 
and the origin it represents, for the reason that 
heresy also uses it : nay rather heresy got from 
the truth the materials for constructing its own 
falsehood. Was the word of God brought forth 
or not? Here plant your step with me. 3 If it 
was brought forth, learn of the projection belong 
ing to the truth, and it is heresy s look out if it 
has imitated anything from the truth. Our present 
question is who uses a certain thing 4 and how he 
uses it and the word describing it. Valentinus 
distinguishes and separates his projections from 
the Creator, and places them so far from Him, that 
the Aeon does not know the Father; for he longs 
to know Him, and cannot, nay he is almost swal 
lowed and broken up into the remaining material. 
But amongst us it is only "the Son that knows the c f. Matt. 
Father," and He Himself "has revealed the bosom Jj^Vit 
of the Father " and " He has heard " and " seen " all cf. John 
things with the Father and " what things He was * John v. 

1 For prolatio as a Latin rendering of Greek probcle, see Hoppe, *^ 
p. 123, n. I. 

2 Valentinus, the Gnostic : see the note on chap. 3 fin. The 
doctrine of Aeons was one of the most characteristic parts of the 
Gnostic system. 

3 Other examples of the metaphor gradient figere in Hoppe, 
p. 208, n. I. 

4 For the two question clauses without connective, a Latin and 
Greek idiom, cf. Hoppe, p. 74. 



44 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [8 

cf. John commanded by the Father, these He also speaks " ; 

cf!john an d it was "not His own will, but "the Father s 

- 49 that He accomplished, that will which He knew at 

cf. John 

vi. 38 close quarters, nay from His inmost soul. "For 

Cor< who knows what is in God but the Spirit who is in 



11. ii 



Himself? " The word, moreover, is equipped 1 with 
the spirit, and if I may say so, the word s body is 
spirit. 2 The word, therefore, was both always in 
the Father, even as He says : " I in the Father," 
John xiv. and always with God, as it is written : " And the 
John 1. i Word was with God," and never separated from 
the Father or different 3 from the Father, because : 
" I and the Father are one." This will be the pro- 
John x. 30 jection of truth, the guardian of unity, by which 
we say that the Son was brought forth from the 
Father, but not separated. For God brought forth 
the Word, even as the Paraclete also teaches, 
as the root does the shrub, the source the river, 
and the sun the ray. For these forms too are pro 
jections of the natures from which they proceed. 
Nor should I hesitate to call the Son both the 
shrub of the root and the river of the source and 
the ray of the sun, because every origin is a 
parent, 4 and all that is brought forth from the 
origin is offspring, much more the Word of God, 
which also in a real sense received the name of 
Son. And yet the shrub is not distinguished from 

1 For struct us = instructus, cf. Iloppe, pp. I38f. 

2 With this passage d Ales, p. 86, compares passages in the Greek 
Apologists. 

3 For the a (ab] after a/ius, cf. chaps. 9 (quater], 1 8 (Hoppe, p. 36). 

4 D Ales, p. 92, compares this passage with some in the Greek 
Apologists. 



8] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 45 

the root, nor the river from the source, nor the ray 
from the sun, even as the Word is not distinguished 
from God either. Therefore according to the pat 
tern of these examples I declare that I speak of 
two, God and His Word, the Father and His Son. 
The root and the shrub are also two things, but 
joined together ; the source and the river are two 
forms, but undivided ; the sun and the ray are 
two forms, but they cleave together. Everything 
that proceeds from something, must be second to 
that from which it proceeds, but it is not therefore 
separated. Where, however, there is a second, 
there are two, and where there is a third, there 
are three. The Spirit is third with respect to 
God and the Son, even as the fruit from the 
shrub is third from the root, and the channel 
from the river is third from the source, and the 
point l where the ray strikes something is third 2 
from the sun. Yet in no respect is it banished 
from the original source from which it derives its 
special qualities. Thus the Trinity running down 
from the Father through stages linked and united 
together, 3 offers no obstacle to monarchy and con 
serves the established position of the economy. 4 

1 My rendering of apex is cumbrous: Blunt, Right Use, etc., 
p. 504, renders by "sparkle," Kaye, Eccles. Hist, (cheap edition), 
pp. 265 f., by " terminating point." 

2 The repetition of the word tertius (anaphora) is a rhetorical 
device used for effect : cf. Hoppe, pp. 146 f. 

3 The alliteration consertos conexos is an intentional rhetorical 
device: Hoppe, pp. 148 ff. 

4 This ending ( ^ i=d=r ) is one of the rarer types in 
Tertullian ; occurring in about thirteen per cent, of the cases only 
(Hoppe, pp. 156 f.) 



46 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [9 

9. Everywhere remember that I have announced 
this rule by which I testify that Father and Son 
and Spirit are unseparated from one another, and 
thus you will recognise what is meant and how 
it is meant. 1 Understand then ; I say that the 
Father is one, the Son another, and the Spirit 
another every untrained or perverse person takes 
this saying wrongly, as if it expressed 2 difference, 
and as the result of difference meant a separation 
of Father, Son and Holy Spirit ; but it is of 
necessity that I say this, when they contend that 
Father, Son and Spirit are the same person, 
fawning on monarchy at the expense of economy 
but that it is not by difference that the Son is 
other 3 than the Father, but by distribution, and it 
is not by division that He is other, but by dis 
tinction, because Father and Son are not the same, 
being different one from the other even in 
measure. For the Father is all being, but the Son 
is a tributary of the whole and a portion, as He 

John xiv. Himself declares : " Because the Father is greater 
than 1." In the psalm He is sung of as being 

cf. Ps. "made" by Him "a little lower than the angels." 4 

(Hptf ii So also the Father is other than the Son > since He 
7) is greater than the Son, since it is one that begets, 

1 For the double question, without connective, cf. Hoppe, p. 74. 

2 sonet = signified (Hoppe, p. 15). 

a For a/tus, a, here and thrice below in this chapter, cf. Hoppe, 
p. 36. 

4 Cf. cc. 14, 26, which like this passage favour subordinationism ; 
but the passages must be read in conjunction with others of contrary 
tendency in cc. 9, II (cf. d Ales, pp. 100 f.). 



9, TO] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 47 

another that is begotten, since it is one that sends, 
another that is sent ; since it is one that acts, 
another through whom action takes place. It is 
well that the Lord also, using this word in 
reference to the person of the Paraclete, indicated 
not division, but arrangement ; for, He said : " I John xiv. 
will ask the Father, and He will send you another l 
advocate, the Spirit of reality," meaning a Paraclete 
other than Himself in the same way as we also mean 
a Son other than the Father, 1 to show the third 
stage in the Paraclete, as we show the second in 
the Son because of our regard to economy. Does 
not the very fact that Father and Son are named, 
mean that the one thing is different from the 
other ? For certainly all things will be what they 
are called, and what they shall be, that they will be 
called, and the difference in the names cannot be 
at all mixed up, any more than the difference in 
the objects they will represent. "Yea, yea, nay, Matt. v. 
nay ; for what is more than yea and nay is from 37 
the evil one." 10. So both the Father "is" and 
the Son " is " 2 (just as day is and night is) ; and 
neither is day the same as night, nor Father the 
same as Son. If they were, both would be one and 
either of the two would be both, as these foolish 
Monarchians make out. 

" He Himself," they say, " made Himself Son 

1 For the omission of dicit and dicimits, cf. Hoppe, p. 145. 

2 Here C. H. Turner is followed as to arrangement, reading and 
translation : ita et pater et filius " esf." 



48 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [10 

for Himself." Nay, rather a father makes a son 
and a son a father, 1 and those who come from one 
or other, cannot in any way be made by themselves 
for themselves, so that a father should make 
himself a son for himself and a son should offer 
himself as a father to himself. What God created, 
God Himself also maintains. A father must needs 
have a son, to be a father, and a son must have 
a father, to be a son. It is one thing to have, 
another to be. For example, to be a husband I 
must have a wife ; I shall not be myself a wife to 
myself. So also to be a father, I must have had a 
son ; I myself shall not be a son to myself ; and to 
be a son, I shall have a father; I myself shall not 
be a father to myself. If I have what makes me 
so, then I shall be so ; a father, if I have a son ; a 
son, if I have a father. Further, if I shall myself 
be any of those, I no longer have that which I shall 
myself be ; neither a father, because I shall myself 
be a father, nor a son, because I shall myself be a 
son. In so far as I must have one of those two, 
and be the other, just in so far, if I am both, I 
shall not be one of the two, as long as I do not 
possess the other. For if I myself shall be a son, 
who am also a father, I no longer have a son, but I 
am myself a son. But if I have not a son, while 
I am myself a son, how shall I be a father ? For I 
must have a son to be a father. I am therefore 
not a son because I have not a father, who makes 
a son. Equally if I myself am a father, who am 

1 This sentence supports the new reading patrem in c. 7. 



ID] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 49 

also a son, I no longer have a father, but I am 
myself a father. But if I have not a father, while 
I am myself a father, how shall I be a son ? For 
I must have a father, to be a son. I shall therefore 
not be a father, because I have not a son, who 
makes one a father. This will all be a contrivance 
of the devil to shut out the one from the other, 
while by enclosing both in one under the support 
he gives to monarchy, he causes neither to be 
possessed, so that he should not be a father who 
of course has not a son, nor should he be a son 
who equally has not a father ; for while he is a 
father, he will not be a son. So do they hold to 
monarchy, who hold together at the same time 
neither Father nor Son. But " nothing is difficult job xiii. 2 
to " God : who does not know it ? and, " what is ^iii?i4) 
impossible with the world is possible with God " : Lu .k. e 
who is ignorant of this ? and " God chose the JTcorfi. 
foolish things of the world to put the wise things 2 ? 
to confusion": we read all this in Scripture. 
" Therefore," they say, " it was not difficult for cf. Job 
God to make Himself both Father and Son xliL 2 
against the law handed down to human circum 
stances. For it was not difficult for God either cf. Job 
that a barren woman should bear contrary to *[ u G 2 al i v 
nature, or that a virgin either should do so/ 27 (Isa. 
Clearly, "nothing is difficult to" God, but if we c ^ Matt, 
take such inconsiderate advantage of this thought ?3 

Job xlu 

in our assumptions, we shall be able to imagine 
anything we like about God, as if He acted simply 

because He had the power to act. But we are not 
D 



50 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [10,11 

cf. Sap. to believe that because " He can do all things," 
therefore He did even what He did not do, but 
we must ask whether He did it. 1 He could, if He 
had wished, have provided 2 man with wings to fly, 
as He did for kites ; nevertheless He did not at 
once proceed to do it simply because it was in His 
power. He could have at once put to death 2 both 
Praxeas and all other heretics alike ; yet simply 
because He had the power He did not do so. 

cf. i Cor. For " it was meet that there should be " both kites 3 
and "heretics," it was also meet that the Father 
should be crucified ! In this way there will be 

cf. job something even " difficult to " God, namely, whatso 
ever He has not done, not because He could not, 
but because He willed not. For God s power is 
His will, and His inability is His unwillingness. 
What He willed, He was both able and ready to 
do. Therefore because, if He willed to make 
Himself into a son for Himself, He could have 
done it, and because if He could, He did it you 
will prove that He both could and willed, if once 
you prove that He did it. 

ii. You will have to prove as clearly from the 
Scriptures as we prove it, that He made His word 
a son for Himself. For if He names His Son (and 
there will be no Son other than He who came 
forth from Himself, but the Word proceeded from 

1 Note the reasonableness of the view just expressed ; cf. d Ales, 
PP. 35, 66. 

2 For the perfect infinitive after posse, where the present infinitive 
would be expected, cf. Hoppe, p. 53. 

3 For the comparison with kites here, see Hoppe, p. 199. 



n] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 51 

Himself), that will be the Son, not Himself, from 
whom He proceeded. For He did not Himself 
proceed from Himself. Moreover, you who say 
that the Father and the Son are the same, argue 
that the same both brought forth and proceeded 
from Himself. Though God could have done 1 this, 
yet He did not do it. Or set forth the proof I 
demand, like my own, that is that the Scriptures 
indicate the same to be Son and Father in the 
same way as with us the Father and Son are 
indicated differentially ; differentially, I say, not 
separately. Just as I produce God s saying : "my Ps. xliv. 2 
mind has given forth a good word," do you retort 
with the statement that God has somewhere said : 
" my mind has given forth myself, a good word," cf. Ps. 
so that it should be Himself who both gave forth xhv 2 
and was that which He gave forth, and Himself 
who brought forth and who was brought forth, if 
He Himself is both Word and God. Again : I 
point out that the Father said to the Son : " Thou Ps. ii. 7 
art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." If^ ukeiii> 
you should want me to believe that the Father 
Himself is also the Son, show me this declaration 
elsewhere : " The Lord said to Himself: I am my cf. Ps. ii. 
son, I have this day begotten myself" ; in like $.22)* 
manner also : " Before the morning star I begat cf. Ps. cix. 
myself" ; and : " I the Lord created myself as a ;? f ProVm 
beginning of ways for my works, yea, before any viii - 22 > 2 5 
of the hills were, I begat myself," and any other 

1 For the perfect infinitive after posse = present infinitive, cf. 
Hoppe, p. 53. 



52 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [u 

passages after this likeness. Whom was God, the 
Lord of all things, afraid thus to proclaim, if such 
was the fact? Was He afraid He should not be 
believed, if He declared Himself in plain language 
to be both Father and Son ? Nay : one thing, 
however, He did fear ; falsehood being afraid of 
Himself and His own truth ; l and therefore be 
lieving God truthful I know that He has not 
declared differently from what He arranged, and 
has not arranged differently from what He declared. 
But you would make Him untruthful and false, 
and a deceiver of these believers, 2 if, although 
Himself a son to Himself, he gave to another the 
person of His Son, since 3 all the Scriptures make 
the Trinity clear and the distinction within it, from 
which Scriptures our objection is also taken, namely 
that He who speaks and He about whom He speaks 
and He to whom He speaks, cannot be regarded as 
one and the same, because neither perversity nor 
deception befits God ; that although it was Himself 
to whom He was speaking, He should be speaking 
rather to another, and not to Himself. Listen, 
therefore, also to other words of the Father touching 
the Son, spoken through the medium of Isaiah : 
Isa. xlii. i " Behold my Son whom I have chosen, my beloved, 
in whom I am well pleased ; I will put my spirit 

1 C. H. Turner s view merits mention, and may be right. He 
reads ueritatis auctorem for tieritm an fern : "one thing nevertheless 
he did fear, that the Author of Truth should falsify himself and his 
truth." 

2 Fides (abstract) *= fables (concrete) : cf. Hoppe, p. 93, who 
gives parallels. 

3 For quando = "since," cf. Hoppe, p. 78- 



n] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 53 

upon Him, and He will preach judgment to the 
nations." Take this also addressed to Himself: 
" It is a great thing for thee, that thou shouldest Isa. xlix. 6 
be called my son to raise up the tribes of Jacob 
and to turn back the scattering of Israel ; I have 
set thee as a light to the nations, that thou mayest 
be salvation to the ends of the earth." Take now 
also words of the Son touching the Father : " The Luke iv. 
Spirit of the Lord is upon me; wherefore He hath i sa .i x i. z) 
anointed me to give the good news unto men." 
Likewise to the Father in the psalm : " Lord God, Ps. ixx. 
forsake me not, till I preach of thine arm to all l{ 
that shall be born " ; likewise in another : " Lord, Ps. iii. 
wherefore are they multiplied that seek to crush 
me?" But almost all the psalms look forward to 
Christ s person, and set forth x the Son speaking 
to the Father, that is, Christ to God. Observe also 
the Spirit speaking as the third person about the 
Father and the Son : " The Lord said unto my Ps. cix. i 
Lord : Sit on my right hand, till I make thine 
enemies a footstool to thy feet." Likewise through 
Isaiah : " Thus saith the Lord to my Lord the Isa. xlv. i 
Anointed :" likewise through the same to the Father 
regarding the Son : " Lord, who hath believed our Isa. liii. 
report, and to whom hath the arm of the Lord : ~ 2 
been revealed ? We have preached about him : 
even as a young boy, even as a root in thirsty 
ground, and he had no beauty nor glory." These 



1 The fullest discussion of the word rcpraesentat e is in d Ales 
356-36o. Cf. also Prof. H. B. Swete in Journ. Theol. Stud. 
I., pp. 161-177. It is used in a moral sense here. 



54 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [11,12 

are but few passages out of many. For we are 
not striving to go through all the passages of 
Scripture, since by calling in the testimony of the 
full majesty and authority in individual passages, 
we find greater opportunity for attack in reviewing 
them. 1 By these passages, therefore, few as they 
are, the distinction within the Trinity is yet clearly 
set forth : for there is He who declares, the Spirit, 
and the Father to whom He declares, and the Son 
about whom He declares. So also with all other 
things that are uttered now by the Father about 
the Son 2 or to the Son, now by the Son about the 
Father or to the Father, now by the Spirit : they 
establish each person in His own proper self. 3 

12. If you still find the number of the Trinity 
a stumbling-block, as if it were not knit together 
in a single unity, I ask you : how is it that one 

Gen. i. 26 individual speaks in the plural : " Let its make 
man in our image and likeness," when He ought 
to have said : 4 " Let me make man in my image 
and likeness," inasmuch as 5 He is one individual? 

Gen. iii. But also in .what follows : " Behold, Adam was 
made like one of its" He is either deceiving or 
making fun of us, speaking as if He were a number, 
when He is one and alone and individual. Or 

1 For the senses of retractatus in Tertullian see Hoppe, p. 138, 
n. i. 

2 Reading, with C. H. Turner, a pat re defilio ltd ad filium, nunc 
afilio de pat re uel ad patrein, nunc a spiritu. 

3 For the rare ending ( ^ ^ ^ ), see Iloppe, p. 157. 

4 For the perfect infinitive here, where present infinitive would be 
expected, cf. Hoppe, p. 54. 

6 Utpote should be read : utpute (Kroymann) is a vox nihili, 
being a cross between utputa and utpote, not uncommon in MSS. 



12] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 55 

was He addressing the angels, as the Jews under 
stand, because they too fail to recognise the Son ? 
Or was it because He was Himself Father, Son, 
Spirit, that for that reason, showing Himself to 
be plural, He spoke in a plural way to Himself? 
Nay, it was because the Son, the second person, 
His own Word, was already cleaving to Him, and 
the third, 1 the Spirit in the Word, that for that 
reason He made the announcement in the plural : 
" Let us make " and " ours " and " us." For He Gen. i. 26; 
was speaking to those in conjunction with whom 
He was making man and in whose likeness He 
was making him with the Son on the one hand, 
who was to put on " man," with the Spirit, on c f. Phil. ii. 
the other hand, who was to hallow man as with 7> etc> 
servants and eyewitnesses, in accordance with the 
unity of the Trinity. For the following passage 
of Scripture distinguishes between the persons : 
" God made man, in the image of God He made Gen. i. 27 
him." Why not " His own" (image), if there was 
one who made, and there was no one in whose 
image to make him ? But there was One in 
whose image He made him, namely the Son, 
who, destined to be a surer and truer man, had 
caused His image to be called man, who then was 
to be " formed " out of " mud," " the image and c f. Gen.ii, 
likeness " of reality. But even in the case of the f Ge ^ . 
preceding works of the universe how is it written ? 26 
At first, while as yet the Son did not show 

1 There is something of a confusion here with regard to the three 
Persons, such as occurs in other writers also (cf. d Ales, p. 96). 



56 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [12 

Gen. i. 3 Himself: "And God said, Let there be light/ and 
it was made " immediately the Word Himself, " the 

Jolmi. 9 true light that comes 1 into the world and lightens 

cf. John. i. every man," and through Him "the light" of the 
universe also. Thereafter, too, in the Word 
Christ, standing by Him and carrying out His 
behests, 2 God willed creation, and God created : 

Gen. i. 6. 7 "And God said : Let there be a firmament, and 

Gen. i. 14, God made a firmament"; "and God said: Let 
there be lights/ and God made a greater and a less 
light." But the rest also were of course made by 
the same power as made what went before, namely 

John i. 3 by the Word of God, " through whom all things 
were made and without whom nothing was made." 

John i. i If he was God Himself (according to John : "The 
Word was God "), you have two, one saying it 
should be done, the other doing it. 3 And how 
you ought to regard "the other," I have already 
declared, " other " in respect of role, not of nature ; 4 
by way of distinction, not of division. But 
although I hold, 5 everywhere to one being in three 

1 The true Cyprianic reading, as Turner points out, is ueniens, 
i.e. fp\6^vov is made to agree with (pus. Doubtless it was so 
taken by Tertullian also. I should also insert the omnem omitted 
by scribal inadvertence before the almost identical hominem. The 
passTge would then read: ipse statim sermo "uera lux quae 
nluminat omnem hominem ueniens in hunc mundum." ihe 
mundialis lux is the sun. 

2 The alliteration adsist. admin, is an intentional rhetorical 
device (Hoppe, p. 149). 

3 Perhaps pant should be read for fiat, corresponding better to 
facta sunt. 

4 On this passage see Dean Strong, Journ. Theol. Stud., III. p. 38. 

5 Teneam is potential : the construction is paratactic. The 
parallels in Hoppe, p. 83, show that there is no need to insert 
etsi, as Kroymann does. 



i 2 , i 3 ] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 57 

that cleave together, yet the need of expressing 
my meaning makes me speak of the one who 
orders and the one who carries out the order, as 
different. For besides, He would not give the order, 
if He Himself were to act while giving it, that it 
should be done by him to whom He then gave 
the order ; He would either have given the com 
mand 1 to Himself, if He were One only; or He 
would have done it without command, because He 
would not have waited to give the command to 
Himself. 

13. "Therefore," you say, "if God spoke 
and God acted, if God spoke and another 
acted, you are proclaiming two gods." If you 
are so obtuse, keep your opinion for the time 
being ; and to make you hold this opinion 
still more, 2 listen to the mention of two gods 
even in a psalm : " Thy throne, God, is for ever- p s . xliv. 
lasting ; (a rod of uprightness is) 3 the rod of Thy 7) 8 
kingdom ; Thou hast loved righteousness and 
hated iniquity ; therefore God, Thy God, hath 
anointed Thee." If it is "God" he is addressing, 
and he says that "God has been anointed by 
God," here too he avows two gods. In virtue 
of " the rod of thy kingdom." 4 Hence it is that 

Isaiah also refers to the person of Christ : " And isa. xlv. 

14, 15 

1 For iubeo with the dative, on the analogy of impero, cf. 
Hoppe, p. 29. 

2 On adhuc with the comparative, see Hoppe, p, no. 

3 Uirga directionis has doubtless been omitted by homoeoarcton. 

4 Pro perhaps means "instead of, "in place of." The whole 
phrase sounds like a gloss out of its place : clearly there is a 
corruption of some kind. 



58 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [13 

the Seboin, lofty men, will cross to Thee and 
follow after Thee with hands bound, and will 
worship Thee, because God is in Thee ; for Thou 
art our God, and we knew it not, the God of 
Israel." Here too by saying " God in Thee " and 
"Thou God," he sets forth two, namely, Him who 
was in Christ and Christ 1 himself. There is more 
that you will find in the Gospel so many times ; 

John i. i "In the beginning was the Word, 2 and the Word 
was with God, and the W T ord was God " : One 
who was, and another with whom He was. But I 
also read that the name of the Lord was used in 

Ps. cix. i reference to two : " The Lord said unto my Lord : 
Sit at my right hand. " And Isaiah says this: 

Isa. liii. i " Lord, who hath believed our report, and to 
whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed ? " 
For he would have said " thine arm," not " the 
arm of the Lord/ if he had not wished the Lord 
the Father and the Lord the Son to be under 
stood. Also there is the still 3 older book of 

Gen. xix. Genesis : " And the Lord rained on Sodom and 

24 Gomorrah sulphur and fire from heaven from the 

Lord." Either deny that this is in the Bible, or 
who are you to hold the opinion that the words 
are not to be taken in the sense in which they are 
written, especially those whose meaning lies not 

1 Read Christum for spiritum with C. II. Turner. The 
corruption (spm for xpm) is found elsewhere also. 

2 This passage is illustrated from Greek Apologists by d Ales, 
pp. 86 f. 

3 On adhuc with the comparative, see Hoppe, p. no, who 
suggests pleonasm here. 



i 3 ] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 59 

in allegories or similitudes, but in sure and simple 
definitions? But if you be of the number of those 
who would not then endure l the Lord s declaring cf. Juhn x. 
Himself the Son of God, lest they should believe 33 
Him God, recollect that He is included with them 
in these words : " I said : Ye are gods and sons of Ps. ixxxi. 
the Highest, " and : " God stood in the assembly of x . 34) 
the gods," in order that, if Scripture did not fear to Ps. ixxxi. 
declare that men, " made sons of God by faith," c f. j hn i. 
gods, you may know that Scripture much more were 1 J Qal ... 
rightly conferred upon the true and only Son of 26 
God the name both of God and of Lord. 2 " There 
fore," you say, " I will challenge you to preach 
consistently even to-day two gods and two lords in 
accordance with the authority of these Scriptures." 
God forbid ! For we who by God s grace examine 
both the times and the motives of the Scriptures, 
as pupils especially of the Paraclete, not of men, cf. John 
do indeed lay down two, Father and Son, and xvu I3> 
even three including the Holy Spirit according 
to the method of economy which produces the 
number, lest, as your perversity smuggles it in, 
the Father Himself should be believed to have 
been born and suffered, which it is not allowable 
to believe since it has not so been recorded yet 
we never with our lips utter the expressions " two 
gods" and "two lords," not because the Father 
is not God and the Son is not God and the Spirit 

1 For sustinere with the participle, Hoppe compares the use of 
anechesthai in Greek, and gives other examples, p. 58. 

2 Following Turner and reading et dei et domini nomen. 



60 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [13 

is not God and each one of them is not God, but 
since in the past two gods and two lords were 
preached simply in order that when Christ had 
come, he might be recognised as God and also 
called Lord, because he was the Son of God and 
the Lord. For if there were found in the Scrip 
tures only one being both of God and the Lord, 
Christ would deservedly have been refused ad 
mission to the name of God and that of Lord 
cf. Exod. for it was preached that there was " no God " and 



Deut v 7 Lord "but" one and the Father Himself would 
cf. Eph. be thought " to have descended/ because they read 
of one God and one Lord, and His whole economy 
would have been overshadowed, which was planned 
and administered as subject-matter for belief. 
But when Christ came and we learned about Him 
that He Himself who had in the past caused the 
(plural) number, having been made second to the 
Father, and one of three if the Spirit be included, 
being also the Father, who was more fully mani 
fested by Him, the name of God and Lord was 
now reduced to an unity, 1 in order that because 
c f. i " the nations were leaving " a multitude of " images 

cf Art s xv 9 an< ^ comm g to the" one "God," there might also 
19, etc. be established a difference between the worshippers 
of a single and of a multiple divinity. Besides, 
John xii. it was the duty of Christians, as " sons of light," 

36; Eph. 

V Th * This, I think, is the right way to take this sentence. The 

Vt scriptural language latent in it has not, I think, been hitherto 

pointed out. This -is the only passage in Tertullian where it has 

been suggested to take quia in a final sense ( = ut} (Iloppe, p. 76, 

n. 3), the ut in the text being regarded as consecutive. 



13, 14] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 61 

" to shine " in the world, worshipping and naming c f. Matt. 
" the light of the world," one God and Lord. But 
if we had named gods and lords in virtue of that 12 
knowledge which tells us that the name of God 
and Lord fits Father and Son and Spirit, we 
should have extinguished our torches and shown 
cowardice also in giving our testimony ; we should 
have found everywhere open before us an oppor 
tunity to escape this, and at once proceeded 
to swear by gods and lords, as certain heretics 
do who have a number of gods. Therefore I will 
not use at all the expressions "gods" or "lords," 
but I will follow the Apostle, and if I have to 
name the Father and Son together, I will call the 
Father " God " and name Jesus Christ " the Lord." Rom. i. 7, 
Moreover, I shall be able to speak of Christ as etc- 
God, only in the way that the same Apostle does : 
" From whom is Christ, who is," he says, " God Rom. ix. 5 
over all, blessed throughout all time." For I shall 
also call a ray of the sun by itself " sun " ; but 
in naming the sun whose ray it is, I shall not 
straightway call a ray "the sun." For I am 
not going to make out that there are two suns. 
Nevertheless, I will just as much count the sun 
and its ray two things and two aspects of one 
indivisible material, as I do God and His Word, 
as I do Father and Son. 1 

14. Further, there comes to our support in 

1 This ending ( - ^ ^ -^ ^) is one of the rarer types, 
occurring in about thirteen per cent, of the cases, cf. Hoppe, 
pp. 156 f. Note that the final syllable of patrem is elided. 



62 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [14 

claiming two, Father and Son, the rule that 
defined God as invisible. For when Moses in 
Egypt had longed for a sight of the Lord, saying : 
Exod. "If therefore I have found grace in thine eyes, 
13 revea j Thyself unto me, that I may see Thee and 
know Thee," He said : " Thou canst not see my 
xxxiii. 20 f ace f or no one will see my face and live," that is : 
he who sees it will die. But we find that God was 
seen by many, and yet none of those who had seen 
Him, died : He had, of course, been seen as far as 
men s powers served, not in the fullness of His 
cf. Gen. divinity. The patriarchs are related to have seen 
X " Gen God, for example Abraham and Jacob, and the 
xxviii. 13; prophets, as Isaiah and Ezekiel, and yet they did 
cfHtsafvj. not die. Therefore, either they must have died if 
1 they had seen Him " for no one will see "God "and 

cf Ezdc 

i i live " or, if they saw God and did not die, Scripture 

xxxifi 20 ls ^ se * n statm & tnat God said : " If a man see my 

ibid. face, he shall not live." Or if Scripture does not 

cf. John. He, either in declaring God to be invisible, or in 

i. 1 8, etc. stating that He has been seen, it must therefore be 

some one else who was seen, because he who was 

seen, the same cannot be defined as invisible, and 

it will follow that we must understand the Father 

as invisible in virtue of the fullness of His majesty, 

while we recognise the Son as visible in accordance 

with the measure of a secondary l nature ; just as 

1 " secondary," i. e. not inferior, hut derived, deduced from the 
other, as an irrigation canal is "deduced" from a river. But 
Tertullian seems here (cf. c. 26) to come perilously near to sub- 
ordinationism, cf. d Ales, p. 101. On p. 102 he gives parallels 
to the general argument of the chapter. 



14] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 63 

we may not view the sun, so far as the sum-total of 
its matter in the sky is concerned, but we can bear 
a ray of it with our eyes, as that is only a portion 
toned down, projected from it on to the earth. 
Here some one from the opposite side x will seek 
to maintain that even the Son is invisible, like a 
word, like breath, and in claiming one state 2 for 
Father and Son, to establish that Father and Son 
are rather one and the same. But we have said c f. c. 14 
above that Scripture supports a difference by its pr> 
distinction between the visible and the invisible. 
They will then add this point to their reasoning, 
that if it was the Son who then spoke to Moses, He 
Himself declared His face to be visible to no one> 
because, of course, the invisible Father Himself was 
(present) under the Son s name. By this means 
they will have the same being regarded as both 
visible and invisible, even as the same is both 
Father and Son, since a little earlier also, before He 
refuses to show His face to Moses, it is written that 
" the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as if one Exod. 
were speaking to his friend," and in like manner 3 """ 11 XI 
Jacob also says : " I have seen God face to face." Gen. 
" Therefore the same being is visible and invisible ; XXXIU 3 
and because he is both, therefore also the Father 
Himself is invisible, but being also the Son, He is 
visible." As if, indeed, the explanation of the 
Scripture passage we are now giving were suited 

1 ex diuerso ex diuersa parte : Tertullian is very fond of this 
type of phrase, where a preposition is used with the neuter of an 
adjective, cf. Iloppe, pp. 98 ff. 

2 "one state," z. e. the state of invisibility. 



64 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [14 

to a Son separated from the Father in His visibility ! 
For we say that even the Son in His own name is 
invisible to the same extent as the Word and 
Spirit of God are, in virtue of the state of His 
being, even now also because He is God and Word 
and Spirit of God, but that He was visible before 
He took flesh, in the way to which He refers in 

Numb. speaking to Aaron and Miriam : "And if there be 
a prophet among you, I shall be known of him in 
a vision, and in a dream shall I speak to him, not 
in the way " he described to " Moses : I will speak to 
him mouth to mouth, in my visible form/ that is, 
in reality, "and not in a riddle," that is, not in 

i Cor. a phantom ; even as also the Apostle says : " Now 

xiii. 12 , ri r . . -Jill 

we see as if by means of a mirror in a riddle, but 
then face to face." Therefore, when in Moses case 
He keeps the sight of Himself and face to face con 
verse for a future date for this was afterwards 
cf. Matt, fulfilled in the retirement " on the mountain," since 
cf V1 Matt we rea d in the Gospel that " Moses was seen 
xvii - 3; conversing with Him " l it is clear that previously 

\ T U 1 Y /I 

Luke ix. God that is, the Son of God had always been 
3?- seen " in a mirror " and " riddle " and " vision " and 

cf. Numb. 

xii. 8; cf. "dream," as much by prophets and patriarchs as 

r^f Gen also tiH tnat time ty Moses himself, and the Lord 

xxviii. 13, Himself indeed perchance spoke face to face, 2 yet 

not in such a way that a man might see his face, 

Numb. xii. except perhaps " in a mirror, in a riddle." For if 

u 

1 See d Ales, p. 171, for the connexion between the Transfigura 
tion and the promise made to Moses. 

2 Kroymann s punctuation is wrong here: si forte, as often in 
Tertullian and elsewhere =fortasse ; see Mayor, Tert. Apol. index. 



14] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 65 

the Lord had spoken to Moses in such a way that 
even Moses knew his face at close quarters, how 
does he immediately and on the very spot long to 
see His face, which he would not long to see, 
because he had seen it? How is it that the Lord c f. Exol. 
also equally declares that His face cannot be seen, xxxiii - 20 
which He had already shown, if He really had 
shown it ? But what is that " face " of God, the ibid. 
" sight " of which is refused ? If it was that which 
was seen " I saw God," says Jacob, <; face to face, Gen. 
and my soul was saved " that " face " must be xxxu< 3 
different which, if seen, slays. 1 Or was the Son 
indeed seen although " face to face," yet this very 
sight occurred " in vision " and " dream " and c f. Gen. 
"mirror and riddle," because Word and Spirit xiL .?. ; 

xxvin. 13, 

cannot be seen except in an imaginary form and etc. 
does he mean by his " face " 2 the invisible Father ? %^ mb 
Who is the Father ? WiH not the Son s face be Exod. 
His by virtue of the authority which He obtains 
as begotten by the Father? Is it not fitting to 
use the expression about some greater being : 
" That man is my face," and : " he countenances 
me"? "The Father," He says, "is greater than John xiv. 
I." Therefore the Son s face will be the Father. 28 
For, besides, what is it the Scripture says ? " The Lam. iv. 
spirit of His face (///. mask), Christ the Lord." 320 

1 The sentence would gain in clearness if, with C. H. Turner, we 
inserted itisa esf, alia quae tfterfacies quae. 

2 On this passage and the scriptural use of fades in this connexion, 
see Thes. vol. vi. (1913), p. 49, 11. 26 ff. 

3 The MSS. must be followed here as agreeing with LXX. 
Kroymann alters to spiritus (gen.) eius persona . . . persona paterni 
spiritus. But Tertullian s agreement with LXX in not perfect. In 

. E 



66 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [14, 15 

Therefore, if "Christ is the spirit of the Father s 
face," it follows that He proclaimed His own face 
(as the result of their unity, of course), to be 
that of the Spirit whose face He was, namely 
that of the Father. It is matter for wonder 
whether the Son s face can be taken as the 
Father, who is "His head." For "God is Christ s 
head." 

i Cor. xi. 15. If I do not succeed in explaining this part of 

my subject by investigations of the Old Scripture, I 

will take from the New Testament the confirmation 

of my interpretation, lest whatever I attribute to 

the Son, you should in like manner claim for the 

Father. For observe, both in the Gospels and 

in the Apostles 1 I find that God is visible and 

invisible, with a clear and personal difference 

between the two states. John, as it were, shouts 

aloud : " No one hath seen God at any time," and 

therefore, of course, not in the past ; for he has 

John i. 18 removed all question as to time by saying that 

" God has never been seen." And the Apostle also 

confirms this as regards God : " whom no human 

jbid. being hath seen, nor indeed can see," assuredly 

i Tim. vi. because he who does see Him will die. These 

very same Apostles testify that they " have both 

cf. Exod. seen and handled" Christ. But if Christ Himself 

" rjohn is koth Father and Son, how was He both seen 

i. i 

place of eitts (his) LXX has T\pS>v (ours). It looks as if he had 
falsified the text for his own purpose. R. V. : " The breath of our 
nostrils, the anointed of the Lord." Cf. d Ales, pp. 98, 237. 

1 For the terms used by Tertull an to indicate Scripture or parts 
of Scripture, see d Ales, p. 223 ff. 



15] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 67 

and invisible? Some opponent of ours will now 1 
argue, with the view of combining this distinction of 
visible and invisible in a unity, that both statements 
are correct, that He was visible indeed in the 
flesh, but invisible before He became flesh, with 
the result that the Father, invisible before He 
became flesh, is the same as the Son who is visible 
in the flesh. But if the same was invisible before 
becoming flesh, how is He found to have been seen 
even in the past before He became flesh ? Like 
wise, if the same was visible after becoming flesh, 
how is He even now declared invisible by the 
Apostles, except because it was one who even in the 
past was seen "in a riddle "and was made more Numb, xii 

o 

fully visible by flesh, namely, " the Word," who j ohn j , 4 

" was " also " made flesh," and it was another whom 

" no one ever saw," the Father, of course, whose the John i. is 

Word is ? For let us examine who it was the 

Apostles saw. " What we have seen," says John, i John i. i 

" what we have heard, what we with our eyes have 

seen, and our hands have handled of the Word 

of life." For "the Word" "of life" "was made John i. 14 

flesh " was heard and seen and handled, because 

flesh who before the Incarnation was merely 

" the Word in the beginning with God " the John i. r, 

Father, not the Father with Himself. 2 For 2 

although " the W T ord was God," yet, because God John i. i 

springs from God, it was " with God," because in 

company with the Father means " with " the 

1 For ex diuerso, see the note on chap. 14, p. 63. Read mine 
for non of the MSS. with C. H. Turner. 

2 Read seniet ipsum with C. H. Turner for sennonem of MSS. 



68 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [15 

John i. 14 Father. " And we saw His glory, as of the only 
begotten of the Father," assuredly the Son, of 
cf. John course visible, " glorified " by the invisible Father, 
xvh. 4, ^ nd it was f or t hat reason (since he had called 
John i. i " the Word " of God " God "), lest he should en 
courage the assumption of his enemies, that he 
claimed to have seen the Father Himself, that in 
order to distinguish between the invisible Father 
John i. 18 and the visible Son he adds over and above l : " God 
no one hath seen at any time." Which God ? The 
i John i. i Word ? Nay : " we have seen and heard and handled 
of the Word of life" preceded. But what God? 
cf. John i. The Father, of course, " with whom was God the 
ohn i 18 Word," " the onl y begotten Son, who Himself de- 
cf- Tjohn dared the Father s bosom." He Himself was " both 
" : heard and seen," and lest He should be believed to 

cf. i John be an apparition, was even " handled." Him also 
L l Paul saw, but yet he did not see the Father, 

i Cor. ix. "Have I not," he said, "seen Jesus?" But he 
1 ix also surnamed " Christ " " God " : " Of whom were 
the fathers and from whom was Christ according to 
the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for 
ever." He also showed that God the Son was 
John i. 14 visible, that is, " the Word " of God, because he 
"who was made flesh" was called Christ. But 
i Tim. vi. about the Father he says to Timothy : " Whom no 
16 one of men hath seen, nor indeed can see," ampli- 

i Tim. vi. fying further : " Who alone hath immortality and 
16 inhabiteth unapproachable light," concerning whom 

1 ex abundanti: see Thesaunis s. v. abundo and Hoppe, p. 101. 
It is very common in Tertullian. 



15] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PR AXE AS 69 

he had also said earlier : " And to the King of the i Tim. i. 
ages, immortal, invisible, the only God," that we i; 
might also ascribe the contrary qualities to the Son 
Himself, mortality, accessibility, who, he testifies, 
"died according to the Scriptures" and "was last i Cor. xv 
seen by himself," by means of " approachable " 3 c 
" light," of course and yet even it neither he 8 
himself could experience without danger to his j[ \^ im 
sight nor could Peter, John and James, without cf - z Cor - 
having to reckon the chance of loss of reason, who, John xx i. 
if they had seen, not the glory of the Son that was 
to suffer, but the Father, would, I believe, have ix. 6 
straightway died. 1 For " no one shall see God and Exod. 
live." If these things are so, it is certain that He xxxlli - 20 
who was seen at the end, was always seen from the 
beginning, and that He was not seen at the end 
who was not seen from the beginning, and that 
thus the seen and the unseen are two. Therefore 
the Son was always seen and the Son always 
moved about and the Son always "worked," by cf. John v. 
the authority and will of the Father, because " the I 7 olin v 
Son can do nothing of Himself, unless He see the 
Father doing it," that is, of course, doing it in 
thought. For the Father acts by thought, the Son, 
who is in the Father s thought, sees and accom 
plishes. 2 Thus " all things were done by " the Son John i. 3 
" and without Him nothing was done." 3 

1 Reading anientiae for et amentia with C. H. Turner. For 
ibidem (like ilico] of time, cf. Hoppe, p. 112. 

2 C. H. Turner compares Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, 3, 
but I am inclined to suggest sinu for the second sensu (cf. John i. 18). 

3 On this punctuation of John i. 3, see note on c. 2. 



70 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [16 

1 6. And you are not 1 to suppose that it was 
cf. John i. only the works 2 of the universe that were done 
by the" Son; He also performed all that were 
subsequently performed by God. For " the Father " 
John iii, who " loves the Son and hath given over all things 
into His bosom/ 3 " loves," of course, from the begin 
ning and a gave over" from the beginning, from 
John i. i that beginning 4 when "the Word was with God 
Matt. and the Word was God." To whom " has been 
18 ll powcr >, by the p ather in h eaven anc ] on 



John v. 22earth" ; "the Father does not judge any one, but 

He has given all judgment to the Son," from the 

Matt. beginning, however. For in saying "all power" 

jolm ii v. I 22 and " a11 judgment" and that "all things were 

John i. 3 made by Him" and that "all things have been 

111 handed over into His hand," he allows no exception 

in time, because it will not be a case of "all," if 

they have not belonged to all time. Therefore it 

is the Son who has judged from the beginning 

cf Gen. xi. also, dashing to the ground the disdainful tower 

cf Gen and destroying the tongues, punishing the whole 

vii. 10 world with violent waters, " raining fire and 

xi*. 24* brimstone upon Sodom and Gomorrah," being God 

from God. It was He himself, too, who always 

condescended to converse with men, from Adam 

1 For nee in a prohibitive clause, see Hoppe, p. 107. 

2 The works of the original creation (Gen. i.). 

3 I follow the MSS. here, with Oehler and the Colbertine MS. 
(<:) of the Gospels. For abl. =acc., see Hoppe, pp. 40 f. Pamelius 
altered stnu to vianu, and this is accepted by Krojmann. Senszi 
in the apparatus to Kroymann s smaller edition is a misprint. See 
c. 21 for the regular reading. Ronsch, Das N. T. Teitullians has 
strangely overlooked this difference. 

4 Omit the a of MSS. with C. H. Turner. 



i6] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 71 

down to the patriarchs and prophets, " in vision," cf. Numb. 
"in dream," "in a mirror," "in a riddle," building ^or. xiii. 
always from the beginning His course which He 12; Numb. 
was to maintain at the end. Thus it was that 
even " God " was always learning the lesson " to c f. Bar. iii. 
live on the earth with men," being none other than ^ 
" the Word," which was to " become flesh " ; more- 14 
over He was learning to pave l the way of faith 
for us, that we might more easily believe that the 
Son of God had descended into the world and 
learn that something of the kind had been achieved 
in the past. For it was " for us " that they were i Cor. x 
also done even as "they were written" ; "unto us !I 
have the ends of the ages run down their course." 
Even then He had actually such knowledge of 
human feelings, as He was about to take upon 
himself even the very materials of man, flesh and 
mind, 2 when He asked Adam as if ignorant: 
"Where art thou, Adam?" "regretting that He Gen. iii. 9; 
had made man," as if not foreseeing his character ; c{ : ? en * 
"trying Abraham," as if He did not "know what cf. Gen. 
was in man " ; when hurt, reconciled to them again, cfjohn ii. 
and any such qualities as heretics snatch at, as if 2 5 
they were unworthy of God, for the dethronement 
of the Creator, not knowing that these were suited 
to the Son, who was to endure even the sufferings cf , hn 
of men, thirst, hunger, tears, birth itself and death iv. 7; xix. 
itself, having on this account been "made" by the jf. ; a f att 

John xi. 

1 For the metaphorical uses of sterna in Tertullian. see Hoppe, 35? Matt.i. 
p. 191. 16; xxvu. 

For parallels to this in Teitullian, see d Ales, p. 102. 5> etc - 



TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 



[r6 



cf. Ps. viii. 
6 (Heb. ii. 
7) 



Ibid. 
Ibid. 



i Tim. vi. 
16 

Acts xvii. 

24 

Ps. xcvi. 

4.5 

Isa. x. 14 

I-a. Ixvi. i 
cf. Gen. 
iii. 8 
cf. Gen. 
vii. 1 6 
cf. Gen. 
xviii. 4, 8 
cf. Exod. 
iii. 4 
cf. Dan. 
iii. 92 
cf. Numb. 
xii. 6, 8 ; 
i Cor. xiii. 

12. 



Father 1 " a little less than the angels." But you 
thrust upon the Father Himself what the heretics 
indeed will not consider suitable even to the Son 
of God, namely, the degradation of Himself by 
Himself for our sakes, although the Scripture says 
that one "was made less" by another, not Himself 
by Himself. And if it was One who " was crowned 
with glory and honour," it was Another who 
crowned Him that is, the Father the Son. And 
yet what an idea it is, that the all-powerful God, 
the invisible, " whom no man hath seen nor can 
see," He who " dwelleth in light unapproachable," 
He who "dwelleth not in what is made by the 
hand 2 of man," " in whose presence the earth 
trembles, the mountains melt like wax," " who seizes 
the whole world with his hand like a nest," whose 
" throne is heaven and his footstool earth," in whom 
is all space while He himself is not in space, who 
is the farthest boundary of the universe, the Most 
High, "walked in the garden till the evening" 
seeking Adam, and "shut the ark" after Noah s 
entrance, and " rested " 3 with Abraham " under an 
oak," and " called Moses from the " burning " bush," 
and appeared with three others " in the furnace " of 
the Babylonian king ! Although He was called 
Son of God in " image " and " mirror " and " riddle," 



1 When Tertul Han refers to this verse, it is rather the abased con 
dition than the human nature of Christ he is thinking of: cf. 
d Ales, p. 101 (p. 100 n. 3). 

2 P^or plur. neut. of participle following a preposition, see Hoppe, 
pp. 97 f. 

3 For refrigerare intransitively used, see Hoppe, p. 64. 



i6, 17] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 73 

these things, besides, would really not have been 
believed even about the Son of God, if they had 
not been in Scripture, and are perhaps not to be 
believed about the Father, 1 even though they are 
in Scripture ; whom those people bring down into 
Mary s " womb " and " set upon " Pilate s "tribunal " 2 c f. Matt. i. 
and bury in "Joseph s tomb." This, then, makes j^ hn xix 
clear their mistake. Not knowing that from the 13 
beginning the whole course of the divine system XX vii. 5 g } 
took its way through the Son, they believe that 6o 
the Father Himself was seen, met with men, 
worked, and endured thirst and hunger in contra 
diction of the prophet s statement : "The eternal Isa. xl. 28 
God will not thirst nor hunger at all " : how much 
more will He neither die nor be buried ! and that 
thus one God, namely the Father, had always done 
what was done through the Son. 3 17. They deemed 
it easier for the Father to come in the Son s name 
than for the Son to come in the Father s, although 
the Lord Himself says : "I came in my Father s John v. 43 
name," likewise to the Father Himself: "I have John xvii. 
made Thy name manifest unto men," while Scrip- 6 
ture says in agreement : 4 " Blessed is He that PS. cxvii. 
cometh in the name of the Lord," meaning, of 26 
course, the Son in the Father s name. " But the Rev. xix. 
name of the Father," they say, is " God all- 6 

1 Here Tertullian is only giving a paradoxical turn to his 
argument. 

a From this reference it is obvious that Tertullian, or the version 
of Scripture used by him, took e/ca0i<rei/ transitively here, with Pilate 
as subject. So also did the author of the Gospel of Peter (Turner). 

3 For this ending, see the note at the end of c. 8. 

* For this use of condico in Tertullian, see Hoppe, p. 127. 



74 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [17 

isa. i. 9, powerful," "Lord of hosts," "King of Israel," "I 

Exoc^iii am -" Because 1 so the Scriptures teach, we say 

14, etc. that these also suited the Son, and that in these 

the Son came, and that in these He always acted, 

and that in this way He 2 made Himself clear unto 

John xvi. men. " All things belonging to the Father," he 

15 says, " are mine." 3 Why not also names ? When 

Rev. xix. therefore, you read of " God all-powerful " and 

6; Numb. t h e Most High" and "God of Hosts" and "King 

xxiv. 16 

Isa. i. 9, of Israel" and "I am," consider whether the Son 
Exo d jjj also be not indicated by these terms, being in his 
14, etc. own right " God," as " the Word of all powerful 
xix. 6 (13) God" and as having " received power over every- 
cf. Matt, thing"; "Most High," as "raised by God s right 
xxviii! 18; hand," even as Peter says in his speech in Acts ; 
S^-H."! " Lord of Hosts >" because " everything has been 
cf. Actsii. made subject to Him" by the Father; "King of 
H I cor. Israel," because the lot of that race fell 4 especially 
xv. 28 to him ; also " I am," because many " are named 

cf. Deut. 7 

xxxii. 8, 9 sons, and are not sons. But if they will have it 
cf. i John that the F at her s name belongs also to Christ, they 
will get their answer in its proper place. Mean 
time let me have at this point an answer ready 
to that which they produce also from John s 
Rev. i. 8 Apocalypse : " I am the Lord who is, and who 

1 Qtiateiius "because" ; see Iloppe, pp. 82 f. 

2 Reading eitni for ea in, with C. H. Turner. 

8 Cf. with d Ales, p. 100, cc. 2, 22, for the equality of honour 
between the three Divine Persons. 

4 -For various meanings and constructions of excido in Tertullian, 
see Hoppe, p. 131. He regards the meaning here as doubtful ; pos 
sibly accidit, which Fr. lunins read here, while Latini suggested 
exiuit. Yet the MS. reading is genuine ; see passages from Livy 
in the lexica s. v. excido. 



17, i8] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 75 

was, and who comes with all power," and any 
other passages where they think that the title all- 
powerful God " is not suited also to the Son, as if 
He who is to come is not "all-powerful," although 
the Son of the "all-powerful" is also as "all- 
powerful " as God the Son of God. 1 

1 8. But to prevent them from easily under 
standing this partnership in the Father s names 
which the Son enjoys, there is the confusion Scrip 
ture causes them, whensoever it lays down that 
there is one God only, as if it has not also set 
forth two Gods and Lords, as we showed above, cf. c. 13 
"Therefore," they N say, "because we find two and 
one, therefore both are one and the same, both 
Son and Father." But 2 Scripture is not in such 
danger that you need come to its help with your 
reasoning, lest it should seem inconsistent with 
itself. It is quite right both when it lays down 
that there is one God and when it shows that there 
are two, Father and Son, and it is self-sufficient. 
It is well known that the Son is named by it. For 
without prejudice to the Son it can quite rightly 
have defined God as one, whose the Son is. In 
having a Son Redoes not Himself cease to be One, 
in His own name, of course, as often as He is named 
apart from His Son. And He is named without 
the Son when He is defined in His supreme 
aspect as the chief being, which had to be put 
forward before the Son s name, because the Father 

1 For the ending, see the note on c. 8. 

2 tiw porro = seel, etc., see Hoppe, p. 113. 



76 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [18 

becomes first known, and after the Father the Son. 
Isa. xlv. 5 " One God " the Father, therefore, is named, " and 
other apart from " Him " there is none." When He 
Himself states this, He is not denying the Son, but 
any other god. Further, the Son is not other 
than the Father. 1 For examine what follows such 
announcements, and you will find that their 
teaching is generally connected with makers and 
worshippers of images, that the unity of divinity 
may drive out the multitude of false gods, a unity 
which nevertheless comprises the Son, who is as 
much to be reckoned in the Father as He is un 
divided and unseparated from the Father, though 
He is not named. Nay, if He had named Him, He 
would have separated Him, in these words : "There 
is none other but Me except My Son." For He 
would have made even the Son other, whom He 
would have excepted from the others. Suppose 
that the sun says : " I am the sun, and other than 
me there is not, except my beam " ; would you not 
have stigmatised its folly, as if the beam also were 
cf. Isa. nt reckoned in the sun? Therefore it is that 
xlv - 5 He said there was no other God but Himself. 
This word was uttered on account of the idolatry 
of the heathen as much as of Israel ; also on account 
of the heretics who, even as the heathen fashion 
images with their hands, so also themselves 
fashion them with words, namely another God and 
another Christ. Therefore, even when He pro 
claimed Himself as one, the Father was acting in 

1 For alius a, see the notes on cc. 8, 9 above. 



i8, 19] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 77 

the Son s interests, lest Christ should be believed 
to have come from another God, rather than from 
Him who had before said : " I am God and other isa. xlv. 5 
than I there is none," who signified that He was 
one, but in company with the Son, with whom 
" He alone stretched out the heavens." c f. isa. 

19. If any will snatch even at this saying of His xllv - 24 
to prove His individuality, He uses the words, " I i sa . xliv. 
alone stretched out the heavens " as meaning 24 
" alone " in regard to all other powers, building 
beforehand against the conjectures of heretics 1 who 
maintain that the universe was constructed by 
various angels and powers, who also either make 
the Creator Himself into an angel or represent 
Him as having been engaged by some other ex 
ternal power, even without His knowledge, to pro 
duce the works of the universe. Or, if He "alone cf. Isa. 
stretched out the heavens " in the way in which x 
these heretics perversely imagine, as an individual, 
that "wisdom" would not be admitted, saying : Prov. viii. 
" When He was preparing the heavens, I was with p rov viii 
Him." Isaiah 2 also said : " Who hath learned the 27 
Lord s mind and who advised Him ; " except, of 
course, " Wisdom," which "was present" with Him cf. Prov. 
and yet was within Him and "with Him con- ^"prov. 7 
structed " all things, though He did not know what viii. 30 
He was doing? "Apart from the wisdom," how 
ever, means " apart from the Son," who is " Christ, i Cor. i. 

24 

1 The heretics intended are such as Simon Magus, Apelles, 
Menander, and others: cf. d Ales, pp. no, 155, who refers to 
o her passages also where they are attacked. 

1 Esaias Engelbrecht ; si MSS. 



78 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [19 

the wisdom and power of God " according to the 
Apostle, " who " alone " knows " the Father s mind. 

i Cor. ii. For 4< who knows what is in God save the Spirit that 
is in Him"? not that which is outside Him. There 
was therefore one who made God by Himself, 
only in the sense of apart from all others (but the 
Son). But let the Gospel also be rejected because 

John i. 3 it says that " all things were made by God through 
the Word and that without Him nothing was 
made." 1 Unless I am mistaken, it is also else- 

Ps. xxxii. where written: "By His Word the heavens were 
strengthened and by His Spirit comes all their 

John i. i- strength." But " the Word," " power and wisdom 
3;iCor.i. of God ,, win be the Son Himself> If; thenj all 

cf. Isa. things are through the Son, in " stretching out 
xhv. 24 the heavens" a i so through the Son He did not 
ibid. " stretch them out alone," except in the way in which 

He did it apart from all others (but the Son). 

And, besides, He immediately speaks about the 
Isa. xliv. Son : " Who else cast down the signs of the ven- 
25> 2( triloquists and divinations from the mind, turning 

back the wise and making their counsel of none 

effect, 2 establishing the words of His Son "? saying, 
Luke ix. of course : " This is my beloved Son, hear Him." 
35 By thus adding " the Son " He Himself explains 

cf. Isa. the manner in which " He alone stretched out the 
xhv. 24 heavens," namely, alone with His Son, even as 

He is one with the Son. Similarly, also, the Son 

1 On this punctuation, cf. the note on c. 2. 

2 This passage is closely parallel to Adv. Marc. iv. 22 (p. 217, 
Oehler ; p. 494, 1. 21, Kroymann). 



i 9 ] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 79 

will utter the words : " I alone stretched out the isa. xliv. 
heavens," because " by the Word the heavens were JJjj?g 
strengthened," because when "wisdom stood by " cf. Prov. 
in the Word, " the heavens were prepared " and V1 
"all things were done by the Word." It is fitting, John i. 3 
also, that the Son "by Himself should have stretched Isa. xliv. 
out the heavens," since it was He alone who acted j! 4 Prov 
as servant to the operation of the Father. He also viii. 27 
it will be that says : " I am the first, and I am for j sa . x ii. 4 
the time that is to come." " The Word," of course, c f. i sa . X H. 
is " first " of all : " In the beginning was the Word," 4 

John i. I 

in which beginning He was brought forth by the 
Father. But the Father as " having no beginning/ c f. n e b. 
as brought forth by no one, as unborn, cannot be vu * 3 
seen. He who was always " alone," could have no isa. xliv. 
order in time. 

Therefore if they thought that the same being 
was to be believed to be both Father and Son, with 
the object of asserting God to be one, His unity is 
unimpaired who, though He is one, has also a Son, 
who is Himself also in like manner included in the 
same Scriptures. If they refuse to consider the 
Son as second to the Father, lest " second " should 
bring about the mention of two gods, we have 
shown two Gods mentioned in Scripture also, and c. 13 
two Lords ; and yet, lest this prove a stumbling- 
block to them, we explain why we should not 
speak of two Gods or Lords, but of two who stand 
in relation of Father and Son, and this not as the 
result of separation of being, but of arrangement, 
since we declare the Son to be undivided and 



8o TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [19, 20 

unseparated from the Father, and different not in 
permanent condition, but only in rank, who 
although He is called God, when He is named by 
Himself, does not therefore imply two gods, but 
only one, by this very fact that He can be called 
God also from the unity of the Father. 

20. But we must devote ourselves to the further 
repression of their reasonings, 1 if they pick any 
thing out from the Scriptures to support their view, 
refusing to look upon everything else which in 
itself keeps the rule, 2 and indeed without danger to 
the unity of divinity ancUhe established position 3 of 
monarchy. For as in the Old Testament they 
Isa. xlv. 5 remember nothing but " I am God and other than 
I there is none," so in the Gospel they defend the 
John. x. Lord s answer to Philip : " I and the Father are 
3> X1V - 9 onej " anc i . He who hath seen me, hath seen also 
John. xiv. the Father," and : " I am in the Father and the 
I0> " Father in me." To these three passages 4 they 
would have the whole charter 5 of both Testaments 
to yield, although it is proper that the fewer 
passages should be understood in the light of the 
more numerous. But this is a characteristic of all 
heretics. Since there are few that can be found in 

1 For examples of the dative of the gerundive and gerund in 
Tertullian, see Hoppe,pp. 55 f. 

2 regulam seruant "keeps the rule," that is, upholds the general 
teaching of Scripture. Probably there is no reference heie to the 
refill a Jidei. 

3 Reading stalu with Kroymann for the not impossible MSS. 
reading sonilti (sonalu), "meaning." 

4 Cf. d Ales, p. 243. 

5 One of the various expressions used by Tertullian to indicate 
Scripture: cf. d Ales, p. 224; Harnack, Beitrcige, Bd. vi. 

pp. 137 ff. 



2o, 21] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 81 

the forest 1 of instances, these few they defend 
against the majority, and they take up the cause 
of the later against the earlier. But the rule that 
has been fixed for everything from the beginning, if 
valid in the earlier cases, gives directions also for 
the later, and of course also for the fewer. 2 

21. Look therefore how many passages 3 lay down 
a rule for you even in the Gospel before Philip s 
consultation and earlier than any reasoning of 
yours. And in the first place the very preface of 
the evangelist John at once points out what He 
who was to " become flesh," was in the past : " In cf. John i. 
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was j hni ,_ 
with God and the Word was God ; He was in the 
beginning with God ; all things were made by 
Him and without Him nothing was made." 4 For 
if these words may not be taken otherwise than as 
they are written, beyond doubt one is indicated 
who "was from the beginning/ another " with cf. John i. 
whom " He was ; the one " the Word " of God, the ] bn 
other " God "although " the Word is " also " God," 
but as God s Son, not as Father one " through cf.joLn i. 
whom " are all things, the other " from whom " are 3 

. * "forest" (silua), a graphic way of describing the immense 
sue and complexity of Scripture : cf. Apol. c. 4 (p. 16 1 27 ed 
Mayor), totam illam neterem et squalentem siluctm legum etc of 
the mass of the ancient Roman jurisprudence. It might be rendered 
multitude simply. For this type of metaphor, see Hoppe, 
pp. 194 f., especially p. 195 n . i. 

2 Th V e f is doubtful here ; I translate Ursinus /" (MSS 
paiiaoribns). 



Ho io = O SC- ca ua cf - 

4 For this punctuation of the verse, see the note on c. 2. 



82 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [21 

all things. But in what sense we use the word 
" other," we have already often announced ; by 
" other" we must mean not the same but not as 
if we meant separated : by arrangement " other," not 

John i. 14 by division. He, therefore, it was that " was made 

Ibid. Flesh," not He whose " Word " he was ; it was his 
" glory that appeared, as of the only one from the 

John i. 18 Father," not as of the Father. " He " alone " ex 
plained the Father s bosom," the Father did not 
explain His own bosom. For the statement pre- 

Ibid. cedes : " God no one ever saw at any time." He 

cf^Matt 36 also i1: is that is termed b y J hn " the Lamb of 
iii. 17, etc. God," not He whose " Beloved " l He is, who is 
John i. 49; certainly always called "Son of God," but not 
cf. Johni. identified with Him whose Son he is. Nathanael 
perceived at once that He was this, even as else- 
Matt, xvi. where also Peter : " Thou art the Son of God." He 

16 himself, too, proves that they were right in this 
judgment, by answering Nathanael indeed thus : 

Johni. 50 "Because I said, I saw thee under the fig-tree, there- 
Matt, xvi. fore thou believest," by maintaining, however, that 

17 Peter " was happy, since neither flesh nor blood had 
levealed" what he had thought, "but the Father 
who is in heaven." By this saying he established 
the distinction between the two persons : that of the 
Son on the earth whom Peter had recognised as 

Matt. xvi. " Son of God," and that of " the Father in heaven " 
16,17 w ho had "revealed" to Peter what Peter had 

1 Dilectus (Gk. agapetos) : see Dean Robinson, " The Beloved" 
as a Messianic title, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, pp. 229-233. 



21] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PR AXE AS 83 

recognised, namely, that " Christ was the Son of Matt. xvi. 
God." When He entered " into the temple," He, as j^ hn }i> 
Son, called it His " Father s house." When He 14, 16 
addresses Nicodemus, He says : " God so loved the {^ m 
world that He gave His only Son, that every one 
who believed in Him, should not perish, but should 
have everlasting: life." And ae;ain : " For God sent J ohn i- 

1 7 1 8 

not His Son into the world to judge the world, but 
that the world through Him might be saved ; he 
who has believed in Him, is not judged ; he who 
has not believed in Him, has been already judged, 
because he has not believed in the name of the 
only Son of God." John, too, when some one was 
asking about Jesus why " He baptized," 1 said : cf. John 
" The Father loveth the Son and hath given all j^n 
things into His hand ; he that beiieveth in the Son, 35. 36 
hath everlasting life ; he that beiieveth not in the 
Son of God, shall not see God, but God s anger 
shall abide upon him." As what, indeed, did He 
show himself to the Samaritan woman ? If as 
" the Messiah, that is called Christ," He showed John iv. 
Himself of course as the Son, not the Father, who 25 2i 
elsewhere also was called " Christ, Son of God," Matt. xvi. 
not the Father. Later He says to His disciples : l6 etc< 
" It is mine to do the will of Him that sent me, John iv. 
that I may complete His work." And to the Jews 34 
about the healing of the paralytic: "My Father John v. 17 
worketh hitherto, and I work." The Son says 

1 cum interrogaret qui de lesu, cur tineret, Kroymann s skilful 
emendation of the MSS. reading, CUDI interrogaretur quid de lesu 
contingeret. 



84 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PR AXE AS [21 

John v. 18 " the Father" and "I." For "on this account 
were the Jews the more desirous to kill Him, not 
only because He sought to do away with the 
Sabbath, but because He called God Pi is Father, 
thus making Himself equal to God." Then, there- 
John v. fore, He said to them : " The Son can do nothing 
19-27 of Himself, save He see the Father doing it : for the 
things that He doth, the Son also doeth. For the 
Father loveth the Son and hath pointed out to 
Him all that He himself doeth, and greater works 
than these shall He point out l to him, that ye may 
wonder. For as He raiseth the dead and maketh 
them alive, so also the Son maketh alive those 
whom He will. Nor indeed does the Father judge, 
but He hath given all judgment to the Son, that 
all may honour the Son even as they honour the 
Father. He that doth not honour the Son, doth 
not honour the Father, who sent the Son. Verily, 
verily I say unto you that he who heareth the 
word and belie veth Him that sent me, hath ever 
lasting life and shall not come into judgment, but 
hath passed from death into life. Verily I say 
unto you that the hour shall come in which the 
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and 
when they have heard it, shall live. For even as 
the Father hath everlasting life of Himself, so also 
He hath given to the Son to have everlasting life 
in Himself, and hath given Him to do judgment in 
power, because He is the Son of man," by the flesh, 
of course, even as He is Son of God by His spirit. 

1 demonsirabit Kroymann, for MSS. dtnionstrauit. 



2i] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 85 

He adds further: "But I have greater testimony John v. 
than that of John ; for the works that the Father 36 > 37 
hath given me to complete will themselves bear 
witness concerning me, that the Father sent me ; 
and the Father that sent me, Himself bore testi 
mony concerning me." Moreover, in adding: " Ye John v. 37 
have never heard His voice, nor yet have ye seen His 
shape," He proves that in the past it was not the 
Father, but the Son that was seen and heard. For 
He says : " I came in my Father s name, and ye John v. 43 
received me not." Thus the Son was always in 
the name of God and King and All-powerful Lord 
and Most High. 1 Further, when they asked "what John vi. 
they ought to do," He answered : " To believe in * 8 > 2 9 
Him whom God hath sent." He declares that He 
"is also the bread which the Father offered from 3? 35 * 
heaven " ; therefore that " everything which the c f John vi. 
Father gave Him, was coming to Him, and that He 37) 3 8 
would not reject Him, because He had come down 
from heaven, not to do His own, but the Father s 
will"; that it was, moreover, "His Father s will c f. John vi. 
that he who saw the Son and believed in Him, 4 
should attain life and resurrection " ; that " no cf. John 
one," further, "could come to Him unless the vi- 44 
Father drew him"; "that every one who had cf. John 
heard and learnt from the Father, came to Him, vit 45 
adding here also : "not as if any one has seen the j ohn vi 
Father," to show that it is the Father s word that & 
makes men learned. But when " many are depart- cf . John 
ing" from Him and He puts the question to His vi - 6 6 

J See above, c. 17, 



86 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PR AXE AS [21, 22 

cf. John apostles " whether they also wish to depart," what 

John 7 vi. " does Simon Peter answer " ? " Whither are we to 

68, 69 go ? jhou hast the words of life, and we believe 

that thou art the Christ." Did they believe that 

He was the Father or the Father s Anointed ? 

John v. 28 22. Whose teaching does He mean that they 

"wondered at"? His, or the Father s? When 

they were equally in doubt among themselves as to 

cf. John whether l He Himself were " the Christ " (of course 

i": 26 " 27 not the Father, but the Son), He said: "And me, 

John vu. i T i r 

28, 29 ye know whence I am ; and I have not come ot 
myself, but He is true, who sent me, whom ye 
know not; I know Him, because I was with Him." 
He did not say : " Because I am He" and " I my 
self sent myself," but " He sent me." Also, when 
John vii. "the Pharisees had sent to attack Him": " Yet a 
32) 33 little while," said He, " I am with you and I go to 
cf. John Him who sent me." And when He denies that 
viii. 16 j_f e i s a ione " " But I," he says, " and He who sent 
l6* n me, the Father" does He not indicate two, as 
much two as inseparable? Nay, this was His 
whole teaching, that the two are inseparable, since 
also in setting forth the law confirming " the evi- 
john viii. dence of two men," He adds : " I give testimony 
I7 l8 concerning myself, and the Father who sent me 
testifies concerning me," But if He were one, pro 
vided the Son and Father were the same, He would 
John viii. not use the defence furnished by that law which 
17 (Deut. imposes faith on "the testimony," not of one, but 

xvii. 6) 

cf. John i For this ne interrogative in an indirect clause, cf, JJoppe, 

viu. 18 7?j ^nd Mayor on Jtgt, c, 3 (p. I?, 1. 25), 



22] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 87 

" of two." Also, when asked " where the Father c f. John 
was," in "answering that neither He nor the Father j^ 1 ^ 
was known to them," He mentioned two unknowns, 19 
because, " if they knew Him, they would know the * 
Father," not indeed implying that He Himself was 
Father and Son, but because through their indi 
visibility the one could neither be recognised nor 
unknown without the other, while quite another 
passage of Scripture explains that they had not 
learned what He had said about the Father " He John viii. 
who sent me," 1 He said, " is true, and what I have 2(5 
heard from Him, that I also speak to the world " 
when, of course, they ought to have learnt that 
the Father s words are in the Son, from reading in 
Jeremiah : " And the Lord said unto me, Behold Jer. i. 9 
I have put my words in thy mouth, " and in 
Isaiah : " The Lord gives me the tongue of learn- isa. 1. 4 
ing to apprehend when I ought to speak a word," 
even as He Himself also says: "Then shall ye John viii. 
learn that I am and that I speak nothing of my- 28> 29 
self, but even as He taught me, so also I speak, 
because He also that sent me is with me," and this, 
too, is evidence of two inseparables. 2 Likewise in 
his dispute with the Jews, upbraiding them because 
" they wanted to kill him," He said : : I speak what cf. John 
I saw with my Father," and : " Ye do that which 
ye saw with your father," and : " Now ye wish to 38 
slay a man who hath spoken to you the truth ^ 
which He heard from God," and: " If God had John viii. 

1 The quotation is given by the MSS. after the end of the clause 4 2 
in line 8, but Kroymann has transposed it to its present position. 
? For the ellipsis of adtinet we pertinet here, see Iloppe, p. 146, 



88 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [22 

been your Father, ye would have loved me : for I 
proceeded and came from God," and yet we do not 
John viii. separate Him, although He said He " proceeded," 
in the way that certain people seize the chance 
ibid. offered by this utterance ; for He " proceeded from" 
the Father like a beam from the sun, a stream 
John viii. from its source, a shrub from its seed. " I have 
not an evil spirit, but I honour my Father," and : 
John viii. " Were I to glorify myself, my own glory is no- 
54 55 thing: there is He that glorifieth me, the Father, 
who you say is your God and ye know Him not ; 
but I know Him, and if I were to say: I know 
Him not, I shall be, Ifke you, a liar ; but I know 
Him and I keep His word." And when He adds : 
John viii. " Abraham saw my day and rejoiced," of course 
He indicates that the Son had been seen of Abra 
ham in the past, not the Father. Also over the 
cf. John blind man He says that He " must do the Father s 
works," to whom after restoring his eyes He says : 
cf. John " Dost thou believe in the Son of God ? " and when 
Jo hn ix. he as k e d " who He was," He pointing to Himself, of 
35 course pointed out the Son, who He had said should 

he. 36, 37 "be believed." Later He declares that He "is 
cf. John known to the Father and that the Father is known 
cf. John x. to Him," and that therefore is " He loved by the 
cf. John x. Father because He lays down His life," because " He 

1 7 had received this command from the Father." And 

18 X having been asked by " the Jews " " whether 1 He 
cf.johnx. was Himself the Christ" of course of God, for 

even to the present day the Jews hope, not for the 

1 ti = nuw: see Iloppe, p. 73, 



22] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PR AXE AS 89 

Father Himself, but for the Christ (i.e. Anointed) 
of God, because it is never written that Christ the 
Father will come " I speak," He says, " to you, John x. 25 
and ye believe not ; the works which I do in the 
Father s name, they themselves give evidence con 
cerning me." Evidence of what? Assuredly that 
He is Himself the very one about whom they were 
asking that is, the Christ of God. With regard 
to his " own sheep " also He says that " no one will cf. John x. 
seize them from his hand " : " for what the Father ? hn x 2 
hath given me is greater than all," and " I and the John x. 
Father are one." Here, then, fools, or rather the 
blind, wish now to take a stand, because they do 
not see, firsr,that " I and the Father " is an indication John x. 30 
of two ; second, that " we are," at the end, being ex 
pressed in the plural, cannot come from one person 
only ; third, that the expression is " we are one 
thing," not " we are one person." For if He had 
said: "We are one person," He could have sup 
ported their view; for "one (person)" appears to 
be an indication of the singular number. But as 
matters are, when He says that two of the mas 
culine gender are one in the neuter, 1 which is 
not connected with individuality but with unity, 
likeness, connexion, love of the Father who loves 
the Son, and the obedience of the Son who obeys 
the Father s will, in saying : " I and the Father //. 
are one thing," He shows that they are two whom 
He makes equal and joins together. 2 He further 

1 On this passage, see d Ales, p. 82. 

2 Ibid., p. loo. 



90 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [22, 23 

cf. John x. adds that He " had shown also many works from 
the Father, not any of which deserved stoning," 
and lest they should suppose that they ought to 
stone Him for the reason that He had desired Him- 

cf. John x. self to be understood "as God Himself" that is, 

John x. 30 ^ e Father, because He had said : " I and the Father 
are one thing," indicating God as Son of God, not 
as God Himself He says : " If in the Scripture it 

John x. is written : I said : " Ye are gods," and the Scrip 
ture cannot be done away with, do ye contend 
that He whom the Father made holy and sent into 
the world, is a speaker of abusive language, be 
cause He said : I am the Son of God ? If I do 
not the works of my Father, do not believe ; but 
if I do them and ye will not believe me, pray 
believe on account of the works ; and know that I 
am in the Father and the Father in me." Through 
the works, therefore, the Father will be in the Son, 
and the Son in the Father ; and thus through the 

cf. John x. works we know that " the Father and Son are one 
thing." All this He continued to impress upon 
them to the end that there might be believed to 
be two, though in one power only, because other 
wise the Son could not be believed, unless two 
were believed. 

cf.Johnxi. 23. After this, too, "Martha" in confessing 
" Him Son of God," was no more in error than 

cf. Matt. Peter and Nathanael ; although, even if she had 

T iin 1 ? been in error, she would immediately have learned 
the truth. For, lo ! when with a view to raising 

41 her brother from the dead the Lord "looked up to 



23] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 91 

heaven and his Father," He said (the Son, of 
course) : " I thank Thee that Thou dost ever hear John xi. 
me ; for the sake of these crowds standing around 4I 4 " 
I spoke that they might believe that Thou didst 
send me." But also midst " confusion of soul " c f. John 
He said: "And what shall I say? Father, save j^nxii. 
me from this hour ? Nay, for this purpose came 27, 28 
I into this hour ; but, Father, glorify Thy name," the 
name in which the Son came. " I," says He, " came in John v. 43 
my Father s name," therefore 1 for, of course, the 
voice of Son to Father had been enough 2 lo ! the 
Father gives a superabundant answer from heaven, 
He witnesses fully to the Son : " This is my Matt. x\ii. 
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear 5 
Him," and so also in this word : " I have glorified John xii. 
and will glorify again." How many persons do you 28 
think there are, most perverse Praxeas, if not as 
many as there are voices ? You have the Son on 
earth, you have the "Father in heaven." This is Matt. vi. 
not a separation, but a Divine arrangement. But 9 > etc 
we know that God is even amidst the depths and c f. Ps. 
is present everywhere, but in force and power, and CXXXV1U - 
the Son being inseparable is with Him every 
where. Yet in the economy itself the Father 
wished the Son to be possessed on earth, but Him 
self in heaven, to which place also the Son Himself cf. John 
looking up both prayed and besought the Father, XI 4I 
to which place He taught us, too, to raise ourselves 

1 For inde in causal sense (= "therefore"), a use rare even 
in Tertullian, see Hoppe, pp. in f. , who does not consider what 
follows inde here to be in parenthesis. 

* " had been enough " ; that is, to secure the Father s agreement, 



92 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [23 

Matt. vi. 9 and pray: 1 "Our Father who art in heaven." 

Since He is also everywhere, this was His own 

Isa. ixyi. i seat that the Father desired : "To Me a throne." 

(Heb. a. " He made " His Son " a little less than the 

7) angels" 2 by letting Him down to earth, but He 

ibid. was to "crown Him with glory and honour" by 

taking Him back into heaven. This distinction He 

John xi!. was already offering to Him, saying : " I have both 

glorified and will glorify." The Son requests from 

the earth, the Father promises from heaven. Why 

do you make both the Father and the Son liars ? 

If either the Father was speaking from heaven 

to the Son, although He Himself was the Son in 

the earth, or the Son was praying to the Father, 

cf. Matt, although He Himself was "the Father in the 

heavens," 3 what sort of situation is it 4 that the Son 

should likewise beg of Himself in begging of the 

Father, if the Son was the Father ; or again, that 

the Father should Himself promise to Himself in 

promising to the Son, if the Father was the Son ! 

As for our speaking of two, divided from one 

another, in the way you gabble, it were more 

endurable to proclaim two divided than one God 

that changes His form. Therefore it was to these 

John xii. that the Lord then proclaimed : " It is not on my 

account that this voice has come, but on your 

* Cf. De Orat. 2, d Ales, p. 302. 

2 Cf. the note on c. 16, also d Ales, pp. 101, 155. Man is here 
considered on the material side only. 

3 Reading pater apud caelos with Kroymann, for the filius apud 
caelos Q{ the MSS. 

4 For this phrase, qttale est ^lt (where ut is consecutive) cf, 
Hoppf, p. 68 : it is cominqn in late authors. 



23] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 93 

account," that these also may believe that both 
the Father and the Son are each present in His 
own name and person and place. But " Jesus" John xii. 
further 1 "proclaims, saying : He that believeth in 4/ 
me, believeth not in me, but believeth in Him who 
sent me because it is through the Son that 
people believe in the Father, and the Father is 
the authority for believing in the Son "and he John xii. 
who looks at me, looks at Him who sent me." ^ 
How? "Since," of course, "of myself I did not John xii. 
speak, but He who sent me, the Father, Himself 4 
gave me commandment what to say and what to 
speak;" for "the Lord gives me a tongue oflsa. 1. 4 
learning to learn the proper season for speech " 
" the things that I speak, even as the Father told John xii. 
me, so also do I speak." How these things were 
said, the evangelist and, of course, so " beloved a cf. John 
disciple " as John knew better than Praxeas, and *|* 2 
therefore he himself out of his own understanding 
said: "But before the festival of the Passover John xiii. 
Jesus, knowing that all things had been handed T 3 
over to Him by the Father and that He had gone 
out from God and was on His way to God." But 
Praxeas will have it that the Father Himself " went cf. John 
out from" Himself and "went away to" Himself, 
with the result that " the devil put into the mind 2 
of Judas " the betrayal " not of the Son, but of the 
Father Himself, with good result neither for the 
devil nor for the heretic, because not even in 
the case of His good Son did the devil work 

1 For adhuc = itisuper, praeterea, see Hoppe, p. 1 10. 



94 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [23, 24 

betrayal. For it was the Son of God that was 
betrayed, who was in the Son of Man, even as the 
John xiii. Scripture adds : " Now is the Son of Man glorified, 
and God is glorified in Him." What God ? Cer 
tainly not the Father, but the Word of the Father, 
who was in^the Son of Man, that is in the flesh. 
In the flesh both when already glorified but in 
power and word and previously, Jesus said : "And 
John xiii. God will glorify Him in Himself," that is, the Father, 
the Son whom He "having Him in Himself," though 
He has been sent forth to earth, will later glorify 
by resurrection, after the defeat of death. 1 

24. There were clearly some who even then did 
not understand, since even Thomas was for some 
John xiv. time unbelieving. For he said : " Lord, we do not 
know whither thou goest, and how can we know 
the road ? And Jesus said : I am the road, the 
reality and the life : no one cometh to the Father 
except through me ; if ye had come to know me, 
ye would have come to know the Father also ; but 
from now ye know Him and have seen Him." 
And now we have reached Philip who, uplifted 
with the hope of seeing the Father and not under 
standing how he should see the Father he had 
John xiv. heard of, said : " Show us the Father, and it is 
John xiv. enough for us." And the Lord "said: Philip, 
9 have I been so long time with you, and yet have 

ye not come to know me?" And as for Him who, 
He snys, ought to have become known by them 
for this is the only point that ought to be con 

1 For this type of metrical ending, see note on c. I. 



24] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 95 

sidered was it as Father, or as Son? If as 
Father, let Praxeas teach us that Christ who had 
" for so long a time " lived with them, could ever John xiv. 
have been, I do not say understood, but even 9 
considered as Father. For us all the Scriptures, 
both Old and New, define the Christ (Anointed) 
of God as the Son of God. This was preached 
also in the past, this was proclaimed also by Christ 
Himself, nay already even by the Father Himself, 
who, before His face, avowed His Son " from the Matt. iii. 
heavens " and glorified His Son ; " This is my Son," 
and: "I have glorified and will glorify"; this was 28 
also believed by the disciples, this was also dis 
believed by the Jews. Desiring them to hold this 
belief about Himself, 1 every hour He named the 
Father and set forth the Father and honoured 
the Father. If that is so, therefore it was not the 
Father who had lived with them " so long a time " John xiv. 
and whom " they had not known," but the Son ; 9 
and the Lord, when upbraiding them for not 
recognising Himself to be Him of whom they had 
been ignorant, wished, of course, to be recognised as 
one whose non-recognition " for so long a time " He ibid. 
had reproved, namely the Son. And it can now 
be clear how it was that the words were uttered : 
" He who seeth me, seeth the Father also," of Ibid. 
course in the same way as above : " I and the John x. 30 
Father are one " ; why? Because " I went forth John xvi. 
and came from God " and : " I am the road, no j h n x j v . 
one cometh to the Father but by me " ; and : " No 6 

1 For ace. and infin. after a verb of "willing," cf. Hoppe, p. 5- 



96 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [24 

John vi. one cometh to me unless the Father hath drawn 
ct Matt. hi" 1 " j anc * : " The Father hath handed over all 



Tohn 7 v 21 thin S s to me " and : " Even as tne Father makcth 

cf. John alive, so also the Son " ; and : " If ye have come to 

know me, ye have come to know the Father also." 

According to these words He had presented Him 

self as the Father s substitute, through whom the 

Father might be seen in works and heard in words 

and His character learned in a Son who carried out 

the deeds and words of the Father, because the 

Father is invisible, a fact which Philip had learned 

in the Scripture and ought also to have remem- 

Exod. bered : " No one shall see " God "and live." And 

enjoin tnere f re he is reprimanded for his desire to see 

xiv. 9 the Father, as if He were visible, and he is 

cf. John informed that He becomes visible in the Son by 

deeds of power, not by the visible manifestation of 

His person. For if he wished the Father to be 

understood as identical with the Son, in saying : 

John xiv " He that seeth me, seeth the Father," how did He 



John xiv a ^d : " Dost thou not believe that I am in the 
10 Father and the Father in me " ? For He ought to 

f- j v O 

xiv. 10 have added x : " Dost thou not believe that I am the 
Father " ? Or to what purpose did He amplify the 
argument, if He did not make that clear which 
He had wished to be understood, namely that He 

John xiv. was the Son ? Further, in saying : " Dost thou 
not believe that I am in the Father and the Father 
in me ? " He preferred to amplify the argument for 

1 For the perf. infin. after debuerat, vhere we should expect the 
present, see Hoppe, pp. 53 f. 



24] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 97 

the reason lest, because He had said : " He who hath j hn xiv. 
seen me, hath also seen the Father," He might be 9 
deemed to be the Father, a thing He never wished 
to be deemed, since He always declared Himself to 
be the Son and <: to have come from the Father." John xvi. 
For this reason also He made clear the unity of the 2S 
two persons, lest the Father should be desired by 
Himself as visible and face to face, and in order 
that the Son might be regarded as representing 
the Father, 1 and nevertheless He explained this 
also, namely how the Father was in the Son and 
the Son in the Father : " The words," He says, John xiv. 
" which I speak unto you, are not mine " of I0 
course because they are the Father s " but the 
Father abiding in me doeth the works." " The 
Father," therefore, " abiding in " the Son through 
" the works " of power and " the words " of teach 
ing, is seen through those things through which 
" He abides," and through Him in whom " He 
abides," and the special quality of each of the two 
persons shows itself from this very fact ; namely, 
His saying : " I am in the Father and the Father John xiv. 
in me." And further He says : " Believe." " Believe " }^ 
what ? " That I am the Father " ? I do not think 
that is in Scripture, but : " That I am in the Father ibid. 
and the Father in me ; otherwise, believe even on 
account of the works," those works, of course, 
through which the Father was seen in the Son, 
not by sight, but by thought. 2 

1 Literally "as the presenter of the Father to us" (in a moral 
aspect, cf. d Ales, p. 359). 

2 For this metrical ending, see the note on c. I. 

G 



9 S TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [25 

25. After dealing with l Philip and the whole 
compass of this enquiry which continues till the 
end of the Gospel, in the same tenor of con 
versation, in which Father and Son v are each 
distinguished in His special quality, He promises 
John xiv. that " He will ask a Paraclete also from the 
Father," after He has ascended "to the Father," and 
that He will send Him, and indeed " another (Para- 
c. 13 clete)." But we have already explained how it is 
John xvi. He is " another." 2 Further He says : " He will 
cffjohn take from mine," even as He Himself "took from" 
xvi - 15- the Father s. Thus the link with the Father in 
the Son and of the Son in the Paraclete makes 
three cleaving together, each to his neighbour, 
i John v. " These three are one thing," not one person, as it 
is put : " I and the Father are one thing," in 

John x. 30 r 

respect to unity of nature, not as regards the 

singular number. Run farther over the Gospel 

and you will find that He whom you believe to 

John xv. i be the Father, is called the Father s " vine," 3 and 

the Father" is called "the husbandman," as 

being He who you suppose was on the earth and 

cf. John was at the same time recognised by the Son " in the 

heavens, when looking up" there He commended 

cf. John His disciples to " the Father." But even if it is 

i^ 11 " not in this Gospel that these revelations are made : 

Matt. " My God, why hast Thou forsaken me ? " and : 

Luk e 46 " Father, into Thy hands I commit my spirit," yet 

xxiii. 46 

1 For this pregnant use of post, cf. Hoppe, p. 141. 

2 For parallel passages, see d Ales, pp. 81, 82, 96. 

3 iiitem Kroymann for the MSS. nice, very neatly. 



2s] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 99 

after the resurrection and the glory of overcoming 
death, when the need for any humility was cast 
off, 1 when now He could have shown Himself as 
Father to so faithful a woman, who ventured to 
touch Him out of love, not out of curiosity or 
unbelief like that of Thomas, He said : " Do not John xx. 
touch me, I have not yet ascended to my Father ; I7 
but go to my brethren" because in this, too, He 
showed Himself the Son ; for He would have 
called them " sons," if He had been the Father 
" and you will say 2 to them, I go up to my Father 
and your Father, and my God and your God." 
Father to Father, and God to God ? or Son to 
Father, and Word to God ? For what purpose 
does even the very conclusion 3 of the Gospel 
confirm these writings except : " That ye may j h n xx. 
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God ? " 3 1 
Therefore, whatever of these words you think 
can benefit you in your effort to prove the 
identity of Father and Son, you will be striving 
against the final verdict of the Gospel. 4 The 
words " were " not " written with the purpose Ibid. 
that you should believe Jesus Christ to be " the 
Father, but that you should believe Him to be 
"the Son." 5 

1 exposita =deposita: see Oehler s note on De Orat. 15. 

2 For the future indicative, implying a command, see Hoppe, 
pp. 65 f. 

It is unsafe to conclude from this expression that Tertullian was 
unacquainted with the twenty-first chapter of St. John s Gospel 
(d Ales, p. 230, n. 7, and Ronsch, p. 290.) 

4 " final " : that is, from which there is no appeal. 

5 For the metrical ending, see the note on c. 8. 



ioo TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [26 

26. On account of the speech of Philip alone 
and the Lord s answer to him we seem to have 
run through John s Gospel, lest so many clear 
pronouncements, both of an earlier and a later date, 
should be overturned by one utterance, 1 which is to 
be interpreted rather according to, than against, 
everything, even against its own meaning. Put to 
insert passages from other Gospels at this stage, 2 
which confirm belief in the Lord s origin, it is 
enough that He who was to be born of a virgin, 
Luke i. 35 was named by the announcing 3 angel himself " Son 
Ibid. of God " : " The Spirit of God will come upon 
thee, and the power of the Most High will over 
shadow thee : wherefore the holy thing that will be 
born from thee, shall be called the Son of God." 
They will want, of course, to argue here too ; but 
iEsdr.lv. "the truth will prevail." 4 "Of course," they say, 
f. 1 Luke i. " tne Son of God is God, and the power of the 
35 Most High is the Most High." Nor are they 

ashamed to foist on those 5 words what, if it were 
true, would have been written. For of whom was 
he to stand in awe that he could not openly 

1 Elsewhere, also, Tertullian says we must proceed from the 
known to the unknown : cf. d Ales, p. 242 f. 

2 Reading mine with Kroymann for non of the MSS. ; but it is 
possible that alia means " other than the one I am going to cite," 
and that the non should be retained. 

8 admintiali : Kroymann s palmary emendation for adnuntiari 
of MSS. 

4 Note that the original has the present praeualet : Tertullian is 
curiously in agreement with the popular way of quoting the 
expression. 

6 Reading Hits with Kroymann, for illos (///<?) of MSS.; but 
I feel sure neither about the reading nor about the interpreta 
tion. 



26] TERTULLTAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 101 

declare, " God will come upon thee, and the Most c f. Luke i. 
High will overshadow thee"? But 1 by saying 3S 
" the Spirit of God," although the Spirit of God is 
God, 2 yet by not explicitly naming God, he wished 
a portion of the whole to be understood which was 
to pass into the Son s person. Mere "the Spirit 
of God " will be the same "Word." 3 For just as John i. 14 
when John says : " The Word was made Flesh," we 
understand "the Spirit" also in the mention of 
"the Word," so also here we recognise "the 
Word " also in the name of " the Spirit." For 
besides, spirit is the foundation of speech, and 
speech is the working of spirit, and the two are 
one. But John would declare 4 that one " was j hn i. i 4; 
made flesh," the angel would say that the other cf j Lu ^ e 
would become flesh, if spirit is not also word, and 3: 
word spirit. Therefore, even as the Word of God 
is not the very Person whose word it is, so also the 
Spirit, even if it be spoken of as God s, 5 is yet not 
the very person whose it is said to be. Nothing 
belonging to a person will be the very person 
whose it is. Clearly, when something is from a 
person himself, and is (thus) his, provided it comes 
from himself, something can be such in character 

* Cf. cc. 9, 14, and d Ales, p. lor. 

~ I venture to suggest that dens est has slipped out after spiritus 
dei. 

3 Here Tertullian seems to identify Son and Spirit, cf. d Ales, 
pp. 96ft., 194, 252, and contrast cc. 4, 8, 25. Justin had previously 
expressed the view taken in this chapter. 

4 For the future indicative used = potential subjunctive, cf. 
Hoppe, pp. 64 f. 

5 Reading dei with Kroymann for MSS. dens. 



102 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PR AXE AS [26 

as he himself also is from whom it comes and 
whose it is, and therefore " Spirit " is God and 
" Word " is God, because from God, but, never 
theless, not Himself from whom it comes. 1 But if 
a God belonging to God, so to speak, a self-existent 
thing, will not be God Himself, but only so far 2 
God as it comes from the being of God Himself, 
which is also a self-existent thing, and as some 
Luke i. 35 portion of the whole, much more " the power of 
the Most High" will not be the "Most High" 
Himself, because it is not a self-existent thing 
either, because it is spirit, just as neither wisdom nor 
providence is. These things, too, are not sub 
stances, but accidental attributes of each substance, 
and power is an accident of spirit but will not be 
spirit itself. These things, therefore, whatsoever 
they are, " the Spirit of God " and " the Word " 
and "the power," having been brought together 
Ibid. i n t the virgin, " what is born of her is Son of 
God." That He was this He Himself testifies 
Luke ii. right from boyhood in these Gospels also. " Do 
ye not know," He said, "that I must be in my 
Father s house? " Satan, also, in his trials of Him 
Matt. iv. knows that He is this: "If Thou art the Son of 
3, 6, etc. Q 0( j : this a i so the e vil spirits afterwards ^admit : 
cf. Marki. " W T e know who Thou art, Son of God." He also 
24, etc. Himself worships the Father. When recognised 

cf. Matt, by Peter as "God s Christ" (Anointed), He does 
xvi. 1 6, 17 

1 Tertullian s view is in error here, cf. c. 28, etc. and d Ales, 
p. 84. 

2 hactenus . . . qua : an excellent instance of the original force 
of hactcnus, cf. Hoppe, p. ill, n. I. 



26] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PR AXE AS 103 

not deny it. "Exulting in spirit" before the Luke x. 21 
Father, " He says : I offer praise l to Thee, O 
Father, that Thou hast hidden these things from 
the wise "here also He asserts that " the Father Luke x. 
is known to no one save the Son." It is the Son 22> et 
of the Father who "will before the Father confess c f. Matt, 
knowledge of those that confess Him, and will x c 32 33 
deny knowledge of those that deny Him"; who 
"introduces" the parable of "the Son," not the cf. Matt. 
Father, who " is sent into the vineyard after some "j JJ* 
slaves have been sent, and is slain by wicked 
rustics," and defended by the Father ; who "even c f. Mark 
Himself is ignorant of the last day and hour, which xlll> 3 * 
are known only to the Father" ; who "arranges the cf. Luke 
kingdom " for His disciples " in the way" He says x3 
" it has been arranged for Himself also by the 
Father"; who "has the power to ask legions of c f. Matt, 
angels" to His help "from the Father," if he "^ 
will ; who " calls aloud that God has abandoned xxvii. 46, 
Him"; who "places His spirit in the Father s 
hands"; and who after His resurrection binds xx 
himself "to send to His disciples the Father s X xiv. 49 
promise"; and who at the last gives them com 
mand " to baptise into the Father and the Son cf. Matt. 
and the Holy Spirit," not into one only. For it x 
is not once only, but thrice that we are, at the 
utterance of each of the names, baptised into each 
of the Persons. 2 

1 Or " thanks." The meaning of 0^0X070^011 is a well-known 
crux. The translator s Pocket Lexicon to the Greek Neiv Testament 
may be consulted. 

2 For the metrical ending, see the note on c. 8. 



104 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PR AXE AS [27 

27. But why should I delay over such evident 
facts, when I ought to attack the arguments by 
which they seek to obscure the evident ? For, 
refuted l on all sides by the distinction between the 
Father and the Son, which we set forth without 
disturbing the union, as in the case of the sun 
and the ray, the source and the streim, by what 
is yet the undivided number of two and three, 
they attempt nevertheless to explain it otherwise 
in accordance with their own view, so as to dis 
tinguish both alike in one person, Father and Son, 
saying that the Son is flesh (that is, man ; that is, 
Jesus), while the Father is Spirit (that is, God ; that 
is, Christ). And those who contend that Father 
and Son are one and the same, presently begin to 
separate them rather than to unite them. For if 
Jesus is different from Christ, the Son will be 
different from the Father, because the Son is Jesus 
and the Father is Christ. A monarchy of this kind 
they, perchance, learned about in Valentinus. 2 But 
cf. c. 26 this objection 3 of theirs also, the making of Jesus 
and Christ into two, 4 has already been parried by 
our previous discussion, which was to the effect 
that "the Word of God" or "the Spirit of God" 
and "the power of the Most High" are names 
given to Him whom they make out to be the 

1 For obduco = "refute," "convict," see Oehler or Mayor on 
Tert. Apol. 46, etc. 

2 Cf. Adv. Valent., cc. 19. 27 (Oehler). 

:! iniectio = Greek eisbSlc in Tertullian, see Hoppe, p. 121. 

4 Kroymann s transference of duos facere lesum et Christum 
from their position in the MSS. after didicerunt, appears to be 
right. 



27] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PR AXE AS 105 

Father. For they are not He Himself 1 whose 
they are said to be, but they are from Himself 
and belong to Himself. However, they will be 
refuted in another way, also, in the present chapter. 
" Lo," they say, " it was proclaimed 2 by the angel " : 
" Wherefore the holy thing that will be born, shall Luke i 35 
be called the Son of God." "What was born," 
therefore, was flesh ; therefore " the Son of God " 
will be flesh. Nay, rather, it was with reference 
to the Spirit of God that the statement was 
made. For certainly it was " from the Holy Spirit Creeds 
that the virgin conceived," 3 and what she con 
ceived, that she bore; that therefore was to be 
born which had been conceived, and was to be 
borne that is, spirit, whose " name also will cf. Matt, 
be Emmanuel, which is translated 4 : God with 
us. " Flesh, moreover, is not God, that it should 
be said about it : " The holy thing shall be Luke i. 35 
called Son of God," but He who was born in it, 
is God, concerning whom also the psalm says : 5 
Since "man was born God in it, and built it by Ps.lxxxvi. 
the Father s will." What "God was born in it"? 5 
" The Word," and the Srjirit who with " the Word John i. 13 
was born of the Father s will." Therefore, 6 since 

1 ipse with Kroymann ; ipsae MSS. 

2 In such cases it is tempting to alter to praedictum ; but see 
the index to Mayor s Tertullian Apologeticus (Cambr. Press, 1917) 
s. v. On the thought, cf. c. 26, and d Ales, p. 194. 

3 On this passage see d Ales, p. 97, and cf. c. 26. 

4 For interpretari passive, see Hoppe, p. 62. 

5 This quotation (repeated below, p. 107), is very free, and 
Tertullian s exegesis is unwarrantable. 

6 Perhaps the most important Christological passage in Tertullian ; 
see d Ales, p. 198. 



io6 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [27 

the Word is in the flesh, 1 we must enquire also 
John i. 14 into this, how " the Word became flesh," whether 
as having been changed to the form of flesh or as 
having put on flesh as a covering. 2 Certainly the 
latter. But it must be believed that God is un 
changeable and incapable of outward form, as 
being everlasting. Moreover, change of form 
implies the destruction of the original form. 3 For 
everything that is altered in shape to become 
something else, ceases to be what it has been, and 
begins to be what it was not. God, however, 
neither ceases to be, nor can be anything else. 
John i. i But " the Word is God " and " the Word of the 
Isa. xl. 8 Lord abideth for ever," continuing, of course, in 
its own shape. And if it is not possible that the 
Word should be changed in shape, it follows that 
cf. John i. He must be understood to "have been made flesh" 
H in this sense, namely by being made in flesh and 

cf. i John manifested "and seen and handled " by means of 
i l flesh, because other considerations also demand 

that it should be understood in this way. For if 
John i. 14 " the Word " by a change in the form and a change 
in substance " became flesh," Jesus will then be 
one substance composed of two, flesh and spirit, 
a sort of mixture, like electrum made from gold 
and silver, and it begins to be neither gold (that is, 

1 D Ales, p. 87, sets forth parallels between this passage and early 
Greek Fathers. Here I translate Kroymann s order dum sermo in 
came for the MSS. order sermo in carne dum. 

2 For utrumne . . . an, cf. Hoppe, p. 73. 

3 Cf. Lucretius, I. 670-671, etc. This passage has a bearing on 
the doctrine of transubstantiation, cf. d Ales, p. 363, n. i. 



27] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 107 

spirit) nor silver (that is, flesh), since one element 
is interchanged with the other, and a sort of third 
substance is the result Therefore Jesus will 
neither be God for " the Word " ceased to exist, cf. John i. 
"being made flesh" nor man. He who was M 
" Word " is not " flesh " in a real sense. So neither 
comes from both, and the third is far different 
from both. But in truth we find him definitely 
explained as both God and man, and this is sug 
gested by the psalm itself: Since "man was PS. ixxxvi. 
born God in it, and built it by the Father s will " ; 5 
certainly everywhere Son of God and Son of 
Man, as being both God and man, differing un 
doubtedly in His own special character according 
to both natures, because neither is "the Word" 
other than " God," nor the flesh other than man. 
So also the Apostle teaches about both his 
natures : " Who was made," he says, " of the seed Rom. i. 3 
of David " ; He will be man and the Son of Man, 
" who was marked as Son of God according to Rom. * 4 
the spirit": he will be God and the Word, the 
Son of God. We see two natures, not mixed, 
but joined together in one person, God and man, 
j esus _I postpone speaking 1 of Christ and so 
unimpaired is the special quality of both natures, 
that on the one hand spirit carried out its own 
operations in Him that is, deeds of power and 
works and signs and on the other hand flesh cf. Matt. 
experienced its own sufferings, "starving" in ^ " 
the devil s company, thirsting in the company of cf. John 
1 For the ellipsis of the verb of saying, cf. Hoppe, p. 146. 



io8 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [27 

cf. John "the Samaritan woman," " weeping" for Lazarus, 

cf!*Matt. " anxious even unto death," and finally died. But if 

xxvi. 38, there were some third thing, a mixture of both, like 

cf. Matt, electrum, no such clear proofs of two natures would 

xxvii. 50, s h ow themselves, but on the one hand the spirit 

would have acted carnally, and on the other the 

flesh would have acted spiritually as the result 

of the change, or neither carnally nor spiritually, 

but after some third pattern, as the result of the 

cf. John i. mixture. Nay, rather, either " the Word " would 

cf John i. ^ ave ^ ied or " tlie ^ esh " wou ld not nave died, if 
14 "the Word" had been turned into "flesh"; for 

either "the flesh" would have been immortal or 
" the Word " mortal. But because both natures, each 
in its own established condition, acted separately, 
therefore both their works and their outcomes 
corresponded to them. Learn, therefore, with 
John iii. 6 Nicodemus that "what is born in flesh is flesh, 
and what is from spirit is spirit." Neither does 
flesh become spirit nor does spirit become flesh. 
But they can, to be sure, 1 be present in one. Of 
these Jesus consisted, as man, of flesh, as God, of 
spirit. In respect of that part which was spirit, 

Luke i. 35 the angel then declared Him " Son of God," keep- 
Matt, viii. ing for the flesh the name u Son of Man> > So 

i Tim. ii. also the Apostle by calling him " mediator be 
tween God and men," established his double 
nature. Lastly : you who explain " the Son of 
God " as flesh, show me who is " the Son of 
Man." Can He be the Spirit? But you wish 

1 For plane in this sense (often ironical), cf. Hoppe, p. 112. 



27, 28] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 109 

the Spirit to be regarded as the Father Himself, 
because " God is a spirit," as if there were not also John iv. 
a " Spirit of God," just as there is both a " God " ^ t f ^ 
who is " Word " and a " Word of God." 1 16, etc. 

28. Therefore you make Christ the Father, 
you fool, who do not even examine the force of 
this name, if indeed "Christ" is a name, and not 
rather an appellative : for it means " anointed." 
" Anointed," moreover, is no more a name than 
" clothed," than " shod," something which is an 
accidental quality of a name. If as the result 
of some argument Jesus were to be called also 
"clothed," just as Christ gets his name from the 
mystery of anointing, would you call Jesus " Son 
of God " in the same way, but believe " clothed " 
to be the Father? Apply this now to Christ. If 
the Father is Christ, the Father was anointed, and 
of course by some one else, or if by Himself, prove 
it. But this is not the teaching of the Acts of the 
Apostles in that cry of the Church to God : " For Actsiv. 27 
all, yea, Herod and Pilate with the nations, have 
assembled in this city against Thy holy Son, 2 whom 
Thou didst anoint. So they testified that Jesus 
was both " Son of God " and " Son anointed " by 
the Father. Therefore Jesus will also be Christ who 
was " anointed " by the Father, and not the Father 

1 For the metrical ending, see the note on c. i. 

2 Kroymann is wrong in adding fesum here. Tertullian omits it 
also at Bapt. 7. Besides MS. gigas of Acts quoted by Wordsworth 
and White, a quotation in the eighth-century Spanish compiler 
Beatus, in Apocalypsin, omits (ed. E. S. Buchanan, Sacred Latin 
Texts, iv. London, 1916). 



no TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [28 

who " anointed the Son." So also Peter teaches : 
Acts ii. 36 " Let the whole house of Israel therefore learn with 

absolute certainty that God made Him, this Jesus, 

whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ " 

that is, anointed. John, moreover, even brands him 
i John ii. as " a liar, who denies that Jesus is Christ," but, on 
i ^ e con trary, says " every one who believes that 

Jesus is the Christ, is born of God." For this 
i John iii. reason he also exhorts us " to believe in the 

name of His Son Jesus Christ," in order, of course, 
i John i. 3 that " we may have communion with the Father 

and His Son Jesus Christ." So also Paul every- 
cf. i Cor. where puts " God the Father and our Lord Jesus 
V, 3 et - c o Christ." When he writes to the Romans, he 

Kom. l. 5 

" gives thanks to God by our Lord 1 Jesus Christ " ; 

when he writes to the Galatians, he declares he is 

Gal. i. i " an apostle not from men nor through a man, but 

through Jesus Christ and God the Father." And 

you have his whole body of writings, which pro- 

cf. i Cor. claim after this fashion and set forth two, " God 

i. 3, etc. t he Father" and "our Lord Jesus Christ," Son of 

the Father, and that Jesus Himself is the Christ, 

Luke i. who is also, under another name, " Son of God." 

35, etc. For it f u ows t hat, by the right by which both 

names belong to one, namely, to the Son of God, 

even one of the two without the other belongs 

to the same. And if on the one hand Jesus 

alone is mentioned, Christ also is understood, 

because Jesus was anointed, and if on the other 

1 " our Lord " seems to be absent from all other authorities for 
the text of this verse. 



28] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS in 

hand Christ alone is mentioned, He is the same 

as Jesus, because Jesus was anointed. Of these 

names the one is His own, which was conferred by cf. Matt. i. 

the angel, the other is an accidental attribute, 21 

which comes from anointing, so long, however, 

as Christ is Son, not Father. Finally : how blind 

is he who does not understand that in the name 

of Christ another God is set forth, if he attribute 

the name of Christ to the Father ! For if Christ 

is God the Father who says : " I ascend to my John xx. 

Father and your Father, and to my God and your I7 

God," of course He points to another Father 

and God above Himself. If, further, Christ is the 

Father, it is some one else " who stablishes the Amos iv. 

thunder and creates the wind and preaches His 

Christ (Anointed) among men." And "if the Ps. ii. 2 

kings of the earth have stood by and the rulers 

have been assembled together against His own 

Christ (Anointed)," it will be another Lord 

" against whose Christ (Anointed) the kings and cf. Ps. ii. 2 

rulers have been assembled." And if "the Lord Ps - cix - l 

says this to my Lord Christ " (Anointed), it will 

be another Lord who speaks to the Father of 

Christ. And when the Apostle writes: " That Eph. J. 17 

the God of our Lord Jesus Christ may give you 

a spirit of wisdom and knowledge/ it will be 

another God of Christ Jesus who giveth liberally 

of spiritual endowments. Assuredly, not to wander 

Rom. vin. 
away altogether, " He who raised Christ, and who n 

will raise our mortal bodies also," will be a sort v I f^ 
of different raiser from the Father "who died and Creeds 



ii2 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [28, 29 

was raised," if so be that Christ who died, is the 
Father. 1 

29. Silenced, I say silenced be this evil-speak 
ing ; enough that Christ, the Son of God, is spoken 
of as dead, and that too because it is so written. 
For the Apostle also, in declaring not without 
i Cor. xv. sorrow that "Christ died," added 2 : "according to 
the Scriptures," in order to soften the harshness of 
the declaration by the authority of the Scriptures 
and to destroy an obstacle in the hearer s path. 
And yet, since there are two natures present 3 in 
Christ Jesus, a divine and a human, and it is 
certain that the divine is immortal, while the 
human is mortal, it is clear how far he speaks 
of him as " dead," namely, so far as He was flesh 
and man and Son of Man, not in so far as He was 
" Spirit " and " Word " and " Son of God." Finally, 
in saying: "Christ died" that is, the Anointed 
(died) 4 he showed that what was anointed died 
that is, the flesh. " Therefore," you say, " we, too, in 
speaking of the Son in the same way as you do, 
speak no evil against the Lord God ; for it is not 
as regards his divine, but as regards his human 
nature that we speak of him as dead." But yet 5 

1 For the metrical ending, see the note on c. II. 

2 The better MSS. read adzcit, which may be right, in spite of 
the following molliret and euerteret. On such sequences see 
Iloppe, p. 67. 

3 Censeantur : on the meanings of this word in Tertullian see 
Thes. s.v. or d Ales, pp. 366 f. 

4 See d Ales, p. 363 n. 3 (p. 364), on this passage, and its bearing 
on the Eucharistic doctrine of Tertullian. 

5 I translate Kroymann s at tamen, but I am by no means ceitain 
that it is right ; the MSS. read at cum. 



29] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PR AXE AS 113 

you speak evilly, not only because you say that 
the Father died, but also because you say He was 
crucified. For you are speaking against the 
Father when you turn the curse 1 of the crucified, 
which according to the Scripture belongs to the 
Son because " Christ was made a curse for you," Gal. Hi 13 
not the Father when you turn the curse, which is 
Christ, upon the Father. But we, when we speak 
of " Christ as crucified," do not speak evil of Him, i Cor. i. 
we are only recalling the curse in the law ; for 
the Apostle when he said this, did not speak evil 
either. Just as no evil-speaking is employed in 
speaking of one of whom something can be truly 
said, so it is evil speaking, if what is said cannot be 
said with truth. Therefore the Father did not 
suffer even in company with the Son. It is, of 
course, because they are afraid of explicit evil- 
speaking against the Father that they hope it will 
be lessened in this way allowing now that Father 
and Son are two if the Son indeed suffers, but 
the Father suffers with him. They show them 
selves fools in this as well. For what is fellow- 
suffering but 2 to suffer along with another? 
Again, if the Father cannot suffer, assuredly He 
cannot be a fellow-sufferer ; or if He can be a 
fellow-sufferer, He can, of course, suffer. You 
confer nothing on Him even by your fear. You 
fear to speak of Him as able to suffer who, you 

1 Reading maledictionem with Kroymann for maledictio of the 
MSS. 

2 quant = nisi after a suppressed attus : cf. Hoppe, p. 77. 

H 



1 14 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [29 

say, can be a fellow-sufferer. But the Father is 
just as incapable of being a fellow-sufferer as the 
Son also is incapable of suffering as regards that 
nature which makes him God. 1 But how did the 
Son suffer, if the Father did not also suffer with 
Him ? He is separated from the Son, but not from 
the God. If a river, 2 too, is polluted by some dis 
turbance, although one material only runs down 
from the source and is not separated from the 
source, yet the pollution 3 of the stream will have 
nothing to do with the source ; and although it is 
the source s water that suffers in the stream, since 
it suffers, not 4 in the source, but in the stream, it is 
not the source that suffers, but the stream which 
comes from the source. So also the Spirit of God, 
although 5 it might suffer in the Son, because it 
would not suffer in the Father, but in the Son, 
would not seem to have suffered as the Father. 
But it is enough that the Spirit of God suffered 
nothing in its own name, because if it suffered 
anything in the Son, this 6 would really mean 
that the Father suffered with the Son in the flesh. 
This is a matter for reconsideration. Nor will 
any one deny it, since we also cannot suffer for 
God, unless the Spirit of God be in us, who also 

1 See d Ales, pp. 98 f. on this passage. 

2 The parallel here is explained by Hoppe, p. 198. 

3 iniuria is sometimes found in late authors in the passive sense 
of "damage," "harm": cf. Hoppe, pp. 121 f. 

4 For non ~ ne in this phrase, cf. Hoppe, p. 79. 

5 Keep qui of the MSS. here, and take it concessively : see also 
d Ales, p. 97. 

6 Supposing hoc omitted after filio. The text here is corrupt. 
I have tried to make some sense out of the MSS. reading. 



29, 3] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 115 

speaks concerning us what belongs to confession, 
not that He Himself suffers, but that He gives the 
power to suffer. 

30. If in spite of what I have said you mean 
to proceed l farther, I shall be able to answer you 
more harshly and to put you in conflict with the 
declaration of the Lord Himself, so as to say : 
"Why do you enquire about this subject?" You 
have Himself " crying aloud " at the passion : " My Matt. 
God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" 
Therefore, either the Son was suffering, having 
been abandoned by the Father, and it was not the 
Father who suffered, who forsook the Son ; or if 
it was the Father who was suffering, to what God 
did He cry aloud ? But this speech of flesh and 
soul (that is, of man), not an utterance of Word or 
Spirit (that is, not of God) was uttered for the 
purpose of showing that God could not suffer, who 
thus forsook the Son in "handing over " his human i sa . liii. 12 
nature "to death." The Apostle also was of this 
opinion when he wrote : " If the Father spared not Rom. viii. 
the Son"; this also Isaiah earlier proclaimed: 32 
"And the Lord handed Him over for our sins." isa. liii. 6 
He "forsook" Him in "not sparing" Him, He cf. Matt. 
"forsook" Him in "handin Him over." 



Son was not " forsaken" by " the Father in whose li- 12 
hands the Son placed His spirit." For He placed X xiii. 4 6 
it there and immediately died ; for if the spirit ibid. 
remains in the flesh, the flesh cannot die at all. 
So " to be forsaken " by the Father meant death cf. Matt. 

xxvii. 46 
1 Reading perges with Kroymann, for pergens of the MSS. 



n6 TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [30,31 

cf. i Cor. for the Son. The Son therefore both "dies" and 

xv * 3> 4 is "raised again " by the Father "according to the 

cf Eph. Scriptures," the Son " ascends to the topmost " 

iv. 8, 9 regions of heaven, who "also descends into the 

cf. Mark lowest 1 parts of the earth." It is " He that sits at 

cfTAc?s ii. the Father s right hand," not the Father who sits 

34 at His own. It was He whom Stephen saw, when 

cf. Acts he was being " stoned," still " standing at God s 

c" p^ 8 di right hand," as one who would thereafter "sit, 

1 until the Father should put all His enemies under 

cf. Acts i. His feet " for Him. It is He also who is " to come " 

cf. Luke again on " the clouds " " of heaven in such wise as 

xxi. 27 jj e a i s o ascended." It was He that meantime gave 

forth the gift he had received from the Father, 

cf. Acts ii. " the Holy Spirit," the third name of divinity and 

the third stage of majesty, the preacher of one 

monarchy, but also the expounder of economy, if 

any one receive the words of his new prophecy, 2 

johnxvi. and "the leader into all truth," which is in the 

Father and Son and Holy Spirit according to the 

Christian mystery. 3 

31. But this attitude of yours belongs to the 
Jewish faith, I mean the belief in one God in such 
a way as to refuse to count the Son along with 
Him, and after the Son the Holy Spirit. For 
what will there be between us and them except 
this difference? What need is there of the Gospel, 

1 Reading inferiora, as the contrast with superiora requires, even 
apart from the undoubted allusion to Eph. iv. 9. The confusion of 
interior, inferior and intra, infra occurs elsewhere also in MSS. 

2 On this passage in Tertullian, see d Ales, p. 450, n. 2. 

3 For the metrical ending here, see the note on c. i. 



31] TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS 117 

which is the foundation of the New Testament, 
laying it down that " the Law and the Prophets Luke xvi. 
were until John," 1 if the Father and Son and l6 
Holy Spirit, " three " objects of belief, do not cf. i John 
thereafter establish one God ? God wished to v * 8 
make the mystery new in such a manner that He 
should be believed to be One in a new way through 
the Son and the Spirit, that He should now come 
to be known as God face to face in His own special 
names and persons, who though preached in the 
past also through the Son and the Spirit, was not 
understood. " The antichrists," therefore, had better i John ii. 
look out, " who deny Father and Son." For they 22 
deny the Father in saying that the Son is identical 
with Him, 2 and they deny the Son in believing 
that the Father is identical with him, offering them 
what they are not and taking away from them 
what they are. But " he who confesses 3 that Christ i John iv 
is the Son of God," not the Father, " God remains I5 
in him and he himself in God." We believe 
"God s testimony" in which He gave evidence cf. i John 
concerning His Son : " He who hath not the Son, ^ j 
hath not life either." But he too " hath not the 12 
Son," who believes him other than the Son." 4 

1 Tertullian refers to this verse elsewhere : see Ronsch, das N. T. 
Teriulliam, ad loc., d Ales, p. 174, n. 6. 

2 For dum with indie, here = coincident CUM, see Hoppe, p. 79 

3 The future perfect (or perfect subjunctive) here is an exact 
translation of the original Greek : taken as Latin, such a use sup 
ports the contention that originally the fut. perf. expressed absolute 
(not relative) futurity. It certainly occurs frequently where, accord 
ing to our feeling, the ordinary future, or even the present, would 
suit the context : cf. Hoppe, p. 66. 

4 For the metrical ending here, see the note on c. I. 



INDEX OF QUOTATIONS AND REFERENCES 
OLD TESTAMENT (SEPTUAGINT) 





PAGE 




PAGE 


Gen. i. i . 


cf. 35 


Deut. v. 7 


cf. 60 




39, 56 


V. II . 


cf. 44 

o> 


j? 


56 


xvii. 6 . 


oo 


i *7 


56 


xxxii. 8 


cf. 74 


1. 7 

i. 14 


. 56 


xxxii. 9 


cf. 74 


i. 16 . , 


5 6 


i Esdr. iv. 41 


. 100 


i. 26 . 54, 55, 
i. 27 . 


cf. 37, 38, 55 
55 


Ps. ii. 2 . 

ii. 7 


III, cf. ill 
. 40, 51, cf. 51 


ii 7 


cf. 37, 55 


iii. 2 


53 


11. / 
iii. 8 


cf. 72 


viii. 6 . cf. 


46, 72 ter, 92 bis 




71 


xxxii. 6 


. 40, 41, 78, 79 


111. Q 

iii. 22 . 


54, 55 


xliv. 2 . 


. 40, 51, cf. 51 


vi. 6 . 


cf. 71 


xliv. 7 . 


. 57 


vii. 10 . 


cf. 70 


xliv. 8 . 


57 


vii. 1 6 . 


cf. 72 


Ixx. 1 8 . 


53 


xi. 7, 8 


cf. 70 


Ixxxi. i 


. 59 


xii. 7 


cf. 62, 64, 65 


Ixxxi. 6 


59 


xviii. 4 . 


cf. 72 


Ixxxvi. 5 


105, 107 


xviii. 8 . 


cf. 72 


xcyi. 4, 5 


7 2 


xviii. 14 
xix. 24 . 


cf. 49 

. cf. 58, 70 

~c >~j T 


cvi. 20 . 
cix. i . 


34, 53, 58, i", 
cf. 116 


xxii. i . 


ci. 7 1 






xxviii. 13 
xxxii. 30 
Exod. iii. 4 -. 
iii. 14 . 
xx. 3 . 


cf. 62, 64, 65 
63, 65, cf. 62 
cf. 72 
74 bi s 
cf. 60 


cix. 3 . 

CXVll. 2O 

cxxxviii. 8 
Prov. viii. I 

viii. 22 . 38 


. 40, cf. 51 

cf. 91 

. 77, cf. 77 
, 39, 40 bis, cf. 5 1 
38 


xx. 7 . . 
xxxiii. II 
xxxiii. 13 


4 2 


viii. 25 . 
viii. 27 . 


. 38, 40, cf. 51 
38, 39, 77, cf. 77, 


xxxiii. 20 . ( 


32 bis, 69, 96, 




79 


cf. 
Numb. xii. 6-8 
xii. 6 . 
xii. 8 . 64, 


63, 65 ter, 66 
. 64 
. cf. 71, 72 
67, cf. 64, 65, 


viii. 28 . 
viii. 30. 
Job xlii. 2 
Wisd. xi. 23 


38 
. -38, cf. 77 
. 49, cf. 49 ter > 50 
cf. 50 




71, 72 


Amos iv. 13 


. . ill 


xxiv. 16 . 


. 74 


Isa. i. 9 . 


74 bis 






119 





120 



INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 





PAGE 




PAGE 


Isa. vi. i . 


cf. 62 


Isa. xlix. 6 


53 


x. 14 . 


. 72 


1.4 - - 


87, 93 


xl. 8 . 


106 


liii. I 2 




xl. 13 . 


77 


liii. i . i 


53 

. 58 


xl. 28 . 


73 


liii. 6 . 




xli. 4 . 
xiii. i 


79, cf. 79 
. 52 


liii. 12 . 
liv. i . 


115, cf. 115 
cf. 49 


xliv. 6 . 


74 bis 


Ixi. i . 


cf.53 


xliv. 24 


77, 79 ter, cf. 


Ixvi. i . 


72, 92 




77 bis, 78 ter 


Jer. i. 9 . 


87 


xliv. 25, 


26 . . .78 


Bar. iii. 36, 38 . 


. o/ 

cf. 71 


xlv. i . 


53 


Lam. iv. 20 


. 66 


xlv. 5 . 


76, 77, 80, cf. 76 


Ezek. i. i 


cf. 62 


xlv. 14 . 


57 


Dan. iii. 92 


cf. 72 


xlv. 15 . 


57 


vii. 10 . 


. 32 


NEW TESTAMENT 




PAGE 




PAGE 


Matt. i. 1 6 


. cf. 28, 71 


Matt. xxi. 33-4: 


cf. 103 


i. 21 


cf. ill 


xxvi. 38 


cf. 1 08 


i. 23 . 
iii. 12 . 


cf. 49, 73, 105 
cf. 28 


xxvi. 53 
xxvii. 46 


. cf. 32, 103 
98, 115, cf. 


iii. 16 . 


. 109 




103, 115 bis 


iii. 17 . 


. 95, cf. 82 


xxvii. 50 


. cf. 71, 108 


iv. i, *. 


cf. 107 


xxvii. 59, 60 


cf. 73 


iv. 2 


. . cf. 71 


xxviii. 18 


70 bis cf. 74 


iv. 3 . 


25, 102 


xxviii. 19 


cf. 103 


iv. 6 . 


25, IO2 


Mark i. 24 


cf. 102 


v. 14 . 


cf. 61 


ix. 4 . 


cf. 64 


v. 16 . 


cf. 61 


ix. 6 . 


cf. 69 


v- 37 


. 47 


xiii. 32 


cf. 103 


vi. 9 


. 91, 92, cf. 92 


xvi. 19 . 


cf. 1 16 


viii. 20 . 


. 108 


Luke i. 35 


100 b is, 1 02 


x. 32 . 


cf. 103 


bis, 105 bis, 


108, no, cf. 


x. 33 


cf. 103 


100, cf. lor bis 


xi. 27 . 


cf. 43, 74, 96 


ii. 49 . 


. IO2 


xiii. 7 . 


cf. 28 


iii. 22 . . 


40, 51, cf. 51 


xiii. 25 


. . cf. 27 


iv. 9-11 . 


cf. 25 


xiii. 30 


. " . cf. 28 


iv. 18 . 


r? 


xiii. 41 


cf. 28 


ix. 30 . 


cf. 64 


xvi. 16 


. 82 bis, 83 bis, 


ix. 35 


. . 7 8 




cf. 90, 102 


X. 21 . 




xvi. 17 


. 82 bis, cf. 1 02 


X. 22 . 


I0 3 


xvii. i . 


cf. 64 


xvi. 1 6 . 


. 117 


xvii. 3 . 


cf. 64 


xviii. 27 


. 49 


xvii. 5 . 


. . . 91 


xxi. 27 . 


cf. 116 





INDEX C7if C 


QUOTATION! 


5 121 




PAGE 




PAGE 


Luke xxii. : 


29 . . cf. 103 


J,ohn vi. 37, 38 


. - cf. 85 


xxiii. 46 


98, cf. 103, 


vi. 38 


. cf. 34, 44 




115 bis 


vi. 40 . 


cf. 85 


xxiv. 49 


cf. 103 


vi. 44 . 


. 06, cf. 85 


John i. 1-3 


. . 78, 81 


vi. 45 


. cf. 85 


i. I 


36, 42, 44, 56, 58, 


vi. 46 . 


. . 85 


67 bis, 


68, 70, 79, 106, cf. 


vi. 66 . 


cf. 85 


68, 81, 


108 


vi. 67 . 


cf. 86 


i. 2 


26, 67 


vi. 68, 69 


.86 


i-3 . 


28, 40, 41, 56, 69, 


vii. 26, 27 


cf. 86 




78, cf. 70, 8 1 


vii. 28, 29 . 


. 86 


i. 4 


cf. 56 


vii. 32, 33 


. 86 


i. 9 


. 56 


viii. 12 . 


. 61 


i. 12 


cf. 59 


viii. 1 6 . 


. 86, cf. 86 


i. 13 . 


. 105 


viii. 17 . 


86 b is 


i. 14 . 


67 bis, 68 bis, 82 


viii. 18 . 


. 86, cf. 86 


bis, 10 


i bis, 106 bis, cf. 


viii. 19 . 


. 87, cf. 87 


40, 71, 


81, 106, 107, 108 


viii. 26 . 


. 87, cf. 44 


i. 18 . 


43, 66 bis, 67, 68 


viii. 28, 29 . 


. . 87 




bis, 82 bis, cf. 62 


viii. 37 . 


cf. 87 


1.36 


. 82, cf. 82 


viii. 38 . 


. . 87 


i. 49 . 


. 82, cf. 91 


viii. 40 . 


. . 87 


1.50 . 


. 82 


viii. 42 . 


87, 88 bis 


ii. 14 


. . .83 


viii. 44 . 


cf. 26 


ii. 16 . 


. . . 83 


viii. 49 . 


. 88 


ii. 25 . 


. . cf. 71 


viii. 54, 55 . 


. 88 


iii. 6 


. 108 


viii. 56 . 


. 88 


iii. 16 . 


83 


ix. 4 


cf. 88 


iii. 17, 18 


- 83 


ix. 7 . 


cf. 88 


iii. 26 . 


cf. 83 


ix. 35 . 


. 88, cf. 88 


iii. 35, 36 


. 83 


ix. 36, 37 


cf. 88 


m. 35 . 


70 bis 


x. 15 . 


cf 88 


iv. 7 . 


. cf. 71, 107 


x. 17 . 


cf. 88 


iv. 24 . 


42, 109 


x. 18 . 


cf. 88 


iv. 25, 26 


. 83 


X. 24 . 


cf. 88 




83 


X. 2^ , 


80 


v. 17 . 


. 83, cf. 69 


x. 27 . 


y 
cf. 89 


v. 18 . 


84 


x. 28 


80 


v. 19-27 


. . . 84 


x. 29 . 


oy 
. 8 9 


v. 19 . 


.69, cf. 43 


x. 30 . 44> 


80, 89 ter, go, 


V. 21 . 


Q6 




95, 98, cf. 90 


V. 22 




X 32 


cf QO 


V. 28 . 


. 86 


A.. J^ 

x. 33 


cf. 59, 90 


v. 36 . 


. . . 85 


x. 34-38 


. 90 


v. 37 


85 bis 


x. 34 . 


cf. 59 


v : 43 - 


73, 85, 91 


xi. 27 . 


cf. 90 


vi. 28, 29 


. . .85 


xi. 35 


. cf. 71, 108 


vi. 32 . 


- 85 


xi, 41 , 


91, cf. 90, 91 



122 



INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 





PAGE 




PAGE 


John xi. 42 


. . 9 I 


Acts ii. 4 . 


cf. 116 


xii. 27 . 


. 91, cf. 91 


ii. 33 


cf. 74 


xii. 28 . 


. 91 quatev 


11. 34 . 


cf. 116 


xii. 30 . 


. 92 


ii. 36 . 


. 1 10 


xii. 36 . 


. 60 


iv. 27 . 


. 109 


xii. 44 . 


93 


v". 55 


cf. 116 


xii. 45 . 


93 


vii. 58 . 


cf. 116 


xii. 49 . 


93, cf. 44 


xv. 19 . 


cf. 60 


xii. 50 . 


93 


xvii. 24 


. 72 


xiii. I . 


93 


Rom. i. 3 


. .107 




93 


i. 4 


. 107 


xiii. 3 . 


93, cf. 74, 93 


i. 7 


. 61 






i. 8 


. no 


xiii. 32 . 


. 94 


i. 20 (?) 


cf. 42 


xiv. 5-7 


. 94 


viii. ii . 


. II I 


xiv. 6 . 


95 


viii. 32 . 


. 115 


xiv. 7 . 


. cf. 96 


ix. 5 . 


61, 68 


xiv. 8 . 


. .94 


i Cor. i. 3 


. cf. 1 10 bis 


xiv. 9 . 80, 


94, 95 quater, 


i. 23 . 


. .113 




96, 97, cf. 96 


i. 24 . 


77, 7 


xiv. 10, ii . 


. 80 


i. 27 . 


. 49 


xiv. 10 . 


96, 97, cf. 96 


ii. II . 


. 78, cf. 44 




bis 


viii. 5 . 


. . cf. 31 


xiv. ii . 


44, 96, 97 ter 


ix. i 


. 68 


xiv. 16 . 


47, 98, cf. 29 


X. II . 


. 71 


xiv. 28 


4.6 6^ 


xi. 3 


. 66 


XV. I . 


. ^.W, V7_^ 

. . 98 


xi. 19 . 


cf. 50 


xv. 15 . 


cf. 43 


xii. 4 . 


cf. 26 


xvi. 26 . 


cf. 34 


xiii. 3 . 


cf. 26 


xvi 13 . 


1 1 6, cf. 28, 59 


xiii. 12 . 


. 64, cf. 71, 72 


xvi. 14 . 


. . 98 


xv. 3, 4 


. cf. 29, ill, 1 16 


xvi. 15. 


. 74, cf.gS 


xv. 3 . 


69, 112 


xvi. 28 . 


. 95. 97 


xv. 5-7 


cf. 69 


xvii. I . 


cf. 98 


xv. 8 . 


. . . 6 9 


xvii. 2 . 


. 34, cf. 74 


xv. 24, 25 


34 


xvii. 3 . 


cf. 31 


xv. 24 . 


. . cf. 35 


xvii. 4 . 


cf. 68 


xv. 27 . 


34 


xvii. 6 . 


73 


xv. 28 . 


. 34, cf. 35, 74 


xvii. ii 


cf. 98 


Gal. i. i . 


. no 


xvii. 15 


cf. 98 


iii. 13 . 


. -. . 113 


xvii. 24 


. cf. 36, 38 


iii. 26 . 


cf. 59 


xix. 13 . 


cf. 73 


iv. 27 . 


cf. 49 


xix. 26. 


cf. 93 


Eph. i. 17 


. iii 


xix. 28 . 


cf. 71 


iv. 8, 9 . 


cf. 116 


xx. 17 . 


99, in 


iv. 10 . 


cf. 60 


xx. 31 . 


99 bis 


v. 8 . 


. 60 


xxi. 2 . 


cf. 69 


Phil. ii. 6 


. 42 


Acts i. ii. 


cf, 116 


ii. 7 


cf. 55 



INDEX OF QUOTATIONS 



123 



Col. i. 15 
I Thess. i. 9 
v - 5 


PAGE 

cf. 40 
cf. 60 
. 60 


i John i. 3 
ii. 22 . 
iii. I 


PAGE 

. no 
. no, 117 
cf. 74 


i Tim. i. 17 


. 69 

. 108 


iii. 23 . 
iv. 15 . 


. 1 10 

. 117 


: > , 
vi. 1 6 . 

Heb. ii. 7 

vii. 3 . 
i John i. i 


66, 68 bis, 72, 
cf. 69 
. cf. 46, 72 ter, 
92 bis 
cf. 79 
. 67, 68, cf. 66, 
68 bis, 1 06 


V. I 

v. 8 . 

V. 10 . 
V. 12 . 

Rev. i. 8 . 
xix. 6 . 
xix. 13. 


.110 

98, cf. 117 
cf. 117 
. 117 

74 
73, 74*n s 

74 



EXTERNAL SOURCES 



Creeds, 28 ter, 29 bis, 105, in 
Donatus i. i, cf. 41 



Tertullian, De 

praeser. haer. 27, cf. 29 bts 



INDEX OF LATIN WORDS 



abundare : ex abundanti, 68 

n. i 

adhuc : (with comparative), 57 
n- 3, 58 n. 3 

( = insuper, praeterea), 93 

n. i 

adnuntialis, 100 n. 3 
adtinet (omitted), 87 n. 2 
alias ( = aliter), 26 n. 2 
alius : alius a (ab), 44 n. 3, 46 

n. 4, 76 n. i 
apex, 45 n. i 

capitulum, 35 n. i 
censere, 38 n. i, 112 n. 3 
commentus, 28 n. i 
condicere, 73 n. 4 

dicere (omitted), 47 n. i, 107 

n. i 

dilectus (= agapetos), 82 n. i 
diuersus : ex diuerso, 63 n. i , 

67 n. i 
dum ( = cum), 117 n. 2 

esse: missing participle of, 25 

n. i 

excidere, 74 n. 4 
exponere ( = deponere), 99 

n. i 

fades, 65 n. 2 

fides ( = fideles), 52 n. 2 

hactenus, 104 n. 2 

ibidem (of time), 69 n. i 
inde (= "therefore"), 91 n. I 
iniectio, 104 n. 3 



iniuria (=" damage," 

"harm"), 114 n. 3 
interpretari (passive), 105 n. 4 
iubere (c. dat.), 57 n. 2 

ne (indirect interrog.), 86 n. i 
nee (in prohibitive clause), 70 

n. i 
non (= ne), 114, n. 4 

obducere, 104 n. i 
oratio (confused with ratio), 37 
n. i 

persona, 32 n. 2 
pertinet (omitted), 87 n. 2 
plane, 108 n. i 
porro ( = sed), 75 n. 2 
post (pregnant use), 98 n. i 
praedicare, 105 n. 2 
praescriptio, 29 n. 3 
prolatio, 43 n. i 

qualis : quale est ut, 92 n. 4 
quam ( = nisi), 113, n. 2 
quando ("whereas"), 31 n. 

4; ( = "since"), 52 n. 3 
quanti ( quot), 81 n. 3 
qualenus (=" because "), 74 

n. i 
quia ( = ut), 60 n. i 

refrigerare (intians.), 72 n. 3 
repraesentare, 53 n. i 
retractatus, 30 n. i, 54 n. i 

sacramentum, 30 n. 2 
sermonalis, 36 n. 5 
si ( = num), 88 n. \ 



124 



INDEX OF LATIN WORDS 125 

si forte ( = fortasse), 64 n. 2 substantia, 30 n. 4 

silua, 81 n. i sustinere (with participle), 59 

sonare ( praedicare, signift- n. i 

care), 32 n. i. 46 n. 3 

mtfo5 (=" meaning"), 80 tmduceve, 27 n. 3 

sternere (metaphorically), 71 

n. i utpote, 54 n. 5 

struere, 44 n. i utrumne an, 106 n. 2 



NOTES ON THE TEXT 

Pp. 34 n. i, 37 n. i, 54 n. 5, 56 nn. I, 3, 57 n. 4, 58 n. i, 60 
n. i, 64 n. 2, 66 n. I, 69 n. 2, 70 n. 3, 74 n. 4, 80 n. 3, 81 n. 2, 
100 nn. 2, 5, 101 n. 2, 105 n. 2, 109 n. 2, 112 n. 5, 114 nn. 5, 6, 
116 n. i. 



PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY 

RICHARD CLAY SONS, LIMITED, 

BRUNSWICK ST., STAMFORD ST., S.E. I, 

AND BUNGAY. SUFFOLK. 



K 



BOOKS FOR 

STUDENTS 



Translations of Early Documents 

A Series of texts important for the study of Christian 
origins. Under the Joint Editorship of the Rev. 
W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D., and the Rev. Canon 
G. H. Box, M.A. 

The object of this Series is to provide short, cheap, and handy 

textbooks for students, either working by themselves or in 

classes. The aim is to furnish in translations important 

, texts unencumbered by commentary or elaborate notes, which 

can be had in larger works. 



EXTRACTS FROM PRESS NOTICES. 

The Times Literary Supplement says : " These Jewish Apocalypses 
have a direct relation to the thought and religious ideals which con 
fronted primitive Christianity in Palestine, and not only for their own 
sakes, but for their influence on the New Testament and Apostolic 
Christianity they deserve careful attention. Handbooks at once so 
scholarly and so readable will be welcomed by all interested in 
Christian origins." 

The Church Quarterly Review says : " To the theological student 
who is anxious to know something of the circumstances and thought 
of the time during which Christianity grew up, and of the Jewish 
environment of the teaching of our Lord and the Apostles, there is 
no class of books more valuable than the later Jewish Apocrypha." 

The Church Times says: The names of the Editors are a 
guarantee of trustworthy and expert scholarship, and their work 
has been admirably performed." 

The Tablet says: "A valuable series . . . well brought out and 
should prove useful to students." 

Catholic Book Notes says : " The S P.C.K. is to be congratulated 
on its various series of cheap and useful books for students." 



Translations of Early Documents 



FIRST SERIES Palestinian=Jewish and 
Cognate Texts (Pre=Rabbinic) 

1. Jewish Documents in the Time of Ezra 

Translated from the Aramaic by A. E. COWLEY, Litt.D., 
Sub-Librarian of the Bodleian Library, Oxford. 
4-f. 6d. net. 

2. The Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus) 

By the Rev. W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D., Vicar of 
St. Alban s, Bedford Park, W.; Examining Chaplain to 
the Bishop of London. 2s. 6d. net. 

3. The Book of Enoch 

By the Rev. R. H. CHARLES, D.D., Canon of West 
minster. 2s. 6d. net. 

4. The Book of Jubilees 

By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. 45. net. 

5. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 

By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. 2s. 6d. net. 

6. The Odes and Psalms of Solomon 

By the Rev. G. H. Box, M.A., Rector of Sutton, 
Beds., Hon. Canon of St. Albans. 

7. The Ascension of Isaiah 

By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. Together with No. 10 
in one volume. 45-. 6d. net. 

8. The Apocalypse of Ezra (ii. Esdras) 

By the Rev. Canon Box. 2s. 6d. net. 

9. The Apocalypse of Baruch 

By the Rev. Canon CHARLES. Together with No. 12 
in one volume. 2s. 6d. net. 

10. The Apocalypse of Abraham 

By the Rev. Canon Box. Together with No. 7 in 
one volume. 45. 6d. net. 



, 



11. The Testaments of Abraham, Isaac 
and Jacob 

By the Rev. Canon Box and S. GAZELEE. 

12. The Assumption of Moses 

By Rev. W. J. FERRAR, M.A., Vicar of Holy Trinity, 
East Finchley. With No. 9 in one volume. 2S. 6d. net. 

13. The Biblical Antiquities of Philo 

By M. R. JAMES, Litt.D., F.B.A., Hon. Litt.D., 
Dublin, Hon. LL.D., St. Andrews, Provost of King s 
College, Cambridge. Ss. 6d. net. 

14. Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament 

By M. R. JAMES, Litt.D. 

SECOND SERIES Hellenistic=Jewish Texts 

1. The Wisdom of Solomon 

By the Rev. Dr. OESTERLEY. . 25. 6d, net. 

2. The Sibylline Oracles (Books iii-v) 

By the Rev. H. N. BATE, M.A., Vicar of Christ 
Church, Lancaster Gate, W. ; Examining Chaplain to 
the Bishop of London. 3-$-. 6d. net. 

3. The Letter of Aristeas 

By H. ST. JOHN THACKERAY, M.A., King s College, 
Cambridge. 2$. 6d. net. 

4. Selections from Philo 

By J. H. A. HART, M.A. 

5. Selections from Josephus 

By H. ST. J. THACKERAY, M.A. 

6. The Third and Fourth Books 
of Maccabees 

By the Rev. C. W. EMMET, B.D., Vicar of West 
Hendred, Berks. $s. 6d. net. 

7. The Book of Joseph and Asenath 

Translated from the Greek text (for the first time in 
English) by E. W. BROOKS. 2s, 6d. net. 



THIRD SERIES Palestinian=Jewish and 
Cognate Texts (Rabbinic) 

*1. Pirqe Aboth. By the Rev. Dr. OKSTERLEY. 

*2. Berakhoth. By the Rev. A. LUKYN WILLIAMS, D.D. 

*3. Yoma. By the Rev. Canon Box. 

*4. Shabbath. By the Rev. Dr. OESTERLKY. 

*5. Sanhedrin. By the Rev. H. DANBY. 6s. net. 

*6. Kimhi s Commentary on the Psalms 
(Book I, Selections). By the Rev. R. G. FINCH, 
B.D. 75-. 6d. net. 

7. Tamid 11. Megilla 

8. Aboda Zara 12. Sukka 

9. Middoth 13. Taanith 

10. Sopherim 14. Megillath Taanith 

* It is proposed to publish these texts first by way of experiment. If 
the Series should so far prove successful the others will follow. 



Jewish Literature and Christian Origins : 
Vol. I. The Apocalyptic Literature. 
,, II. A Short Survey of the Literature of 
Rabbinical Judaism. 

By the Revs. Dr. OESTERLEY and Canon Box. 

Jewish Uncanonical Writings : A Popular Intro 
duction. By the Rev. W. J. FERRAR. $s. net. 

Handbooks of Christian Literature 

The Early Christian Books. By the Rev. w. J. 

FERRAR, M.A. $s. 6d. net. 

The Eucharistic Office of the Book of 

Common Prayer. By the Rev. LESLIE WRIGHT, 
M.A., B.D. y. kd. net. 

The Inspiration and Authority of Holy 

Scripture. By the Rev. G. D. BARRY, B.D. 
45-. 6d. net. 

The Letters of St. Augustine. By the Rev, W. J. 
SPARROW-SIMPSON, D.D. 



Translations of Christian Literature 

A NUMBER of translations from the Fathers have already 
been published by the S.P.C.K. under the title "Early 
Church Classics." It is now proposed to enlarge this series 
to include texts which are neither "early" nor necessarily 
" classics." The divisions at present proposed are given below. 
Volumes belonging to the original series are marked with an 
asterisk. 

The Month says : "The cheap and useful series." 
The Church Times says : "The splendid series." 

SERIES I. GREEK TEXTS. 
St. Dionysius the Areopagite : The Divine Names and 

the Mystical Theology. By C. E. ROLT. 
The Library of Photius. By J. H FREESE. In 6 Vols. 
The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes. By T. W. 

CRAFER, D.D. 
*The Epistle of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome. By the 

Rt. Rev. J. A. F. GREGG, D.D. is. $d. net. 
^Clement of Alexandria: Who is the Rich Man that 

is being saved ? By P. M. BARNARD, B.D. is. 3^. net. 
*St. Chrysostom : On the Priesthood. ByT. A. MOXON. 

2.9. net. 
*The Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles. By C. BIGG, 

D.D. is. $d. net. 
*The Epistle to Diognetus. By the Rt. Rev. L. B. 

RADFORD, D.D. is. 6d. net. 
St. Dionysius of Alexandria. By C. L. FELTOE, D.D. 

y. 6d. net. 
*The Epistle of the Qallican Churches: Lugdunum 

and Vienna. With an Appendix containing Tertullian s 

Address to Martyrs and the Passion of St. Perpetua. By 

T. H. BINDLEY, D.D. is. $d. net. 
*St. Gregory of Nyssa: The Catechetical Oration. 

By the Yen. J. H. SRAWLEY, D.D. 2s. net. 
*St. Gregory of Nyssa: The Life of St. Macrina. By 

W. K. LOWTHER CLARKE, B.D. is. $d. net. 
^Gregory Thaumaturgus (Origen the Teacher): the 

Address of Gregory to Origen, with Origen s 

Letter to Gregory. By W. METCALFE, B.D. is. 6d. net. 
*The Shepherd of Hermas. By C. TAYLOR, D.D. 2 vols. 

2s. each net. 



SERIES I. GREEK TEXTS (continue^ 

The Epistles of St. Ignatius. By the Yen. J. H. 

SRAWLEY, D.D. y. 6d. net. 
*St. Irenaeus : Against the Heresies. By F. R. M. 

HITCHCOCK, D.D. 2 vols. 2$. each net. 
Palladium : The Lausiac History. By W. K. LOWTHER 

CLARKE, B.D. 55. net. 
*St. Polycarp. By B. JACKSON, is. $d. net. 

SERIES II. LATIN TEXTS. 

Tertullian s Treatises concerning Prayer, concerning 
Baptism. By A. SOUTER, Litt.D. 35. net. 

Tertullian against Praxeas. By A. SOUTER, Litt.D. 

Novatian on the Trinity. By H. MOORE. 

*St. Augustine : The City of God. By F. R. M. HITCH 
COCK, D.D. is. 6d. net. 

*St. Cyprian : The Lord s Prayer. By T. H. BINDLEY, 

D.D. is. 6d. net. 

Minucius Felix : The Octavius. By J. H. FREESE. 
$s. 6d. net. 

^Tertullian : On the Testimony of the Soul and On 
the Prescription of Heretics. By T. H. BINDLEY, 
D.D. 25. net. 

*St. Vincent of Lerins : The Commonitory. By T. H. 
BINDLEY, D.D. 25. net. 

SERIES III. LITURGICAL TEXTS. 

EDITED BY C. L. FELTOE, D.D. 

St. Ambrose: On the Mysteries and on the Sacra 
ments. By T. THOMPSON, B.D., and J. H. SRAWLEY, 
D.D. 4S. 6d. net. 

*The Apostolic Constitution and Cognate Documents, 
with special reference to their Liturgical elements. 
By DE LACY O LEARY, D.D. is. 3^. net. 

*The Liturgy of the Eighth Book of the Apostolic 
Constitution, commonly called the Clementine 
Liturgy. By R. H. CRESSWELL. 15-. 6d. net. 
The Pilgrimage of Etheria. By M. L. MCCLURE. 6.r. net. 

*Bishop Sarapion s Prayer=Book. By the Rt. Rev. J. 
WORDSWORTH, D.D. 15-. 6d. net. 

(Other series in contemplation) 



Helps for Students of History 

Edited by 
C.JOHNSON, M.A., and J. P. WHITNEY, D.D., D.C.L. 

The American Historical Review says : " A most useful little series 
of pamphlets." 

The Times Educational Supplement says: "These little volumes 
by well-known specialists should be in the hands of serious students 
of history." 

1. Episcopal Registers of England and Wales. By 

R. C. FOWLER, B.A., F.S.A. 6d. net. 

2. Municipal Records. By F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, M.A. 

6d. net. 

3. Medieval Reckonings of Time. By REGINALD L. 

POOLE, LL.D., Litt.D. 6d. net. 

4. The Public Record Office. By C. JOHNSON, M.A. 6d. net. 

5. The Care of Documents. By C. JOHNSON, M.A. 6d. net. 

6. The Logic of History. By C. G. CRUMP. Sd. net. 

7. Documents in the Public Record Office, Dublin. 

By R. H. MURRAY, Litt.D. Sd. net. 

8. The French Wars of Religion. By ARTHUR A. TILLEY, 

M.A. 6d. net. 

By Sir A. W. WARD, Litt.D., F.B.A. 

9. The Period of Congresses I. Introductory. Sd. net. 

10. The Period of Congresses II. Vienna and the 

Second Peace of Paris, is. net. 

11. The Period of Congresses III. Aix=la=Chapelle 

to Verona, is. net. 
Nos. 9, io, and n in one volume, cloth, 35. 6d. net. 

12. Securities of Peace: A Retrospect (1848-1914). 

Paper, 2s. net ; cloth, $s. net. 

13. The French Renaissance. By A. A. TILLEY, M.A. 

8d. net. 

14. Hints on the Study of English Economic History. 

By Archdeacon W. CUNNINGHAM, D.D., F.B.A., F.S.A. 
Sd. net. 

15. Parish History and Records. By A. HAMILTON 

THOMPSON, M.A., F.S.A. Sd. net. 

1 6. A Short Introduction to the Study of Colonial 

History. By A. P. NEWTON, M.A., D.Lit. 6d. net. 



Texts for Students 

General Editors: CAROLINE A. J. SKEEL, D.Lit.; H. J. WHITE, D.D.; 
J. P. WHITNEY, D.D., D.C.L. 

The English Historical Review says : " A new series which deserves 
mention . . . every number is the work of a scholar of acknowledged 
competence." 

Catholic Book Notes says : " The S.P.C.K. has rendered a service 
to Education ... It is to be hoped that these texts will find their 
way into our colleges : they will give a new meaning" to Latin and 
history." 

1. Select Passages from Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, 

Dio Cassius, illustrative of Christianity in the First 
Century. Arranged by H. J. WHITE, D.D. Paper 
cover, 3^. net. 

2. Selections from Matthew Paris. By C. A. J. SKEEL, 

D.Lit. Paper cover, gd. net. 

3. Selections from Giraldus Cambrensis. By C. A. J. 

SKEEL, D.Lit. Paper cover, gd. net. 

4. Libri Sancti Patricii. The Latin Writings of St. 

Patrick, etc. Edited by NEWPORT J. D. WHITE, D.D. 
Paper cover, 6d. net. 

5. A Translation of the Latin Writings of St. Patrick. 

By NEWPORT J. D. WHITE, D.D. Paper cover, 6d. net. 

6. Selections from the Vulgate. Paper cover, yd. net. 

7. The Epistle of St. Clement of Rome. Paper cover, 

6d. net. 

8. Select Extracts from Chronicles and Records re= 

lating to English Towns in the Middle Ages. 

Edited, with Introduction, Notes, and Glossary, by 
F. J. C. HEARNSHAW, M. A., LL.D. Paper cover, yd. net. 

9. The Inscription on the Stele of Mesa. Commonly 

called the Moabite Stone. The text in Moabite and 
Hebrew, with translation by the Rev. H. F. B. COMPSTON, 
M.A. Paper cover, 6d. net. 



SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE 
LONDON : 6 ST. MARTIN S PLACE, w.c. 2 

NEW YORK : THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 



University of Toronto 
Library 



DO NOT 

REMOVE 

THE 

CARD 

FROM 

THIS 

POCKET 




Acme Library Card Pocket 

Unuor Pat. "Ref. Index File" 

Made by LIBRARY BUREAU