Translation
Hide
Contre Praxéas
I.
Le démon s'y prend de plusieurs manières pour contrefaire la vérité. Il affecte quelquefois de la défendre pour mieux l'ébranler. Il prêche un seul Dieu, Père tout-puissant, Créateur de l'univers, afin de susciter une hérésie à l'occasion de cette unité. Il soutient, par exemple, que c'est le Père qui est descendu dans le sein d'une Vierge, lui qui est né d'elle, lui qui a souffert, en un mot, lui qui est Jésus-Christ. Le serpent s'est mis en contradiction avec lui-même. Il oublie qu'au moment où il tenta Jésus-Christ, que Jean venait de baptiser, il l'aborda comme Fils de Dieu, certain que Dieu avait un Fils, ne fût-ce que par les Ecritures, en vertu desquelles il essayait de le tenter: «Si vous êtes le Fils de Dieu, commandez que ces pierres deviennent des pains;» et encore: «Si vous êtes le Fils de Dieu, jetez-vous en bas, car il est écrit qu'il vous a confié à ses anges,» le Père apparemment, «pour qu'ils vous portent dans leurs mains, et de peur que votre pied ne heurte contre la pierre.» Ou bien, peut-être qu'il a reproché aux Evangiles leur mensonge, en disant: «Qu'importe Matthieu! qu'importe Luc! Quant à moi, c'est Dieu lui-même que j'allai trouver; c'est le Tout-Puissant en personne que je tentai en face. Voilà pourquoi je l'abordai; pourquoi je le tentai. D'ailleurs, si Dieu avait un Fils, je n'aurais jamais daigné le tenter.» C'est le démon plutôt qui «est menteur dès l'origine,» lui est l'homme qu'il infecte de son poison, tel que Praxéas, par exemple.
Praxéas, en effet, transporta le premier de l'Asie à Rome ce genre de perversité, homme d'un caractère inquiet, enflé par l'orgueil du martyre, pour quelques moments d'ennui dans une prison de quelques jours, a lors même que, s'il eût livré son corps aux flammes, il n'aurait rien gagné, puisqu'il n'a pas l'amour de Dieu, dont il a détruit les dons. L'évêque de Rome reconnaissait déjà les prophéties de Montan, de Prisca et de Maximilla, et par cette reconnaissance il donnait la paix aux Eglises d'Asie et de Phrygie, lorsque Praxéas, en lui rapportant des choses controuvées sur les Prophètes eux-mêmes et leurs églises, et en défendant l'autorité de ses prédécesseurs, le força de révoquer les lettres de paix qui étaient déjà parties, et le détourna du dessein qu'il avait de recevoir les dons nouveaux. Praxéas à Rome rendit donc un double service au démon; il chassa la prophétie et il introduisit, l'hérésie; il mit en fuite le Paraclet, et il crucifia le Père. L'ivraie semée par Praxéas avait fructifié; car «elle avait été jetée ici où nous sommes pendant que le grand nombre dormait,» dans la simplicité de la doctrine; dénoncée ensuite par celui qu'il plut à Dieu d'y employer, elle paraissait entièrement arrachée. En un mot, l'hérétique s'était précautionné contre le passé; il devint docteur après sa rétractation; l'acte qui la constate est encore entre les mains des Psychiques, devant qui la chose eut lieu; depuis silence absolu. Quant à nous, la connaissance et l'admission du Paraclet nous sépara depuis des Psychiques. Mais cette ivraie avait répandu sa graine. Après s'être cachée pendant quelque temps, par l'hypocrisie, sous une vitalité qui échappait à tous les regards, la voilà qui fait invasion de nouveau. Mais elle sera de nouveau déracinée, s'il plaît au Seigneur, dans le temps présent; sinon «toutes les moissons adultères seront rassemblées en leur jour, et brûlées dans des flammes inextinguibles avec tous les autres scandales.»
Translation
Hide
Against Praxeas
Chapter I.--Satan's Wiles Against the Truth. How They Take the Form of the Praxean Heresy. Account of the Publication of This Heresy.
In various ways has the devil rivalled and resisted the truth. Sometimes his aim has been to destroy the truth by defending it. He maintains that there is one only Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world, in order that out of this doctrine of the unity he may fabricate a heresy. He says that the Father Himself came down into the Virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus Christ. Here the old serpent has fallen out with himself, since, when he tempted Christ after John's baptism, he approached Him as "the Son of God;" surely intimating that God had a Son, even on the testimony of the very Scriptures, out of which he was at the moment forging his temptation: "If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread." 1 Again: "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence; 2 for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning thee"--referring no doubt, to the Father--"and in their hands they shall bear thee up, that thou hurt not thy foot against a stone." 3 Or perhaps, after all, he was only reproaching the Gospels with a lie, saying in fact: "Away with Matthew; away with Luke! Why heed their words? In spite of them, I declare that it was God Himself that I approached; it was the Almighty Himself that I tempted face to face; and it was for no other purpose than to tempt Him that I approached Him. If, on the contrary, it had been only the Son of God, most likely I should never have condescended to deal with Him." However, he is himself a liar from the beginning, 4 and whatever man he instigates in his own way; as, for instance, Praxeas. For he was the first to import into Rome from Asia this kind of heretical pravity, a man in other respects of restless disposition, and above all inflated with the pride of confessorship simply and solely because he had to bear for a short time the annoyance of a prison; on which occasion, even "if he had given his body to be burned, it would have profited him nothing," not having the love of God, 5 whose very gifts he has resisted and destroyed. For after the Bishop of Rome 6 had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed his peace 7 on the churches of Asia and Phrygia, he, by importunately urging false accusations against the prophets themselves and their churches, and insisting on the authority of the bishop's predecessors in the see, compelled him to recall the pacific letter which he had issued, as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the said gifts. By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father. Praxeas' tares had been moreover sown, and had produced their fruit here also, 8 while many were asleep in their simplicity of doctrine; but these tares actually seemed to have been plucked up, having been discovered and exposed by him whose agency God was pleased to employ. Indeed, Praxeas had deliberately resumed his old (true) faith, teaching it after his renunciation of error; and there is his own handwriting in evidence remaining among the carnally-minded, 9 in whose society the transaction then took place; afterwards nothing was heard of him. We indeed, on our part, subsequently withdrew from the carnally-minded on our acknowledgment and maintenance of the Paraclete. 10 But the tares of Praxeas had then everywhere shaken out their seed, which having lain hid for some while, with its vitality concealed under a mask, has now broken out with fresh life. But again shall it be rooted up, if the Lord will, even now; but if not now, in the day when all bundles of tares shall be gathered together, and along with every other stumbling-block shall be burnt up with unquenchable fire. 11
-
Matt. iv. 3. ↩
-
Ver. 6. ↩
-
Ps. xci. 11. ↩
-
John viii. 44. ↩
-
1 Cor. xiii. 3. ↩
-
Probably Victor. [Elucidation II.] ↩
-
Had admitted them to communion. ↩
-
"The connection renders it very probable that the hic quoque of this sentence forms an antithesis to Rome, mentioned before, and that Tertullian expresses himself as if he had written from the very spot where these things had transpired. Hence we are led to conclude that it was Carthage."--Neander, Antignostikus, ii. 519, note 2, Bohn. ↩
-
On the designation Psychici, see our Anti-Marcion, p. 263, note 5, Edin. ↩
-
[This statement may only denote a withdrawal from the communion of the Bishop of Rome, like that of Cyprian afterwards. That prelate had stultified himself and broken faith with Tertullian; but, it does not, necessarily, as Bp. Bull too easily concludes, define his ultimate separation from his own bishop and the North-African church.] ↩
-
Matt. xiii. 30. ↩