Against Praxeas 17

they thought it easier that the Father had come in the Son's name than that the Son had come in the Father's; though the Lord himself says, “I have come in my Father's name,” and likewise to the Father himself, “I have made your name known to men,” and Scripture agrees: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” that is, the Son in the Father's name. And the Father's names are God Almighty, the Most High, the Lord of hosts, the King of Israel, He Who Is. As the Scriptures so teach, we say that these belonged to the Son as well, that the Son came in them and always acted in them, and so made them known to men in himself. “All that the Father has,” he says, “is mine.” Why not his names too? So when you read of God Almighty, the Most High, the God of hosts, the King of Israel, and He Who Is, see whether the Son too is not shown by them: God Almighty in his own right, as the Word of God Almighty and as having received power over all; the Most High, as exalted by God's right hand, as Peter proclaims in Acts; Lord of hosts, because all things have been subjected to him by the Father; King of Israel, because the lot of that nation fell to him in particular; likewise He Who Is, since many are called but are not. And if they want the Father's name to be Christ's also, they will hear about it in its place. Meanwhile let this be my ready answer against what they bring forward from John's Apocalypse too: “I am the Lord, who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty,” and anywhere else they think the title “God Almighty” does not fit the Son also. As if he who is to come were not … almighty, when the Son of the Almighty is as much almighty as the Son of God is God.