Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Concerning the Holy Trinity.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter VIII.—Concerning the Holy
Trinity.
We believe, then, in One God, one
beginning1487
| 1487 Or,
principle, ἀρχήν. | , having no
beginning, uncreate, unbegotten, imperishable and immortal,
everlasting, infinite, uncircumscribed, boundless, of infinite power,
simple, uncompound, incorporeal, without flux, passionless,
unchangeable, unalterable, unseen, the fountain of goodness and
justice, the light of the mind, inaccessible; a power known by no
measure, measurable only by His own will alone (for all things that He
wills He can1488
), creator of
all created things, seen or unseen, of all the maintainer and
preserver, for all the provider, master and lord and king over all,
with an endless and immortal kingdom: having no contrary, filling
all, by nothing encompassed, but rather Himself the encompasser and
maintainer and original possessor of the universe, occupying1489
| 1489 Or,
penetrating, ἐπιβατεύουσαν. | all essences intact1490
and extending beyond all things, and being
separate from all essence as being super-essential1491
and above all things and absolute God,
absolute goodness, and absolute fulness1492
| 1492 ὑπέρθεον,
ὑπεράγαθον,
ὑπερπλήρη. | : determining all sovereignties and
ranks, being placed above all sovereignty and rank, above essence and
life and word and thought: being Himself very light and goodness
and life and essence, inasmuch as He does not derive His being from
another, that is to say, of those things that exist: but being
Himself the fountain of being to all that is, of life to the living, of
reason to those that have reason; to all the cause of all good:
perceiving all things even before they have become: one essence,
one divinity, one power, one will, one energy, one beginning, one
authority, one dominion, one sovereignty, made known in three perfect
subsistences and adored with one adoration, believed in and ministered
to by all rational creation1493
| 1493 Greg.
Naz., Orat. 13, n. 32. | , united without
confusion and divided without separation (which indeed transcends
thought). (We believe) in Father and Son and Holy Spirit
whereinto also we have been baptized1494
| 1494 An argument
much used against the Arians, the Macedonians, and the
Sabellians. See e.g. Athan., ad Serap. Epist. 1 and 2;
Basil, Contra Eunom., bk. iii., and De Spiritu Sancto,
ch. 10, 12; Greg. Naz., Orat. 34. | . For
so our Lord commanded the Apostles to baptize, saying, Baptizing
them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit1495
.
(We believe) in one Father, the beginning1496
| 1496 Or,
principle, ἀρχήν. | , and cause of all: begotten of no
one: without cause or generation, alone subsisting: creator
of all: but Father of one only by nature, His Only-begotten Son
and our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and Producer1497
| 1497 προβολέα.
The term προβολή,
rendered prolatio by Tertullian and Hilary, was rejected as
unsuitable to the idea of the Divine procession, e.g. by Athanasius,
who in his Expos. Fidei denies that the Word is
ἀπό&
207·ῥοια, efflux,
or τμῆσις,
segmen, or προβολή,
emissio or prolatio; and by Jerome, Adv. Ruf.,
Apol. 2, his reason being that the word had been used by
Gnostics in speaking of the emanations of Æons, Greg. Naz.,
however, Orat. 13, 35, speaks of the Father as
γεννήτωρ and
προβολεύς,
and of the Spirit as πρόβλημα. | of the most Holy Spirit. And in
one Son of God, the Only-begotten, our Lord, Jesus Christ:
begotten of the Father, before all the ages: Light of Light, true
God of true God: begotten, not made, consubstantial with the
Father, through Whom all things are made: and when we say He was
before all the ages we shew that His birth is without time or
beginning: for the Son of God was not brought into being out of
nothing1498
| 1498 Greg.
Naz., Orat. 36. | , He that is
the effulgence of the glory, the impress of the Father’s
subsistence1499
, the living
wisdom and power1500
, the Word possessing
interior subsistence1501
| 1501 The Word
enhypostatic, ὁ
Λόγος
ἐνυπόστατος. | , the essential and
perfect and living image1502
of the unseen
God. But always He was with the Father and in Him1503
| 1503 The Arians
admitted that the Son is in the Father, in the sense in which
all created things are in God. Basil (De Spiritu
Sancto, ch. 25, Orat. in Princip. evang. Joan.) takes
the preposition σύν, in, to express the idea
of the σύναφεια,
or conjunction of the two. The Scholiast on the present
passages calls attention to the two prepositions with and
in as denoting the Son’s eternal existence and His union
with the Father, as the shining is with the light, and
comes from it without separation. Basil, De Spir. Sancto,
ch. 26, holds it better to say that the Spirit is one with
(συνεῖναι)
the Father and the Son than that He is in (ἐνεῖναι) the Father and the
Son. | , everlastingly and without beginning
begotten of Him. For there never was a time when the Father was and the Son
was not, but always the Father and always the Son, Who was begotten of
Him, existed together. For He could not have received the name
Father apart from the Son: for if He were without the
Son1504
| 1504 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 35. | , He could not be the Father: and if He
thereafter had the Son, thereafter He became the Father, not having
been the Father prior to this, and He was changed from that which was
not the Father and became the Father. This is the worst form of
blasphemy1505
| 1505 Cyril, Thesaurus,
assert. 4 and 5. | . For we may
not speak of God as destitute of natural generative power: and
generative power means, the power of producing from one’s self,
that is to say, from one’s own proper essence, that which is like
in nature to one’s self1506
.
In treating, then, of the generation of the Son,
it is an act of impiety1507
to say that time
comes into play and that the existence of the Son is of later origin
than the Father. For we hold that it is from Him, that is, from
the Father’s nature, that the Son is generated. And unless
we grant that the Son co-existed from the beginning with the Father, by
Whom He was begotten, we introduce change into the Father’s
subsistence, because, not being the Father, He subsequently became the
Father1508
| 1508 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 29. | . For the
creation, even though it originated later, is nevertheless not derived
from the essence of God, but is brought into existence out of nothing
by His will and power, and change does not touch God’s
nature. For generation means that the begetter produces out of
his essence offspring similar in essence. But creation and making
mean that the creator and maker produces from that which is external,
and not out of his own essence, a creation of an absolutely dissimilar
nature1509
| 1509 Text, ἀνόμοιον
παντελῶς, variant,
ἀνόμοιον
παντελῶς
κατ᾽
οὐσίαν, cf. also
Cyrill. | .
Wherefore in God, Who alone is passionless and
unalterable, and immutable, and ever so continueth, both begetting and
creating are passionless1510
| 1510 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 29 and 35. | . For being by
nature passionless and not liable to flux, since He is simple and
uncompound, He is not subject to passion or flux either in begetting or
in creating, nor has He need of any co-operation. But generation
in Him is without beginning and everlasting, being the work of nature
and producing out of His own essence, that the Begetter may not undergo
change, and that He may not be God first and God last, nor receive any
accession: while creation in the case of God1511
| 1511 On this
distinction between generation and creation, compare
Athan., Contra Arianos, Or. 2, 3 ; Basil, Contra
Eunom., bk. iv; Cyril, Thes., assert. 3. &c. | , being the work of will, is not co-eternal
with God. For it is not natural that that which is brought into
existence out of nothing should be co-eternal with what is without
beginning and everlasting. There is this difference in fact
between man’s making and God’s. Man can bring nothing
into existence out of nothing1512
| 1512 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 29. | , but all that he
makes requires pre-existing matter for its basis1513
| 1513 Cyril, Thes.,
assert. 7 and 18. | , and he does not create it by will only,
but thinks out first what it is to be and pictures it in his mind, and
only then fashions it with his hands, undergoing labour and
trouble1514
| 1514 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 29. | , and often missing
the mark and failing to produce to his satisfaction that after which he
strives. But God, through the exercise of will alone, has brought
all things into existence out of nothing. Now there is the same
difference between God and man in begetting and generating. For
in God, Who is without time and beginning, passionless, not liable to
flux, incorporeal, alone and without end1515
| 1515 Cyril, Thes.,
assert. 5, 6, and 16; Greg., Orat. 35. | ,
generation is without time and beginning, passionless and not liable to
flux, nor dependent on the union of two1516
| 1516 ἀρρεύστως
γεννᾷ καὶ
ἐκτὸς
συνδυασμοῦ. This argument is repeatedly made in refutation both of Gnostic
ideas of emanation and Arian misrepresentation of the orthodox
doctrine. Cf. Athan., De Synodis; Epiph.,
Hæres. 69; Hilary, De Trin. iii. iv.;
Greg. Naz., Orat. 35. | : nor has His own incomprehensible
generation beginning or end. And it is without beginning because
He is immutable: without flux because He is passionless and
incorporeal: independent of the union of two again because He is
incorporeal but also because He is the one and only God, and stands in
need of no co-operation: and without end or cessation because He
is without beginning, or time, or end, and ever continues the
same. For that which has no beginning has no end: but that
which through grace is endless is assuredly not without beginning, as,
witness, the angels1517
| 1517 Infra, Book ii. c.
3. | .
Accordingly the everlasting God generates His own
Word which is perfect, without beginning and without end, that God,
Whose nature and existence are above time, may not engender in
time. But with man clearly it is otherwise, for generation is
with him a matter of sex, and destruction and flux and increase and
body clothe him round about1518
| 1518 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 45. | , and he
possesses a nature which is male or female. For the male requires
the assistance of the female. But may He Who surpasses all, and
transcends all thought and comprehension, be gracious to us.
The holy catholic and apostolic Church, then, teaches the existence at once of a
Father: and of His Only-begotten Son, born of Him without time
and flux and passion, in a manner incomprehensible and perceived by the
God of the universe alone: just as we recognise the existence at
once of fire and the light which proceeds from it: for there is
not first fire and thereafter light, but they exist together. And
just as light is ever the product of fire, and ever is in it and at no
time is separate from it, so in like manner also the Son is begotten of
the Father and is never in any way1519
| 1519 Text, μηδ᾽
ὅλως. Variant in many codices is
μηδαμῶς, as in the
previous sentence. | separate from
Him, but ever is in Him1520
| 1520 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. bk. i., Cont. Eun., p. 66; Cyril, Thes.,
assert. 5. | . But whereas
the light which is produced from fire without separation, and abideth
ever in it, has no proper subsistence of its own distinct from that of
fire (for it is a natural quality of fire), the Only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father without separation and difference and ever
abiding in Him, has a proper subsistence of its own distinct from that
of the Father.
The terms, ‘Word’ and
‘effulgence,’ then, are used because He is begotten of the
Father without the union of two, or passion, or time, or flux, or
separation1521
| 1521 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 36. | : and the
terms ‘Son’ and ‘impress of the Father’s
subsistence,’ because He is perfect and has subsistence1522
| 1522 ἐνυπόστατον; enhypostatic. See Suicer, Thesaurus, sub
voce. | and is in all respects similar to the
Father, save that the Father is not begotten1523
| 1523 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 23, 37, and 39. | : and the term
‘Only-begotten’1524
because He alone
was begotten alone of the Father alone. For no other generation
is like to the generation of the Son of God, since no other is Son of
God. For though the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father, yet
this is not generative in character but processional. This is a
different mode of existence, alike incomprehensible and unknown, just
as is the generation of the Son. Wherefore all the qualities the
Father has are the Son’s, save that the Father is
unbegotten1525
| 1525 Athan., Contra
Arian., Orat. 2; Basil, Contra Eunom. iv.; Greg.
Naz., Orat. 35. | , and this
exception involves no difference in essence nor dignity1526
, but only a different mode of coming into
existence1527
| 1527 Basil, bk.
ii. and iv. | . We have
an analogy in Adam, who was not begotten (for God Himself moulded him),
and Seth, who was begotten (for he is Adam’s son), and Eve, who
proceeded out of Adam’s rib (for she was not begotten).
These do not differ from each other in nature, for they are human
beings: but they differ in the mode of coming into
existence1528
| 1528 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 36 and 37. | .
For one must recognise that the word ἀγένητον with only one
‘ν’ signifies
“uncreate” or “not having been made,” while
ἀγέννητον written
with double ‘ν’
means “unbegotten.” According to the first
significance essence differs from essence: for one essence is
uncreate, or ἀγένητον with one
‘ν,’ and another is
create or γενητή. But in the
second significance there is no difference between essence and
essence. For the first subsistence of all kinds of living
creatures is ἀγέννητος
but not ἀγένητος.
For they were created by the Creator, being brought into being by His
Word, but they were not begotten, for there was no pre-existing form
like themselves from which they might have been born.
So then in the first sense of the word the three
absolutely divine subsistences of the Holy Godhead agree1529
| 1529 Man. Dialog.
contr. Arian. | : for they exist as one in essence
and uncreate1530
| 1530 Cyril, Thes.,
assert. 1, p. 12. | . But with
the second signification it is quite otherwise. For the Father
alone is ingenerate1531
| 1531 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 35. | , no other
subsistence having given Him being. And the Son alone is
generate, for He was begotten of the Father’s essence without
beginning and without time. And only the Holy Spirit proceedeth
from the Father’s essence, not having been generated but simply
proceeding1532
. For this
is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the nature of the
generation and the procession is quite beyond comprehension.
And this also it behoves1533
| 1533 Cf.
Basil, Contra Eunom., v.; Athan., Contra Arian., ii.;
Cyril, Thes., assert. 32; Epiphan., Hæres. 73,
&c. | us to know, that the names Fatherhood,
Sonship and Procession, were not applied to the Holy Godhead by
us: on the contrary, they were communicated to us by the Godhead,
as the divine apostle says, Wherefore I bow the knee to the Father,
from Whom is every family in heaven and on earth1534
. But if we say1535
| 1535 In the first
Book of his Contra Arianos Athanasius refers to Christ’s
word in St. John xiv.
28. He remarks that He
does not say “the Father is better (κρείσσων)
than I,” lest it should be inferred that the Son is not equal to
the Father in Divine nature, but of another nature; but “the
Father is greater (μείζων) than I,” that
is to say, not in dignity or age, but as being begotten of the
Father. And further, that by the word “greater” He
indicates the peculiar property of the substance (τῆς οὐσίας τὴν
ἰδιότητα).
This declaration of our Lord’s was understood in the same way by
Basil, Gregory Nazianzenus, Cyril and others of the Greek Fathers, and
by Hilary among the Latin Fathers. In the ixth and xth Books of
his De Trinitate Hilary refers to this, and says that the Father
is called ‘greater’ propter auctoritatem, meaning by
auctoritas not power, but what the Greeks understand
by αἰτιότης,
causation, principle or authorship of being. So also
Soebadius says that the Father is rightly called
‘greater,’ because He alone is without an author of
His being. But Latin theologians usually spoke of the Father as
‘greater,’ not because He is Father, but
because the Son was made Man. To this effect also Athanasius
expresses himself in his De hum. carne suscepta, while Gregory
Nazianzenus speaks otherwise in his Orat. 36. | that the Father is the origin of the Son
and greater than the Son, we do not suggest any precedence in
time or superiority in nature of the Father over the Son1536
(for through His agency He made the
ages1537
), or superiority in any other respect
save causation. And we mean by this, that the Son is begotten of
the Father and not the Father of the Son, and that the Father naturally
is the cause of the Son: just as we say in the same way not that
fire proceedeth from light, but rather light from fire. So then,
whenever we hear it said that the Father is the origin of the Son and
greater than the Son, let us understand it to mean in respect of
causation. And just as we do not say that fire is of one essence
and light of another, so we cannot say that the Father is of one
essence and the Son of another: but both are of one and the same
essence1538
| 1538 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37; Athan., Contr. Arian., bk. i. | . And
just as we say that fire has brightness1539
through the light proceeding from it, and do not consider the light of
the fire as an instrument ministering to the fire, but rather as its
natural force: so we say that the Father creates all that He
creates through His Only-begotten Son, not as though the Son were a
mere instrument serving1540
| 1540 See Cyril, Ad
Herm., dial. 2; Irenæus. iv. 14, v. 6, and John of
Damascus, himself in his Dial. Contr. Manich. | the Father’s
ends, but as His natural and subsistential force1541
| 1541 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 13, 31 and 37. | . And just as we say both that the
fire shines and again that the light of the fire shines, So all
things whatsoever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son
likewise1542
. But
whereas light possesses no proper subsistence of its own, distinct from
that of the fire, the Son is a perfect subsistence1543
| 1543 τέλεια
ὑπόστασις;
a perfect hypostasis. | , inseparable from the Father’s
subsistence, as we have shewn above. For it is quite impossible
to find in creation an image that will illustrate in itself exactly in
all details the nature of the Holy Trinity. For how could that
which is create and compound, subject to flux and change,
circumscribed, formed and corruptible, clearly shew forth the
super-essential divine essence, unaffected as it is in any of these
ways? Now it is evident that all creation is liable to most of
these affections, and all from its very nature is subject to
corruption.
Likewise we believe also in one Holy Spirit, the
Lord and Giver of Life: Who proceedeth from the Father and
resteth in the Son: the object of equal adoration and
glorification with the Father and Son, since He is co-essential and
co-eternal1544
| 1544 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37. | : the Spirit
of God, direct, authoritative1545
, the fountain of
wisdom, and life, and holiness: God existing and addressed along
with Father and Son: uncreate, full, creative, all-ruling,
all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation
and not under any lord1546
| 1546 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 49. | : deifying,
not deified1547
: filling,
not filled: shared in, not sharing in: sanctifying, not
sanctified: the intercessor, receiving the supplications of
all: in all things like to the Father and Son: proceeding
from the Father and communicated through the Son, and participated in
by all creation, through Himself creating, and investing with essence
and sanctifying, and maintaining the universe: having
subsistence, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence,
inseparable and indivisible from Father and Son, and possessing all the
qualities that the Father and Son possess, save that of not being
begotten or born. For the Father is without cause and
unborn: for He is derived from nothing, but derives from Himself
His being, nor does He derive a single quality from another1548
| 1548 Text οὐ γὰρ ἔκ
τινος· ἐξ
ἑαυτοῦ γὰρ
τὸ εἶναι
ἔχει, οὐδέ τι
τῶν ὅσαπερ
ἔχει ἐξ
ἑτέρου
ἔχει· Another reading is,
οὐ γὰρ
ἔκ τινος τὸ
ειναι ἔχει,
οὐδέ τι τῶν
οσα ἔχει, i.e. or
He does not derive His being nor any one of His qualities from any
one. | . Rather He is Himself the
beginning and cause of the existence of all things in a definite and
natural manner. But the Son is derived from the Father after the
manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the
Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of
procession. And we have learned that there is a
difference1549
| 1549 See Greg.
Naz., Orat. 29, 35; Thomas Aquin., I. Quæst. 35,
art. 1. | between
generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no
wise understand. Further, the generation of the Son from the
Father and the procession of the Holy Spirit are
simultaneous.
All then that the Son and the Spirit have is from
the Father, even their very being1550
| 1550 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 25. | : and
unless the Father is, neither the Son nor the Spirit is. And
unless the Father possesses a certain attribute, neither the Son nor
the Spirit possesses it: and through the Father1551
| 1551 See Athan.,
Contra Arian., Orat. 3; Greg. Naz., Orat. 35. So
Augustine (Contr. Max. iii. 14, De Trin. xv.).
Epiphanius (Anchor.), and Gregory of Nyssa (Epist. ad
Ablab.) teach that the Spirit proceeds, and is not
begotten, because He is both of the Father and the Son, while
the Son is only of the Father. | , that is, because of the Father’s
existence1552
| 1552 Reading, διὰ τὸ
εἶναι τὸν
Πατέρα: a variant is,
διὰ τὸ
εἶναι αὐτὸν
Πατέρα, as also in
Cyrilli, De Trinitate. | , the Son and the
Spirit exist1553
| 1553 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 23. | , and through the
Father, that is, because of the Father having the qualities, the Son
and the Spirit have all their qualities, those of being unbegotten, and
of birth and of procession being excepted1554
. For in these
hypostatic
or personal properties alone do the three holy
subsistences1555
| 1555 ὑπόστασεις; hypostases. | differ from each
other, being indivisibly divided not by essence but by the
distinguishing mark of their proper and peculiar
subsistence.
Further we say that each of1556
| 1556 See Athan., Contra
Arian., Orat. 5. | the three has a perfect subsistence, that
we may understand not one compound perfect nature made up of three
imperfect elements, but one simple essence, surpassing and preceding
perfection, existing in three perfect subsistences1557
| 1557 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 13 and 29: Athan., Orat. Contr.
Arian. | . For all that is composed of
imperfect elements must necessarily be compound. But from perfect
subsistences no compound can arise. Wherefore we do not speak of
the form as from subsistences, but as in subsistences1558
| 1558 The Greek is
ὅθεν οὐδὲ
λέγομεν τὸ
εἶδος ἐξ
ὑποστάσεων,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐν
ὑποστάσεσιν. See Basil., Orat. Contr. Sabell., Ar. et
Eunom. | . But we speak of those things as
imperfect which do not preserve the form of that which is completed out
of them. For stone and wood and iron are each perfect in its own
nature, but with reference to the building that is completed out of
them each is imperfect: for none of them is in itself a
house.
The subsistences then we say are perfect, that we
may not conceive of the divine nature as compound. For
compoundness is the beginning of separation. And again we speak
of the three subsistences as being in each other1559
| 1559 See Greg.
Naz., Orat. 1 and 37. | , that we may not introduce a crowd and
multitude of Gods1560
| 1560 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 29, 34 and 40. | . Owing to the
three subsistences, there is no compoundness or confusion: while,
owing to their having the same essence and dwelling in one another, and
being the same in will, and energy, and power, and authority, and
movement, so to speak, we recognise the indivisibility and the unity of
God. For verily there is one God, and His word and
Spirit.
Marg. ms.
Concerning the distinction of the three subsistences: and
concerning the thing itself and our reason and thought in relation to
it.
One ought, moreover, to recognise that it is one
thing to look at a matter as it is, and another thing to look at it in
the light of reason and thought. In the case of all created
things, the distinction of the subsistences is observed in actual
fact. For in actual fact Peter is seen to be separate from
Paul. But the community and connection and unity are apprehended
by reason and thought. For it is by the mind that we perceive
that Peter and Paul are of the same nature and have one common
nature1561
| 1561 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37. | . For both
are living creatures, rational and mortal: and both are flesh,
endowed with the spirit of reason and understanding1562
. It is, then, by reason that this
community of nature is observed. For here indeed the subsistences
do not exist one within the other. But each privately and
individually, that is to say, in itself, stands quite separate, having
very many points that divide it from the other. For they are both
separated in space and differ in time, and are divided in thought, and
power, and shape, or form, and habit, and temperament and dignity, and
pursuits, and all differentiating properties, but above all, in the
fact that they do not dwell in one another but are separated.
Hence it comes that we can speak of two, three, or many men.
And this may be perceived throughout the whole of
creation, but in the case of the holy and superessential and
incomprehensible Trinity, far removed from everything, it is quite the
reverse. For there the community and unity are observed in fact,
through the co-eternity of the subsistences, and through their having
the same essence and energy and will and concord of mind1563
| 1563 τὴν τῆς
γνώμης
σύμπνοιαν;
co-operation of judgment, or, disposition. | , and then being identical in authority
and power and goodness—I do not say similar but
identical—and then movement by one impulse1564
| 1564 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 40. The Greek is singular and difficult:
τὸ ἕν
ἔξαλμα τῆς
κινήσεως; the
one forthleaping of the motion, or movement. Origen
speaks of ἡ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ
κίνησις (I. 436 A.).
In Athanasius (I. 253 C.) κίνησις has the
metaphorical sense of indignation. | . For there is one essence, one
goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority, one and the
same, I repeat, not three resembling each other. But the three
subsistences have one and the same movement. For each one of them
is related as closely to the other as to itself: that is to say
that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects,
save those of not being begotten, of birth and of procession. But
it is by thought that the difference is perceived1565
| 1565 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37; Greg. Nyss., Epist. ad Ablab. et Orat.
32. | . For we recognise one God: but
only in the attributes of Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession, both in
respect of cause and effect and perfection of subsistence, that is,
manner of existence, do we perceive difference1566
. For with reference to the
uncircumscribed Deity we cannot speak of separation in space, as we can
in our own case. For the subsistences dwell in one another, in no
wise confused but cleaving together, according to the word of the
Lord, I am in the father,
and the father in Me1567
: nor
can one admit difference in will or judgment or energy or power or
anything else whatsoever which may produce actual and absolute
separation in our case. Wherefore we do not speak of three Gods,
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but rather of one God, the
holy Trinity, the Son and Spirit being referred to one cause1568
| 1568 εἰς ἓν
αἴτιον. So elsewhere it is
put, ὥσπερ μία
ἀρχή, κατὰ
τοῦτο εἷς
Θεός. The three Persons or
Subsistences are yet One God, because of the one Principle of Being
whence Son and spirit derive. So the Father is said to be the
ἕνωσις ἐξ οὗ
καὶ πρὸς ὃν
ἄναγεται τὰ
ἑξῆς. | , and not compounded or coalesced
according to the synæresis of Sabellius. For, as we said,
they are made one not so as to commingle, but so as to cleave to each
other, and they have their being in each other1569
| 1569 The Greek runs
thus:—καὶ
τὴν ἐν
ἀλλήλαις
περιχώρησιν
ἔχουσι δίχα
πάσης
συναλοιφῆς
καὶ
συμφύρσεως.
The term περιχώρησις, circumincessio, immanentia, was meant to express the
peculiarity of the relations of the Three Divine Persons or
Subsistences—their Indwelling in each other, the fact that, while
they are distinct they yet are in one another, the Coinherence which
implies their equal and identical Godhead. “In the
Trinity,” says Bishop Bull (Defence of the Nicene Creed,
bk. iv. ch. iv., secs. 13, 14), “the circumincession is most
proper and perfect, forasmuch as the Persons mutually contain Each
Other, and all the three have an immeasureable whereabouts (immensum
ubi, as the Schoolmen express it), so that wherever one Person is
there the other two exist; in other words They are all
everywhere.…This outcome of the circumincession of the Persons in
the Trinity is so far from introducing Sabellianism, that it is of
great use, as Petavius has also observed, for (establishing) the
diversity of the Persons, and for confuting that heresy. For, in
order to that mutual existence (in each other) which is discerned in
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is absolutely necessary
that there should be some distinction between these who are thus joined
together—that is, that those that exist mutually in each other
should be different in reality, and not in mode of conception only; for
that which is simply one is not said to exist in itself, or to
interpenetrate itself.…Lastly, this is to be especially
considered—that this circumincession of the Divine Persons is
indeed a very great mystery, which we ought rather religiously to adore
than curiously to pry into. No similitude can be devised which
shall be in every respect apt to illustrate it; no language avails
worthily to set it forth, seeing that it is an union which far
transcends all other unions.” |
without any coalescence or commingling. Nor do the Son and the
Spirit stand apart, nor are they sundered in essence according to the
diæresis of Arias1570
| 1570 Greg., Orat.
29; Dionys., De div. nom., c. 2. | . For the
Deity is undivided amongst things divided, to put it concisely:
and it is just like three suns cleaving to each other without
separation and giving out light mingled and conjoined into one.
When, then, we turn our eyes to the Divinity, and the first cause and
the sovereignty and the oneness and sameness, so to speak, of the
movement and will of the Divinity, and the identity in essence and
power and energy and lordship, what is seen by us is unity1571
| 1571 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37. | . But when we look to those things in
which the Divinity is, or, to put it more accurately, which are the
Divinity, and those things which are in it through the first cause
without time or distinction in glory or separation, that is to say, the
subsistences of the Son and the Spirit, it seems to us a Trinity that
we adore1572
| 1572 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 19 and 29. | . The
Father is one Father, and without beginning, that is, without
cause: for He is not derived from anything. The Son is one
Son, but not without beginning, that is, not without cause: for
He is derived from the Father. But if you eliminate the idea of a
beginning from time, He is also without beginning: for the
creator of times cannot be subject to time. The Holy Spirit is
one Spirit, going forth from the Father, not in the manner of Sonship
but of procession; so that neither has the Father lost His property of
being unbegotten because He hath begotten, nor has the Son lost His
property of being begotten because He was begotten of that which was
unbegotten (for how could that be so?), nor does the Spirit change
either into the Father or into the Son because He hath proceeded and is
God. For a property is quite constant. For how could a
property persist if it were variable, moveable, and could change into
something else? For if the Father is the Son, He is not strictly
the Father: for there is strictly one Father. And if the
Son is the Father, He is not strictly the Son: for there is
strictly one Son and one Holy Spirit.
Further, it should be understood that we do not
speak of the Father as derived from any one, but we speak of Him as the
Father of the Son. And we do not speak of the Son as
Cause1573
| 1573 Text, αἴτιον:
variant, ἀναίτιον,
causeless. | or Father, but we speak of Him both as
from the Father, and as the Son of the Father. And we speak
likewise of the Holy Spirit as from the Father, and call Him the Spirit
of the Father. And we do not speak of the Spirit as from the
Son1574
| 1574 Maxim. Epist. ad
Marin. | : 1575
| 1575 ἐκ
τοῦ Υἱοῦ δὲ
τὸ Πνεῦμα οὐ
λέγομεν. See also ch.
xii., καὶ
Υἱοῦ Πνεῦμα
οὐχ ὡς ἐξ
αὐτοῦ, and at the close of the
Epist. ad Jordan, Πνεῦμα Υἱοῦ
μὴ ἐξ Υἱοῦ. | but yet we call Him the Spirit of the
Son. For if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none
of His1576
, saith the
divine apostle. And we confess that He is manifested and imparted
to us through the Son. For He breathed upon His Disciples,
says he, and said, Receive ye the Holy Spirit1577
. It is just the same as in the
case of the sun from which come both the ray and the radiance (for the
sun itself is the source of both the ray and the radiance), and it is
through the ray that the radiance is imparted to us, and it is the
radiance itself by which we are lightened and in which we
participate. Further we do not speak of the Son of the Spirit, or
of the Son as derived from the Spirit1578
| 1578 Greg. Naz.,
Orat. 37. | .E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
