Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume IX/John of Damascus/An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith/Book I/Chapter 8
Chapter VIII.—Concerning the Holy Trinity.
We believe, then, in One God, one beginning, 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 can), 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, occupying all essences intact and extending beyond all things, and being separate from all essence as being super-essential and above all things and absolute God, absolute goodness, and absolute fulness: 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 creation, 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 baptized. For so our Lord commanded the Apostles to baptize, saying, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
(We believe) in one Father, the beginning, 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 Producer 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 nothing, He that is the effulgence of the glory, the impress of the Father’s subsistence, the living wisdom and power, the Word possessing interior subsistence, the essential and perfect and living image of the unseen God. But always He was with the Father and in Him, 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 Son, 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 blasphemy. 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 self.
In treating, then, of the generation of the Son, it is an act of impiety 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 Father. 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 nature.
Wherefore in God, Who alone is passionless and unalterable, and immutable, and ever so continueth, both begetting and creating are passionless. 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 God, 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 nothing, but all that he makes requires pre-existing matter for its basis, 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 trouble, 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 end, generation is without time and beginning, passionless and not liable to flux, nor dependent on the union of two: 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 angels.
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 about, 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 way separate from Him, but ever is in Him. 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 separation: and the terms ‘Son’ and ‘impress of the Father’s subsistence,’ because He is perfect and has subsistence and is in all respects similar to the Father, save that the Father is not begotten: and the term ‘Only-begotten’ 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 unbegotten, and this exception involves no difference in essence nor dignity, but only a different mode of coming into existence. 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 existence.
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 agree: for they exist as one in essence and uncreate. But with the second signification it is quite otherwise. For the Father alone is ingenerate, 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 proceeding. 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 behoves 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 earth. But if we say 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 Son (for through His agency He made the ages), 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 essence. And just as we say that fire has brightness 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 serving the Father’s ends, but as His natural and subsistential force. 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 likewise. But whereas light possesses no proper subsistence of its own, distinct from that of the fire, the Son is a perfect subsistence, 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-eternal: the Spirit of God, direct, authoritative, 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 lord: deifying, not deified: 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 another. 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 difference 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 being: 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 Father, that is, because of the Father’s existence, the Son and the Spirit exist, 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 excepted. For in these hypo'static or personal properties alone do the three holy subsistences 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 of 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 subsistences. 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 subsistences. 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 other, that we may not introduce a crowd and multitude of Gods. 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 nature. For both are living creatures, rational and mortal: and both are flesh, endowed with the spirit of reason and understanding. 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 mind, and then being identical in authority and power and goodness—I do not say similar but identical—and then movement by one impulse. 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 perceived. 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 difference. 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 Me: 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 cause, 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 other 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 Arias. 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 unity. 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 adore. 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 Cause 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 Son: but yet we call Him the Spirit of the Son. For if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His, 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 Spirit. 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 Spirit.
- Or, principle, ἀρχήν.
- Cf. Ps. cxxxv. 6.
- Or, penetrating, ἐπιβατεύουσαν.
- ὑπέρθεον, ὑπεράγαθον, ὑπερπλήρη.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 13, n. 32.
- 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.
- St. Matt. xviii. 19.
- Or, principle, ἀρχήν.
- 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.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 36.
- 1 Cor. i. 24.
- The Word enhypostatic, ὁ Λόγος ἐνυπόστατος.
- Heb. i. 3.
- 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.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 35.
- Cyril, Thesaurus, assert. 4 and 5.
- Ibid., assert. 6.
- Ibid., assert. 4.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 29.
- Text, ἀνόμοιον παντελῶς, variant, ἀνόμοιον παντελῶς κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, cf. also Cyrill.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 29 and 35.
- On this distinction between generation and creation, compare Athan., Contra Arianos, Or. 2, 3 ; Basil, Contra Eunom., bk. iv; Cyril, Thes., assert. 3. &c.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 29.
- Cyril, Thes., assert. 7 and 18.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 29.
- Cyril, Thes., assert. 5, 6, and 16; Greg., Orat. 35.
- 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.
- Infra, Book ii. c. 3.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 45.
- Text, μηδ᾽ ὅλως. Variant in many codices is μηδαμῶς, as in the previous sentence.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. bk. i., Cont. Eun., p. 66; Cyril, Thes., assert. 5.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 36.
- ἐνυπόστατον; enhypostatic. See Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 23, 37, and 39.
- Cf. ibid. 23, 36.
- Athan., Contra Arian., Orat. 2; Basil, Contra Eunom. iv.; Greg. Naz., Orat. 35.
- Basil, bk. ii. and iv.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 36 and 37.
- Man. Dialog. contr. Arian.
- Cyril, Thes., assert. 1, p. 12.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 35.
- St. John xv. 26.
- Cf. Basil, Contra Eunom., v.; Athan., Contra Arian., ii.; Cyril, Thes., assert. 32; Epiphan., Hæres. 73, &c.
- Ephes. iii. 14 and 15: Cyril, Thes., assert. 32: Dionys., De divin. nom., c. 1.
- 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.
- St. John xiv. 28.
- τοὺς αἰ& 242·νας; Heb. i. 3.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 37; Athan., Contr. Arian., bk. i.
- φαίνειν, shines.
- See Cyril, Ad Herm., dial. 2; Irenæus. iv. 14, v. 6, and John of Damascus, himself in his Dial. Contr. Manich.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 13, 31 and 37.
- St. John v. 19.
- τέλεια ὑπόστασις; a perfect hypostasis.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 37.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 49.
- θεοῦν οὐ θεούμενον.
- 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.
- See Greg. Naz., Orat. 29, 35; Thomas Aquin., I. Quæst. 35, art. 1.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 25.
- 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.
- Reading, διὰ τὸ εἶναι τὸν Πατέρα: a variant is, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν Πατέρα, as also in Cyrilli, De Trinitate.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 23.
- Ibid., Orat., 25.
- ὑπόστασεις; hypostases.
- See Athan., Contra Arian., Orat. 5.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 13 and 29: Athan., Orat. Contr. Arian.
- The Greek is ὅθεν οὐδὲ λέγομεν τὸ εἶδος ἐξ ὑποστάσεων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν ὑποστάσεσιν. See Basil., Orat. Contr. Sabell., Ar. et Eunom.
- See Greg. Naz., Orat. 1 and 37.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 29, 34 and 40.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 37.
- Ibid. 32.
- τὴν τῆς γνώμης σύμπνοιαν; co-operation of judgment, or, disposition.
- 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.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 37; Greg. Nyss., Epist. ad Ablab. et Orat. 32.
- Basil., Epist. 43.
- St. John xiv. 11.
- 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.
- 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.”
- Greg., Orat. 29; Dionys., De div. nom., c. 2.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 37.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 19 and 29.
- Text, αἴτιον: variant, ἀναίτιον, causeless.
- Maxim. Epist. ad Marin.
- 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.
- Rom. viii. 9.
- St. John xx. 29.
- Greg. Naz., Orat. 37.