[no man ever yet has discovered or can discover what God is in nature and in essence.][1]
[God would be altogether circumscript, if He were even comprehensible in thought : for comprehension is one form of circumscription.][2]
[All that comes to us is but a little effluence, and as it were a small efflugence from a great Light. So that if anyone has known God, or had the testimony of scripture to his knowledge of God, we are to understand such as one to have possessed a degree of knowledge which gave him the appearance of being more fully enlightened than another who did not enjoy the same degree of illumination.][3]
جLet us confirm ourselves within our limits, and speak of The Unbegotten and The Begotten and That which Proceeds from the Father, as somewhere God the Word Himself saith.][4]
[This is what we meant by Father and Son and Holy Ghost. The Father is The Begetter and The Emitter; without passion, of course, and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner. The Son is The Begotten, and the Holy Spirit is The Emission.][5]
[When did these come into being? They are above all “when”. But, if I am to speak with something more of boldness,—when the Father did. And when did the Father come into being. There never was a time when he was not. And the same thing is true of the Son and the Holy Ghost. Ask me again, and again I will answer you, when was the Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. And when did the Holy Ghost proceed? When the Son was, not proceeding but, begotten—beyond the sphere of time, and above the grasp of reason; although we cannot set forth that which is above time, if we avoid as we desire any expression as which conveys the idea of time. For such expression as “when” and “before” and “after” and “from the beginning” are not timeless, however much we may force them ; unless indeed we were to take the Aeon, that interval which is coexistive with the eternal things, and is not divided or measured by any motion, or by the revolution of the sun, as time is measured. How are They not alike unoriginate, if They are coeternal? Because They are from Him, though not after Him. For that which is originate is eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily unoriginate, so long as it may be referred to the Father as its origin. Therefore in respect of Cause they are not unoriginate; but it is evident that the Cause is not necessarily prior to its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light. And yet They are in some sense unoriginate, in respect of time, even though you would scare simple minds with your quibbles, for the Sources of Time are not subject to time.][6]
[He is called the Word, because He is related to the Father as the Word to Mind][7]
[ I have very carefully considered this matter in my own mind, and have looked at it in every point of view, in order to find some illustration of this most important subject, but I have been unable to discover anything on earth with which to compare the nature of the Godhead. For even if I did happen upon some tiny likeness it escaped me for the most part, and left me down below with my example. I picture to myself an eye, a fountain, a river, as others have done before, to see if they first might be analogous to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Ghost. For in these there is no distinction in time, nor are they torn away from their connexion with each other, though they seem to be parted by three personalities. But I was afraid in the first place that I should present a flow in the Godhead, incapable of standing still; and secondly that by this figure a numerical unity would be introduced. For the eye and the spring and the river are numerically one, though in different forms.
Again I thought of the sun and a ray and light. But here again there was a fear lest people should get an idea of composition in the uncompounded Nature, such as there is in the sun and the things that are in the sun. And the second place lest we should give Essence to the Father but deny Personality to the others, and make Them only Powers of God, existing in Him and not Personal. For neither the ray nor the light is a sun, but they are only effulgences from the sun, and qualities of its essence. And lest we should thus, as far as the illustration goes, attribute both Being and Not-being to God, which is even more monstrous.][8]
[ But Monarchy is that which we hold in honour. It is however, a Monarchy that is not limited to one Person, but one which is made of an equality of Nature and a union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity—a thing which is impossible to the created nature—so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence.][9]
[ In my opinion He is called Son because He is identical with the Father in Essence, and not only for this reason, but also because He is of Him. And He is called Only-Begotten, not because He is the only Son and of the Father alone, and only a Son; but also because the manner of His Sonship is peculiar to Himself and not shared by bodies. And He is called the Word, because He is related to the Father as word is related to mind ; not only on account of His passionless Generation, but also because of the Union, and of His declaratory function.][10]
[And the Image as of one Substance with Him.][11]
[What then, say they, is there lacking to the Spirit which prevents His being a Son, for if there were not something lacking He would be a Son? We assert that there is nothing lacking for God has no deficiency. But the difference of manifestation, if I may so express myself, or rather Their mutual relations one to Another, has caused the difference of Their Names. For indeed it is not some deficiency in the Son which prevents His being Father (for Sonship is not a deficiency), and yet He is not Father. According to this line of argument there must be deficiency in the Father, in respect of His not being Son. For the Father is not Son, and yet this is not due to either deficiency or subjection of Essence; but the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten, or Proceeding has given the name Father to the First, of the Son to the Second, and of the Third, Him Whom we are speaking, of the Holy Ghost that the distinction of the Three Persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead. For neither is the Son the Father, for the Father is One, but He is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is One, but He is what the Son is. The Three are One in Godhead, and One Three in properties*; so that neither is the Unity of Sabellian one, nor does the Trinity countenance the present evil distinction.][12]
[ For we have learnt to believe in and to teach the Deity of the Son from their (verses from the bible) great and lofty utterances. And what utterances are these? These: God—the Word—He That Was In The Beginning and With The Beginning, and The Beginning. “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,” (John 1.:1) and “With Thee in the Beginning’ and “He who calleth her the Beginning from generations” (Isa. 41:4). Then the Son is Only-Begotten : The only “Begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, it says, “He that declared Him” (John 1:18), The Way, the Truth, the Life, the Light. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life;” (John 14:6) and “I am the Light of the World” (John 7:12, 9:5, 14:6). Wisdom and Power, “Christ, the Wisdom of God, and the Power of God.”(1 Cor. 1:24) The Effulgence, the Impress, the Image, the Seal; “Who being the Effulgence of His glory and the Impress of His Essence,”(Heb 1:3) and “the Image of His Goodness,”(Wisd. 7:26) and “Him Hath God the Father sealed”(John 6:27). Lord, King, He That is, The Almighty. “The Lord rained down fire from the Lord;”(Gen 19:24) and “A Scepter of righteousness is the scepter of The Kingdom;”(Ps. 45:6) and “Which is and was and is to come, the Almighty”(Rev. 1:8), all which are clearly spoken of the Son, with all other passages of the same force, none of which is an after thought, or added later to the Son or the Spirit, any more than to the Father Himself. For Their Perfection is not affected by additions. There never was a time when He was without the Word, or when He was not the Father, or when He was not true, or not wise, or not powerful, or devoid of life, or of splendor, or of goodness.][13]
[ The Son is a concise demonstration and easy setting forth of the Father’s Nature. For everything that is begotten is a silent word of him that begot it”... “He is ... called... the Image as of one substance with Him, and because He is of the Father, and not the Father of Him. For this is of the Nature of an Image, to be the reproduction of its Archetype, and that whose name it bears; only that there is more here. For in ordinary language an image is a motionless representation of that which has motion; but in this case it is the living reproduction of the Living One, and is more exactly like than was Seth to Adam, or any son to his father. For such is the nature of simple Existences, that it is not correct to say of them that they are Like in one particular and Unlike in another; but they are a complete resemblance, and should rather be called Identical than Like. Moreover he is called Light as being the Brightness of souls cleansed by word and life. For if ignorance and sin be darkness, knowledge and a godly life will be Light... And He is called Life, because He is Light, and is the constituting and creating Power of every reasonable soul. For in Him we live and move and have our being, according to the double power of that Breathing into us; for we were all inspired by Him with breath, and as many of us were capable of it, and in so far as we open the mouth of our mind, with God the Holy Ghost.][14]
[ Now these are names common to the Godhead, but the proper Name of the Unoriginate is Father, and that of the Begotten without beginning is Son, and that of the un-begottenly Proceeding or going forth is The Holy Ghost.][15]
[How then are They not alike unoriginate, if They are coeternal? Because They are from Him, though not after Him. For that which is unoriginate is eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily unoriginate, so long as it may be referred to the Father as its origin. Therefore, in respect of Cause They are not unoriginate, but it is evident that the Cause is not necessarily prior to its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light.][16]
[ The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter.][17]
[That He is the Gift, the Bounty, the Inspiration, the Promise, the Intercession for us, and, not to go into any further detail, any other expressions of the sort, is to be referred to the First Cause, that it may be shown from whom He is, and that men may not in heathen fashion admit Three Principles. For it is equally impious to confuse the Persons with the Sabellians, or to divide the Natures with the Arians.][18]
[ For in Him we live and move and have our being, according to the double power of that Breathing into us; for we are all capable of it, and in so far as we open the mouth of our mind, with God the Holy Ghost.][19]
[1] Phillip Schaff & Henry Wace, Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, Vol.VII, Second Series. Hendrickson Publishers June 1995, Article XVII Second Theological Oration. P.294
[2] Ibid, 2nd Theological Oration, Article X, p.292.
[3] Ibid, 2nd Theological Oration, Article XVII, p.294.
[4] Ibid, 3rd Theological Oration, Article II P.301
[5] Ibid, 3rd Theological Oration (on the Son), Article II, p.301
[6] Ibid, 3rd Theological Oration, Article III, pp.301,302
[7] Ibid, Forth Theological Oration, Article XX, p. 316
[8] Ibid, 5th Theological Oration (on the Holy Spirit), Articles XXXI and XXXII, p.328.
[9] Ibid, 3rd Theological Oration (on the Son), Article II, p.301.
[10] Ibid, 4th Theological Oration , Article XX, p.316.
[11] Ibid p.317
[12] Ibid, 5th Theological Oration (on the Holy Spirit), Article IX, p.320.
52 Ibid, 3rd Theological Oration, Article XVII, p. 307
[14] Ibid, 4th Theological Oration (2nd on the Son), Article XX, pp.316,317.
[15] Ibid, 4th Theological Oration (2nd on the Son), Articles XIX, p.316.
[16] Ibid, 3rd Theological Oration (on the Son), Article III, p.302.
[17] Ibid, 3rd Theological Oration (on the Son), Article II, p.301.
[18] Ibid, 5th Theological Oration (on the Holy Spirit), Article XXX, p.328.
[19] Ibid, 4th Theological Oration (2nd on the Son), Article XX, p.317.
