Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadChurch Fathers: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 09: 29.02.02 Orthodox Faith Bk I Pt 2
TOPIC: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 09 (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 29.02.02 Orthodox Faith Bk I Pt 2
Other Subjects in this Topic:
Chapter VI.
Concerning the Word and the San of God: a reasoned proof.
So then this one and only God is not Wordless59 . And possessing the Word, He will have it not as without a subsistence, nor as having had a beginning, nor as destined to cease to be. For there never was a time when God was not Word: but He ever possesses His own Word, begotten of Himself, not, as our word is, without a subsistence and dissolving into air, but having a subsistence in Him and life and perfection, not proceeding out of Himself but ever existing within Himself60 . For where could it be, if it were to go outside Him? For inasmuch as our nature is perishable and easily dissolved, our word is also without subsistence. But since God is everlasting and perfect, He will have His Word subsistent in Him, and everlasting trod living, and possessed of all the attributes of the Begetter. For just as our word, proceeding as it floes out of the mind, is neither wholly identical with the mind nor utterly diverse from it (for so far as it proceeds out of the mind it is different from it, while so far as it reveals the mind, it is no longer absolutely diverse from the mind, but being one in nature with the mind, it is yet to the subject diverse from it), so in the same manner also the Word of God61 in its independent subsistence is differentiated62 froth Him from Whom it derives its subsistence63 : but inasmuch as it displays in itself the same attributes as are seen in God, it is of the same nature as God. For just as absolute perfection is contemplated in the Father, so also is it contemplated in the Word that is begotten of Him.
Chapter VII.
Concerning the Holy Spirit, a reasoned proof.
Moreover the Word must also possess Spirit64 . For in fact even our word is not destitute of spirit; but in our case the spirit is something different from our essence65 . For there is an attraction and movement of the air which is drawn in and poured forth that the body may be sustained. And it is this which in the moment of utterance becomes the articulate word, revealing in itself the force of the word66 .67 But in the case of the divine nature, which is simple and uncompound, we must confess in all piety that there exists a Spirit of God, for the Word is not more imperfect than our own word. Now we cannot, in piety, consider the Spirit to be something foreign that gains admission into God from without, as is the case with compound natures like us. Nay, just as, when we heard68 of the Word of God, we considered it to be not without subsistence, nor the product of learning, nor the mere utterance of voice, nor as passing into the air and perishing, but as being essentially subsisting, endowed with free volition, and energy, and omnipotence: so also, when we have learnt about the Spirit of God, we contemplate it as the companion of the Word and the revealer of His energy, and not as mere breath without subsistence. For to conceive of the Spirit that dwells in God as after the likeness of our own spirit, would be to drag down the greatness of the divine nature to the lowest depths of degradation. But we must contemplate it as an essential power, existing in its own proper and peculiar subsistence, proceeding from the Father anti resting in the Word69 , and shewing forth the Word, neither capable of disjunction from God in Whom it exists, and the Word Whose companion it is, nor poured forth to vanish into nothingness70 , but being in subsistence in the likeness of the Word, endowed with life, free volition, independent movement, energy, ever willing that which is good, and having power to keep pace with the will in all its decrees71 , having no beginning and no end. For never was the Father at any time lacking in the Word, nor the Word in the Spirit.
Thus because of the unity in nature, the error of the Greeks in holding that God is many, is utterly destroyed: and again by our acceptance of the Word and the Spirit, the dogma of the Jews is overthrown: and there remains of each party72 only what is profitable73 . On the one hand of the Jewish idea we have the unity of God’s nature, anti on the other, of the Greek, we have the distinction in subsistences and that only74 .
But should the Jew refuse to accept the Word and the Spirit, let the divine Scripture confute him and curb his tongue. For concerning the Word, the divine David says, For ever, O Lord, Thy Word is settled in heaven75 . And again, He sent His Word and healed them76 . But the word that is uttered is not sent, nor is it for ever settled77 . And concerning the Spirit, the same David says, Thou sendest forth Thy Spirit, they are created78 . And again, By the word of the Lord were the heavens made: and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth79 . Job, too, says, The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life80 . Now the Spirit which is sent and makes and stablishes and conserves, is not mere breath that dissolves, any more than the mouth of God is a bodily member. For the conception of both must be such as harmonizes with the Divine nature81 .
Chapter VIII.
Concerning the Holy Trinity.
We believe, then, in One God, one beginning82 , 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 can83 ), 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, occupying84 all essences intact85 and extending beyond all things, and being separate from all essence as being super-essential86 and above all things and absolute God, absolute goodness, and absolute fulness87 : 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 anti adored with one adoration, believed in and ministered to by all rational creation88 , 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 baptized89 . For so our Lord commanded the Apostles to baptize, saying, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit90 .
(We believe) in one Father, the beginning91 , 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 Producer92 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 nothing93 , He that is the effulgence of the glory, the impress of the Father’s subsistence94 , the living wisdom and power95 , the Word possessing interior subsistence96 , the essential and perfect and living image97 of the unseen God. But always He was with the Father and in Him98 , 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 Son99 , 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 blasphemy100 . 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 self101 .
In treating, then, of the generation of the Son, it is an act of impiety102 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 Father103 . 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 nature104 .
Wherefore in God, Who alone is passionless and unalterable, and immutable, and ever so continueth, both begetting and creating are passionless105 . 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 God106 , 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 nothing107 , but all that he makes requires pre-existing matter for its basis108 , 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 troubles109 , 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 end110 , generation is without time and beginning, passionless and not liable to flux, nor dependent on the union of two111 : 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 angels112 .
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 about113 , 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 way114 separate from Him, but ever is in Him115 . 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 froth 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 separation116 : and the terms ‘Son’ and ‘impress of the Father’s subsistence,’ because He is perfect and has subsistence117 and is in all respects similar to the Father, save that the Father is not begotten118 : and the term ‘Only-begotten’119 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 unbegotten120 , and this exception involves no difference in essence nor dignity121 , but only a different mode of coming into existence122 . 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 existence123 .
For one must recognise that the word αϕγεϖννητον with only one ‘ν’ signifies “uncreate” or “not having been made,” while αϕγεϖννητον written with double ‘ν’ means “unbegotten.” According to the first significance essence differs from essence: for one essence is uncreate, or αϕγεϖνητον with one ‘ν,’ and another is create or γενητηϖ. But in the second significance there is no difference between essence and essence. For the first subsistence of all kinds of living creatures is αϕγεϖννητο" but not αϕγεϖνητο". 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 agree124 : for they exist as one in essence and uncreate125 . But with the second signification it is quite otherwise. For the Father alone is ingenerate126 , 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 proceeding127 . For this is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. But the nature of the generation and the procession is quite beyond comprehension.
Footnotes
59 a#logon; without Word, or, without Reason.
60 Greg. Nyss., Catech., c. I.
61 In R. 2427 is added, `who is the Son.
0'
62 dih/rhtai, i.e. distinguished from the Father. Objection is taken to the use of such a verb as suggestive f division. It is often employed, however, by Greg. Naz. (e.g. Orat. 34) to express the distinction of persons. In many passages of Gregory and other Fathers the noun diai/resij is used to express the distinction of persons. In many passages of Gregory and other Fathers the noun oiaipeois is used to express the distinction f one thing from another: and in this sense it is opposed both to the Sabellian congusion and the Arian division.
63 Reading u9po/stasin. Varios reading, u#parcin, existence.
64 The Greek theologians, founding on the primary sense of the Greek term Pneu=ma, and on certain passages of Scripture in which the word seemed to retain that sense more or less (especially Psalm xxxiii. 6. in the Vulgate rendering, verbo Dei coeli formati sunt: et spiritu oris ejus omnis virtus eorum), spoke of the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Father like the breath of His mouth in the utterance or emission of His Word. See ch. 15 of this Book, where we have the sentence, ou0demi/a ga\r o9rmh\ a!neu pneu/matoj. Compare also such passages as these-Greg. Naz., Orat. i. 3: Cyril. Alex., Thes., assert. 34, De Trin. dial. 2, p 425, and 7, pp. 634, 640; Basil, Contra Eunom., B.V. and DeSpiritu Sancto, ch.18; Greg. Scholar., Contra Latin., de process. Spiritus Sancti, i. 4. where we have the statement ou#tw kai\ to\ a!gion Pneu=ma w$sper o9rmh\ kai ki/nhsij, e0ndote/ra th=j u9perfuou=j e0keinhj ou0si/aj, so the Holy Spirit is like an impulse and movement within that supernatural essence.
65 Or, substance; ou0si/a.
66 Text faneru=sa: various reading, fe/rousa (cf. Cyril, De Trinitate.)
67 Greg. Nyss., Catech., c.2.
68 Text, a0kou/santej: variant, ajkouvonte" (so in Cyril)
69 So Cyril speaks frequently of the Holy spirit is proceeding from the Father and being (einai) and abiding (me/nein) in the Son; as also of the Spirit as being of the Son and having His nature in Him (e0c au0tou= kai\ e0mpefukw\j). The idea seems to have been that as the Son is in the bosom of the Father so the Spirit is in the bosom of the Son. The spirit was compared again to the energy, the natural, living energy, of the Son (e0ne/rgeia fusikh\ kai\ zwsa, to\ e0nerge\j tou= i0o=), Cyril, Dial 7 ad Hermiam. such terms as proboleu\j e0kfantorikou= pneu/matoj, the Producer, or, Emitter of the revealing Spirit, and the e#kfansij or e!llamyij, the revealing, the forth-shewing, were also used to express the procession ot the one eternal Person from the Other as like the emission or forth-shewing, were also used to express the procession of the one eternal Person from the Other as like the emission or forth-shewing or light from light.
70 Greg. Naz., Orat. 37, 44.
71 Text, pro\j pa=san pro/qesin : variant qe/lhsin in almost all the codices.
72 ai!resij.
73 Greg. Orat. 38, and elsewhere.
74 Greg. Nyss., Catech., c.3.
75 Ps. cxix. 89.
76 Ib. cvii. 30.
77 Text, diame/nei : variant, me/nei
78 Ps. civ.30.
79 Ib. xxxiii 6.
80 Job xxxiii. 4.
81 Basil, De Spir. Sancto, ad Amphil. c. 18.
82 Or, principle, a0rxh/n.
83 Cf. Ps. cxxxv. 6.
84 Or, penetrating, e0pibateu/ousan.
85 a0xra/ntwj.
86 u0perou/sion.
87 u9perqeon, u9pera/gaqo/, u9perplh/rh.
88 Greg. Naz., Orat. 13, n. 32.
89 An argument much used against the Arians, the Macedonians, and the Sabellians. See e.g. Athan, ad Serap. Epist. I and 2; Basilm Conta Eunom., bk. iii., and De spiritu sancto, ch. 10, 12; Greg. Naz., Orat. 34
90 St. Matt. xviii. 19.
91 Or, principle, a0rxh/n.
92 probole/a. The term probolh/, 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 a9po/r0r9oia, efflux, or tmh=sij, segmen, or probolh/, 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 Aeons, Greg. Naz., however, Orat. 13, 35, speaks of the Father as gennh/twr and proboleu/j, and of the Spirit as pro/blhma.
93 Greg. Naz., Orat. 36.
94 Ibid.
95 I Cor. i. 24.
96 The Word enhypostatic, o9 Lo/goj e0nupo/statoj.
97 Heb. i. 3.
98 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 su/n, in, to express the idea of the su/nafeia, or conjuction of the two. The Scholiast on the present passages calls attention to the two prepositions with and in as denoting the Son's eternal existance 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 (sunei=nai) the Father and the Son than that He is in (e0nei=nai) the Father and the Son.
99 Greg. Naz., Orat. 35.
100 Cyril, Thesaurus, assert. 4 and 5.
101 Ibid., assert. 6.
102 Ibid., assert. 4.
103 Greg. Naz., Orat. 29.
104 Text, a0no/moion pantelw=j, varint, a0no/moion pantelw=j kat' ou0si/an, cf. also Cyrill.
105 Greg. Naz., Orat. 29 and 35.
106 On this distinction between generation and creation, compare Athan., Contra Arianos, Or. 2, 3 ; Basil, Contra Eunom., bk. iv; Cyril, Thes., assert. 3. &c.
107 Greg. Naz., Orat. 29.
108 Cyril, Thes., assert. 7 and 18.
109 Greg. Naz., Orat. 29.
110 Cyril, Thes., assert. 5, 6, and 16; Greg., Orat. 35.
111 a0rreu/stwj genna= kai\ ekto\j sunduasmou=. 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., Haeres. 69.; Hilary, De Trin. iii. iv.; Greg. Naz., Orat. 45.
112 Infra, Book ii. c.3.
113 Greg. Naz., Orat. 45.
114 Text, mhd' o#lwj. Variant in many codices is mhdamw=j, as in the previous sentence.
115 Greg. Naz., Orat. bk. i., Cont. Eun., p. 66; Cyril, Thes., assert. 5.
116 Greg. Naz., Orat. 36.
117 e0nupo/staton; enhypostatic. See Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce.
118 Greg. Naz., Orat. 23, 37, and 39.
119 Cf. ibid. 23, 36.
120 Athan, Contra Arian., Orat. 2; Basil, Contra Eunom. iv.; Greg. Naz., Orat. 35.
121 a0ciw/mati.
122 Basil, bk. ii. and iv.
123 Greg. Naz., Orat. 36 and 37.
124 Man. Dialog. contr. Arian.
125 Cyril, Thes., assert. i, p. 12.
126 Greg. Naz., Orat. 35.
127 St. John xv. 26.